The Triumvirate of Truth 7.15.12: Money in the Bank, The Undertaker’s Wrestlemania Opponent, AJ Being Overexposed, RAW Sucking, More

Did you guys watch RAW on Monday night? What a bunch of crap! By the time you read this, the Money in the Bank Pay Per View may probably already have happened, and Cena most likely made his claim fo r the WWE Title against Punk at Summerslam. If not, it’s going to happen. Speaking of Summerslam, we’re pretty close to it, and the WWE is well aware, but it seems they’re building towards the 1000th episode of RAW far more than the upcoming pay per view. They’ve got some time before it becomes far more important it seems, and as such, we’re going to talk about things other than Summerslam. Let’s get to it, shall we?

This week, Michael starts us off with a bang by calling my beloved AJ overexposed! Ok, he doesn’t really do that, but he does pose the question. Among that, we’re chattin it up about the winners of the Money in the Bank matches, who should face The Undertaker at Wrestlemania 29, just how bad RAW really was and more!

1. Is AJ getting a little overexposed in the main event storyline between Daniel Bryan and CM Punk, and what are your thoughts on WWE attempting to have her be a modern-day version of Miss Elizabeth?

Michael Uphoff:AJ has been absolutely nothing short of phenomenal in her role in the main event, but on RAW it did feel for a bit like she was getting a little overexposed, like when she was talking to Punk after her match. She certainly changed it up when she was talking in the back with Eve, and after the main event, when Punk and Bryan went through the table, and also when she made out with both guys on the Super SmackDown Great American Bash episode. AJ has turned in consistently great work in this storyline, and it’s nice to see that the WWE “powers that be” are pleased with her.

That being said, I don’t know if I really want to see a modern-day version of Miss Elizabeth. Miss Elizabeth was truly the first lady of wrestling, and we have yet to have someone to have as big an impact on the wrestling industry in a role like hers as she did. AJ can do it; I have no problems believing that. But seeing again and again the moment of Miss Elizabeth reuniting with King Macho Man Randy Savage after he lost his retirement match against the Ultimate Warrior was amazing. It’s just me thinking like this. If WWE goes ahead with it and chooses to make her the modern-day version of Miss Elizabeth, with whom does she work? Punk or Bryan? I could see her pulling off that character for either wrestler. All I know is, when I see AJ on my TV, I know some crazy shit is about to go down, and I don’t want to miss it.

Tony Acero: NOOOOOO!! There’s no such thing as overexposed when it comes to AJ and her lovely face! Ok, let’s be real, Monday Night may have been the first time I felt there was a bit too much. Not too much AJ, persay, but moreso the fact that they’re kind of doing too much with it. The storyline between the three feels real, even with AJ being psycho (we all know a psycho girl or two), but Monday Night they jumped from real to Sports Entertainment. Not a good move. I don’t think that she’s being overexposed, because we must keep in mind that as of now, the more AJ on the screen means the more Bryan and Punk is on the screen. As much as people assume that this storyline doesn’t need AJ and they’d love her to be gone from it, there’s a lot of truth to the sentiment that Bryan and Punk would both be missing out on a lot of TV time AND we’d be missing out on some good matches if it weren’t from her. Please keep in mind that having AJ around does not belittle the quality of the matches that these guys can put on, and that is why we want them on the tv, right? To wrestle?

As for the Miss Elizabeth question, I agree with Mike that there’s really not a need for it right now, and there’s truly no female in the WWE that the fans care about enough aside from AJ to fulfill said role. No, AJ has found her niche and she is doing well with it. It’s best to just let it flourish naturally, but after Monday night, it seems they may not be doing that too well.

Joshua Stangle: She has been quite overused, especially within the feud for the WWE Championship. While her acting and promos have been surprisingly good, I don’t think they justify her looming presence over the main title in the company. I suppose that she brings a level of unpredictability and drama to the feud that may not have been there before.

I don’t know about her being a modern day version of Miss Elizabeth, although it would be far more interesting of a role than any other diva has in the company. Her ending up with Punk would be absolutely weak. Punk has already been established as being able to defeat Bryan, and doesn’t need outside help to do it. Meanwhile, Bryan could very well have set the whole thing in motion using AJ’s desire to win him back as a mean of winning the title. Doing so, would portray her and Bryan as a devious and cunning couple, and Punk as the sympathetic fallen champion.

