The Triumvirate of Truth 2.12.12: Sheamus at Wrestlemania, The Kane vs Cena Feud, Impact Wrestling, Miz’s De-Push, More

Last week was our first go at this column, and I have to say that a majority of the responses were positive. With the deadline fast approaching, we went with the tried and true method of Statement – Response – Response – Response. Some complimented while others disliked immensely. Even others took the time to give out new ideas to try to help make this our own. To that, I applaud and thank you. I’ve taken a lot of the comments into consideration (as well as talks with the great David Martell and Sean Garmer) and I believe I’ve developed a way to make this a bit more unique while at the same time holding on to something you readers may enjoy. One thing I want to touch on is TNA. Forgive me readers, for automatically assuming that you would go to Wes Kirk’s column any time you want your TNA fix. That was ill of me and I apologize. I thought I’d ask the others why they don’t watch TNA as well as answer that question below, so be sure to check that out. In the future, I am going to make it a habit to catch the show a bit and see if we can’t add them in the mix a bit more. Bare with me, however, as I am honestly not a fan at this present time. Now then, let’s get to it.

The Senate of the Roman Republic had quite the democratic way of deciding on laws, and the like, of their time. The way they handled their debates are still used today in some form, and although everyone knows that there was a fall, the Triumvirates within the Roman Republic held great power. Even more so considering they weren’t recognized for a majority of their time, but rather, kept in secret. Possibly the most famous of Triumvirates would be that of Crassus, Pompey and Caeser. With Crassus and Pompey almost always at a disagreement, it was up to Caeser to keep the peace. That was, until Crassus died and Pompey and Caeser enveloped into a civil war. Let’s hope that this doesn’t happen here. With the help of some comments and my nerdy brain, I’ve altered the way the column will be read. Each writer will address two questions of their own choosing (Verba Fecit). This will be their opening statement. The other two writers will then act as the principle senates (Principes Senatus) and respond not just to the question, but to the Verba Fecit as well. All in all, it will be more interactive for us writers, and in the future, I will open up the forum to the Plebeians (you) to both ask and answer. Sure, it’s not much of a change, but I think it’s enough to get started. Questions? Comments? You know where to go.

1.Do you think Sheamus will win at Wrestlemania and have a lengthy title run in 2012?

Michael Uphoff: It depends on who he chooses to face. I do believe that he will face Daniel Bryan at WrestleMania, and if this is so, I do think that Sheamus stands a great chance of winning. If he does win at WrestleMania, I am 100% sure that he will have a lengthy title run. Sheamus as the top face on SmackDown has a lot of potential opponents to face, such as Bryan, Christian, and Wade Barrett. Those opponents could make for some great feuds over the summer. If Sheamus gets a lengthy title run, I see him losing to someone at Summerslam.

If he goes for the WWE Title, I don’t think he will win, but it depends on who wins the Chamber. If Punk wins, Sheamus could win at WrestleMania, but we already have two face vs. face matches. I can’t see Punk vs. Sheamus happening. Therefore, I stand with my comments about Daniel Bryan vs. Sheamus.

Tony Acero: Michael, there seem to be a lot of “if” statements in your reply. haha. Nothing wrong with it, but to be fair to Sheamus a lot of what you see in his future most likely will happen. As much as I like Wade and Sheamus in the ring together, I’m not sure I want to see a feud with them for the title just yet. Christian was a person I wasn’t even thinking about, so thanks for reminding me that he’s still in the halls, waiting. At first, I thought this would be a tough one to answer, considering how well Bryan’s heel turn is going, then I thought about it and looking at Sheamus, he just looks like more of a Champion. Now, this is assuming that Sheamus chooses Bryan and goes after the World Heavyweight Title. This is all but fact, so we’ll just assume it’s happening. If he does do this, then his win isn’t all that impossible. They gave Bryan a great run with the belt and helped harness a character that some of us haven’t seen before. True, it’s got plenty of time left and a win at Mania would really pat the ego of Bryan’s character, but I see Sheamus going forward with the belt and having a long and legitimate run as opposed to his last dance with the belt.

