Can Vince be replaced? MORE QUESTIONS and your observations on Survivor Series, John Cena vs. Brock Lesnar and WWEs 100 Best Matches To See Before You Die feature. You can e-mail us at: [email protected] . . . After reading your reply to James’ question on Tuesday, I have to say: I completely agree with what you wrote regarding Vince McMahon. It’s been time for him to call it quits for some years now. He’s lost touch with what modern-day fans want, and is in danger of tarnishing his iconic reputation. While I won’t say he’s putting the existence of WWE in jeopardy, he is doing damage that could have a long-lasting impact on WWE. My concern is, will he ever do it? What exactly are the chances of Vince hanging it up? Can he be forced to leave? Gordon Carter F.M. writes: As the CEO, Chairman and largest shareholder of WWE, Vince McMahon technically cannot be removed from his post. He has more voting power (80.9%) than everyone else combined. He would have to voluntarily step down. The two people who will succeed him in WWE, Paul Levesque and Stephanie McMahon, are unlikely to mount a campaign for his resignation, as things currently stand. So, what happens next? For how much longer is WWE destined to be ruled by King Vince? No one knows, except for Vince himself, perhaps. However, we do know that change will occur at some point in WWE. One of four things will happen in the future: 1. Vince will die. 2. Vince will grow so old, he will be unable to cope with the long hours and travel and have to work part-time from the WWE office. This would be a gradual transitional for WWE: Vince would be boss in name, and still appear to be in charge, but he would ease into an advisory role, akin to Vito Corleone to Michael in The Godfather. 3. Vince will suffer a serious illness which will prevent him from working, full stop. 4. Business will fall so far that he will finally yield to common sense and hand the keys over to Paul and Steph “for the good of the company”. The trouble with option number four is that it would require Vince to accept that he has lost it. There would probably then be comeback attempts by Vince, if WWE business dropped further in his absence. And it would because WWE will have to embark upon a rebuilding and re-education process, post-Vince and -Cena. It’s the only way WWE can truly sizzle again: if it changes course and tries something markedly different with a new stable of acts, some of whom will inevitably fail. Problem number two with option number four is: what is Vince going to do, if he doesn’t run WWE? He works so many hours that he appears to have time for little else in his life. Would Vince be content with a minor role in the WWE system, down in developmental, perhaps? Or would it be a case of: all or nothing? As long as he were physically and mentally capable of working, Vince would probably want to be involved in WWE in some capacity, given his work ethic and total dedication to the company. The question is: could he be anything other than King? I appreciated your response to a letter about WWE’s recent years of can’t-be-arsed booking and suggestion that it’s time for Vince McMahon to step aside. That Vince McMahon would apparently lose his rag at the fans in Liverpool for voicing their opinions clearly shows the stress is getting to him. Insulting your fans in a dark segment at a SmackDown taping for not accepting your own failings is not the answer to anything. The problem is, I have little faith in McMahon’s heirs. If HHH or Stephanie McMahon had a genuinely new vision to implement, or even the drive to give the product some more oomph and welly, I believe we would have seen some evidence of it by now. Both have the influence to do so (and the fact that HHH apparently felt the infamous Katie Vick saga was hilarious at the time does not inspire confidence, either). Instead, HHH and Steph appear to believe in the Bischoff/Russo mid-2000 philosophy: what better way to attempt to rejuvenate a stale product than to push yourselves? Watching their endless flow of promos and interactions has gone beyond tiring and repetitive. I know Vince still calls the shots, but this Authority story line has dragged on now for nearly 18 months and sucked up a ton of television time. If it was going to achieve anything genuinely vibrant and ground-breaking, it would have done so by now (although I’m glad it’s provided a platform for Seth Rollins as a solo heel). Merely in the hope that it might put an end to this tiresome dross, the Team Cena vs. Team Authority match stipulation at Survivor Series has grabbed my interest. Something tells me The Authority will remain in power, though, until at least WrestleMania on which those bright young things The Rock and Hulk Hogan may possibly work in main event spots (and they wonder why C.M. Punk left). Control freaks that the McMahons are, this is unlikely to happen, but talent for years have needed more creative freedom to express themselves and break the chains of predictability. I don’t think Steve Austin’s legendary “Austin 3:16” speech was written for him by some creative hack. Nor do I believe the creative team were responsible for The Rock’s barrel of