Another great match from Sasha and Charlotte.
Think they will move onto à bayley/charlotte Sasha/nia feud now surely
Think they will move onto à bayley/charlotte Sasha/nia feud now surely
World Wrestling Entertainment Discussion 42 (Spoilers)
315 of 363
Originally Posted by James Frederick:
“So Sacha wins the title on Raw again.
Guess Charlotte takes it back at Roadblock End Of The Line.”
“So Sacha wins the title on Raw again.
Guess Charlotte takes it back at Roadblock End Of The Line.”
that was best main event raw had in while
Originally Posted by James Frederick:
“So Sacha wins the title on Raw again.
Guess Charlotte takes it back at Roadblock End Of The Line.”
“So Sacha wins the title on Raw again.
Guess Charlotte takes it back at Roadblock End Of The Line.”
It's the end of the feud for now IIRC
Nia Jax up next for Mrs Mikaze, and Bayley for Charlotte
Mrs Mikaze and Charlotte blow the roof off again, going to miss that feud
Originally Posted by BigBmad:
“Another great match from Sasha and Charlotte.
Think they will move onto à bayley/charlotte Sasha/nia feud now surely”
“Another great match from Sasha and Charlotte.
Think they will move onto à bayley/charlotte Sasha/nia feud now surely”
Charlotte is due her rematch.
Hopefully to brake the back and forth they will do it on Raw have Sasha win then move on.
Maybe add a stipulation.
Have Mick come out and say the title has gone back and forth enough so no matter who wins it's over the loser will not get another title match as long as that person is still champion.
Originally Posted by LeeleeSTAR:
“What you've got to remember is that there a lot of new fans since they first fought or even some that were too young to have seen or remember the first fight. Whilst they can watch it back now they would still have a greater urge to see a new one than a fan who saw it live at the time and was disappointed.”
“What you've got to remember is that there a lot of new fans since they first fought or even some that were too young to have seen or remember the first fight. Whilst they can watch it back now they would still have a greater urge to see a new one than a fan who saw it live at the time and was disappointed.”
Has there been that many new fans since 2004?
I just presumed most fans have watched WWE for the past decade and a half.
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“Nostalgia sells, Its all part of branding and adding a premium name. The Rock is one of the biggest brands around, Lesner/Goldberg also attract links like ESPN.”
“Nostalgia sells, Its all part of branding and adding a premium name. The Rock is one of the biggest brands around, Lesner/Goldberg also attract links like ESPN.”
How well did Rock do when he came back and won the title? Did ratings go up by much?
Originally Posted by James Frederick:
“So Sacha wins the title on Raw again.
Guess Charlotte takes it back at Roadblock End Of The Line.”
“So Sacha wins the title on Raw again.
Guess Charlotte takes it back at Roadblock End Of The Line.”
Im guessing WWE wants Charlotte to tie the Ric Flair record before John Cena does.
If Sasha drops the belt at Roadblock then she'll probably win it back at the Rumble.
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“Well it seems like less and less people are watching on TV and that is where they get most of their money. They can talk about Youtube all they want but Youtube isn't paying them $160 million a year for Raw and Smackdown, USA Network is. I'm not sure of the exact number Sky paid them but there's no way they will get that kind of money again in 2019. The bleeding of viewers wont stop and I think what they forget is, TV companies don't make any money from Twitter or Facebook or Youtube, so when WWE points out all these followers and likes and viewers.....they don't do anything for Sky Sports or USA Network or any other channel. They don't see a penny of that. All they want is people watching the shows on their channels. I don't think WWE will dissappear of TV altogether in 2019 but I can't see either one wanting as much programming.
The WWE is like so many other corporations out there just now, it really is a big corporate brand that sells the brand. There's definately a place on the show for the legends but I can't help but feel for many people all it does is give them a sad reminder of what once was, just how good wrestling used to be. It's got everything on it. The problem I have with it is that they tend to do it around the big shows. Obviously Goldberg will be at Wrestlemania and he will be on the poster. He will end up selling the show or being part of the reason people want to see it. All that tells me is they don't have enough faith to let the younger stars sell the show. It's almost like now we're 5 years on from The Rock's return, Wrestlemania is more about who's coming back for a big match. Everyone else is second place and that's why I wonder in 5 years from now, how many of these old timers are really gonna be able to do this, even just a cameo and doing their finisher, it can only go on for so long and they will show their age. I think 5 years is enough of these big shows like Wrestlemania and Summerslam and now the Royal Rumble again where the focus is on older stars coming back to the ring but of course as you said the brand sells it anyway, people pay to see WWE, they don't pay to see individual matches. PPV tickets are sold weeks in advance of any matches being announced.