2. Who is the best choice to win the WWE Championship Money in the Bank match?

Joshua Stangle: The storyline seems to dictate that either Cena or the Big Show would win, as the focus of this match is on them. The Big Show has been booked strongly ever since his heel turn. Despite losing to Cena at Over the Limit, he has absolutely crushed most of his competition. His primary focus now is to win the WWE Championship, which would be the next step in order to raise the stakes of this feud. I can see the Big Show winning and then cashing in immediately after the Punk versus Bryan match, ala Kane in 2010.

John Cena has been shown, at least in this feud, to be the only person who could stand up against the Big Show. His primary focus is to stop the Big Show from winning. Cena doesn‘t need to win the match in order to do that. His feud with the Big Show won’t end at this pay per view, as it’s not really definitive ( ie an attitude adjustment through a table). Should Cena win, he would do the “honorable” thing and announce when he will face the current champion, thus postponing or ending the feud with the Big Show. That’s not going to happen. It wouldn’t make any sense for Cena to win here, considering where the feud is.

Kane is far more interesting since his character mellowed out. The over the top promos and lame psychological warfare against his opponents were the source of too many awful segments in 2012. Like Jericho, Kane doesn’t really have a direction in the story behind this match. While Kane has had some really good matches this year, I don’t think he should win the MITB briefcase a second time. He has already had plenty of time in the main event scene in 2012, with feuds against Cena, Orton, Punk and Bryan. So there isn’t much point in putting him back in the main event scene again. I also don’t think that he should be WWE Champion around Wrestlemania time.

Jericho would be a great choice, considering he created Money in the Bank, and it perfectly fits his character. I don’t see him feuding with Bryan over the title though, nor do I see him facing Punk again anytime soon. He should hold it until at least 2013. He isn’t really involved in this storyline at all, and has no reason to feud with anybody else in the match, other than maybe team up with Cena and Kane to stop the Big Show. That’s not really a problem though, as it frees up Jericho to be unpredictable and rather cerebral with how he uses the briefcase. Jericho is easily the best choice to win.

Tony Acero: I don’t care. But for the sake of answering the question, I’m going with Cena. The rumored Summerslam match is Cena vs Punk, so if that’s what they’re going with then it’s only obvious that Cena wins then does the “noble” thing by saying he’ll cash it in at Summerslam. Punk and Cena can put on a good match, but I’m so full of apathy towards the RAW version of the Money in the Bank mach and it’s because Cena doesn’t need to be in it. Come to think of it, none of the guys do. All four have an arguable stance on whether or not they can be in the title picture, and the briefcase (at least, to me) is made to help those who we, as fans, simply can’t beleive would be able to win the title without it. It’s a jumpstart to a car we don’t trust. Cena, Show, Jericho and even Kane can be thrust into the main event at any time on name alone, so essentially, we’re missing out on a match AND a storyline that could very well have been compelling and intersting for the sake of another Cena win. Same ol, Same ol…

Michael Uphoff: Out of the four guys in the match, I agree with Josh. I think Jericho would be the best choice. I could realistically see all four guys winning, but I think Jericho is still the best choice. He doesn’t have to use it right anyway, and like Josh pointed out, it would play right into his character. I don’t want Big Show anywhere near the WWE Title, and neither do I want to see Cena holding that belt again. I wouldn’t mind Kane winning the match, as I think he could use the freshening up of his god-awful character from early this year that played mind games with his opponents. I still maintain, however, that Jericho would be the best choice.

3. How do you feel about pay per views focused around a match concept?

Joshua Stangle: I originally liked the idea of concept pay per views with TNA Lockdown. It gave an ambiance to the event and made it feel distinct from their other pay per views. However, the problems here are that there are far too many concept pay per views now. Between Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell and TLC, those certain matches that were once special have now become mundane. Matches like Hell in a Cell were once reserved (usually) for the most violent and brutal of feuds, and now we know what to expect and the concept has been watered down. Careers were defined and shortened by such a match, giving the very concept a unique purpose. The danger seems to have been taken out of the matches, since everybody can be in them. Don’t misunderstand, I do still really like that there are some concept pay per views. Money in the Bank was the best pay per view of 2011. And TLC 2011 was also a great show. Some gimmick matches are almost guaranteed to provide an enjoyable experience and having more of those matches will improve the quality of the pay per view, which in turn, should get more people to want to watch them. As a fan, I quite approve of them since they often bring about the best pay per views. As a critic, I still need to point out that many of these matches are now being overused

Tony Acero: Imagine an entire PPV with Punjabi Prison matches? Yeesh! These pay per views have, historically, sucked. Just as Josh said, they’ve become mundane and hardly ever have something memorable. I’d point to both the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell PPV’s as something that just shouldn’t happen anymore. The matches, yes. The PPV’s usually are garbage, though, and the entire gimmick of the show is hardly used or expounded upon. In the day and age of no blood, a Hell in a Cell is hardly as entertaining as they should or could be, and we are usually left with a plodding mess. I’ll also say that I have enjoyed TLC and Money in the Bank, but those both had something a bit more action packed going into it AND I’d argue they had better stories going into it as well. Hell in a Cell is a crutch. Elimination Chamber is a crutch. They are yet another tool to use for lazy writers. Why create compelling storylines when they can choose 6 people and put on a match that’s already built? I’ll tell you why; because people don’t care.

