Hey Scott, did you check out the Lightning Kid vs Jerry Lynn 2/3 Falls Match from GWF? Great little bout, some fine psychology (clear heel/face roles, cool heel spots, only certain finishers allowed to end the match for an interesting dynamic). Maybe Vince should have actually introduced a CW division in 93? ​I saw it at the time and watched it again when they put it up, and it was still really good.  Not really state of the art or anything, but a really good ***1/2 match that probably helped Kid get a job.  I literally have a dozen or so of their matches on various comp tapes from my tape trading days and they're all pretty good. ​ roofing company West Chester, OH

Good morning, Scott –   I've been reading about WWE's "main event style" for quite some time – but can you really define what that means? More brawling? Kicking out of finishers? Wacky rollup/distraction finishes?   Or is it like the old Justice Potter Stewart quote – "I can't define the WWE main event style….but I know it when I see it"?   Dino Bravo Sucks   ​There's not really a "main event style" any longer, that was more a relic of the 98-05 pre-Cena era.  These days it's more a diluted version of All Japan, with guys hitting big moves for near-falls early and then trading finishers later.  But I wouldn't call it a well-defined "style" any longer. ​ roofing company Mishawaka, IN

After this year's felt a little underwhelming in terms of interest and surprise - and given it's the 30th anniversary Rumble being number 31 - is there any scope to try the 40-man Rumble again, or do you think that was a bad idea and should just be consigned to history and never repeated?  It's not like they won't have enough bodies, what with Raw, Smackdown, NXT, 205 Live and (presumably) the UK Championship (plus any of the indies they have signed up for the Network by then, if those come to pass). Presumably with it being a big anniversary, there'll be a goodly amount of surprise retro entries from Rumble history - 40 entrants would allow those to breath a bit, and maybe section out a little (like when we had the mini-Hardcore Division clusterfuck back in the day before Kane eliminated them all). ​God no, not the 40 man idea again.  The Rumble has the perfect scope and flow with 30, and extending it artificially like that was a major factor in the 2011 show bei...

Lately I've been hearing an argument from fans that really doesn't make any sense to me. So and so's match doesn't need the belt to be over. I think this is a really stupid concept. The only way for the belts to mean anything is if they are fought over by the top guys in the company. Look at some of the biggest matches in wwe history. Hulk and Andre fought for the belt. Hulk and Warrior fought for the belt. Rock fought Austin twice for the belt. Even Cena and HHH fought over the strap. If you look at this card it appears that the belts will be contested in matches that will be seen as less important than Brock Goldberg, whoever Undertaker is fighting, HHH and Rollins, and whoever Cena ends up fighting. The belts will be meaningless props unless they are included in bouts that mean something. ​ Just wait until next year, when the World title matches get bumped all the way down to the pre-show!  They'll be wheeling Undertaker out for his match against new HOF inductee...

I'm still befuddled by AJ Styles being forced to work with Shane at Mania. Is there any other reason for this other than stroking Shane's ego?  He's almost 50, and AJ spent 2016 going even with Cena and Roman, but he's gonna have to sell for Shane's goofy punches. Is the new answer for everything becoming: Because Vince ​Wait, the NEW answer? ​

Hey Papa Smark, Did you ever wonder why TNA never had a wrestler named Genocide in 2008?  It would have set up the perfect angle. Homicide, Suicide and Genocide would form a stable.  Together with their powers combined, they could call upon SABU. Yet another reason TNA never made it. ​I have long maintained that Homicide and Suicide should have teamed up.  Then they could kill each other and both would be happy.​

Hey Scott, In the tradition of Kaval and Zack Ryder, what wrestlers do you feel were the most hurt by actually being over with the fans? Follow-up: Did anyone ever figure out the deal with Ryder? Why was Vince so dead set against pushing him? Can you make a decent case for it? ​Daniel Bryan sure got jerked around for a while, I'd say. Not only that, but they wasted his prime drawing period trying to pretend like he wasn't the biggest star in the promotion.  That's much worse than anything done to Zack Ryder, who was never going to progress above a certain point anyway.  ​

I've yet to see anyone discuss a Reign's heel turn, so I thought I'd be the first. What I think they should do is give him a manager who's good on the mic. Now when the manager talks, him and Reigns are not to be in the ring, instead their promos are done at the entrance way. The reason for this is so Reigns can turn his back to the entire arena, while his mouthpiece talks for him. Reigns is never to speak. Let this go for as long as they can, months, even a year. A mystique will begin to build with Reigns never speaking. Sting was never bad on the mic, but he was never great either. Not on the level Flair or Austin. But what happened when he morphed into the Crow character? He didn't speak for over a year, and this mystique built up over it, even though we had 10 years of Sting's promos. ​I like it, but let's go a step further with it and have him never wrestle, either.  He can just stand there while other people talk for ...