10 WWE Questions You Most Want Answered (July 7th)
Will Roman Reigns win (and turn heel) at Battleground?
These days, it very much seems as though we're in a state of flux with regards to WWE. Many are waiting for the old guard to shuffle out, allowing newer, more relevant superstars to take their place and really thrive.
Sure, the likes of Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose and Owens can be considered established figures on the main roster - but there's still that sense that their time hasn't quite come around yet. Beyond those guys, there's still a whole underclass of WWE talent waiting to break through.
Many of this week's questions reflect this, with queries regarding The Shield, Finn Balor, and Shinsuke Nakamura - men who could all be considered future flagbearers for WWE.
Elsewhere, we grapple with the notion of Brock Lesnar finally losing clean, and who deserves a spot on an all-female Mount Rushmore of wrestling.
Thanks to all those who submitted questions via our official Twitter (@WhatCultureWWE); don't forget to look out for this very same article next week!
10. Would The Final Deletion Have Ever Happened In WWE?
A lot of furore has been generated by 'The Final Deletion', aka the supposed final clash between Matt and Jeff Hardy. Opinion is divided between those who applaud the match for its over-the-top, Z-movie style, those who applaud TNA for its use of the bizarre bout as an attention-grabbing marketing tool, and those who applaud the fans for sitting through such a dreadful piece of pro wrestling.
As a firm member of the third camp, I must state that WWE have never been in the position to make such a desperate bid for bad publicity.
Many argue that the match isn't too dissimilar to some of the car-crash hardcore action we saw in the Attitude Era, but I have to disagree. The Final Deletion was, to me, worlds apart - more a deliberate attempt to craft something "so bad it's good". Imagine if Tommy Wiseau had intentionally made 'The Room' as bad as he could, or if Rebecca Black's 'Friday' was expertly written to be as shoddy as possible, and you're somewhere in the ballpark.
In wrestling terms, I actually think Hardy vs. Hardy was most similar to the shenanigans pulled by WCW in their dying days: terrible worked-shoots, title-stripping "reboots", and so on.
Both represented shameless grabs at publicity - any publicity - regardless of the actual quality of such entertainment.