|  News |  Columns |  TV Reports |  Video Reviews |  Title History |  Hall of Fame |  News Report |  The Dunn List |
// Sons of Anarchy Review 7.02 - 'Toil and Till'
// Coco Lays Out In Thong Bikini On Instagram
// Full WWE Smackdown Taping Results (SPOILERS)
// 411 Fact or Fiction MMA: Will Nick Diaz' DUI arrest mean the end of his UFC career if he loses to Anderson Silva?
// Four Player Co-op: What does Microsoft's purchase of Mojang mean for Minecraft?

//  CM Punk
//  John Cena
//  Triple H
//  Hulk Hogan
//  Randy Orton
//  Christian

411mania RSS Feeds

Follow 411mania on Twitter!

Add 411 On Facebook

 411mania » Wrestling » Columns

Ask 411 Wrestling 09.04.13: Shawn Michaels, Matt Morgan, Tatanka, Royal Rumble 1999, More!
Posted by Justin Watry on 09.04.2013

Can you believe it?

Big Brother 15 is almost over. It feels like just yesterday Jeremy stole the house wine. It feels like just yesterday the media was all over CBS for their casting decisions. It feels like just yesterday Judd was blindsided and out of the game. Okay, tired of all this Big Brother babble? Just one more thing: Aaryn was probably the best looking girl there, but it is hard to root for people like her (and Amanda) in life, game or not. The humiliation and embarrassment she received upon her live exit interview is what they call karma. Wait until she finds out her employer fired her...

As for the wrestling scene, Night of Champions is right around the corner. There are multiple title matches set up and hopefully EVERY belt is defended. I am looking at you - Mr. Intercontinental Champion! That is the point of the entire pay-per-view, right? Other than that, more will be written about the current WWE atmosphere at the end of this column. Until then...


411 on Twitter!

Justin Watry on Twitter!


Nothing to note really. There was some nice discussion about the WWE Hall of Fame, as well as Brock Lesnar vs. Stone Cold not happening in 2002 (which I will cover in a bit). Other than that, I want to stress yet again that all of YOU pick the topics. For instance, over the past seven days, just ONE question concerning TNA Impact Wrestling arrived in my email inbox. That will be addressed at a later date. The rest were about WWE, WCW, ECW, etc. It is just a simple fact that WWE has a much, much larger market share than any other wrestling company in 2013. Fact. If somebody has a question about DixieLand, please send it to me. My email address is very clearly noted at the end of each column. Step up and ask away!

Your Turn, Smart Guy...

Last week, I asked a classic Who am I? question. Much to my shock, it was answered fairly quickly. I thought it was actually a tough one. I really did. Major props to David for being the first correct response! He was right on with John Cena being the answer. He was never IC Champ. He has lost at two straight WM events in a row (27 and 28). He opened up a 2008 pay-per-view - defeating JBL at Judgment Day. Plus, the man had a brief run as tag champs with The Miz in 2011. My assumption was many had forgotten about that 15 minute title reign. Oops, silly me. For this week, let's go for an easy question. Remember, no search engines to cheat! Have some pride.

Name the winner of every Elimination Chamber match.

Questions, Questions, Who's Got The Questions?

Usually, I like to spotlight a few of the rare quality posts made in the comment section. This time, a controversial back and forth debate between Ed Grimly Reaper, WHAT?!, and His Bubbliness occurred.

Ed Grimly Reaper: I still don't understand why everyone says it would be incredibly stupid to have Brock Lesnar beat Stone Cold on Raw (the biggest wrestling television show in the world) in the King of the Ring qualifiers (with interference, no less, to help build the feud Stone Cold personally requested with Eddie Guerrero) - but NOBODY ever seems to think it was stupid for Brock to beat Hulk Hogan CLEAN on the B-show Smackdown for no real reason whatsoever later that year. With a bearhug! Forget your silly biases against Hogan; THAT match should have ALSO been saved for a Pay Per View payday, but Hogan was a company man and did the job. (They showed him wipe Hogan's blood across his chest like a million times in promo videos). Stone Cold has become so painfully overrated (top guy for maybe 3 years) due to people's nostalgic memories of the Attitude Era and the fact that he retired and is out of the spotlight now, that people seem to forget that Austin was actually a huge *jerk* for refusing to do the job and walking out on the company.

