You've been critical? I honestly don't recognize your name.

I don't understand what your points have to do with my column, but I'm guessing you're commenting on other columns that I haven't read, so I guess I wouldn't know the reference.

I wouldn't have him do the same thing as Cena, because I think the key of keeping both the US and IC title active is to make them different. With the current US title trend, it could become a title defended weekly like a TV title without getting the official name change. It might be wishful thinking, but I hope they keep it that way once Cena drops it.

Meanwhile, the IC title remains as it is, defended from time to time. Orton as IC champ would be a call back to 2003-2004.

I had some friends over to watch last night. We laughed out loud at one point where we were witness to maybe 20 seconds of straight awful botches. It was a terrible match, much like most WWE women's wrestling.

That being said, the NXT women steal the show quite often.

I don't write reviews, I write my thoughts after an event. I had no thoughts or cares about the Naomi vs Bella story, so I didn't write anything. I'm also of the belief that the reason WWE works more often than it doesn't is because it's a show with many parts, some good and some bad, with everything aimed towards specific portions of the audience. The current WWE Divas action isn't meant for me, so I don't get upset when I'm not entertained.

I liked his face work, but it was booked wrong. Even the corny jokes didn't bug me because he was still a dominant force when he needed to be. Brock is a babyface now not by amazing character work and great storylines, but because most fans love getting behind someone who just kicks butt, going out there and beating people into pulp. It can become vicious and heel like, but it can also be a glorious way to get behind someone. And as great as Cena, Bryan, Punk, and other top babyfaces have been, none of them were real action hero dominators. Sheamus can be that type of hero really easily.

I don't buy it. Sting could have won, and then led to a massive HHH beatdown to get his heat back. All he needed was heat, so he could have had it for the segment. Plus, I don't think a loss would have changed that. HHH was clear about how much he kicked the Rock's ass over and over again in their feuds. It didn't need Sting to lose.

He debuted as a heel in 2009, turned face in 2011, and is turned heel in 2015. Where are the multiple times?

I see your point about retiring 6-man tags and battle royals, but I disagree. I just think they should be used smarter. I think it was Wade Keller on the Stone Cold podcast who said that the opening match at the Mania 31 preshow with the 4 way tag felt wrong because that's not the sort of match that should be for the titles. Instead, he suggested that there be a 3 or 4way tag to discover the challengers to take on the champions. This makes perfect sense to me.

When it relates to 6 man tags, I think they've become a crutch, which I think is your point. The problem isn't the 6 man tags are overused, just that they aren't used well. It's just shoving a bunch of guys in the ring to fill time, much like the Mania 31 4way tag match.

As for tournaments, they are a pain in the ass to book. In a single night 8 man tournament tournament, it requires those 8 men to be in 7 matches. That's a full night of action devoted to only 8 workers, and it only elevates 1 or 2 guys. It's time consuming and restrictive. That's why battle royals work best for that cause since they can also push more than 1 or 2 guys, but take much less time.

In a supposed long term booked tournament as you suggested, that's a pain in a different way. It's still time consuming, but over a spread out period. It still only elevates 1-2 people. But then you run into the issues of needing to book long term. It's something WWE should be doing more often, no doubt. But if they aren't looking long term now, a tournament is no way to get started. Also, if they can't long term book, then I can't expect them to elevate more than just 1 guy out of it.

Basically, the reward is just not worth the time and effort. In a perfect world, I'd agree. But it's not perfect, so it's a lot to ask of the booking team.

I miss the brand split too, but there are pros and cons to it. I'm not sure it would be a wise move to bring back today, but I do believe there are ways to incorporate the benefits of the split without a strict line down the middle. I doubt WWE will ever perfectly achieve that balance, but the way they are heading right now seems to be on the way.

And I never played those games.

Exactly. Harper vs Ambrose is one of those midcard angles that don't need a title because their personalities make it so much easier to buy into the idea that they hate each other. They don't need a title to battle over, they just want to get their hands around the neck of the other. Those types of feuds are hard to come by, and it's because there aren't many characters who aren't just athletes looking to be the best. By that I mean that Bray Wyatt vs Dean Ambrose was a great example about how they just wanted to brutalize each other, yet neither really felt like they were there to prove they were the best wrestlers - just better than the other. In a world where everyone is vying to be the top guy, it's refreshing when a character comes around like Ambrose, Wyatt, or even the Undertaker who can exist outside titles. Ambrose vs Harper can do that.

I totally forgot about the Prime Time Players! Even after using Titus as an example. Derp.