Maybe from a business standpoint it all adds up but I think for many people that watch current day WWE and compare to an older WWE product, even from 10 years ago, 2006/2007 WWE was still full of stories. They had comedy, they had the violence, the sexuality, the soap opera, they had a few decent wrestling matches, they catered to everyone, a little bit of everything for everyone, whatever you were into you could see it. For many people I think it's a case of why fix it if it's not broken? It was fine the way it was. I don't think 2006/2007 Raw would get anywhere near ESPN!”
“Well it seems like less and less people are watching on TV and that is where they get most of their money. They can talk about Youtube all they want but Youtube isn't paying them $160 million a year for Raw and Smackdown, USA Network is. I'm not sure of the exact number Sky paid them but there's no way they will get that kind of money again in 2019. The bleeding of viewers wont stop and I think what they forget is, TV companies don't make any money from Twitter or Facebook or Youtube, so when WWE points out all these followers and likes and viewers.....they don't do anything for Sky Sports or USA Network or any other channel. They don't see a penny of that. All they want is people watching the shows on their channels. I don't think WWE will dissappear of TV altogether in 2019 but I can't see either one wanting as much programming.
The WWE is like so many other corporations out there just now, it really is a big corporate brand that sells the brand. There's definately a place on the show for the legends but I can't help but feel for many people all it does is give them a sad reminder of what once was, just how good wrestling used to be. It's got everything on it. The problem I have with it is that they tend to do it around the big shows. Obviously Goldberg will be at Wrestlemania and he will be on the poster. He will end up selling the show or being part of the reason people want to see it. All that tells me is they don't have enough faith to let the younger stars sell the show. It's almost like now we're 5 years on from The Rock's return, Wrestlemania is more about who's coming back for a big match. Everyone else is second place and that's why I wonder in 5 years from now, how many of these old timers are really gonna be able to do this, even just a cameo and doing their finisher, it can only go on for so long and they will show their age. I think 5 years is enough of these big shows like Wrestlemania and Summerslam and now the Royal Rumble again where the focus is on older stars coming back to the ring but of course as you said the brand sells it anyway, people pay to see WWE, they don't pay to see individual matches. PPV tickets are sold weeks in advance of any matches being announced.
Maybe from a business standpoint it all adds up but I think for many people that watch current day WWE and compare to an older WWE product, even from 10 years ago, 2006/2007 WWE was still full of stories. They had comedy, they had the violence, the sexuality, the soap opera, they had a few decent wrestling matches, they catered to everyone, a little bit of everything for everyone, whatever you were into you could see it. For many people I think it's a case of why fix it if it's not broken? It was fine the way it was. I don't think 2006/2007 Raw would get anywhere near ESPN!”
This just shows you are out of touch, viewing figure are as sort term as you can get in terms of a business plan for a company in the entertainment industry. Of course they make money from you tube Facebook and other social media. It attracts other companies. You prob see you tube as a place to watch videos Watching TV shows on channels is something that will slow become less and less of a thing. They are getting a foot on the door now as they did with PPV etc. TV companies also like to connected to high numbers of social media it gives a excellent way of measuring who is watching when and how they engage with the show
It needed to be fixed because the business needed to grow to become something different a wrestling company would not grow in today's market
If TV ratings did not matter then they would not be measured.
I hope that is the future for them because losing the number of viewers they have done in the short space of time since the last contract was signed, there's no chance they're getting anywhere near the $160 million they're getting now and yet look at live sports in America, more people than ever are watching live sports.
I hope it works out well for them but the last time I checked most of the money they make comes from their TV deals and the only way they are getting paid for those TV deals is if they are getting good numbers and they aren't doing what they were 18 months ago. The numbers keep going down. Even on Sky Sports the numbers are very low compared to what they were a year ago. It all depends if they can survive without TV. As one of their own investors said to Vince McMahon's face.......the next negotiations will certainly "interesting". Interesting indeed. I think we are in the final years of pro wrestling being on prime time TV, much like I think the Simpsons will be done soon, they all fall at some point. All the big TV shows end at some point, they all have a shelf life. I think the writing has been on the wall for wrestling since 2004 and it's taken all these years for not only the big legends to retire but to get their HOF inductions and the only ones left are The Rock, maybe Goldberg, maybe Randy Savage and of course the fans want Owen Hart. I think these are the final years of pro wrestling on TV and I'm glad I got to see the best years of it. No doubt the WWE will continue on with wrestling even if it is just a live touring show with their programming on the Network and if people want to watch it they can pay for it.