WHAT?!: Austin refused to throw away big money? Yeah, what a *jerk*. How dare he know his worth. Should just line up and do whatever the company says, it's not like it owes its existence to him or anything.

His Bubbliness: You do realize the only reason Hogan did that was in exchange for a return job, right? I mean you can't expect a decision coming from Hulk Hogan to be dripping with 100% altruism, can you?

I had to edit out a few cuss words. Also, the conversation quickly turned to insults (shocking, huh?) soon after. Therefore, this is all that will be posted. From just these three comments though, everyone understands each side. Here are my two cents broken down point by point.

1. Not to repeat myself every week, but everybody uses friendships/politics - everybody! From Triple H to Hulk Hogan to Stone Cold to Daniel Bryan to CM Punk, all of them pull the strings backstage when given an opportunity to further their careers (or a friend's career). From the wrestling business to school to your job to any other example you choose, friends will help friends. Family will help family. That has never has changed and never will.

2. Make no mistake, I have spoken out about the Attitude Era many times. As great as that time was, there was also tons of trash TV also. It was certainly not as perfect as those rose tinted goggles will have some fans believe. I am not in the group of those getting nostalgia mixed up with quality. Just feel free to read any of my past columns about the Attitude Era!

3. Ed does make an interesting point was made about Stone Cold. He was only the top star in WWE for a couple of years. You could argue 1998, 1999, and 2001? He was out for most of 2000. Then by the time 2002 rolled around, he was fed up with WWE. He returned in early 2003 and was done wrestling by WrestleMania XIX. I am not sure this 'hurts' his legacy because he was one of the hot acts to propel a boom period for the industry. However, it should also not be forgotten. When you think of guys like Hulk Hogan and John Cena, they have had sustained runs at the top for close to a decade (or more). As much money as Austin drew and as much merchandise he sold, it was for a much shorter time than other main event wrestlers in WWE history. Make of that what you will...

4. Concerning Steve Austin "walking out" in 2002, I never said I agreed with the move. My exact quote last week was "No build. No hype. No promotion. No commercials. No promos. Just Stone Cold taking on The Next Big Thing at the drop of a hat! Right or wrong, you have to admit that'd be ridiculous." Whether you liked him leaving WWE in a fit of anger or not is irrelevant here. Stone Cold should not have been in that match either way. Could it have been punishment for his public comments about the booking team? Maybe. I am just stating the entire setting was not needed. Lesnar could have beat anybody else that night in some random King of the Ring qualifying match, not necessarily the top star for the past few years.

5. How does that compare to the Brock Lesnar vs. Hulk Hogan match on Smackdown? Well, there are a couple of main differences. First, there was some sort of build up during the night. If you remember, the WWE Undisputed Championship #1 Contendership for The Rock at Summerslam 2002 was actually on the line. Brock vs. Rock or Hogan vs. Rock Part 2? That was the hype. Secondly, as noted, rumors suggest Hogan was set to end Lesnar's undefeated streak (in his return match) at Survivor Series in Madison Square Garden for the gold months later. Of course, The Hulkster would agree to get pummeled on television if he knew that was the long-term vision. Who wouldn't love that idea? Stone Cold was not promised a 'return' victory or future pay-per-view payday with Lesnar. Thirdly, whether you want to trust that rumor or not, Hogan was going on a break anyways. Therefore, logic says you write him off TV. With Steve Austin, he would be on TV each week and was not going anywhere...

...or so we thought.

6. Yes, Smackdown was the B-show at the time (always has been, always will be) but it was right there, neck and neck with Raw fighting for the higher viewership numbers. Seems strange now to think about it, but the two brands were very close for awhile there in 2002-2003.

