just some of my views/opinions of the WWE right now.. (my 1st post)
I think the WWE's choice for Edge to bank his Money in the Bank title shot at NYR was an attempt to make Edge a greater heel, however as much as he is getting booed at the moment, he lacks the character of a genuine heel, in other words, his character is weak...this would be another reason why he was shafted from the #1 contendership race.
Carlito and Masters are clearly the biggest prospects of the WWE, I just think they're on the wrong brands. Smackdown is far more catered for younger talent to flourish. Raw just doesnt have the wrestlers to proper Carlito and Masters to the main event spotlight.
I dont think it was that great a surprise that Kane lost to Masters. Kane has become a jobber for a couple of years now. I remember in a Wrestlemania a few years ago, JR said that Kane would be the future of this business, but the WWE havent repaid his efforts ever. The only title reign he has had was defeating Stone Cold Steve Austin at the King Of The Ring 98 (after an Undertaker interference) and losing the belt the next night on Raw (one of the best matches in this history of raw, imo.). Its incredible to see how much Kane has changed since he debuted at Badd Blood 97, from being the demonic monster who wouldnt go down to Undertaker (although he lost on 2 consecutive occasions, WM14 and Unforgiven 98) , to losing to people like Matt Hardy and Edge.
Right now, the Raw brand need Triple H as its champion. Although some people boo Triple H, he's a generally respected character. Raw has been having storyline problems for at least 2 years now. Cena's title reign, which bothered me from the beginning, was slowly being rejected by most fans of the WWE, except the young ones. The chorus of boos on Raw main events whenever Cena gone one over whomever he wrestled suggested so. Triple H is the only person on the Raw roster who can fall to either Masters, Carlito, RVD, Edge or Cena and still make the win credible.
Has anyone else noticed the inconsistencies of the storylines on Smackdown? I can't understand how the Undertaker can defeat Orton at Hell In a Cell, then take a break while Orton continues on, only to return for a title shot? Im a great 'Taker fan, but this is a joke. It seems that the Smackdown writers (Re: Stephanie McMahon) is more interested in pay per views than the show itself. Don't get me wrong, i think SD are totally dominating Raw for quite some time now, but the WWE need to drop this 12 PPVs per year thing and keep it at 8, what it used to be.
However, i would have to disagree with masterblaster's comments.....I think the wrestling standard now is far less than those of 1997-2000. You could say that 2000 was a bad year for the WWE while they were taking the younger WCW/ECW talent before the 'Invasion' of 2001, but even JR says that there is a strong shortage of talent right now. Of course, this is simply my opinion! I thought 2003 was a great year, but I didnt find the SD or Raw events to be enjoyable from the 2004-2005 period at all. Personally I found 1998 to be the best year of the WWE, with the Austin/Undertaker rivalry, Undertaker/Kane rivalry, Undertaker/Mankind rivalry, the beginning of the Taker/Kane partnership, DX vs. The Nation, the coming of Rock and Triple H and the usage of Vince McMahon. He seems to be trying to replicate that right now with HBK but its just not working.
On other news, Goldberg might be signing with TNA! This I cant wait to see...!