I hope that is the future for them because losing the number of viewers they have done in the short space of time since the last contract was signed, there's no chance they're getting anywhere near the $160 million they're getting now and yet look at live sports in America, more people than ever are watching live sports.
I hope it works out well for them but the last time I checked most of the money they make comes from their TV deals and the only way they are getting paid for those TV deals is if they are getting good numbers and they aren't doing what they were 18 months ago. The numbers keep going down. Even on Sky Sports the numbers are very low compared to what they were a year ago. It all depends if they can survive without TV. As one of their own investors said to Vince McMahon's face.......the next negotiations will certainly "interesting". Interesting indeed. I think we are in the final years of pro wrestling being on prime time TV, much like I think the Simpsons will be done soon, they all fall at some point. All the big TV shows end at some point, they all have a shelf life. I think the writing has been on the wall for wrestling since 2004 and it's taken all these years for not only the big legends to retire but to get their HOF inductions and the only ones left are The Rock, maybe Goldberg, maybe Randy Savage and of course the fans want Owen Hart. I think these are the final years of pro wrestling on TV and I'm glad I got to see the best years of it. No doubt the WWE will continue on with wrestling even if it is just a live touring show with their programming on the Network and if people want to watch it they can pay for it.
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“If TV ratings did not matter then they would not be measured.
I hope that is the future for them because losing the number of viewers they have done in the short space of time since the last contract was signed, there's no chance they're getting anywhere near the $160 million they're getting now and yet look at live sports in America, more people than ever are watching live sports.
I hope it works out well for them but the last time I checked most of the money they make comes from their TV deals and the only way they are getting paid for those TV deals is if they are getting good numbers and they aren't doing what they were 18 months ago. The numbers keep going down. Even on Sky Sports the numbers are very low compared to what they were a year ago. It all depends if they can survive without TV. As one of their own investors said to Vince McMahon's face.......the next negotiations will certainly "interesting". Interesting indeed. I think we are in the final years of pro wrestling being on prime time TV, much like I think the Simpsons will be done soon, they all fall at some point. All the big TV shows end at some point, they all have a shelf life. I think the writing has been on the wall for wrestling since 2004 and it's taken all these years for not only the big legends to retire but to get their HOF inductions and the only ones left are The Rock, maybe Goldberg, maybe Randy Savage and of course the fans want Owen Hart. I think these are the final years of pro wrestling on TV and I'm glad I got to see the best years of it. No doubt the WWE will continue on with wrestling even if it is just a live touring show with their programming on the Network and if people want to watch it they can pay for it.”
“If TV ratings did not matter then they would not be measured.
I hope that is the future for them because losing the number of viewers they have done in the short space of time since the last contract was signed, there's no chance they're getting anywhere near the $160 million they're getting now and yet look at live sports in America, more people than ever are watching live sports.
I hope it works out well for them but the last time I checked most of the money they make comes from their TV deals and the only way they are getting paid for those TV deals is if they are getting good numbers and they aren't doing what they were 18 months ago. The numbers keep going down. Even on Sky Sports the numbers are very low compared to what they were a year ago. It all depends if they can survive without TV. As one of their own investors said to Vince McMahon's face.......the next negotiations will certainly "interesting". Interesting indeed. I think we are in the final years of pro wrestling being on prime time TV, much like I think the Simpsons will be done soon, they all fall at some point. All the big TV shows end at some point, they all have a shelf life. I think the writing has been on the wall for wrestling since 2004 and it's taken all these years for not only the big legends to retire but to get their HOF inductions and the only ones left are The Rock, maybe Goldberg, maybe Randy Savage and of course the fans want Owen Hart. I think these are the final years of pro wrestling on TV and I'm glad I got to see the best years of it. No doubt the WWE will continue on with wrestling even if it is just a live touring show with their programming on the Network and if people want to watch it they can pay for it.”
Ratings matter but to a lesser extent each year what TV channels will use to gage success is how people engage with the show, Do they watch it at a set time, Do they watch it on a tablet, Are they watching it and using social media to comment. It's a much better system, You can have millions and millions watching a show but unless you are engaging with the show it's not really that much help to advertisers etc, but having less people but more of them engaging with it you can gain a better idea who and how to advertise.