Joshua Stangle: Interesting note: The Rumble winner hasn’t actually won the title at Wrestlemania since 2007. You shouldn’t be so quick to discount the possibility of a triple threat or fatal four-way match at Wrestlemania. Jericho could win at the Elimination Chamber, which would give Punk a rematch. This would make it a triple threat, if Sheamus chose to go for the WWE title.

The same thing could happen should Bryan lose at the Elimination Chamber, and Sheamus went for the World Heavyweight Championship. I agree that Sheamus is far more likely to win the World Heavyweight Championship. He would likely have a good title reign on Smackdown ,without the risk of being overshadowed by Cena or Punk. As I mentioned in the last column, he might be the best choice to elevate to main event status.

What counts as “lengthy” in this situation? Three to four months? Because looking the recent history of the World Heavyweight Championship, reigns don’t usually last much longer than that. Kane had the longest recent reign at just over five months. The Miz had a six and a half month WWE Championship run. Both Batista and Cena had nine month first title reigns when they finally broke out. Those last two would be considered lengthy by my standards. So many things can go wrong in that time that claiming that you’re 100% sure is absurd. I will say that Sheamus most likely will win and have a healthy title reign, but nothing is certain in wrestling.

2. Do you think John Cena should turn heel in the buildup to Wrestlemania?

Joshua Stangle: The upcoming Rock versus John Cena match is easy to compare to the Wrestlemania 18 match with Hulk Hogan and The Rock. The biggest stars from two eras of Sports Entertainment collide. Something else that’s interesting is that John Cena has been compared to (face) Hulk Hogan many times. The thing is that even though Hogan was a heel against The Rock at WM 18, he was cheered. Some might claim this is due to the match taking place in “Bizarro World”, but I think that it happened due to nostalgia. Nostalgia can be a powerful tool. This time, it favors The Rock. Many fans who disapprove of the direction of current WWE, also disapprove of their poster boy, Cena. For years, John Cena has been the perfect role model. His character is almost that of a father figure: he makes cheesy jokes, he’s friendly towards everyone, he stands up for what he believes, he shows an infinite amount of loyalty towards his fans and he makes everything right with the World…Those who don’t like the direction of the current WWE, or just don’t like Cena, now have The Rock to use as an outlet for their grievances. Whether they turn Cena heel or not, the majority of the audience will boo him.

The next issue is that Face versus Face matches don’t seem to draw nearly as well as traditional Face versus Heel matches. This is supported by the diminished pay per view buys for Summerslam this year. People not only want someone to root for, but they also want someone to root against. Cena’s whole act may be annoying, but his disposition makes it difficult to get worked up about. I’m not saying that he should turn heel. I have another idea…

He should turn on the haters. For months now, the WWE has been building up a story about how the hate Cena receives from a portion of the audience is getting to him. All he needs to do is stop being indifferent towards the haters, and call them out. Cena could point out that “Team Film It” members are merely blinded by nostalgia, and have to live in a make-believe idealized past, because they can’t accept the reality that Cena is the star now. And follow it up by claiming that the Attitude Era was overrated, and featured tons of disgusting and stupid segments. The “Cenation” fans will still support him, as most weren’t around during that time in Wrestling. This also will antagonize The Rock, who will escalate the insults, which will escalate into physicality. I feel a more divisive Cena is conducive to a more interesting Wrestlemania match.

Tony Acero: I like your idea to an extent, but I can’t see it working, and it seems like it would be a turn just for the sake of the Mania match. For Cena to ever redeem himself in my eyes, a “turn” of any sort wouldn’t work for me. I think what I would need is a complete character change. I like the aspect of him pointing out the flaws of the past, bashing them in front of the people who love it and destroying the mystique we surround the history of WWE with. I could see it working, to an extent. My issue is that I think Cena, the man, would put all his trust into the WWE writers, and the last thing they are going to do is look back on their glory years and talk trash about them on television. Maybe on Youtube, but not on TV. Would I want him to go heel before Mania? I really don’t care, nor do I think it’s necessary. I mean, he’s stuck to his guns for this long, so let him be the happy go lucky, don’t care about negativity guy that they’ve sold him to be. The match is made and the people are completely invested in it. As of this point, I think we all just want to see it happen.

