Weekly Rundown: Raw1000 is Upon Us!

Shares 0

This blog reflects my subjective views and nothing more. If you disagree – which is encouraged – feel free to voice your opinion (in a civil manner) in the comments section. Also, I am always open to constructive criticism of the writing format, phrasing, etc.

Hello and welcome back to yet another edition of the Weekly Rundown hosted by yours truly, Guy Landau. This is a weekly feature on WrestlingNewsWorld.com where I gloss over the important happenings in WWE & TNA week as it pertains to the companies' respective major shows, in the form of bulletins for the positive happenings (under the "YES!" column, and prefaced with + signs), the negative happenings (under the "NO!" column, and prefaced with – signs), and the ones I could not decide what they were, but felt they were important enough to comment on (Under the "Maybe?" column, and prefaced with ? signs).

So without further ado, let's get started.




+ I really liked the opening video, and the new logo and styling works for me.

+ I loved how the DX segment was nostalgia but also incorporated the present and future in Sandow. It fit gimmick-wise for him to interfere, and it gave the segment an extra oomph.

+ I liked Slater vs. Lita to cap off the angle.

+ The WWE Universe overwhelmingly pulled for Punk to face Rock at the Rumble! I must say, I expected a much different result.

+ I was really pulling for a Punk heel turn! Thank God it happened!


+ Very good opener by Christian and Miz

+ Very interesting that WWE showed only touts supporting Punk's actions on Smackdown.

+ I actually laughed a bit at the "How to last more than 18 seconds" joke.

+ Rhodes vs. Sheamus was very good as well. I think Ziggler could've been handled better, however.

+ Notice how Jericho has not uttered a single word since his feud with Ziggler started, yet he's drawing huge face reactions.

Impact Wrestling

+ Sam Shaw was impressive. He needs some work, but from what I can tell the contract offered is a development one, meaning he'll have time to hone his craft before we actually get to see him again. If that is the case I am all for signing Shaw as he is a great talent.

+ I LOLed at Aries and Darsow's conversation about his father being a sympathizer. It's not that Darsow doesn't have flash that's the problem, but rather that even his "mean streak" is very much lacking.

 + Aries & King vs. Roode and Zema next week will be great.



- The outside the door segment that included Mae Young's son, in that Mae Young's hand-son should be 12 today. That hand was NOT twelve. Or black in any way, for that matter.

- The Sonic commercial was just… Ugh. American TV, how do you people put up with it?

- Swagger hits new lows by the week…

- I'm pretty sure only a select few in the audience recognized Brunette Trish. They should have made it clearer that it was her.

- THIS is the use of Charlie Sheen for RAW? That's the arrangement they made after his twitter closed? He obviously didn't know any of the superstars, and without his dozens of millions of twitter followers to advertise to he's pretty much useless to WWE.

- I would just like to point out that all of the jobbers Taker and Kane disposed of on RAW were above average talents.


- I must say I've been very underwhelmed with Cesaro so far. I am all for Santino dropping theUStitle, but I don't think Cesaro should be the person he drops it to.

- Sandow went a step backwards in his ring work once more. Since he doesn't really do much in the ring and doesn't get much real competition the only thing I can judge him on from his match against Yoshi Tatsu is his Russian Leg Sweep, which was once again (unlike last week) – you guessed it – not a leg sweep.

- OK, can someone please explain to me - if there is a lack of top heels, what was the idea behind turning Kane face?

Impact Wrestling

-Madison reveals her crush – and NOTHING comes of it for 3 weeks. The fact that I didn't even notice until Impact shows what little effect this storyline has.

- Why is Aries in charge of the number one contender? And why is the number one contender decided outside of the ring? Why not a good ol' fashioned fatal 4 way?

- TNA is trying to have every Impact main event be PPV level quality. You can't have guys kicking out of each other's finishers in a TV main event, it cheapens the moves. That means that on

- Too much 8A. You can't have them interfere in every single BFG series match.

- Where are the TV champion (who is supposed to defend weekly, mind you) and where is the Knockouts champion? Kaz and Daniels are usually prominently featured, so I'll give it a pass this week, but this isn't the first time for the other two. If you don't find them important enough to be on weekly TV as must-see, then you should not have strapped them in the first place.



? AJ as the GM?! That's... Different.

? JR's return, while welcome, was absolutely wasted on the 6 men tag. It would've fit better for the main event. Still, he returned, so that's something.

? Miz winning the IC title is interesting, I will wait to see what this means for both Miz and Christian.

? I'm not sure I like how the Lesnar segment went… Heyman agreeing after just that seems a tad too contrived for me. Besides, how come he agrees without asking Lesnar beforehand?

? Punk retains. At the same time, it sets the precedent for a MITB loss, which could plague the accomplishment forever. Now WWE can – and will – repeat it. Here's a scenario that wouldn't have ever happened if WWE had decided to allow unsuccessful cash-ins in the past:  CM Punk's first MITB win was thanks to one Jeffrey Nero Hardy failing a drug test, as he was scheduled to win the match originally. Punk then went on to job for months to upper midcarders before cashing in on a prone Edge, and then went on to hold onto the title just barely for about 4 months. In that time he beat JBL clean, feuded with Orton and Batista (though made to look bad through it) and solidified himself as a potential top guy, which got him the shot for his second MITB win a year later. Now, if WWE would've allowed MITB winners to lose their championship matches, Punk would've most likely lost his first attempt, and hence he would not have been able to impress enough to get his second attempt, and would not be in any position to get such a promo last year on RAW. Basically, CM Punk would have very easily not been around as we know and love if it wasn't for the guarentee of MITB - which is now gone.