Michael Uphoff: Josh is absolutely correct in his assessment of gimmick PPV’s. There is a trade-off with using them. Some of them, like Money in the Bank 2011 and TLC (both 2010 and 2011) have provided good and even great PPV’s. However, some Elimination Chamber PPV’s have been hit or miss, and the same could be said about the Hell in a Cell PPV’s as well. They have been watered down to the point where they don’t have the same feel and atmosphere that they used to have. Hell in a Cell matches were supposed to end a feud, not be a PPV main event. All in all, some gimmick PPV’s are worth it and some are not.

4. What is the thing that you like the most about WWE, and what is the thing you like the least about WWE?

Michael Uphoff: We’ve certainly had questions like this before, but I wanted to revisit this topic in terms of only WWE, not just wrestling in general. As I have said numerous times before, I’ve watched the WWE now for sixteen years. During those sixteen years, I’ve seen things that have made me cheer, made me cry, made me shake my head in wonder, disgust, made me want to throw up (Katie Vick, the Hand, etc.). In those years, I have thought about giving up on WWE multiple times and watching something else. The only reason I have not yet done so is the thing that I like the most about WWE, and the thing that keeps bringing me back to watching it.

The thing that I like the most about WWE is how they can make me feel like just a wrestling fan and nothing else with certain moments. They can make me forget sometimes just how much I cannot stand them, their stupid booking, and so on and so forth, with moments that just made you cheer and relive those moments again and again. Eddie Guerrero winning the WWE Championship at No Way Out 2004 from Brock Lesnar was one of those moments. I really didn’t think Eddie had much of a shot, but when Eddie hit the Frog Splash and got the three, I marked out like a little kid. Another moment where I felt that thrill was last year, when CM Punk defeated John Cena at Money in the Bank and walked out with the WWE Championship. I’ve been a fan of Punk since he was with the Second City Saints in ROH. To see him pull off the victory in his hometown in such a phenomenal match, it made me feel like a wrestling fan again. Too many times WWE gets something wrong or messes up something else, but every now and again they get something truly right, and one of those moments that makes you cheer like a little kid happens. That is what I love the most about WWE.

What I do not like about the WWE is their creative/booking team. It seems like WWE’s creative team is growing dumber and dumber every day. They have created pushes for wrestlers, only to change their minds and pull the rug out from underneath that wrestler. Too many wrestlers have fallen victim to “creative not having anything for them right now” so they get “future endeavored.” That is bullshit, plain and simple. It is the job of the WWE Creative team to push certain wrestlers and create storylines for others. It is not the fault of the wrestler if he has no feud or storyline; that is on the WWE creative team. I’ve been adamant in my extreme dislike of the creative team in the past year or so because they have been worse than TNA’s creative team. If I were Vince, I might have fired them all already. They are terrible, they cannot come up with anything new or groundbreaking (except AJ, but that really isn’t new), they do not know how to sustain a push of a wrestler, and they do not know how to book a wrestler correctly. No one really bought Miz and R-Truth as competition to Cena and Rock at Survivor Series, and that was the fault of the booking team not properly making the heels look like threats. Zack Ryder had a big following, won the US Title, and then the creative team effectively neutered him with him getting his ass handed to him every week by Kane and being manipulated by Eve. It truly disgusts me sometimes that these people are still in the employment of the WWE, and WWE will not get better until these idiots in the WWE creative team learn how to do their jobs correctly and effectively.

