Welcome to another edition of eWN Round Table, where we gather some of the most active writers here on eWrestlingNews and share the platform to answer some questions surrounding a centralized topic, upcoming event, etc.
This is meant to showcase the potential for both a wide range of perspectives as well as how sometimes, there can be a group consensus no matter what your viewpoint is, so we also invite all of you to join in on the discussion by answering these questions yourself in the comments section below.
For this particular volume, we’ll be focusing on WWE Elimination Chamber 2019.
Participants for this round = Anthony Mango, Robert DeFelice, Richard Staple, Ethan Absler and Chris Holden.
1) “What’s the better pay-per-view name, Elimination Chamber or No Way Out?”
MANGO: Definitely No Way Out. I hate it when WWE just goes with the gimmick match as the name of the show. Nothing was a more egregious example of this than WWE Fatal 4-Way. No Way Out not only works with the cage aspect, it also solves the issue they have of needing to use the name No Escape in Germany, as they want to avoid using the word “chamber” there.
DEFELICE: No Way Out is a much better name. It’s about as much pandering as the Elimination Chamber name is but at least it’s kind of cool and doesn’t just slap you in the face with what is going on. Also, No Way Out can be used to host any kind of cage match in case they get over the Elimination Chamber gimmick down the line.
STAPLE: It will be a frigid day in hell when I think a PPV named after the stipulation attraction is better than the names of PPV’s we got in the Ruthless Aggresion Era. No Way Out until my dying day.
ABSLER: Besides the Royal Rumble PPV, I am usually against shows being named after one specific gimmick match. With that being said, I think the better name for the show would be No Way Out.
HOLDEN: If every match was in an enclosure, cage, cell or chamber, I’d be all for No Way Out. Since the PPV usually lives and dies around one match in the chamber, I’m okay with Elimination Chamber as the show name.
2) “Would you be annoyed if Finn Balor won the Intercontinental Championship by pinning Lio Rush instead of Bobby Lashley?”
MANGO: Only if they didn’t follow it up. If Balor beats Rush and then has to defend the belt against Lashley at Fastlane, then I’m cool with it. If they do that just to avoid having Lashley take a loss and then they move on to a new feud for both of those, I’ll be a little annoyed.
DEFELICE: Not at all in my opinion. In fact, I think it would show that he’s actually using his brain and taking advantage of the circumstances afforded to him.
STAPLE: It wouldn’t bother me because it’s legal and Finn would only be taking advantage of the stipulation. In fact, if he were smart, that’s what he should try to do. Not having to beat the champion to become champion is something WWE seems to be a fan of anyway. That’s how Roode and Gable won the tag titles.
ABSLER: I wouldn’t be upset if Balor pinned Rush to win the title. Of course a one on one match and win against Lashley would be preferred, but the handicap match rules allow for Balor to win by pinning Rush. So, if it happens that way, so be it.
HOLDEN: It probably makes the most sense to do that, if they want the win and belt to go Finn. Otherwise it means more of the same 50/50 booking that’s keeping anyone from catching fire.
3) “Does the lack of Brock Lesnar, Seth Rollins and Asuka impact your view of this event being on the Road to WrestleMania?”
MANGO: It doesn’t kill it, but it does make me think that this is less of an important event than it should be. Not having the Universal Championship involved is something that I’ve gotten used to, but I shouldn’t have gotten used to it. Not having Asuka do anything at all means they really don’t know what they’re doing with her yet and that makes me nervous about her spot at Mania.
DEFELICE: I think it does a lot of damage to not have Brock Lesnar or Seth Rollins on this card. I understand why due to injury but Seth Rollins is Mr. Wrestling and I think it hurts his character to not be working this event. As far as Asuka goes, she just tapped out the most over wrestler on the roster. Why isn’t she on the show? Even if it was just in a makeshift tag team? This makes no sense.
STAPLE: Normally, it would, but since WWE is cramming in Fastlane as well, we’ll probably see them there. To me, there really should be only one PPV separating the Rumble and WrestleMania. That way, you can stagger more of the feuds and give them more time to develop, instead of devoting time to building to PPV’s in between two of the big four. Lesnar doesn’t appear at those kinds of shows anyway, but I do expect Seth and Asuka at Fastlane if anything.
ABSLER: I don’t think the lack of specific stars makes this PPV less “credible” for lack of a better word, when it comes to the Road to Wrestlemania. This card still has WWE Championship, and the Women’s Tag Titles, making this plenty significant in shaping the landscape of Wrestlemania 35.
HOLDEN: It certainly takes some of the shine off proceedings when neither of the top two stars from a show are on a big card; having said that, if Brock was to compete, it’d have to be against Rollins, rendering Mania moot. So I guess it’s no loss, really.
4) “Which match do you want to be the main event of this card?”
MANGO: The women’s tag team match. It’s guaranteed to have a new set of champions crowned and the only other option is the men’s Elimination Chamber, but I could see that opening the night instead.
DEFELICE: The WWE championship should absolutely be the main event. It features the event’s namesake match and it’s for the most coveted prize in the industry. Anything else is just pandering.
STAPLE: If you’re gonna call the PPV Elimination Chamber, it probably should be the Elimination Chamber match for the WWE Title. Unless Ruby Riott has impressed enough people backstage that is.