We are more likely coming to the end of "prime time TV" than wrestling not being on TV. Viewing figures are measured because the system is built in but now they adding new things to the system which over time will replace viewing figures.
It's not a sport so not sure why you use sport as an example, It's a entertainment show
Originally Posted by dave_windows:
“How well did Rock do when he came back and won the title? Did ratings go up by much?”
“How well did Rock do when he came back and won the title? Did ratings go up by much?”
512,000 PPV buys for Rock vs Punk at the Rumble. 1.1 million for Rock vs Cena 2.
Originally Posted by dave_windows:
“Jesus christ what is wrong with you. Call them divas, call they women it makes no difference. IT IS STILL A FEMALE MATCH FOR CHRIST SAKE!
The women have always been part of the mid card scene apart from the odd time Raw had a womens match as the main eent and the odd PPV where it went on last.
For you it seems oh no someone has a different opinion to you, cant have that so criticise them until they agree with you.
Are there actually 30 females in the company to have a Rumble match?
WWE probably would never do it because you cant have 2 Rumbles in the same PPV. There would be no time for the other matches.”
“Jesus christ what is wrong with you. Call them divas, call they women it makes no difference. IT IS STILL A FEMALE MATCH FOR CHRIST SAKE!
The women have always been part of the mid card scene apart from the odd time Raw had a womens match as the main eent and the odd PPV where it went on last.
For you it seems oh no someone has a different opinion to you, cant have that so criticise them until they agree with you.
Are there actually 30 females in the company to have a Rumble match?
WWE probably would never do it because you cant have 2 Rumbles in the same PPV. There would be no time for the other matches.”
This type of thinking is why WWE has no stars in 2016
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“Ratings matter but to a lesser extent each year what TV channels will use to gage success is how people engage with the show, Do they watch it at a set time, Do they watch it on a tablet, Are they watching it and using social media to comment. It's a much better system, You can have millions and millions watching a show but unless you are engaging with the show it's not really that much help to advertisers etc, but having less people but more of them engaging with it you can gain a better idea who and how to advertise.
We are more likely coming to the end of "prime time TV" than wrestling not being on TV. Viewing figures are measured because the system is built in but now they adding new things to the system which over time will replace viewing figures.
It's not a sport so not sure why you use sport as an example, It's a entertainment show”
“Ratings matter but to a lesser extent each year what TV channels will use to gage success is how people engage with the show, Do they watch it at a set time, Do they watch it on a tablet, Are they watching it and using social media to comment. It's a much better system, You can have millions and millions watching a show but unless you are engaging with the show it's not really that much help to advertisers etc, but having less people but more of them engaging with it you can gain a better idea who and how to advertise.
We are more likely coming to the end of "prime time TV" than wrestling not being on TV. Viewing figures are measured because the system is built in but now they adding new things to the system which over time will replace viewing figures.
It's not a sport so not sure why you use sport as an example, It's a entertainment show”
I use sport as an example, just like I used the Walking Dead as an example to show that if you have something that people are interested in THEY WILL WATCH IT ON TV. You talk like watching on tablets and phones and computers and using apps is the way of the future and maybe it is the way of the future and maybe watching TV the way we do now where a program is on once and once only unless you DVR it is a past time but they prove that people will still watch live sports and they will watch TV shows if they want to. They will sit in front of an actual TV, with a paid subscription to those channels and watch it.
And there might be a new way of measuring a program's success and they might bring in social media and they might be able to use the apps and Hulu and Youtube and give an accurate number of people and the ages of those people watching the show but until that system is made public, all we have are the old way of doing things, the old way of measuring an audience. That's all we have so that is what everything is based on. I don't think the current system is accurate, I don't think Barb is accurate either but that's all we have, they're the only numbers we have. I'm sure far behind the scenes all the big companies have microchips in those boxes sending back info, I'm sure they know exactly who is watching each channel and how long they watch for but there must be a reason why they have stuck with the system in place for so long.
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“I use sport as an example, just like I used the Walking Dead as an example to show that if you have something that people are interested in THEY WILL WATCH IT ON TV. You talk like watching on tablets and phones and computers and using apps is the way of the future and maybe it is the way of the future and maybe watching TV the way we do now where a program is on once and once only unless you DVR it is a past time but they prove that people will still watch live sports and they will watch TV shows if they want to. They will sit in front of an actual TV, with a paid subscription to those channels and watch it.