rhymes and catch phrases 15 years ago. An up-and-coming talent could be just one ad-libbed promo away from launching wrestling’s next pop-culture phenomenon. But, then, considering the recent demotion (and his feud with Bray Wyatt is a demotion) of the company’s freshest piece of talent, ‘Lunatic Fringe’ Dean Ambrose, who also happens to be the company’s best promo man by a considerable margin, perhaps it wouldn’t matter. The believably unhinged Ambrose should be raising hell and causing havoc for The Authority at every turn right now, increasing his bond with the masses and building to a match with HHH, but that would upset the painfully clear pecking order. Know your role and shut your mouth, Mr Ambrose. On a final note: I’m a big fan of Grumpy Cat . . . in a strictly social media setting. The fact that she will actually be the guest host of Raw next week leaves me shaking my head. I can only imagine the lame jokes and corny segments this will lead to. It only gives credence to the feelings among many older fans that WWE should just rename Raw “Sesame Street” and be done with it. James Mills With Survivor Series nearly upon us, I was wondering if Survivor Series 2002 is the only event with that name not to feature a traditional Survivor Series match? (I don’t feel the tag team table match with 3MW counts). Also, I was wondering if you believe that the MITB contract will ever be cashed in outside the U.S./Canada? Finally, why does WWE insist on airbrushing defined abs onto wrestlers that have never had them? The fans know that Chris Jericho can only dream of the physique that regularly appears on WWE. Natalie Joyce There were no traditional Survivor Series matches at the 1998 Survivor Series. That card (subtitled: Deadly Game) featured the WWF heavyweight title tournament, won by The Rock, who sensationally turned heel and joined forces with The Authority — sorry, The Corporation — after Vince McMahon had instructed the timekeeper to ring the bell as Rock in the final applied the Sharpshooter on Mick ‘Mankind’ Foley, in a story line replica of the real double-cross which took place at Survivor Series 1997. The MITB contract could be cashed in on a U.K. event (it would have to be televised). But I don’t think it will be. It’s certainly not going to happen while Brock Lesnar is champion, because there is no way Lesnar could be bothered to travel to the U.K. to appear on a WWE event. Airbrushing is an accepted part of every industry which uses images to market its people or products. But, in this case, you are right: it does look weird. Why is WWE promoting another John Cena vs. Brock Lesnar match? Having Lesnar go up against Randy Orton would have made much more sense. If Orton were to lose to Lesnar, it would not hurt ‘The Viper’, and fans would finally see something fresh. By the way, Lesnar is not worth whatever WWE is paying him. A draw like Hogan, Austin or Rock, he is not. Ronny Dullaert Belgium I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the 100 Best Matches To See Before You Die article on WWE. As usual, the piece is an exercise in propaganda and revisionist history. Hogan vs. Rock at WrestleMania X8 is there, as is Triple H vs. Undertaker (WM XXVIII). Hogan vs. Ultimate Warrior (WM VI) makes the cut, as does The Undertaker vs. Mankind (KOTR 1998) and Hart vs. Michaels (WM XII). All of the above are overrated, and none deserve a place on the list, in my opinion. Neither does Savage vs. Steamboat (WM III), which was ahead of its time, but has aged poorly. Bizarrely, it entered the 100 Best list at #3! Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho (WM XIX) isn’t deserving, either, and I’m assuming that the inclusion of Hogan vs. Andre (WM III) is a joke; that match was the pits. The matches which didn’t make the cut are just as baffling. Edge vs. Undertaker (WM XXIV), Kurt Angle vs. Undertaker (No Way Out 2006) and Bret vs Michaels from Survivor Series 1992 are all conspicuous by their absence. Ridiculously, Jericho vs. Chris Benoit from Royal Rumble 2001 is missing, as is Benoit vs. Angle from Royal Rumble 2003. Oh, wait — Benoit doesn’t exist any longer, does he? [He does on the WWE Network — F.M.] Michaels vs. Jannetty from Raw made the list, but their superior clash from Royal Rumble 1993 didn’t. Neither of the Bryan vs. Punk classics from 2012 made it, but somehow the Cena vs Punk #1 contender match from Raw was deemed worthy. In my opinion, Brock vs. Triple H from SummerSlam 2012 should have been included. Naturally, Hiroshi Tanahashi is nowhere to be found, and neither are any of the Styles vs. Daniels masterclasses. One Divas match made the cut (Natalya vs. Charlotte), but NOTHING from the great Bull Nakano. Outrageous. Happily, Steamboat vs. Rude from Beach Blast 1992, and The Shield vs. The Wyatt Family from Elimination Chamber 2014 are included, and deservedly so. Obviously, WWE golden boys Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels and Triple H have the most entries. Oh, and John Cena is included more times than either Daniel Bryan or C.M. Punk. That says it all . . . Richard Marriot
Posted on: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:00:15 +0000