Michael Uphoff: Josh presents a good question here that many people would like to see happen. Looking at his answer, I can see a great deal of logic that makes sense. People that have turned on Cena will likely favor the Rock due to their hate of the “status quo,” one reason why Punk vs. Cena at MITB was so freaking huge. However, the likelihood of John Cena turning full-on heel is very low. The merchandise losses would be astronomical. Josh is correct in stating that Face vs. Face matches don’t draw well on the norm. Hogan/ Warrior is an anomaly, but even that match didn’t draw amazingly well. People don’t want to see the good guy beat another good guy. They want to see the good guy kick the shit out of the bad guy.

In essence, one of the two (Rock or Cena) needs to turn heel. If Cena were to turn heel JUST against his haters, it would be nice to see. The question becomes, how does WWE accurately pull this off? Simple, as Josh puts it. Just have Cena call out his haters and run them down. Would it work properly if done like Josh imagines that it would go? Perhaps. Ultimately, it’s left up to the bookers and the wrestlers themselves to make it happen. I, for one, would like to see it happen that way.

Should Cena turn heel? I don’t know that a Cena heel turn would be the best way to go. Then again, having Rock turn heel would also not be a good thing. In my mind, Cena has gotten to the point where Faarooq would look at him and go, “DAMN.” It’s honestly driving me nuts. I can’t stand SuperCena; he makes me want to throw up every time I see him. When Kane chokeslammed him at the Royal Rumble, I cheered. Cena needs to freshen up his character. He needs to stop being the good guy, the guy who makes everything right at the end of the day, and needs to bring back that edge that he had a few years ago, that mean streak. I haven’t seen it since his feud with Barrett. He needs to stop the jokes, cut the act, and just beat the crap out of Kane. He then needs to take that anger out on the Rock and the fans that don’t support him.

If turning heel is needed to make this happen, then yes, Cena does need to turn heel. However, I don’t think Cena needs to fully turn. If he just goes after his haters, the Cenation will still be behind him. If he rips the Rock and the Attitude Era and the fans for being too “nostalgic” and that they need to realize he is the man, then he can achieve that bipolar character state he has needed to be for the past five years.

3. How do you view John Laurinaitis as an on-screen personality?

Joshua Stangle: I was originally rather surprised by the WWE’s decision to give John Laurinaitis an on-screen role. Here was someone who had no notable role, if any, on American television, now getting a sizable chunk of screen time. His promos seemed rather dry and lacked conviction. Nothing about his character stood out, even as he undermined Triple H constantly. Furthermore, the booking of his character was strange. Instead of actually making him an outright heel, the WWE chose to take a more subtle approach, but not in an intelligent manner. Things that would get most heel authority figures major heat from the audience were downplayed. Instead of showing or implying that he was behind texting Kevin Nash to attack CM Punk after his Summerslam match, they had Nash text himself. He was slightly implied to have allowed R-Truth and the Miz attack all the competitors in the RAW Hell in a Cell match, but nothing ever came of it. He may have orchestrated the events which led to most of the Superstars walking out on Triple H, but that was ignored. What build up he had was marginalized by being kicked in the head by Punk or punched by Triple H. Even when he took over as (Interim) RAW General Manager, nothing about him screamed “threatening” or “competent”.

When Laurinaitis spoke on the microphone with Punk, the segments weren’t that good. His stoic, dry manner and nonchalant character made even Punk promos feel dull. I never felt contempt for Laurinaitis’ character, nor any real investment in watching Punk humiliate him. All the while, the heels who challenged Punk became secondary to Punk’s feud with Laurinaitis.

Then came Punk’s feud with Dolph Ziggler. In that feud, we saw Laurinaitis take a more overt heel approach. He caused Punk to lose several times to Ziggler. He even outright stated that he wanted to screw over Punk in the WWE title match at Royal Rumble. Then, he decked Mick Foley. Furthermore, he showed a personality in his ire. For once, there was an actual reason to want Laurinaitis to get his comeuppance. With the continuation of his on-screen presence, I am cautiously optimistic about his future role. If he remains the slightly reserved, but vile character that he played in January, I am alright with seeing him on RAW every Monday Night.

