How bad are the multiple no-shows by The Rock leading up to Wrestlemania? It seems not only is the rehash of last year wearing on the matchup with Cena, but they aren't even going with the via satellite segments like they did in the past. He's the titleholder, shouldn't he be visible in some form every week for this?
First of all The Rock isn't no-showing. A no-show is when a worker is advertised but does not appear. The Rock hasn't been advertised for Raw the last two weeks as he was expected to be unavailable. Back to your question, WWE knew what they were getting when they made the decision to put the WWE title on The Rock. The haters are going to hate but the fact of the matter is The Rock outdraws the entire WWE roster. All one has to do is take a quick glance at the numbers. I'm aware there are some WWE workers that "work the sheets" by spreading dirt on Rock but my reaction to this is "put up or shut up." If you don't like The Rock carrying the WWE title, then become a bigger draw. The fact of the matter is The Rock caused last year's Wrestlemania to be the most-bought PPV in WWE history and will look to top that this year with the addition of Brock Lesnar. It's hard for a person lower on the card to swallow but Rock actually causes them to get paid more.
What does it do for the morale of the WWE locker room when part timers like Undertaker, Rock, Lesnar and Triple H come back for cameos and get Wrestlemania main events?
This is right along the lines of what I said above. People not getting booked despite working more and appearing more aren't going to be happy. Jealously will set in and the gossip will run rampant. However, my argument is rather than bellyaching, why not use it as motivation to get better? Watch tape, get better on the mic, study those that are over and figure out how to get there. The writers are the scapegoat and while it's easy to criticize someone else, it's time for personal accountability. When CM Punk shot up the ranks a couple years ago, people complained WWE gave him more leeway on the mic, so of course he was able to get over. I'm calling BS. Punk got over because he's talented. When I see workers get opportunities and fail to take advantage of them (Brad Maddox forgetting his lines, Jack Swagger getting popped for DUI, Alberto Del Rio performing an enzuigiri on the invisible man, etc.), I blame them. Not the writers, not the producers and not Vince McMahon. Get better, try harder and until you can outdraw The Rock, Undertaker, Brock Lesnar and Triple H, keep your mouth shut and be thankful they are there to put money in your pocket.
Are the New Age Outlaws back as full time performers in WWE?
No, Road Dogg works as a producer backstage and Billy Gunn is a developmental trainer. Given the fact they're both still in good shape they can be used in matches on occasion. This is one of the things I give Triple H props for as you can read why here at WWENews.net.
You've gone on record as to being for CM Punk ending Undertaker's streak and I can see the value of that. However, what if Punk could get the rub while Taker kept the streak? Like a no contest angle. Punk is the only
person to not lose to Taker and Taker gets to go home 20-0 and so forth.
I don't like it. Pseudo wins through no contest and DQ outcomes are of no value. I think they are inexcusable in main event matches on major pay-per-views. The question that has to be answered is this - what outcome gives WWE the best opportunity to succeed going forward? You know my answer. What's yours? How does going Undertaker going 21-0 at Wrestlemania help the company? I'd love to hear from the opposition on this one because a situation I didn't think was possible (a viable opponent vs. a physically capable Undertaker) just a year ago is here. Why not take advantage of it?
Remember questions with proper grammar and spelling stand the best chance of getting answered. The next installment of Ask WNW is scheduled to run on Thursday, March 14, 2013.
Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.
Submit questions to: [email protected]!