Send in your questions to WZMailbag@gmail.com or post them on our forum at this link.
Since WWE is having Sting vs Seth Rollins for the WWE WHC would it make sense for Seth to work double duty at Night of Champions and defend the US title against someone else? I mean every title will be on the line so it would only make sense. What do you guys think?
That would be the most logical option for WWE but it doesn’t look like they’re going down that path, unfortunately. It’s sad because getting rid of the US Title leaves less opportunity for the mid card. I would be fine with a merger if the WHC was still around but since that is gone, they have to get it back in play somehow. Besides, what was the point of Cena losing the title if they are just going to keep it on Rollins. It doesn’t really make Rollins look any stronger.
What if guys like Undertaker, Kane, Mark Henry, Triple H, Shawn Michael’s and Big Show never came into the wrestling business. Do you think wrestling would have been this much popular as today without these hall of famers.
I don’t think it would have made a big difference. These wrestlers were hand picked by Vince McMahon to be the faces of WWE and if they weren’t around Vince could have easily picked someone else. Ex. If John Cena wasn’t around then Vince could have easily chosen CM Punk to be the face of the company and would have worked out the same, if not better.
What do you think about wrestling’s product in the year of 2000-2008, compared to the present wrestling product.
It was certainly more adult oriented back then – for many that also means that the product was much better. Certainly things have been picking up recently with fresh faces on top so now would be a good time to be a WWE fan, but present times don’t compare to the past. The early part of the 2000s had some really good content that we will never see again, so it is understandable to say that the product was much better in the early 2000s compared to now.