Tony Acero: Josh’s trip down memory lane really made me remember how badly they handled what could of been an amazing year of storytelling…Thanks Josh. In terms of Johnny Ace, I was very indifferent about him in the beginning. Similar to you, I was shocked that they’d bring him on screen, and even more shocked at that deadpan delivery. It took some time, but I’ve warmed up to him a bit. He still stumbles worse than my stuttering homie from high school and at times, can’t even properly name Pay Per Views, but there’s a certain aura the man has about him that makes you love to hate him. I remember the moment that I changed my mind about him, and it was during a backstage scuffle between Nash and whomever he was beating up (sorry, don’t recall). Laurinaitis is standing above them and he says “Don’t make me take my jacket off.” That was it. The deadpan delivery was perfect and added soooo much to his character. After that, I was on board. Sure he still sucks, but its kind of fun to watch. After all, if he was great, Punk would have little to talk about.

Michael Uphoff: I do agree with most of Josh’s answer. The only problems that I have with his response are that the booking of Ace’s character in the early part was very subtle and very intelligent in my opinion. You had to be smart to realize that Laurinaitis was almost acting like a Moriarty, directing everything in his grand schemes, but it was impossible to pin him down for bring the chief architect. I actually liked when Laurinaitis subtly screwed Cena and Ryder over on the same episode of RAW. Beyond this, Josh’s answer is correct and to the point. Everything else has been the definition of either poor or mediocre. All the heels, even Dolph Ziggler and Alberto Del Rio, have been playing second banana to the Punk/Laurinaitis feud.

John Laurinaitis, for the most part, has been a failure and a waste of TV time on Monday Night RAW. There have been instances where he has shown flashes of competence and intelligence (both backstage and cutting promos), but those have been few and far between. Some of his segments were so bad that I dreaded seeing him come on TV in the opening segment. Laurinaitis has been booked poorly by the WWE overall, which does not help him, but that really is no excuse. You have to have the talent to carry the segments that you are in, or you do not deserve to be on TV.

It seems that with the Punk/Ziggler feud right around the Royal Rumble that Laurinaitis has stepped it up a bit with his promo work, and that is a good sign. However, if we as fans and smarks are supposed to buy him as a true heel GM, he still has a long way to go to achieve that status. Like Josh, I am somewhat optimistic about Johnny Ace, but he still has to prove that he is worthy of being given the role of RAW General Manager.

4. Does the Miz deserve the de-push that he has been getting from WWE?

Michael Uphoff: In my mind, there is no way in hell the Miz deserves the de-push and accompanying losing streak with which the WWE has sidled him. Supposedly, WWE has done so because of heat backstage from his not catching R-Truth on a dive and because he has been scapegoated as the reason for the bad buyrates for Survivor Series.I’m going to take this opportunity to say right now that whatever heat Miz gained from not properly catching R-Truth on his dive is entirely justified. Did Triple H need to chew him out in front of the locker room? Probably not, but in this business, you are supposed to protect your opponent, and the Miz did not do so and could have seriously injured R-Truth. For that alone, the Miz deserves whatever heat he received from it.

I’m also going to take this opportunity to blame the real culprits for the lack of buyrates for Survivor Series. It is in no way, shape, or form justified by WWE to blame Miz for this when they are themselves to blame. That’s right, WWE. You are to blame for the low buyrates, not the guy who worked tirelessly to make the main event match that he was in appealing to the fans. You want to know why no one really cared about the main event? Because Cena took out the Miz and R-Truth BY HIMSELF on RAW every week! Who in the bluest of blue hells is going to buy Awesome Truth defeating The Rock and John Cena when they can’t even double-team Cena due to shitty booking from WWE? No one. Why does Cena even need The Rock when he can beat them on his own? It’s not the Miz’s fault that Survivor Series had a low buyrate, nor is it any other wrestler’s fault. It is the fault of the WWE creative team for failing to create a viable and believable heel team that stood a chance against The Rock and John Cena.

