6 Reasons The End Of The Authority Needs To Be The End Of Authority In WWE

6. Conflicts Would Be Between Wrestlers And Wrestlers, Rather Than Between Wrestlers And Authority (Plus Their Monster Of The Week)

Remember, once upon a time, when conflicts in wrestling were between wrestlers and... other wrestlers? Certainly, we still see some of that on occasion, but for a long time now, the biggest conflicts on the card- often regarding the top belts, of course- have often felt less like it was an issue between Wrestler A and Wrestler B, and more between Wrestler A and Authority Figure, plus their "Monster of the Week." It's almost like watching some form of Power Rangers (nothing wrong with that in and of itself), to the point we're almost surprised that Stephanie or Vickie have never shrieked for their wrestler to grow after the first defeat or two. There are exceptions, but think about some of the bigger matches in recent. When John Cena defended his title against Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam, he wasn't just facing Lesnar, he was facing The Authority's pick (last minute though it was) to get the belt off of him. Daniel Bryan vs. Randy Orton and Batista? The latter two names were more or less sort of there, but Bryan's issue was never really with them- he was defying Triple H and Stephanie the whole way through. Fortunately, these guys have at least had some sense of agency. A worse scenario took place several years ago, when a returning Triple H took on the WWE Undisputed Heavyweight Champion Chris Jericho for the title at WrestleMania... except few people remember that feud favorably. What they remember is Triple H versus his jilted wife Stephanie, with Jericho basically acting as her gofer/lackey. There are exceptions, of course (and we'll discuss those further on the list), but wrestling is often at its best when the issue is between two guys who want to beat the crap out of each other, rather than one guy who beats the crap out of whoever the other guy keeps throwing in their way.