And there might be a new way of measuring a program's success and they might bring in social media and they might be able to use the apps and Hulu and Youtube and give an accurate number of people and the ages of those people watching the show but until that system is made public, all we have are the old way of doing things, the old way of measuring an audience. That's all we have so that is what everything is based on. I don't think the current system is accurate, I don't think Barb is accurate either but that's all we have, they're the only numbers we have. I'm sure far behind the scenes all the big companies have microchips in those boxes sending back info, I'm sure they know exactly who is watching each channel and how long they watch for but there must be a reason why they have stuck with the system in place for so long.”
“I use sport as an example, just like I used the Walking Dead as an example to show that if you have something that people are interested in THEY WILL WATCH IT ON TV. You talk like watching on tablets and phones and computers and using apps is the way of the future and maybe it is the way of the future and maybe watching TV the way we do now where a program is on once and once only unless you DVR it is a past time but they prove that people will still watch live sports and they will watch TV shows if they want to. They will sit in front of an actual TV, with a paid subscription to those channels and watch it.
And there might be a new way of measuring a program's success and they might bring in social media and they might be able to use the apps and Hulu and Youtube and give an accurate number of people and the ages of those people watching the show but until that system is made public, all we have are the old way of doing things, the old way of measuring an audience. That's all we have so that is what everything is based on. I don't think the current system is accurate, I don't think Barb is accurate either but that's all we have, they're the only numbers we have. I'm sure far behind the scenes all the big companies have microchips in those boxes sending back info, I'm sure they know exactly who is watching each channel and how long they watch for but there must be a reason why they have stuck with the system in place for so long.”
But its heading towards being more then a TV show, Its had to TV viewing is no longer enough for them as a company they want more (and more so when traditional tv viewing dies), They branching into other fields etc. A company cannot just stay in one field if it wants to get bigger and again with new ways to watching the product TV is just one small way of doing so
That's not all we have, We have social media, We have You Tube we have loads of different ways of measuring the important things to the company, They would rather have a link up with a certain company then the numbers of viewers they had back in the day because it helps them grow as a business more, TV companies will also benefit from the WWE having that link. Times are changing. Watching TV is changing, Everything about how we get our entertainment is changing,
Vince seems to have always wanted the company to be more then a Wrestling Company (and rightly so) and he is getting to that stage now, I would not be surprised to see them by an actual TV/production studio next next, Its a very logical step, They have the resources and the talent to make it worthwhile and now they have the contacts, Being just a wrestling company restricts what they can do.
Obviously Id really love to see Goldberg come into the Rumble, smash through everybody and win the thing but realistically it isnt going to happen.
I mean WWE can tease it with Steph saying do you have one more title run in you to get a pop but there isnt a chance of it ever happening because no one knows if Goldberg could do a 10 - 15 min match.
I really cant see WWE letting Goldberg win the title at mania and then losing to Lesnar at say Summerslam, more likely they will repeat 2004 where either Lesnar will cost Goldberg the match or Lesnar throws Goldberg out and we get the match at Wrestlemania.
Looking realistically at next years Rumble who is more likely at winning the thing?
I would say Roman Reigns because WWE is going to push him regardless of what the fans want. I also feel that WWE will have a shock elimination kinda like when Maven eliminated Undertaker years ago so probably Strowman with get eliminated by Ellsworth.
I mean WWE can tease it with Steph saying do you have one more title run in you to get a pop but there isnt a chance of it ever happening because no one knows if Goldberg could do a 10 - 15 min match.
I really cant see WWE letting Goldberg win the title at mania and then losing to Lesnar at say Summerslam, more likely they will repeat 2004 where either Lesnar will cost Goldberg the match or Lesnar throws Goldberg out and we get the match at Wrestlemania.
Looking realistically at next years Rumble who is more likely at winning the thing?
I would say Roman Reigns because WWE is going to push him regardless of what the fans want. I also feel that WWE will have a shock elimination kinda like when Maven eliminated Undertaker years ago so probably Strowman with get eliminated by Ellsworth.
I see they've axed Superstars after an 8 year run. For a second that is, as older fans will remember it was the A show until 1993 and then the B show until 1997.