Tony Acero: I’m going to have to side completely with Mike here. First, let’s talk about the fall. Miz deserved to be chewed out and deserved to be reprimanded for his lack of care. Was it an accident? I’m positive it was. I’m even ok with Trips supposedly going off on him in front of everyone, because at the very least, it sets an example for everyone else to be more careful. With that being said, this is probably where the punishment should end. A De-push isn’t necessary, or warranted. The rumor that the Survivor Series buyrate was tossed onto the shoulders of Miz sucks if it’s true. I just don’t see how that’s even close to logical or making any sense. One thing that I have to consider while looking at this is the fact that maybe there is no reason for a de-push, but rather it’s just the cycle of a wrestler’s life and career. Miz had a hell of a year and he’s done great with his stature in the WWE. His career is far from over, and I see nothing wrong with him taking the backseat for a while in terms of spotlight. I really don’t think the Truth fall had much to do with his “de-push.” I think this is just his turn to chill out a bit and stay stagnant. It’s a shame, sure, but it’s not a make or break moment in the career of The Miz. Considering where he came from, I’m sure he’s not upset…at least, I wouldn’t be.

Joshua Stangle: This isn’t an easy question to answer. I find that it’s difficult to see where the fault of the Miz starts and the fault of creative ends. Let’s be honest though, the Miz’s depush started when he lost the championship. Remember his feud with Alex Riley? The Miz lost several of those matches. Riley, who was somewhat of a jobber before that, was now making his name off defeating the former WWE champion. Although The Miz made it to the finals of the WWE Championship tournament in July 2011, he never really came close to the main event picture. That is, until he and R-Truth attacked Punk, Cena and Del Rio at the Hell in a Cell pay per view. Other than at Vengeance, the two of them were never built up to be much of a threat.

The Miz should be blamed for missing R-Truth. Triple H has made a few mistakes himself- such as breaking kayfabe in Madison Square Garden. But don’t forget that HHH was punished, but he learned from those experiences. They kept HHH around though, and he still became a star. Contrast that to Ken Kennedy, who was fired for his botched slam on Randy Orton in 2009. Also, Miz’s botch in question was only on the past RAW, so I doubt that it has influenced the booking up until now.

In spite of Mike’s harsh (and childish) language, I agree with him about the Survivor Series buyrate. The Miz shouldn’t be at fault. We, the fans, watched Truth and the Miz defeated on RAW. Why do we need to order the event again? Miz and Truth never had much in the way of momentum, and they didn’t get much in the way of respect. The match was more focused on the dynamic of The Rock and John Cena, and what would happen with them, than if they could defeat their opponents. Not only that, but what would happen was entirely predictable. However, the WWE is pushing other people right now, so I don’t know if The Miz “depush” is really a bad thing. The WWE has plenty of talent willing to step up and shine. Even if it wasn’t his fault, it reflects badly on him, making other candidates more appealing. I will say that the losing streak is just poor booking, and they are wasting his talent on it. Maybe, in the future, he will get another opportunity, but not anytime soon.

5. What is it that prevents you from watching TNA on a weekly basis?

Tony Acero: I’d have to say that my decision behind neglecting the wrestling show that is TNA is multi-faceted. First and foremost, it’s time. I simply don’t have time for the show. Now, as a wrestling fan, I’m sure I can find some time to watch the show, as there are plenty of deadpan two hour segments of my weekly life that are filled with shit. If there were a pie chart that was labeled “Why I Don’t Watch TNA,” I’m almost positive that Time would have the largest wedge. The other reasons would be spread about randomly, and are as follows: Lack of interest, Lack of consistency, Excess of Hulk Hogan, WWE Brainwashing. Let me touch on each real quick. Lack of interest is simple, I am just not interested. WWE fully satiates my weekly wrestling need, so I don’t venture off to other pastures in hopes for “better.” By and large, I’m happy in my relationship, so there’s no reason for me to go elsewhere. Lack of consistency: Well, to be fair to myself, I’ve given TNA MANY, MANY chances. I’ve watched for a few months straight back in 2010, and each time I watched, I was just disappointed by how juvenile or how cliché, or how idiotic, or how crappily the show was put together. I know there is talent there because I’ve seen it at many different times. Each time I try to go back to the show, it does nothing to keep me there. Just when I think I can latch onto a great idea or a great match or a great moment, I feel it gets diminished by about 5 idiotic things that happen shortly thereafter. Excess of Hulk Hogan: Simply put, I don’t like the guy as a character or as a human being. I’ve never been a fan, even when I was a young peon of the machine. WWE Brainwashing: I am not so blind to see that a majority of my love for the WWE is simply because of my being a creature of habit. Monday Night is set aside for RAW. It always has been. Friday Night is Smackdown (used to be Thursday), and so on and so forth. Regardless of how crappy the show may be, I will continue to watch. Partly because I have to, considering I do the report and partly because I’m a drone of the system.

