I'd Appreciate Your Input 5: Elimination Chamber

It's been a while since I've done an I'd Appreciate Your Input, but something got me looking ahead to the Elimination Chamber pay-per-view this week.

I know we're just a day away from the Royal Rumble, but it seems unanimous that the returning Batista is a certainty to win it. So that got me thinking "what happens at Elimination Chamber?"...

Batista returns to confront Orton

Let's say for argument's sake Batista does win the Royal Rumble. He is then a fix to main event Wrestlemania and challenge the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Therefore at Elimination Chamber I would have thought a throwaway, make-the-animal-look-strong match will be on offer - maybe Batista vs Del Rio (as a result of all the big talk Del Rio has had for Batista in the lead-up to his return).

What then for the WWE World Championship and the Elimination Chamber?

I know it's not set in stone, but Brock Lesnar laid claim to being the number one contender a few weeks ago. He, along with mouthpiece Paul Heyman, stated that whoever won the Orton/Cena match would face him at Elimination Chamber... therefore what is the point of the Elimination Chamber match this year?

Brock F5s Mark Henry

If WWE are going with Batista to win the Rumble then surely his number one contendership for Wrestlemania isn't in doubt. If Brock is the number one contender for Elimination Chamber then that leaves nothing to play for in an Elimination Chamber match.

I'd Appreciate Your Input on:

• IF it's Batista vs Del Rio and Brock vs Orton/Cena (WWE title) then what do you think the purpose of an Elimination Chamber match will be this year?

• OR will Brock's claim for a title match at Elimination Chamber be contested by others leading to a Chamber match involving say, Orton, Cena, Bryan, Punk and Big Show (likeliest?)?

As with the previous posts; any feedback is welcome in the comments field below as well as contacting me on Twitter - @jimmosangle. You can also comment on the Facebook post on the Jimmo's Angle page.

@jimmosangle

I'd Appreciate Your Input 4: The Forgotten Men & 'Prestige'

For this weeks I'd Appreciate Your Input, I got thinking about WWE's usage of the word 'prestige' and how I think that they think that if they say it enough then we'll all think "oh, WOW! Look how prestigious that [insert championship] is?!"... umm no...

I also got thinking about some of the, somewhat, forgotten men towards the top of the WWE roster. Let's start with that...

The Forgotten Men

For starters, Daniel Bryan and his 'fight' has been well documented. We don't need to talk about him. It seems that it's widely acknowledged that Dolph Ziggler has fallen from grace, too.

Whilst Ziggler continues to fall down the pecking order, Cody Rhodes is another somewhat 'forgotten' man; now teaming with his brother and having success in the tag team ranks. Something seems a little flat with this, though.

Cody was 'fired' and had a couple of weeks off (to get married). On leaving, he gave a very emotional promo about the McMahon/Rhodes families' storied past. This sparked my interest. When he and Goldust [why isn't he 'Dustin Rhodes', by the way? If he's now an accepted part of the family surely he can drop the Goldust cover up, no?] returned, got reinstated and won tag team gold, they were hot and WWE fans were fully behind them. They seem to have been taken off the boil recently, though.

Goldust looking sharp in a suit... and facepaint

Understandably, tag team title contenders need to be found and even though the Rhodes brothers have been a success, 'proper' tag teams have taken a back-seat to them whilst WWE figure out how best to keep them occupied before a potential brother-vs-brother match in four months at Wrestlemania.

I don't know if the plan is for Cody to have his 'Wrestlemania moment' and then to elevate him (or maybe just keep him as a strong mid-card level contender) but I feel the biggest opportunity to get him to the next level has passed (for now). He upped his game and was hot this summer after just missing out on the Money in the Bank briefcase, and with the 'firing and returning-in-style' angle, you would have thought that there was a door opening for him to get involved in The Authority storyline in a higher spot. For me, I'd have saved the 'firing' until they were ready to give Cody a shot at the big boys.

• Did WWE miss a trick with Cody Rhodes?

• What do you think the future plans for Cody are?

• Thoughts on Ziggler's demise?

• Who else looked as if they had potential and then got a crap deal in this Authority regime?

Prestige

My second topic this week is about 'prestige' and WWE's definition and usage of the word.

For weeks, maybe a few months, Michael Cole has been pissing me off with his use of the word prestigious. It almost seems that he thinks that the more he says it, the more people will start to believe it. It kind of reminds me of a quote I read in 'Foley is Good' (Mick Foley):

"If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap."

Although this was referring to a smear campaign against Attitude Era WWF, it's very true of Cole's attempt to get us to believe something that has simply not been true for some time now.

The World Heavyweight and Intercontinental titles have been anything but prestigious for a very long time now. The IC title now has a chance of raising in prestige thanks to two factors: (1) With the WWE/WHC unification, the IC title might get some much deserved attention and priority and (2) Big E Langston is apparently good pals with John Cena so I'd predict a lengthy (maybe) and strong title reign for the former NXT Champion.