7. In the end, Stone Cold should not have left like he did. Right booking, bad booking, disagreed with plans, loved the plans, whatever - not an excuse. It does not matter what the circumstances were or how upset you are. You show up to the building and (at least) talk it out with Vince McMahon face to face. Work out a back-up plan or some kind of agreement. My bet is every single person reading this hates their job or has in the past. Not everybody walks into work on Monday morning with a smile on their face and loves their boss. That is just ridiculous. Yet, people go to work, do their job, and collects a paycheck. It is called life. Don't believe me? In a recent interview, Stone Cold himself said one of his biggest regrets was how he handled the 'walk out' in June 2002.

Okay, let's discuss Chris Jericho and his 2013 return. Fantastico Porcelain Valdosta Burger poses an intriguing question...

Is it just me, or does Chris Jericho come across as kind of bitter when discussing Fandango? In any interview post WrestleMania, he comes across as uninterested or even slighted that putting Fandango over was below him...or that maybe he should have been in a higher profile match. Your thoughts?

Sort of.

Chris Jericho put over Fandango because that is what Vince McMahon wanted. I am sure if Vince asked Y2J to pick anybody on the roster to wrestle, he would choose a main event star or any number of rising mid-card players. In this case, all of the top slots were taken. The Rock and John Cena were facing each other. That was the two year plan. Nothing was changing there. Brock Lesnar and Triple H were going to have a rematch. That was set in motion since Summerslam 2012. Nothing was changing that. Then CM Punk and Undertaker seemed to be on a collision course. I suppose there was some wiggle room there but not much. Since Jericho just popped back up in late January, his opportunities were far and few between. Did he feud with Dolph Ziggler up to Mania? Maybe. For the record, that would have been my selection. Does he elevate Ryback's status by wrestling him at the grandest stage of them all? Not a bad idea there. Or would he best be utilized in helping out Fandango and put him on the map so to speak?

I do not think it is bitterness or anything. Jericho knows his role at this point in his career. There is no mystery surrounding his comebacks or returns - it's to have great matches with the new/young talent. We know that. In my opinion (just my opinion remember), Jericho WAS happy with everything, especially on the post-WM29 episode of Raw. The feud was going fairly well, their match was fine at Mania, and then the live audience in New Jersey went crazy with Fandango's theme music. I can only imagine Jericho backstage smiling when the act caught fire out of the blue. He had hit a gold mine! Of course, the 'fad' ended as quickly as it began. From there, the feud fizzled out, and a concussion to Fandango pretty much ended that little momentum built up. I think that is where frustration came in for Jericho looking back on the past couple months. All that effort was for nothing by the time June rolled around. Disappointed would be a better word, not bitter.

Time to switch gears towards a current wrestling story line, thanks to Brian!

What happened to Big Show's ironclad contract on Monday night?


Right now, I am really enjoying the Daniel Bryan vs. The World story line. However, my one small (nit pick) gripe is what you mentioned. Big Show has (or had?) an iron clad contract that was mentioned repeatedly on television throughout 2012. He should not be blubbering like a cry baby at every show in fear of Triple H firing him. Here is the sad part: It takes about five seconds to tie up this loose end on Raw. Just have HHH tell Big Show backstage that his contract ran out earlier this year (didn't it in realty?), and his new deal was signed with the McMahons, not John Laurinaitis. There! That is all it takes. The plot hole is covered, and WWE actually recalls past story line logic. Show can go back to worrying about his job, and life moves on. Seems pretty simple.

Edit: On Smackdown, JBL made a passing comment that HHH could rip up Show's guaranteed contract. Not sure if that means anything pertaining to the topic, but it could?

Edit X2: For those who saw Raw on Monday, the iron clad contract for Show was discussed. It seems WWE didn't forget. Like or hate the explanation, at least it was something

Edit X3: In case anybody is wondering, I usually finish up with this column each week by the time the weekend hits. Then on Monday night, I send it in with any last second changes being made.

