Hardcore Matches In WWE, Today's Title Matches, The Miz A Career Midcarder?, High Risk Spots

The following is today's edition of Ask WNW. Ask WNW is the most popular feature on the website where Richard Gray answers four questions daily, Monday through Friday. To submit your question for the next installment of Ask WNW, click here
Author:
Publish date:
Updated on
Raw Country

I thought Damien Sandow and Dolph Ziggler had a very entertaining hardcore match on this week's Monday Night Raw. I feel they proved you can have fun hardcore match in a PG environment. Do you see WWE replacing one of mid card titles with the Hardcore title?

I thought Damien Sandow and Dolph Ziggler did great but there were some non-PG spot that I found questionable, more specially the spots focused to the head. I haven't heard if the spots were pre-approved or if there was any fallout from them but there were some questionable spots. With that being said, the last thing WWE needs is another title. They have a hard enough time utilizing the belts they have, what's the point in adding another? Furthermore, if Sandow and Ziggler were pushing the envelope, what do you expect for future hardcore bouts? It's good for WWE to utilize the gimmicks when the situation presents itself but there is no need for yet another useless title.

In the Attitude Era there were numerous wrestlers chasing the WWE Championship, which led to classic triple threat and fatal four way matches… Why is there only two workers in the WWE Championship picture nowadays?

Title matches for the WWE and World Heavyweight Championship respectively have only been singles matches on WWE pay-per-view so far this year, however, that's just this year. Last year's Survivor Series featured CM Punk defending the WWE title in a triple threat match against Ryback and John Cena. So WWE still utilizes title matches that feature more than two workers, it's just not a common scenario. One of the reasons could be attributed to the lack of depth at the top of the card although there is also something to be said about a long-standing one-on-one feud. WWE had a golden opportunity with Randy Orton and Daniel Bryan but blew it with bad booking.

The Miz was a face for almost exactly a year. His time as a face would have to be considered a failure by any measure. Considering the way he turned heel, in a kind-of afterthought segment, and the fact that he's booked on the pre-show against Kofi Kington, do you think there is any chance that The Miz will return to relevance as a "born-again heel?" Or should he consider himself lucky that he was once a major player and accept that he'll be a mid-carder for the rest of his career?

I'm not putting a blanket statement on The Miz to the tune of "he's designated to the mid-card" for the rest of his career," as that's something that no one knows for sure. Miz has clearly taken a couple steps back since headlining Wrestlemania XXVII as the WWE Champion but there are arguments on both sides. Some people will say Miz is working where he should be working, while others are discouraged at the regression. I'm more in the middle. I don't see Miz as a Wrestlemania-closing main event talent but I feel he has a lot more potential than working a pay-per-view pre-show. The Miz is a more effective heel than babyface, so we'll see if this turns him around.

It seems like whenever a wrestler gets thrown over the top rope, there's no good way to land. Although, it seems to happen in most WWE matches I see. Do you think it is as dangerous as head shots and should they consider not doing this move as much?

There are proper ways to bump and there are improper ways to bump. As long as a talent is trained to execute the spots correctly, and actually execute them correctly, then I don't have a problem with them. Accidents do happen but I do not put these high-risk spots in the same category as unprotected chair shots to the head. I push back on almost any type of ban but I am in favor of commonsense protective measures such as disallowing unprotected chair shots to the head and I would rather see workers drop to their knees rather than backside when executing a tombstone piledriver.

From the Ask WNW vault…

April 2012: I have read the accounts of Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart in regards to the infamous Montreal Screwjob at Survivor Series 1997. Both place the blame on one another. Who do you think is telling the truth? - I’ve always heard there are two sides to every story and when you combine both sides, the truth is somewhere in between. The Montreal Screwjob was a bad situation because I can understand how it was no-win on both sides. On one hand if Vince McMahon put Bret Hart over Shawn only for his champion to go to WCW, how does that make WWE look? WCW was really putting the pressure on WWE and it would have been a disaster for their champion to leave for the competition. On the other hand, Vince had told Bret he was going over and Bret felt that his hard work and dedication had earned him the right to leave as champion. Bret was blindsided by the screwjob and he took it very personal. In the end I’m glad Bret and Shawn were able to reconcile their differences and while they’ll probably never be best friends, it was awesome for the business when the beef was squashed a couple years ago.

The next installment of Ask WNW is scheduled to run on Thursday, November 21, 2013.

Remember questions that are legible stand the best chance of getting answered. Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.

Submit questions to: AskWNW@wrestlingnewsworld.com!

Related Articles