Comments on: Weekly Rundown: Raw1000 is Upon Us!

By: Ranveer

Ranveer — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:16:12 +0000

"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!

By: gage

gage — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:19:26 +0000

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

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:37:17 +0000

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

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:15:46 +0000

If*

By: Einar

Einar — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:30:14 +0000

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.

By: Guy Landau

Guy Landau — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:22:43 +0000

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.

By: Joe O.

Joe O. — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:21:11 +0000

^^^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.

By: josh

josh — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:07:18 +0000

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.

By: Steve l

Steve l — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:59:14 +0000

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.

By: Autista

Autista — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:26:15 +0000

Answer:
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.

By: Axel

Axel — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:48:25 +0000

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.

By: RobUK

RobUK — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:17:01 +0000

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.

By: Sythian

Sythian — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:30:54 +0000

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.