My only hope is that Big E won't get the Cena-esque booking in the mid-card. There's something very likeable about him and I'd hate for him to be hated and booed (like Cena) but in double-quick time. It wouldn't be fair on his first challenger Damien Sandow, either, who deserves something for his improvements in the last few months. It wouldn't be fair on the Intercontinental title, either. This is the opportunity to raise everyone's stocks.

I was also insulted by Cena's claim of how prestigious the World Heavyweight Championship is. For starters, it's NOT the same championship that Flair, Rhodes and Race had. It has also been second rate for as long as I can remember. I have always likened it to being the WCW belt on the WCW show - Smackdown. Vince's punishment to the belt being associated to his greatest rival. It's always felt that way to me.

One month around the waist of John Cena DOES NOT restore prestige!!

• How prestigious is the World Heavyweight Championship?

• How prestigious is the Intercontinental Championship?

• Is the unification (of WWE/WHC) a good or a bad thing?

• Instead of Cole repeating 'prestigious' every week, wouldn't it be better to get to that realm of prestige by having the relevant matches/feuds?

As with the previous posts; any feedback is welcome in the comments field below as well as contacting me on Twitter - @jimmosangle. You can also comment on the Facebook post on the Jimmo's Angle page.

Final thought: I love how some history is only important when it suits...

@jimmosangle

I'd Appreciate Your Input 3: Same old, same old...

This week, I'd Appreciate Your Input on the week we just had in WWE. More specifically, your input on the gift that is John Cena vs Randy Orton... again... but this time in a unification match... to be contested at TLC in a TLC match... in THREE weeks time!

That's right, in three weeks time we will have what I'd like to think should be the most important match that is possible in today's WWE climate - a unification match for the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships, something that is long overdue but doesn't mean what it should do. Why? Because the World Heavyweight Championship has meant absolutely NOTHING for so long now. So long that I can't even remember the last time it did matter. But of course I'm being stupid; they put the title on Cena a month ago so prestige was instantly restored, right? OR they actually believe that it never lost anything... sigh.

It also doesn't mean what it should do because we are going to get just THREE weeks build. When they unified the titles in December 2001 it made sense; WCW had just been defeated/exiled/put out of business - whatever way you want to put it - and there were two World Titles in the WWF (which had no brand split)... there should only be one and by Vengeance that year there was only one champion (Chris Jericho; the first Undisputed Champion). Even though Jericho went from main event to mid-card frequently, the night he defeated The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin in one night to become 'the man' elevated him - why can't that be done with, say, Daniel Bryan this time around?

I get that Cena and Orton are the two biggest stars of the last ten years so it's only fitting that they contest such an important match, but it only shows further that WWE are living, and relying, on the past and not looking forward with regards to its main eventers - i.e Daniel Bryan, CM Punk etc. I say these guys' names and I'm NOT a US Indy fan like some that rant and moan - I'm just a loyal WWE fan that has been dazzled by how hot Bryan was this year and one that is still baffled as to why he got no payoff in his WWE title feud, and why he is not in the title picture now.

Maybe the Wyatts/Shield attacks on Bryan and Punk were set-up by The Authority to keep them away from the title picture and they will be prominent again by Royal Rumble? I can only hope...

Questions this week:

• Is three weeks build an adequate amount of time for such an important match?

• Should we really be surprised that WWE have gone back to their 'home-grown' boys for such a match instead of trusting others?

• What do you expect to happen from the TLC Unification match?

• Will the fans continue to shit on these segments every week and during the unification match itself? Or will they finally eat the plates of shit that WWE dish out?

• At TLC, who do you see being in the Tables match? Ladders match? Chairs match? 

• Other thought?

As with the previous posts; any feedback is welcome in the comments field below as well as contacting me on Twitter - @jimmosangle. You can also comment on the Facebook post on the Jimmo's Angle page.

Also, I read a couple of hilarious articles on this weeks Raw - one from Scott Keith (@rspwfaq) on his Blog of Doom: The Smark Raw Rant 11-25-13 and the other from Brandon Stroud (@MrBandonStroud) on Uproxx.com: Best Worst WWE Raw 11-25-13 - I highly recommend reading both reviews as they both vent their frustrations, and hit the nail on the head of how I feel, too!

Final thought: Roman Reigns is winning the Rumble, huh? Dream on...

@jimmosangle

I'd Appreciate Your Input 2: Survivor Series & Miz

For my second 'I'd Appreciate Your Input' I'd like to address a couple of problems I have thought of this week. One is the Survivor Series and it's current purpose and lack of gimmick. The second is that of The Miz' supposed heel turn this week on Raw...

Survivor Series

This point is nothing new, and you've probably heard this complaint a million times over the past several years, but what is the point of the Survivor Series anymore?

The Survivor Series is the second longest running PPV after Wrestlemania, starting in 1987. As the name suggested, the idea of each match (usually four-versus-four) was to determine an ultimate survivor(s). Over the years this hasn't always been the case but the majority of the  annual offerings have had a fair few traditional Survivor Series matches; until the last few years.