With all that being said, there will be a change coming in the next few weeks with this column, as I fully plan on catching the show as much as I can to answer some questions for TNA. I do hear that the show is getting exponentially better in the recent weeks, and I am anxious to get started with the show, again. A lot of credit goes to Greg DeMarco’s great reports, which help bring excitement back into the show, so I hope I can enjoy it every bit as much as you fans of TNA do. I should never have wished Wes Kirk on you guys unwillingly, and again, I apologize. Forgive me? 😀

Michael Uphoff: Everyone says they don’t have time to watch a show, but somehow we make time to watch one, so I don’t necessarily hold with that. Lack of interest I really don’t get either. A wrestling fan should want to immerse themselves in as much different wrestling companies as they can. The lack of consistency point should be and is conceded, and WWE Brainwashing is a state of mind. I prefer WWE, but I am certainly willing to watch TNA on any given Thursday to give it a chance.

Why do I not watch TNA? Simple. I’m a graduate student who’s about to take his comprehensive exams to get his Master’s degree. I don’t have the free time to watch TNA. I am so involved in studying and finalizing graduation plans and looking for a full-time job that I have hardly any free time. RAW fits into my schedule because I don’t have anything scheduled that night, and Friday nights I just relax and chill with friends to de-stress, so I hardly watch SmackDown. Thursday nights I have meetings that I am mandated to go to and therefore cannot avoid. Would I rather watch TNA? Sometimes, yes. TNA has been getting back on a solid footing with some recent booking with Robert Roode as champ, but overall, the biggest reason other than time that I don’t watch is that overall in the past few years, TNA has become downright depressing. The lack of Samoa Joe, the misuse of AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels, and the WTF decision to have Sting pin Hardy in a two-minute main event match. My 411 colleague Wes Kirk accurately points out that TNA fans were reimbursed, but that does not erase a truly terrible decision made by the company. For shoddy booking and questionable use of wrestlers, I do not watch TNA. Also, because of Archer. Archer > TNA. Womp womp.

Joshua Stangle: For me, a good part of this answer depends on what’s on FX at the time. Last Fall, both It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and The League took up what would be the second hour of TNA programming. Currently, I watch Archer. However, the main reason why I don’t

care to watch TNA is that it isn’t suited for my tastes. I am not in any of their primary demographics. Although I think they know what someone like me wants to watch. TNA has shown to be capable of producing great shows with some level of consistency. When they left FSN in 2005, but before they came to Spike, they ran Impact through their website. These shows were rather good. A greater emphasis was placed on the X-Division. The main event scene felt fresh, and was worth watching. The pay per views were also good. They gave opportunities to several unique talents such as Samoa Joe and Austin Aries. TNA appealed to the internet fans during that time. Modern day TNA has a great roster and tons of potential. However, between their writing/booking and who they decide to push, I am not interested in their product. They decided in a different direction. I understand why, but they lost my confidence in them as a result.