Luckily for us Main Event will continue, now as the supplement show to Raw. Therefore gripping feuds such as Bo Dallas vs. Curtis Axel may reach a conclusion
Luckily for us Main Event will continue, now as the supplement show to Raw. Therefore gripping feuds such as Bo Dallas vs. Curtis Axel may reach a conclusion
Apart from the main event I thought this week's Raw was a bit boring I just wish they would stop treating the Women's title like a hot potato 5 title changes in 4 months (I think) is a bit too much for my liking.
Originally Posted by dave_windows:
“Obviously Id really love to see Goldberg come into the Rumble, smash through everybody and win the thing but realistically it isnt going to happen.
I mean WWE can tease it with Steph saying do you have one more title run in you to get a pop but there isnt a chance of it ever happening because no one knows if Goldberg could do a 10 - 15 min match.
I really cant see WWE letting Goldberg win the title at mania and then losing to Lesnar at say Summerslam, more likely they will repeat 2004 where either Lesnar will cost Goldberg the match or Lesnar throws Goldberg out and we get the match at Wrestlemania.
Looking realistically at next years Rumble who is more likely at winning the thing?
I would say Roman Reigns because WWE is going to push him regardless of what the fans want. I also feel that WWE will have a shock elimination kinda like when Maven eliminated Undertaker years ago so probably Strowman with get eliminated by Ellsworth.”
“Obviously Id really love to see Goldberg come into the Rumble, smash through everybody and win the thing but realistically it isnt going to happen.
I mean WWE can tease it with Steph saying do you have one more title run in you to get a pop but there isnt a chance of it ever happening because no one knows if Goldberg could do a 10 - 15 min match.
I really cant see WWE letting Goldberg win the title at mania and then losing to Lesnar at say Summerslam, more likely they will repeat 2004 where either Lesnar will cost Goldberg the match or Lesnar throws Goldberg out and we get the match at Wrestlemania.
Looking realistically at next years Rumble who is more likely at winning the thing?
I would say Roman Reigns because WWE is going to push him regardless of what the fans want. I also feel that WWE will have a shock elimination kinda like when Maven eliminated Undertaker years ago so probably Strowman with get eliminated by Ellsworth.”
Based on WWEs recent daft booking it wouldn't surprise me if they came up with something as ridiculous as James Elsworth eliminating Braun Strowman from the RR match.
Originally Posted by Lee_Smith2:
“I see they've axed Superstars after an 8 year run. For a second that is, as older fans will remember it was the A show until 1993 and then the B show until 1997.
Luckily for us Main Event will continue, now as the supplement show to Raw. Therefore gripping feuds such as Bo Dallas vs. Curtis Axel may reach a conclusion”
“I see they've axed Superstars after an 8 year run. For a second that is, as older fans will remember it was the A show until 1993 and then the B show until 1997.
Luckily for us Main Event will continue, now as the supplement show to Raw. Therefore gripping feuds such as Bo Dallas vs. Curtis Axel may reach a conclusion
”
Raw may have started in 1993 but to some extent Superstars was still the A show back then as alot of angles still played off during Superstars of Wrestling.
Quote:
“WWE plans to do an all-women's tournament for the WWE Network in early 2017, similar to the Cruiserweight Classic and the Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. Plans are to tape the new series at Full Sail University.
WWE has been reaching out to several female wrestlers who worked extended tryouts over the past few weeks, according to PWInsider. There is said to be great interest in women's stars Kimber Lee, Evie, Nixon Newell and Heidi Lovelace, among others. There are also plans to use Deonna Purrazzo and Rachel Ellering in the tournament.”
“WWE plans to do an all-women's tournament for the WWE Network in early 2017, similar to the Cruiserweight Classic and the Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. Plans are to tape the new series at Full Sail University.
WWE has been reaching out to several female wrestlers who worked extended tryouts over the past few weeks, according to PWInsider. There is said to be great interest in women's stars Kimber Lee, Evie, Nixon Newell and Heidi Lovelace, among others. There are also plans to use Deonna Purrazzo and Rachel Ellering in the tournament.”
This is fantastic news. Always been a fan of Kimber & Heidi so it be great to see these girls come in as long as they are booked correctly and not just there to job.
Really wish Sara Del Ray had been placed in a wrestling role in WWE.
Originally Posted by King Kunta:
“So the ladies can do a table spot. Wonder if they can tell Sasha and Charlotte for next time x”
“So the ladies can do a table spot. Wonder if they can tell Sasha and Charlotte for next time x”
That wasn't really their fault there has been a lot of tables which have not broken before.
315 of 363