Up next, Kent has a question about Stone Cold Steve Austin after WrestleMania XIX.

First out, thanks for continuing the Ask 411 tradition bro. I have a question about The Rock vs. Stone Cold semi main event at WrestleMania XIX. When I left for college in the summer of 2002, I stopped watching wrestling until late 2007. I recently watched the third act of their Mania trifecta and had a few questions about the circumstances and the event itself. After researching, it was basically both mens' last match (besides Rock/Goldberg and WMXX) until Rocky's recent comeback.

Did the fans know at the time that this would be Austin's final hurrah? And although the Angle/Lesnar match was pretty special, why do you think Austin/Rock didn't end the show? I wish I would have been watching at the time because this was a great card and an awesome ending to my favorite rivalry as a kid!

Thank you for the kind words. I do this column for all of the readers, nothing else. Okay, my ego too...but don't tell anybody!

Nothing was announced about Stone Cold's retirement. In 2002, you could tell he started to slow down with injuries and needed time off. Of course, that was in the middle of his other issues at the time. When he came back in 2003, it did feel like Austin's final hurrah. Again, there were never any indications of a retirement made on television. In the 'dirt sheets' and online, it was just known that his neck was still in rough shape, and his limited schedule on Raw was for a reason. I believe he wrestled Eric Bischoff at No Way Out 2003, but that was hardly even a match. Stone Cold just beat up the Raw General Manager for ten minutes. After that, the two had a rematch a month later on Raw. Again, that hardly counts as a match.

Basically, he returned with the sole purpose of having one last match - The Rock at WrestleMania XIX.

My best comparison to Stone Cold in 2003 would be Edge in 2011. Fans knew his career was winding down, and a retirement was near. However, fans were surprised when the official came down so sudden. Everyone understood the situation was serious, but without that fair warning, it was difficult to fully grasp.

As for the match order, I seem to recall the 'dirt sheets' listing Hulk Hogan vs. Vince McMahon as the main event of WMXIX all throughout March 2003. Going back and watching old videos from that time period, it was probably true. The amount of hype and promo segments dedicated to that street fight was ridiculous. Can you imagine if Hogan/McMahon was the last match of the evening? With The Hulkster's career on the line, that is still a tough sell for the live crowd. Do not even get me started on the unbelievably low pay-per-view buy rate WMXIX ended up drawing. Ouch! My best guess is that WWE wanted a title match to close the show. Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle was bigger than Booker T vs. Triple H for the World Title, so that got the nod. Very few knew that Stone Cold was 100 percent done inside the squared circle. Most probably assumed he would become Co-Raw GM for awhile and then get back in the ring again down the road for big matches. Of course, that never happened. Had everybody in the company known this was Austin's last match ever, maybe his match with Rocky would have went on last? Maybe. A heel winning the WM main event is rare but has happened. Sure would have been the perfect conclusion to their epic rivalry...

Speaking of Stone Cold, let's move forward with a question about other Attitude Era stars. Raza asks:

Over the years, I have noticed that there is a definite discriminatory pattern followed by the WWE for making the WWE Championship in a way that either only those are made WWE Champions who WWE Creative think have a longtime future with the company or those who are not old. For example Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Kane, Mick Foley, Steve Austin, Big Show are never made WWE Champions for the last twelve years because they were unlikely to continue for that many years due to their age and fitness issues (I feel Shawn Michaels could easily had been put over Cena at WM23 for WWE Championship). All those who were made WWE Champions in the last 12-13 years are still with WWE except for Eddie Guerrero (his death), Edge (retired) and Jeff Hardy and Batista (left due to their mutual consent). Triple H is an exception for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, World Heavyweight Championship are assigned to mid-carders like Mark Henry, Jack Swagger, Christian, Khali, old timers like Kane, Taker, Michaels, Booker T and a guy like Bill Goldberg who WWE knew was not likely to have very long and conducive future business relations.

