When will Big E. Langston have a match? The last few weeks he's been very much in the background of the storyline, when will be his chance to shine?
So far the idea has been to get Big E Langston on television to expose him to the audience. I'll be honest I haven't studied his in-ring work and no one really knows what you're going to get until you put him in a WWE bout. However, we're told his in-ring work isn't going to blow anyone away but it's not bad either. He'll get his opportunity soon enough but WWE wants to use the current angle to get eyes on him.
Has Brock Lesnar's name been mentioned with regards to the Royal Rumble? Any other big names floating around?
I have not heard Brock Lesnar's name for Royal Rumble and would be surprised if they burned through one of his dates considering they already have The Rock confirmed. The show where all the big names are going to be is featured is Wrestlemania 29. The use of Lesnar at Royal Rumble would be somewhat of a waste considering the limited nature of his contract. Surprises are likely for the 30-man Royal Rumble match but none of which are going to surpass the drawing power of The Rock.
With the IC and US titles being meaningless at this point (the titles change hands on non live TV events and haven't had a decent storyline, champion, or meaningful title defense in a long time) in your opinion would it benefit WWE to just drop one or both all together or drop those titles in favor of a gimmick title(s) like say the Cruiserweight title or create something new?
I would be in favor of eliminating the WWE United States Championship but do not think both secondary titles should be scrapped. I am against introducing any new titles as they have a hard enough time showcasing the belts they currently have, as you mentioned. Title changes on taped shows are actually beneficial for the live audience as they maintain the illusion that "anything can happen." It would not be wise to change a major title on tape but as long as the titles are being defended, there isn't a scenario that's necessarily bad.
What do you take on the veteran talent that WWE chooses to utilize such as The Rock, Mick Foley, Triple H and Brock Lesnar? Yes as long as it is booked well it is a breath of fresh air, but at the same time it takes the opportunities away from the younger/greener talent that are struggling to make a name for themselves. Personally I prefer to see the influx of veteran talent returning because the business at times is very stale and as long as it isn't booked as bad as TNA used to be booked where the 45-60 year old guys seemed to be always going over the young talent.
My stance is I want to be entertained. Whether that's with guys like The Rock and Brock Lesnar or The Shield, I want to enjoy what I'm watching. It's very complicated to book part-time talent because the question is always raised, what are the long-term ramifications of putting one of these guys over one of the up and comers? My hope, which I will discuss in detail in Friday's Premium Mailbag, is WWE uses the latest run of Rock and Brock to get their audience back and at least one name emerges as a new top talent. WWE cannot keep relying on older talent to bail them out although it's much easier said than done to create the next Rock or John Cena.
Remember questions with proper grammar and spelling stand the best chance of getting answered. The next installment of Ask WNW will run on Monday, January 7, 2013.
Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.
Submit questions to: AskWNW@wrestlingnewsworld.com!