1. Please try your best to check to see that your question(s) have not been answered on any other sections of the page, including past mailbags (archives below).

2. Send a legibly written question or comment to mailbag@rajah.com. Please try to keep it short (one question per person per edition).

3. ALL email sent to the address above may potentially be included in the Mailbag. If you do not want your question publically posted for everyone to see, this section is not for you.

4. If a name is included, we will post it along with the email. If you do not want your name published, do indicate this in your email.

5. Remember, it is impossible that every email we receive get posted in the mailbag. Only the best and most popular questions/comments will likely make it on.

6. Also remember, that questions will be answered by either MTR, Aree, Rajah or Pete so any personal remarks should be addressed accordingly. The following color scheme will be used:

7. If you have any additions or corrections to the answers we provide, please send that it in and we will probably issue a clarification in the next edition.

Rajah - GREEN
Pete - YELLOW
MTR - PURPLE
Aree Jones - PINK

From: Mike
Am I the only one who thinks that they should either cancel Raw or Smackdown and have one show again? First of all, following both shows and both storylines is a juggle for viewers, plus the fact that they must catch each show at its time on Monday and Thursday respectively. Also, the "recap" shows that were helpful for me (aka Excess or Superstars) are now being replaced by wrestling newsmagazine shows like Confidential. Personally, I'd like to know what happened in the previous week of wrestling instead of knowing trivial facts like how Booker T likes shooting commercial work. 1 show allows more build-up, more concentration on the show by the company, and no confusing "trades" and "signings". If the WWE concentrated on 1 show instead of many, their product might be considerably better.

No, I don't think you're alone in thinking that the WWE should cut some of their programming. The problem is that they have a huge roster, and cramming all of their talent into one major two hour show, plus several less popular and shorter shows would be extremely difficult. At least the way things stand viewers can choose to watch either Raw or Smackdown and the only time the two shows cross is at PPV's. As for the lack of "recap" shows, I think the WWE decided their shows were too recap focused and hard core viewers weren't tuning in to see recaps of the shows they'd already seen that week. I personally hate recaps of any kind, including those annoying "minutes ago" segments the WWE shove into their programming after commercials. It's only been a couple of minutes, so why do we need a "moments ago" recap?

From: Greg
One of the things I've noticed about WWE recently is that Pay Per Views are finding it harder and harder to be noticeably better than Raw or Smackdown. Cage matches and stipulations like it used to be specialities but recently, seemingly in an attempt to pick up the programming more and more big matches have been used on free TV. Obviously the Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell and suchlike are exceptions, but how do you think WWE can take steps to make PPV's worthy of the huge buyrates they're hoping for again?

In order to raise the quality of PPV's the WWE need less of them. However, if the WWE announce they're dropping 6 or even 3 PPV's a year, I'll eat my hat. The WWE make big money from PPV's - they get big gates, big PPV buys and big merchandise sales. Obviously it's still worth their while or they wouldn't be holding 12 a year. It's a fine line to walk between creating fresh free to air or cable programming and saving the best for PPV's. I thought the Elimination Chamber made for a pretty cool teaser, despite the weakness of the rest of the card. The WWE are in a difficult position because if they save all the stipulation and "wow!" matches for the PPV's, they risk losing regular viewers who won't even think about purchasing a PPV unless they're interested in regular programming. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

From: Chris Carerra
There is an issue involving the wrestlers from Tough Enough that I have been thinking about. Do you think that being known for being on Tough Enough can limit the character opportunites that the wrestler can have? I mean, the WWE couldn't dress Maven up as a deranged airline attendant or something, because we all watched Tough Enough and we know that it isn't so. Of course, we all know that The Dumpster wasn't a garbage man, and Val Venis wasn't a porn star, but I think it is easier to suspend disbelief when the truth wasn't staring you in the face for the whole season of Tough Enough. What do you guys think?