Tony Acero: I typically dislike questions like this, due to the ever changing nature of the product. This is one of those “look in the mirror” questions that we as wrestling fans all face at one time or another. You know, you meet a new girl or a friend finds out why you’re so busy on Monday nights? No? Just me? Ok, well when this moment comes across, then the question is sure to follow. Why do we watch this shit? Why do we, as men, watch other half naked men, act poorly and pretend to hit each other? I watch it because regardless of how much we talkbadly about it, the reality is it entertains me. It makes me laugh, and it evokes emotion. It pulls on the strings that control my emotional outcry, and it’s fun. At the end of the day, it’s a form of entertainment that is no different than a bunch of females sitting around and watching Twilight. When we were younger, we simply enjoyed the act of fighting. We’re men, we like action and could care less of the storyline attached to it. As we grew, stories mattered more, and we wanted to make sense of it all, but we still wanted that action. Even older, still, we dove into the product so much in fact that we became critics, and now sit watching every week, WANTING and begging for a better product. We don’t want this product solely for us, but for the product itself as well. Somewhere along the line we went from fans to impassioned people who deeply love something. Fans that have been fans for years have embarked on a journey that becomes a constant, a staple in their lives. WWE is the top of the game, and for every fuck up they have, they are still that little morsel of goodness that hooked us. Equal parts nostalgia and hope, we are stuck to the screen, regardless of the quality. I love this business, this product, and even this site that you’re reading. WWE has the power to create an atmosphere and a feeling that is unable to be duplicated.

As for my dislikes of the product, it really comes down to a simple answer; writing. I’m a published writer, and as much as I love wrestling, I love writing even more. I do it every day, and dedicate HOURS of my life per day to writing. Whether it be for the site or for my own personal well being and potential career, it is writing that is at the top of my priority list. It is because of this, then, that the WWE Creative team bothers me so much. More often than not, they have great beginnings. For whatever reason, however, they are unable to close those beginnings and allow the stories to present themselves organically. It’s annoying beyond all hell to see something such as the Punk promo be the catalyst of potential greatness only to fall flat on its face due to ego, or bad storytelling. Nearly every week on The Greg DeMarco show, I point out storyline inconsistencies and just simple problems that could be fixed with a red pen. I know, the issues go a bit deeper than a team of writers just putting ideas on paper, but they don’t have to. It’s such a shame.

Joshua Stangle: At the present point in time, I like who they have at the top. I’m not just talking about Daniel Bryan and CM Punk, but also Sheamus, Big Show, Kane and Jericho. Big Show and Kane have really stepped up their efforts this year in ring work, and have done the best with what they were given promo wise. Jericho has proven that he hasn’t lost a step since he left the WWE in 2010. And while Sheamus has been booked poorly, he keeps improving. Actually, the WWE has an excellent talent pool all around, and they could do great things if they were booked properly.

I agree with Mike that the creative mentality is weak. However, I blame it on the mentality for booking rather than the people booking it. It would be awful no matter what because of how management wants it booked. Given the heavy focus only on specific wrestlers, while not really building anybody else up, also draws my interest away from the product. I don’t want to see a two minute match that does nothing for anybody involved. I don’t want to see the same tired Super Cena storylines that we’ve seen for years. It’s not the creative team’s fault; it’s the mentality that the position demands..

5. Was the 7/9/12 edition of Monday Night RAW the worst episode all year?

Tony Acero: won’t go so far as to call it the worst show of the year. I’m pretty sure there were worse in the last few months, but I have a horrible memory, and not enough room to keep all RAW episodes on lock in the miniscule vessel that is my brain. Typically, my recaps are solely that; recaps. Yes, I put a small thought after each match, and I’m sure there’s at least 20 mentions of AJ when she is not on screen, but my job isn’t to review the show, and so I keep it pretty minimal. This week, it was very hard to bite my tongue. The opening wasn’t too bad (but really, did you think I was going to say anything negative about AJ), but it did feel like one of those jumping the shark moments. I’ve long since been a supporter of the Bryan/Punk/AJ storyline, and think that without it, we would not be getting as of the three that some of us would hope, but Monday Night seemed like a bit too much of a stretch. Shortly after, we had the return of the Anoynmous GM, a person who had renamed unknown until Monday Night. Many people were upset at the lack of ending of this particular story thread, and I thought it would be a perfect way to create a new superstar or add something to a current one. Instead, they said “fuck you” to logic and chose someone else. More on that later. Our first match was hardly that. An unnecessary squash of Jack Swagger by Sheamus, followed by a kick that stuck him 6 feet under, just to assure you were aware that Sheamus > Swagger. We come back to a tag match that SHOULD have been a big deal, but instead it starts without interest or entrance. About an hour into the show, Michael Cole tosses water at Jerry Lawler and this prompts a “poll” for the WWE fans in which they decide whether or not they want to see the match. All this was, was a slap in the face to the IWC, and this was only accentuated by Cole continually pointing out that we say all the time we don’t want to see him wrestle, so why is it that 75% want to? We get it, we’re a minority. This was followed by the presence of Drew McIntyre, who was put out there solely to get squahed by Brodus Clay; something we’ve seen before. In what was the match of the night, yet still not saying much, we had a tag match between Kane/Cena and JeriShow. It was good, don’t get me wrong, but it seemed unimportant, and ended in a DQ by way of…Big Show pulling Cena out of the ring? Really? Cena gets to stand tall to sell the PPV, which doesn’t make me want to buy it. A Sin Cara squash putting him into the MITB followed by a Cole squash which NO ONE considered bullying this time around, finally leads us to the reveal of the GM to be Hornswoggle. THIS is what they came up with? Please tell me how this has any logic whatsoever? The main event comes and goes, and AJ is there to add the last dose of intrigue.