? I'm not sure how I feel about Del Rio getting another shot at Sheamus. If we consider that Bryan is potentially busy with Charlie Sheen it's the only viable option out of that match, but still.

? If I were to put my money on it I'd say Hogan is behind 8A – he's the only one we haven't directly seen attacked by 8A and in TNA logic it's smart to turn him predictably every year at BFG.

? I don't know what to think about Storm's angle with 8A quite yet. It's interesting that they refuse to touch him.


Weekly Comment Question:

Your question of the week is going to be: Would you have rather seen Cena walk out as champ on RAW1000 if it meant keeping MITB's guarentee?

Leave your answer in the comments section below, and don't forget to come back next weekend for a new edition of the Weekly Rundown!

  • Sythian

    Hell no, Cena failing to cash in makes the money in the bank title shot exactly what it is, a title SHOT. Cena chose a match, announced in advance and lost which is ideal, I don’t feel the guarantee is lost entirely since Cena did effectively win the match, even if not the title, and it doesn’t change the fact that most cash ins are on a downed opponent anyway.

  • RobUK

    No. I think it was right to finally have someone lose (and it wasn’t exactly a clean loss) and the only superstar a loss wouldn’t hurt is John Cena. He doesn’t need to be champion again. It will add nothing to him unless he puts over a younger talent in a title match. I still believe they are setting up for Rock/Cena II at wrestlemaina, with Rocky winning the belt and Cena winning the rumble. I wouldn’t be entirely happy if this happens but I do believe Cena deserves a WM victory over The Rock as I don’t believe he should have lost last time out. I understand your thoughts on the MITB Guarantee and that they can now have a second/third etc superstar lose his shot. But I still believe they will have the winners cash in on a weakened champion and not the way Cena did, which is challenger the champion to match. I believe the whole Cena MITB win/Ricky’s title shot and Punk heel turn are all future plans for next years wrestlemaina.

  • Axel

    Hmm, quite a few things that I disagree with, personally. The major thing is putting Undertaker's surprise appearance in the NO! section. I know that the likes of Hunico, Tyler Reks, Curt Hawkins, and Drew McIntyre are very talented and deserved to be used more, but I'm just glad that they got to be on RAW 1000 and in a segment with The Undertaker. At least they weren't jobbing to Brodus like Swagger was. I also think Trish was brunette for her Wrestlemania 27 angle and during Tough Enough so I don't see why it needed to be clearer that it was her. And I don't see why there's such nitpicking with the Mae Young's son joke. It's a giant hand for pete's sake. Just a quick joke for the fans who would get it. It already goes against logic that a hand is alive, so why care if its age looks off?

    As for MITB, I'm honestly glad with what happened. The briefcase couldn't remain an automatic ticket to winning the title forever. That would have made it too predictable and boring. Imagine if everyone who won the Royal Rumble also won at Wrestlemania. It would get kind of predictable and boring after a bit, eh? There needed to be someone that lost it at some point, and who better than Cena? He doesn't get hurt by being the first to not win the title with the briefcase, but it probably could have hurt an up and comer. Plus it helped set up the heel turn for Punk and lay the ground work for Rock vs Punk, which we all would much rather see than Cena vs Rock part 2. I don't think MITB is hurt by this.

    • Guy Landau

      Undertaker itself wasn't a NO, but rather the use of him.

      As for Trish, I was going strictly on crowd reactions in saying that. I agree that it SHOULD be clear, but from the crowd's response it wasn't.

      As for Mae Young's hand, that NO! was meant as a joke.

  • Autista

    Absolutely not!
    The money in the bank briefcase is nothing but a shot at the title, and considering how Cena chose to cash it in, he was asking to fail! This does not effect the prestige of winning MITB, but should keep winning face-wrestlers from cashing it in by announcing their matches in advance. That kind of booking takes away from the suspense that the MITB aftermath provides us with.

  • Steve l

    Good job Guy. Punk retaiming was the right call. Regardless of MOTB which I domt thonk os diminished because it was Cena who womt be hirt by it amd it was not a clean fonish.

    • Joe O.

      ^^^DUDE! Go back to third grade and learn to spell! Damien Sandow would be vomiting all over himself I he saw this atrocity. You’re welcome.

      • Nick


  • josh

    i loved them turning punk heel it could be several ways they could go from here though. it could have been cm punks money that big johnny used to sign big show to take cena out. big johnny could come back on tv and be the eric bischoff of a new stable consisting of cm punk,big show, and big johnny all in an effort to eliminate cena from the title picture.

  • Einar

    I find Del Rio to be the least interesting Wrestler to get repeated championship matches. He's not improving at all. Give him a run as Intercontinental or US champ. And see if he gets better. Then fire him.

  • Adam

    Why aj for gm i just dont get it personally id like to see edge become the gm hes gt the charisma or even stone cold 🙂

  • gage

    they're probably gonna have orton vs punk for the title since he's getting a huge push when he returns

  • Ranveer

    "Heyman agreeing after just that seems a tad too contrived for me. Besides, how come he agrees without asking Lesnar beforehand?"-> Actually Heyman did explain that beforehand… He had said that Lesnar through Power of Attorney had given him the power to either accept or decline the challenge on his behalf… So (kayfabe) he could do it without asking Brock beforehand!