I think Tough Enough is another symptom of the disease that is reality television. The rest of the WWE locker room despise the Tough Enough competitors for getting a free ride to the top and getting fame, fortune and a great big push for no other reason than they beat out 10 other people and had their every move shadowed by a camera for a few weeks. The wrestlers who did it the old fashioned way beat out hundreds and hundreds of guys over many years to claw their way to the pinnacle of wrestling success. If I were one of them, I'd hate the Tough Enough guys too. Also, perhaps Tough Enough overdoes the breaking of kayfabe. It's almost like too much information. Note to Vince McMahon: If you want to protect the kayfabe of the business, you should be cancelling Tough Enough, not JR's "Ross Report".

From: PGV
I'm just wondering if you can tell us how much free speech exists for the wrestlers in the WWE. It recently came out that Molly Holly was being punished for voicing her opinions on certain matters. Also, in one of his recent commentaries, Lance Storm was very critical of certain aspects of the Tough Enough show. Can we expect to hear that he is in trouble with the WWE for these remarks? If not, why not? Does the WWE use a different standard for different wrestlers? Thanks

Think about your own workplace. How much free speech exists there? Not much. It's the same for the WWE, except that everyone has their own website where they can say whatever they like and have their fans read it. It's all about politics...if you go around saying that the WWE sucks and that you hate everyone you work with, you're likely to get into trouble with the WWE. It's true that they no doubt have different standards for different wrestlers. If you're Chris Jericho and you're continually late for house shows you're not going to get "suspended" like you would if you were Jeff Hardy. Like most workplaces, the higher you are up the WWE food chain, the more shit you can pull and get away with.

From: Maxx
Hi everyone, love the site. Big fan of the site. Anyways on to my question. Do you think that RVD would do any better if he were over on Smackdown? I know that he has had some differences with Paul Heyman, but I think that he would fit better over there. Wouldn't it be nice to see some Kurt Angle/RVD? Benoit/RVD? Edge/RVD? Mysterio/RVD?

Yeah, it would be nice to see those matches and eventually they will happen. RVD is a big drawcard, and right now Raw is the show that needs young, fresh star power. Smackdown has a lot of young hungry guys, so adding RVD into the mix isn't going to help distinguish him in any way.

From: Jay
Hey Raj, Pete, and the rest great site. kind of a logic question, the raw title is called the "World" Title. And The SmackDown! Title is called the "WWE" Title. If you're champion of the world aren't you better than WWE? Would this offend SmackDown Wrestlers? is this another working of the Evil Monster HHH?

This is the last question about this topic that will ever be published in the mailbag. I've addressed it in the last three mailbags and enough is enough. The World title and the WWE title are supposed to be viewed as equal. They are the respective pinnacles of their respective shows. You are not supposed to trace the history of the belts and make assumptions about which one is "better". And I have to say that accusing Triple "Monster" H of being behind a "belt conspiracy" is just plain silly.

From: RKH
In your opinion, do you think Goldberg will make any impact in the WWE, if in fact he does make an appearance? If so, how long will he be there?

Of course he's going to make an impact. But I think it was Rajah who stated that the longer the WWE leave the negotiations, the less of an impact Goldberg is going to make. If they'd signed him when they first bought WCW, it would have been huge. Get Austin back, pitch him head to head with Goldberg and the best man will be the one who is still standing when it's all said and done. There's no way to predict how long Goldberg will be in the WWE, if he does sign on the dotted line. It all depends on the kind of contract he signs.

From: Jay Bob
1) why is torrie wilson stuck in smackdown hell while stacey has moved on to raw and a lucrative career as tests valet even though i feel that torrie has more talent (many puns intended) and has taken far more bumps than stacey dont get me wrong stacey is drop dead gorgeous as well but i feel torrie is more deserving
2) i couldnt find aree jones anywhere in any playboy is there any way you could post a copy?

1. I think the decision to send Stacey to Raw could have just as easily sent Torrie. It didn't really matter which pretty blonde went, as long as one went. As far as talent goes, I'm not sure that Torrie shows anymore than Stacey, but I'm enjoying the "Testicles" angle, so my vote goes to Stacey. Besides, Torrie's involved in a very high profile feud on Smackdown so its not like she isn't being used at all.
2. No, if you want to see me in Playboy you'll just have to pay your money like everyone else.

From: Julie Simeons
Hey guys, great site. My question is why isn't there any really evil heels anymore, it seems now days the heels are always backing down and tapping out when the ref isnt watching. With the exception of Brock Lesnar (when bad) all the heels seem tame.