My question is that why Kane, Michaels and Takers have not been WWE Champions for the last 14-15 years when they were in the were in good shape in the late 1990's (except Shawn) and particularly their strong association with the company even at the time of Monday Night Wars when majority of Michael's and Takers fellow choose to left for WCW?

You pretty much nailed it right on with the difference between the WWE/World Championships. Here is my thought on each;

Shawn Michaels: He has discussed this numerous times. Outside of his comeback story in 2002 needing its proper conclusion at Survivor Series inside the Elimination Chamber, the guy just had no interest in the top title. That means media work. That means doing interviews. That means more travel. That means extra charity appearances.That means working live events/house shows on the weekend. That means (depending on the brands) a possible Tuesday night of work as a part of his weekly schedule - something he was against because that night he was heavily involved in his church and why he would boycott any move to Smackdown. A key example was early 2006 when the Blue Brand needed a new World Champion, as Batista had just injured himself while holding the belt. Vince McMahon went to Shawn first; he declined. Then Kurt Angle was asked to shift brands and be 'the man' there; he agreed. Long story short, HBK was basically a part-timer from 2002-2010 and wanted no part of the responsibilities brought on by another WWE/World Championship run.

Kane: For all the talent he has, I don't think many ever thought of him as the main event star to carry WWE. Remember the only reason he got the belt in 1998 for ONE NIGHT was because of a ridiculous stipulation put in for his King of the Ring title match and to create some buzz during the Monday Night Wars. From there, it was another 12 years until the company gave him the ball again (not counting ECW) as World Champion on Smackdown. Right or wrong, I just am not sure Kane was ever looked at as the top draw for Raw or even Smackdown.

Undertaker: His 2002 Undisputed Championship win in May was fine. It just did not click all the way, feuding with Hulk Hogan and Triple H on pay-per-view, before losing to The Rock and turning face shortly after Summerslam. From there, it was the "Brock Lesnar Show" on Smackdown, so it would be tough to imagine him getting over on him too much. Then he started his part-time career in 2004. Once he did start winning the World Title again in, starting in 2007, it was for Smackdown. The WWE Championship was heavily featured on Raw, as the "John Cena Show." Again, nothing would interrupt that. Taker would get a few reigns but nothing too long. I think his longest run as World Champion in this era was four months - October 2009-February 2010. With him getting breaks (vacations) every couple months, what was WWE to do?

I know I rambled a little bit there - hope most of that made sense! In the end, Kane winning the WWE/World Title once more adds nothing to his legacy. He is one of the best big men and bound for the WWE Hall of Fame. Shawn Michaels winning the WWE/World Title again (after his one month 2002 win) would add nothing to his legacy. I call him the greatest of all-time, and another 'win' means nothing to me. Same with The Undertaker. If he comes back and claims the gold at Wrestlemania XXX, would his amazing accomplishments really look any different? Of course not. His unbelievable WWE career and place in history is safe and secure.

Okay, enough of past stars! How about current wrestlers? Here is what Allan has to say...

I remember emailing you when Curtis Axel first became the new Paul Heyman guy, and I was over the moon for him thinking it would be awesome for him and that he would become a key player - I was wrong. I remember you not being too excited and where he's at now, I kind of see why. Now I am still a fan of Axel; he just hasn't really done anything for me to make him stand out, and as you pointed out, not everyone that gets put together with Heyman does become an instant classic. I am still happy to see Axel on television and do hope nothing but the best for him, but I think its time to split from Heyman. No offense to Axel, but Heyman/Punk just over shadow him! I feel Heyman is more important than Axel which shouldn't really happen as Axel is IC Champ. How would you feel about Heyman betraying Axel by replacing him with......Matt Morgan? After this feud with Punk in which Punk will probably get the last laugh, Heyman could blame Axel and replace him with the returning Morgan by an attack from behind. This could end things with Punk and allow him to move on, as well as give Curtis Axel some new direction and re-introduce the big man that is Matt Morgan.

Love it!

