It’s time for another installment of “Ask Rachel.” And now, on with your questions!
Was ending the Undertaker’s undefeated Wrestlemania streak the wrong decision?
Let’s examine this once and for all. Many WWE Superstars have tried to end the Phenom’s unbeaten Wrestlemania streak only to come up short every time until Brock Lesnar did the unthinkable at Wrestlemania XXX. Was it the wrong decision? In my opinion, yes and no. It was the right decision considering that the Undertaker getting towards the end of his Hall of Fame career but not when the man who ended the streak is a part-timer while many felt that a young upstart such as either a Roman Reigns or Dean Ambrose should’ve done the honors.
Should the Royal Rumble need to be 40 man?
In my opinion, I don’t think it should. When the Royal Rumble match had 40 competitors back in 2011, there were about 100 Superstars on the roster. Fast forward to 2015, about half of the Superstars are no longer employed by the WWE so why make it 40 when 30 is a great number in my opinion?
Is it better to have a six month run as a heavyweight champion or have six title runs that last a month each?
CM Punk was the last of the breed when he held the WWE Championship for 434 days, yet was always overshadowed by John Cena. Today, unless your name is John Cena, the WWE Championship doesn’t really matter, therefore while I love lengthy title reigns, it seems as if though being a WWE Champion does not guarantee you a main event spot, unless again your name is John Cena since Cena is the WWE’s biggest cash cow.