I agree. The era of the Very Evil Heel is long gone. I think it's all a part of the WWE's movement towards "reality based" characters. It just isn't real to have a character like the Undertaker anymore. Even Kane has lost some of his more cartoonish qualities. And the newer wrestlers are all simply big and bad, and usually mentally deranged I've noticed. Instead of true evil, these days we have a bunch of crazy guys wandering around beating the hell out of wrestlers who stepped on their foot or called them an "ass clown". I mean, really...

From: George Gong
Hey Gr8 site. I just wanted to know what was the off camera relationship between the rock and mick Foley? I remember watching a few years back from when they were feuding till they were tag team partners and I always got some sort of feeling Foley always had something against the rock. I got even more suspicious after I saw beyond the mat. Just wondering if u could help clear that up for me.

Foley was very open about the fact that he thought The Rock's conduct in the I Quit match that was featured on Beyond the Mat sucked. It lacked a certain professional courtesy that should be observed after bashing in an opponent's head with a metal chair multiple times. However, I don't think there was much long-term heat between the two men. People you work with piss you off from time to time, but you usually get over it. I don't think Mick and The Rock are best friends, but I doubt they hate each other's guts.

From : Vadwilder
Hi to you all [but in particular to Aree because it's probably Aree who answers my question] - you've got a great site and I hope you keep up the good work. Major Question: How much of the wrestlers' mic work is pre-planned and how much is improv? I am particularly interested in the Rock as it seems to me that he has a rough plan of what he's going to do but plays to the crowd and changes it as he goes along. Minor: - Since when are referees are allowed to change the rules of the match?

Major: That's probably pretty accurate. If you've seen "Beyond The Mat", you'll have noticed a segment where The Rock is running his "speech" by one of the bookers. I'd say he does that less frequently these days because he's had a lot of experience and as he's so damn good at it, the WWE probably give him free reign to say whatever he thinks will work within certain storyline guidelines. The hallmark of an excellent mic worker is the ability to "play to the crowd". Watch wrestlers carefully when they're working the stick and you can tell the good workers from the naturals very easily. Minor 1: They don't "change the rules" exactly, they are simply selective in terms of what they see and what they don't. It's just one of those things. You can't cheat if the ref is on top of everything and really, when you get down to it, professional wrestling is all about cheating, getting revenge and winning at all costs. Sort of like life.

From: Phoebe
First off, I really enjoy your site, as it is both informative and entertaining. My question to you, however, is this (and I am probably going to get stoned, i.e. hit with large rocks, for this one): Do we really want Stone Cold to return to the ring? Not only has his wrestling ability declined in recent years, but can we really separate Steve Williams from Stone Cold Steve Austin? How can we watch him retrun to his beer-chugung self knowing that he physically abused his wife while intoxicated? I know he plead "no contest," but that does not mean "not guilty." As I understand it, "no contest" is the plea that one makes when there is enough evidence to convict at a trial; kind of a cop-out, if you will. Anyway, I for one am not looking forward to a Stone Cold return. Just wanted to give my opinion, and am interested in yours. Thanks. (I'll close my eyes and wait for the rocks to hit now).

Don't worry Phoebe, I'm not going to hurl any rocks your way. I've never been a huge fan of the 3-1-6. What can I say, beer guzzling rednecks with dubious fashion sense and hot tempers have never really done great things for me. However, Steve Austin's contribution to professional wrestling is right up there next to Hulk Hogan. He was a huge catalyst for change and he rode a massive wave to the top of the mountain and then proceeded to jump off the other side.
As for your questions, I don't think anyone out there would have a problem separating Stone Cold from the real Steve Williams. Watching WWE programming is like watching a soap opera. The wrestlers are acting a part. You might as well ask how people can watch a Roman Polanski film knowing that the director was a pedophile or how people still watch Robert Downey Jnr films knowing that he's a big time drug user. We suspend belief when we buy into the entity that is professional wrestling and we will forgive practically anything.

Send ALL Mailbag-related email to mailbag@rajah.com.

The rajah.com Mailbag Archives

FastCounter by LinkExchange