As you noted, I was not sold on Curtis Axel from the start. I still remember the night he come out as the next "Paul Heyman Guy." I did not know how to react - laugh or laugh hard. It felt like a big joke. I almost thought the REAL "Paul Heyman Guy" was going to come out and destroy Axel. Nope! That was it. Wow, not to say I told you so, but I predicted this would go south real fast. Before he spoke. Before Triple H came out. Before anything even happened. Curtis Axel is Mr. Perfect's son. Outside of that, I don't get it. If he had any other father, would the 'internet fans' have rallied behind him? Probably not. Good talent - just not worth being with Heyman. Ask Heidenreich about the magic of being a "Paul Heyman Guy." Not so easy to guarantee success by just adding a manager...

About Matt Morgan? You read my mind. Matt Morgan will be with WWE eventually. It is only a matter of getting a contract done. When he was with TNA, I wrote repeatedly (for another website) that he was one of the few guys in that company WWE should sign immediately! I am not too excited about naming even MORE "Paul Heyman Guys," but in this case - just move on from Axel. Replace him with Matt Morgan. In fact, do it at Night of Champions. Since it is an elimination two on one handicap match, this scenario seems quite simple. Punk pins Axel after a solid 10-15 minutes (maybe it is non-title because Punk is set to win and doesn't care for the IC belt). Per the rules, Axel has to head to the back. Punk messes with Heyman for a few minutes before getting him up for a GTS finale. Out of nowhere, Matt Morgan runs in and kicks Punk's head off. Heyman covers for the victory and laughs, laughs, and laughs. Instant buzz for Raw. Instant re-debut for Morgan (who would be back with his former manager). More fuel to seeing Punk get his hands on Heyman.

Also, for those who care about Twitter, I mentioned a similar scenario online last week. Matt Morgan sent me a message on Twitter, saying simply "u think?" Yes, I do think. Sometimes. WWE, make it happen!

Jay is curious about an incident from the Royal Rumble PPV back in 1999!

I always wondered about the match where Mick Foley fought The Rock, which ended with Rocky absolutely leveling Mick with multiple brutal chair shots. Now, I know that many things involving weapons are often "gimmicked", but how could they "fake" such monster chair shots to Foley's dome? When a 280 pound dude like Rocky is swinging a chair full force to a man's skull repeatedly, couldn't Foley have been seriously hurt? I recall in 'Beyond the Mat" that Foley had legit heat with Rocky for doing that.

It is such a tough match to watch, especially with all the talk of concussions in 2013.

First off, Rocky was not swinging at full force. Guys pull punches or ease up to help out their opponents absorb the punishment. It is not a stiff, legitimate fight. In this case, it may as well have been. The "heat" was because Rocky swung the chair more times than agreed upon. However, once the intensity started to crank up and emotions were flying in front of the live audience, the chair shots just kept coming and coming and coming. Being handcuffed and running on adrenaline, Foley didn't know better than to just stay down. He kept standing up. What was The Rock going to do? Stare at him. Of course, he had to hit him again and again and again, Yeah, it hurt. Gimmicked or not, the physicality is very real. That is why Foley only wanted to take a couple of hard shots - he could deal with that...not the dozen or so Rocky ended up delivering. It was just too much violence, even by Mick's standards. At the 27:40 mark of the video below, you can literally see (and hear) him bleeding, out of breath, hardly able to speak and struggling to move. No idea who thought this was a good idea. Thankfully, this type of stuff from the Attitude Era will never be seen again...

I am going to be honest here. The archives has this question listed from Connor and Jase. My apologies.

I know this is probably the most basic question imaginable, and you've possibly answered it before, but is there any reason why the WWE always has their PPVs on a Sunday night? Living in the UK, it makes them almost impossible to watch live, as generally they start at 1am and I'll have work the next morning. Have they ever tried Saturday night, or is there a specific rationale as to why they don't?

Sunday is the best night.