Tony brought up the point that a lot of us are conditioned to the WWE standard. Some of that is certainly true. We have expectations for production values, match pacing, storylines and content. Conditioning plays a huge role in Sports Entertainment/Pro-Wrestling. But conditioning doesn’t explain why I gave TNA so much of a chance in the first place. TNA was always different than the WWE. If the WWE Brainwashing influenced Tony so much, then did he give it so many chances as well? There was a time where I really enjoyed the product. There was a time where I really preferred it to the WWE. I actually got some of my friends (including Mike) to start watching TNA. The reality is that the problems in TNA started well before Hogan became involved. I don’t have a problem with TNA fans. I disagree with some of your opinions, sure, but I still think that TNA is good for the industry. Giving both the wrestlers and fans an alternative to the WWE is great, even if they aren’t true competition. But it isn’t for me, and that’s their choice as well as mine.

Dear Tony,
Can we not have any questions on TNA in the future? I still want to watch Archer.

Thanks -Josh

6. Where does Kane go after his feud with Cena?

Tony Acero: Who asked this? Oh yes, me! Well, my immediate reaction was that he’d go right into a feud with Mark Henry or The Big Show, but no one really wants to see that, and I can only assume that they’ve forgotten about the feud that could have been between either of those men. Another idea I considered was a feud with Zack Ryder, but considering he has destroyed him in past weeks, it wouldn’t be much of a feud at all. I don’t really know where they are going with Kane, but I can only assume that this isn’t his time to retire, so he must be heading into…something. My guess is that he’ll head on over to Smackdown and cause some havoc over there.

I think the bigger issue here isn’t that they haven’t a place for him to go, it’s that people most likely DON’T CARE where he goes, as long as he gets away from this horrible storyline with Cena. Last week, he went into Heidenreich territory with Eve, and there seems to be no slowing down with the ridiculousness, especially considering there will be an “Ambulance Match” in the near future. How cheesy can we get? I feel that this will only hinder the match. At the Rumble, we got lucky with a well put together match (for the most part) that surprised a lot of people. I don’t see that happening this time around, as the gimmick just makes it seem like there is going to be A LOT of stalling. Here’s the point, I suppose; Kane will most likely move to Smackdown and get into a weird feud with a smaller opponent. If it’s the time of the year where Kane gets a push, then he’ll feud with who ever is champ and not win. If it’s not that time, then I see him feuding with someone like Cody Rhodes (who, considering he wore a mask at one point, could very well add a lot of compelling storytelling to the match). Also, I think that Kane is still serviceable enough to have some good to great matches with Rhodes. I suppose time will tell.

Michael Uphoff: So much negativity with Kane, but some of it is deserved. This feud has had very little in terms of redeeming quality, but their Royal Rumble match wasn’t half bad. I don’t understand the hate on the Ambulance Match; I don’t think we have had one since Survivor Series 2003. My feeling is that Tony is correct in that Kane will likely go to SmackDown or feud with the Big Show. I do not want to see either of those happen. In terms of a potential Kane/Rhodes feud, I don’t see it happening. I think Kane will just feud with someone else.

I am slightly intrigued by the Ambulance Match at the Elimination Chamber, but afterwards I really have no interest in Kane and who he feuds with. I hope he stays on RAW and feuds with someone meaningful, but he has destroyed Zack Ryder to the point and grown so awful in this feud that I just really don’t care anymore.

Joshua Stangle: After Cena, Kane will likely move on to some type of Wrestlemania battle royal or a Money in the Bank match (if that does come back to Wrestlemania). He will possibly face some combination of Big Show, Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Wade Barrett, Santino, Zack Ryder, Great Khali, Rey Mysterio, Kofi Kingston, The Miz, R-Truth and/or Mark Henry. I really doubt that Kane will have a one-on-one match at Wrestlemania.

I’ll be honest and just say that I’m one of those people who DON’T CARE where he goes. The awful storyline with Cena should end soon. The cheesy, over the top nonsense will desist. The blow off match will be mediocre, and then it will end.

Why would Kane get into a feud with Rhodes? Because Rhodes used to wear a mask? And then, why not because Rhodes doesn’t use the right kind of shampoo…? Kane can be a solid hand, but absurd and corny feuds don’t do him (or anyone, really) any favors.

Week 2 is in the books! I hope you enjoyed the changes, and thanks again for all of your input. I’m feelin the way the column worked this week and I think I’ll keep it like this for the time being. See you next week!