SEScoops Mailbag for September 1st

(submit YOUR questions to sescoops@gmail.com)

Q: What are your thoughts on the Raw-Smackdown Supershows? Is it getting more confusing to the average fan? It’s great to have everyone in the same building, but now they are going back to the inter-brand matches. I miss the old days back in the 80s-90s where everything was cut and dry. – Anonymous

A: Yes, everything was a lot simpler back in the day, but I would argue that bringing the Raw and Smackdown talent together does more to resemble those days than keeping the rosters separate. Back then, you didn’t have brands, the roster was unified. I think what’s confusing to some is the fact that they’re never entirely clear on what the rules are. For years now, especially leading up to WrestleMania, we’ve seen a mixing of the brands off and on without any real explanation. Now all of a sudden, Smackdown guys can appear on Raw, but apparently, not vice versa. Why? They don’t bother taking the time to explain these things to their fans and that is what can be so confusing.

Q: Is Triple H the only [wrestler] ever to use a sledge hammer? It’s like it is exclusive for him unlike chairs, tables, ladders, etc. which are used by everyone. Why is he the only guy given the hammer? Was there originally any story or angle behind that? – Jeff T.

A: Nope, Mankind may have actually been the first to use the sledgehammer as a weapon on WWE TV. During a match between Kane and The Rock on the 9/14/98 edition of Raw, Foley came out and struck Kane with the hammer, which actually lead to the first ever “Sledgehammer Match” between Mankind and Undertaker later that night. The first time Triple H ever used it was during a casket match on Raw between Rock and Undertaker on Raw in 1999. He interfered in the match, smashing Rock’s arm with it on the steel steps, then bashing the casket with it repeatedly with Rock inside. There was no story behind it. I’ve always heard his weapon of choice behind the scenes was a shovel.

Q: Any chance of CM Punk leading the return of the Undertaker back to WWE? I can envision a CM Punk/Undertaker vs. HHH/Nash Survivor Series match. Also, why doesn’t WWE allow for one week title changes? For instance, in every sport there is occasionally upsets that make every fan say “wow, I didn’t see that coming!” So why not have Cena/Orton/Punk/Del Rio occasionally lose in an upset to a Kingston/Bourne/Sheamus/Bryan only to win it back the following Raw? I think it would be a fun way to get mid-card talent over instead of the usual boring “push” that ends up being predictable. – Seth from Parts Unknown

A: First, what sense would it make for Punk to bring Undertaker back? He’s on television every week talking about how he wants to bring change to WWE and talking about pushing younger talent like Zack Ryder and Colt Cabana. I just don’t see it. Second, one week title reigns do absolutely NOTHING to get mid-card talent over. We’ve seen abbreviated title reigns for guys like Jack Swagger and Dolph Ziggler which didn’t exactly move them to the next level. I get what you’re saying about being spontaneous and unpredictable, but swapping titles like candy is not the way to go about doing that.

Q: Is it just me or does anyone else think Sheamus is all of a sudden being under-utilized? This guy is a former 2-time WWE Champion, Unites States Champion and King of the Ring, and just recently there were two rivalries involving The Celtic Warrior that had the potential to go somewhere but seemed to be thrown out. His feud with Wade Barrett ended in a draw, and unless they plan now on doing something with him and Mark Henry, that’s just going to end with each getting a count-out victory, which might as well just be a draw! – Nick Adams

A: He was being under-utilized about a month or so ago, but how can you make that argument right now? He’s been on television in prominent matches for the last few weeks. He headlined Smackdown last week against Mark Henry and headlined the Raw Supershow on Monday, teaming (and winning) with John Cena in the main event. His babyface push seems to be taking off nicely. Would it have been nice to have a resolution in his feud with Mark Henry? Sure, but WWE was so afraid to have either guy lose clean, we never got that. It’s their classic even-Steven booking. One guys wins, then the other guy wins.

Q: I think Chris Jericho and Kane had two of the best (if not the best) debuts of all time. In your opinion, who had the better debut? Jericho interrupting The Rock or Kane showing up in the first Hell in a Cell between Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker? – Michael

A: That’s a really tough question. Both debuts were excellent and left an impression that we still remember all these years later. Jericho got a superstar reaction his first night in and went toe-to-toe verbally with one of WWE’s biggest stars at the time, but Rock made him look like a pansy by the time it was said and done and worse, it didn’t lead anywhere. On the other hand, Kane’s debut had been built up literally for months and he appeared during a PPV main event involving two of WWE’s biggest stars. His entrance was masterfully done, with the lighting and the pyro, and him ripping the cell door off its hinges was a really cool visual. I mean, the guy looked like a total monster. Then, he got to lay out Undertaker and played a pivotal role in the finish of the match. I’ve got to go with the Big Red Machine on this one. Also, if we’re having a discussion about greatest debuts, I have to add Tazz at the 2000 Royal Rumble to the list.

Q: I know that secondary titles do not mean as much as they used to, but do you have a problem with wrestlers like Del Rio, Lesnar and Khali coming in and their very first championship is a World title? Also do you think the MITB briefcases should only be won by mid-carders like John Morrison and Kofi Kingston who can’t quite jump into the main-event level? It did wonders for Edge, CM Punk, and somewhat Miz. Lastly, do you think someone else should have won instead of Del Rio? I don’t think he needed to cash in a briefcase to become champion. – Marc C.

A: I have a problem with Khali winning any championships at all, but that’s beside the point. I do prefer having a guy work his way up the ladder, and perhaps winning a secondary title first before moving on to the World title. In many cases, they rush the title onto these days, who quickly drop them and then end up getting pushed down to the mid-card. I mean, where is there to go once you’ve won the top prize? Anything after that is going to be perceived as a demotion. There are exceptions to this as I think the way they handled Brock Lesnar leading up to his win over The Rock at Summerslam was pitch perfect. As for the MITB briefcase, it does make sense to use them to help elevate non-main event talent. Del Rio did not have to win the briefcase because he had just won a match on Raw a week or two earlier to become #1 contender. His win at the PPV basically rendered that match pointless. And WWE wonders they their ratings have dropped off in recent years. Why bother watching these matches when you’re basically being told they don’t mean squat?

Q: One of my favorite matches was HBK vs. Mankind in September 1996 at Mind Games. However I never really knew how Mankind became #1 contender. I remember Shawn Michaels being interviewed backstage on Raw about the match and Mankind jumping him and slapping the Mandible Claw on HBK, but it seemed to be just announced out of the blue. How did Mankind become #1 contender and what were your thoughts on that match? – Trey

A: Mankind had just come off a very successful feud with Undertaker. In fact, he beat him not only at KOTR that year, but also in the Boiler Room Brawl at Summerslam. I always assumed that by doing so, it earned him #1 contender status, though I don’t know if they ever actually said that on TV. The match between Mankind and Michaels was one of the all-time great title matches in WWE history. Part of what made it so great is that people were completely caught off guard by it. Nobody expected Mankind to be part of a match of that caliber. I can still remember him stabbing his knee repeatedly with some sort of foreign object in the middle of the match to try to get some feeling back into it. The finish sucked, but it wasn’t enough to ruin an otherwise fantastic match.

Q: Did Nathan Jones actually do time in an Australian prison? – Nate OB

A: Indeed he did. He spent seven years in a maximum security prison after being charged with eight armed robberies. As a wrestler, he was awful, so bad in fact that even after announcing him for a tag match at WM19, WWE elected to have Undertaker wrestle Big Show and A-Train by himself in a handicap match. I don’t know what he stole during all those armed robberies, but talent certainly wasn’t it.

Keep those questions coming to sescoops@gmail.com and remember to include your name!