Monday is Raw. Tuesday is for taping Smackdown. Wednesday is the middle of the work week. Thursday is (basically) the same as Wednesday (work week). Then Friday airs Smackdown. Saturday is the night where most people go out, party, see a movie, etc. That leaves Sunday - the day of rest. Regardless of the time difference in the UK (or any other country), WWE focuses its business on the United States. Monday through Friday is not ideal due to everybody's different schedules. Saturday works for the UFC and boxing, so that night does have its paying customers out there. I think Sunday has proven to be their best choice over the years for WWE. On rare occasions during the past 30 years, there has been pay-per-view events held on different nights, but more often that not, it always goes back to Sunday.

I Ask YOU!

After some experimenting and tinkering with this concept for a few weeks, it is time unveil my newest feature. Don't try to hide your excitement. I know everyone is jumping for joy as we speak. Don't lie, you are pumped! Basically, the idea is self-explanatory. The email is posted, and YOU answer below in the comment section. This week, Mr. Watson wants to know about a popular wrestler in the 1990's.

Why did Tatanka never get a big push? I thought for sure he would beat Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 9 and win the Intercontinental title, but he turned heel on Luger for no reason and became nothing much really.

How about it? I ask you - what happened to Tatanka?

#Ask411 Question

Yes! My readers came through. This concept may be on its last legs but will stick around a little bit longer.

The best topic came from Phil! Everybody thank him.

Phil Milkfish (‏@Phil_Milkfish) Why doesn't WWE keep taping matches during commercial breaks? They could use the footage when releasing DVDs, right? #Ask411

Nice question.

Technically, WWE is always recording. They have so many cameras at the arena each week. Just because USA Network needs a commercial break, with Michael Cole getting the cue from the headsets, that does not mean all of the camera guys sit down at ringside and rest for two minutes. The show is still going on. That is how you see the "During the commercial break" highlight or big move when they come back. WWE is still taping footage. There have been attempts to explore this avenue before with the WWE App or different features on their official website. For me personally, I do not use Tout, the WWE App or any of those extra bits. If I miss two minutes of a match during commercial (when the performers are usually playing it safe anyways), it is no sweat off my back.

My Darn Opinion

Get ready.

From September-December, WWE Raw is going get annihilated in the television ratings. It happens every year and will in 2013 as well. Yet, every year, fans flip out over the low numbers, go wild over the 'booking' team, call for major changes, question long-term future of WWE, blah blah blah. Same old song and dance! Yet, every year, January rolls around, and viewership goes right back up! Just last year, I remember MULTIPLE weeks of Raw to close 2012 with some unreal low ratings. Come January, Raw was topping 5 million viewers - much higher than usual.

In other words, I deliver a fair warning for everybody to just relax.

The ratings are going to tank next Monday night against the NFL. From there, it is going to be an ugly three month stretch of time. Not having John Cena and Sheamus, while experimenting with some of the 'new' guys will only muddy the waters more. Smackdown likely will not be altered too much. Raw, on the other hand, will feel the wrath of football and see it in the ratings. Just remember that January is coming (when NFL Monday Night Football ends). The Road to WrestleMania is inevitably on the schedule Therefore, when the numbers come out every Tuesday afternoon, just keep a level head.

Things will be okay.

Self-Promoting Finale

Now, let's get some "ME!" plugs out there for all of you...

Just Google my name. Enjoy!

What Is Next For The McMahons?
The Next WWE Main Event Star Is...
The Rock vs. John Cena III?
Why Daniel Bryan Should NOT Be WWE Champion
Shawn Michaels: Greatest WWE Superstar
WWE Reverting Back To The Attitude Era In 2013?
My Personal Doink The Clown Tribute
The Layfield Report Columns
Read Jay's Ways!
Send Ask 411 Wrestling Questions: jw.bball.615@gmail.com

Until next time, leave a comment below and let me know what you think!


Top 5 Comics That Need to Be Shows

Did Marvel's Original Sin Story Deliver?

Curvy Babe Instagrams Hot New Pics

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.