I realise that times change and blah blah blah, but this is supposedly one of the 'big four' WWE pay-per-views and had a difference to other pay-per-views throughout the year. Now it seems that WWE are only relying on the name that comes with its annual November event. It seems to be the norm to offer ONE traditional match in the last few years (and no, I'm not going to count the Diva's elimination match - it was a clusterfuck on Raw, it was a clusterfuck on Main Event... do I need to go on?).

• What are your feelings on the lack of traditional Survivor Series matches?

• Would it be refreshing to have a card full (apart from, say, the two main titles defended) of traditional Survivor Series matches? This would be different and give feuds a different type of match in the process?

The Miz

I've tried to forget about Miz' heel turn from Monday night but something has just been eating me all week about it.

Basically, on Raw Miz teamed up with Kofi Kingston (something I found very strange unless a heel turn was a possibility) and when required to tag in, he pulled his hand away and allowed The Real Americans to pick up the win over Kingston. Heel turn then right?

Well, after viewing Main Event and Smackdown I'm puzzled as to whether WWE are actually going with a heel turn (don't get me wrong, I think that is the goal here, it just doesn't feel like it yet). Main Event saw Miz on commentary. I watched it purely to see what Miz' attitude would be throughout the show and to see if there were any heely characteristics to his views. I was astonished that he was normal, babyface Miz throughout the show, INCLUDING the Kingston vs Fandango match that main evented the show.

Yes, he did get involved in the finish of the match (kind of) but did nothing that he shouldn't have seeing that Kofi threw Fandango into him. If anything, it wasn't so much Miz playing heel but Kofi being completely untrusting of Miz and taking his eye off Fandango.

Through the whole of the match, Miz was very complementary of Kofi - and not in a sarcastic, heel way, but in a fellow-babyface-showing-respect way... either that or this is the PG way of making someone hated these days?

As for Smackdown; this feud wasn't continued? Surely if you turn heel on Raw then it should be followed up on Smackdown... ESPECIALLY when you have a pay-per-view on that Sunday?! Give that match a little more fuel??!!

• What did think of Miz' heel turn? Do you feel that it is a complete turn or is he more of a tweener until after Survivor Series?

• What do you think of WWE heel turns? Do they go the whole way or is it half-arsed most of the time?

As with the first 'I'd Appreciate Your Input' (see link), please discuss this either in the comments field below or tweet me - @jimmosangle... I'm really interested to hear what you think on these issues!

@jimmosangle

I'd Appreciate Your Input 1: WWE's Call-ups vs Outside Talent

I thought I'd do something a little different and (try to) get some discussion on this...

For some reason, after seeing Xavier Woods debut on Raw last night, I started to think about the call-ups that WWE have made from NXT - their developmental show. For me, Woods wouldn't have been my first choice to promote from that show as there are masses of talent ahead of him that deserve a shot on the main roster, but I digress...

The difference that I've noticed in the last year, maybe starting with The Shield's first appearance, is that, unlike years ago, debutants nowadays aren't going to be catapulted to the main event scene straight away. I understand that things have drastically changed - i.e no real competition outside of the WWE to cherry pick from...

Let me give a little background on my thoughts here: In 1999, Chris Jericho debuted on Raw in an epic segment with The Rock. Jericho was a name that had been places and was well respected in wrestling - he was a major coup. Then, in 2000, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Perry Saturn and Dean Malenko jumped ship from WCW to WWE, instantly populating the upper ranks of the card as soon as they appeared on TV. These are just some examples of WWE bringing in established guys from OUTSIDE of their own ranks. Very rarely did they have to start at the bottom and work their way up.

I suppose from about 2002, WWE would find their future megastars in John Cena, Randy Orton, Batista and Brock Lesnar in an OVW developmental system that they had at the time. From what I understand, NXT is different to OVW in that OVW was a wrestling promotion that was a 'farm' for up-and-comers; NXT is a WWE-owned, WWE-run developmental promotion.

In the last year, The Shield debuted at the Survivor Series last year and have stayed at, kind of, mid-card-to-henchmen-to-main-eventers level since. They all have potential individually but I think it's a long time until we see it. Big E Langston was brought in as Dolph Ziggler and AJ's 'heavy' and is only just getting some momentum with his first singles title win. The Wyatts have come in and gained a first 'big' scalp in Kane and have a similar spot to The Shield. Antonio Cesaro came in and instantly became US Champion but has since been relegated to the tag team division (for now). No one has really been promoted/debuted and stayed at the top - a la Kane in 1997.

What I'd like to know is:

• Do you think that WWE will ever get 'big names' in from outside of their own ranks again?

• Do they need to? Does it go against their 'best for business' model?

• Will an NXT-er ever get onto the main roster as an instant main event talent (i.e will they be introduced as a big player straight away) or are the days of that over?

• What are your thoughts of NXT guys having to earn their stripes when they make the main roster? Although they should (to gain experience) is it a little boring that no one will get pushed to the stars on debuting?

Please give me feedback via the comments field below or tweet me - @jimmosangle

I look forward to hearing everyone's take on this

@jimmosangle