All in all, the show was horrible, and it’s more sad to know that it was the go-home show for the PPV. It sucked, it sucked bad, and I can’t defend it this week.

Michael Uphoff: I have been trying to think of ways to try and find something that was at least good on this past episode of RAW, since I’m usually a glass half-full kind of guy. However, Monday Night RAW this past week was abysmal, awful, and appalling. The only decent parts were the opening and closing segments, and even then they felt stretched. It seems that WWE is hitting a new low, and with TNA putting on a great effort with their most recent PPV at Destination X (Aries as champ = AWESOME), WWE really needs to step up their game. This was the go-home RAW for Money in the Bank, and it sucked. There is nothing anyone can say to defend this unmitigated crap.

Joshua Stangle: Tony is completely right on this one. Last RAW was one of the worst episodes of the year, but not quite the worst. There were almost no redeeming qualities to the show and far too many squash matches. The Bryan/AJ/Punk opening was over the top at best, and soap opera reject plot at worst. The anonymous GM angle was finally solved…and do I ever wish it wasn’t. The funny thing is that this was the final show before the Money in the Bank pay per view. They could have built it up with some effort, but instead produced a lackluster show.

6. Of the three prospective opponents, Brock Lesnar, The Rock, which would you like to see face The Undertaker?

Tony Acero: Tough call, because I see little potential for any of these long-term. Then again, who plans long term for the after effects of a Mania Taker match? For spectacle reason, I would love to see him go against Brock, and they already have a somewhat already built feud for it. He against The Rock probably won’t be as good as we would all like it to be, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Of the three, there is one person I definitely DO NOT want to see him face off against, and i don’t care how many people say it’s the next logical step, because it isn’t. I have absolutely no desire to see The Undertaker take on John Cena. I think it will be built up as something that will ultimately lead to nothing for either men. I don’t have faith in Cena to carry The Undertaker, and I don’t think The Undertaker will be that motivated to put on something noteworthy. True, I don’t know how Taker thinks in terms of Cena, but I can only imagine that when it comes to HHH and HBK, there’s tons more respect. As far as Brock goes, it seems that there is some bad blood there, which could make for a brutal match regardless. I think, if I had to choose, I’d choose Brock for the match. The only issue is that the news bites claim that the other two would be left to tango, which would mean we’d presumably get Rock vs Cena again? That doesn’t make much sense, unless they do a revenge type angle and added a much more serious tone. Yes, I’ve made my decision, and I’d like to see Brock vs Taker one more time. I think it’d be intense and bloody, although hopefuly not as bloody as their bloodbath Hell in the Cell a few years ago…

Michael Uphoff: Out of those three guys, I agree with Tony. I’d rather see Brock/Taker than Rock/Taker or Taker/Cena. While all of them have faced each other at some point, Cena/Taker is really pointless, as I don’t think either one would be willing to put on a match like Taker/HBK. Rock and Taker could put on a good match, but I don’t really see that happening. I would rather see Rock/Cena II. Brock/Taker would be physical, bloody, and hard-hitting. I kinda don’t want to see this match because if it were to happen, no one would give Brock a chance of breaking the Streak.

Joshua Stangle: John Cena versus the Undertaker is the next logical step. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Undertaker would be any less motivated for Cena than he was for Edge or Batista, or for that matter HHH or HBK. This could very well be Undertaker’s final match, and defeating Cena would be the perfect way to end his career. We already had an “End of an Era” match with Triple H and Undertaker at this Wrestlemania, so some of the meaning behind the Rock versus Undertaker is lost. The Undertaker and John Cena have history during the beginning of Cena’s career in the WWE. Both men have been built up as being near invincible. Both men have been kept apart this entire time.

Rock versus Brock would also be a great event, as their match at Summerslam 2002 was damn good. The former MMA star versus the current Hollywood action star. That’s two marquee matches right there. Undertaker versus Brock wouldn’t mean as much as either of those and the year plus long feud between Cena and the Rock has just ended last Wrestlemania.

Big Show don’t know no ladders!