WWE Opinion: Could Kharma, Not Brock Lesnar, Raise Hell on 1,000th Raw?
WWE fans have been waiting for months and months for Kharma's return. Recent reports suggest she is ready to return to the ring, but she has been waiting for WWE to find a use for her. Kharma's WWE run was very brief, and fans may remember her better under the name The Awesome Kong — a name she used in TNA.
This little theory has been gestating in my head for some time now, since it was first announced that Brock Lesnar will be appearing at the upcoming "Shawn Michaels Appreciation Night" a few weeks after the 1,000th episode of Raw.
Why? Well, many WWE fans theorise that Brock Lesnar will assault Shawn Michaels on the 1,000th episode of Raw. If this was the plan, I cannot work out what they would do on the "Appreciation Night" special, as Lesnar is booked to appear at both dates, and you know full well Shawn Michaels will involve himself in the main storyline Triple H is involved in.
We know Michaels is not gonna get physical with Lesnar, and it would be boring for Lesnar to beat him down a second time. Consequently, I think WWE has other plans for Brock Lesnar on the 1,000th episode of Raw. This opens up the possibility of the "run-in and beat down a Superstar" spot that is so commonly used to generate heat being given to a different member of the WWE roster.
Who else do we know who has a penchant for turning up unexpectedly and destroying other wrestlers? Kharma, who is expected to return to WWE television imminently. I do not think the WWE would have two wrestlers do the "run in and beat up someone to get heat" trick in the same night. The instant I saw Lesnar's upcoming appearances included another opportunity for him to play that card, I figured maybe Kharma would be the one playing it at Raw 1,000.
Do you think Kharma will return at Raw 1,000?
The stage has been set for this event, too. First, Kharma claimed on Twitter to have been made into a member of WWE's alumni on their website. When that tweet went up, this had not actually been done, but she has subsequently been moved there. Many fans suspect this move to be a work because of the mistake in sequencing, with WWE making the move after her tweet went up. Superstars lie to WWE fans on Twitter to surprise them all the time.
Superstars due to return on the 1,000th episode of Raw include Rey Mysterio and Mark Henry; if WWE is hoping to make a big fuss of returning members of the roster, I can easily believe Kharma will be there, too.
Given WWE's love of race-based tag teams, stables and alliances, I really would not be shocked if they were to have Kharma and Mark Henry return together and unleash all kinds of hell on a gathered group of competitors. Two African-American monster heels would not be hard to picture, would it?
Speaking of picturing things, consider this: Little has been said of returning WWE Divas to the product. I cannot believe there are none coming back. People like Trish Stratus or Lita are gonna show up, and they're gonna need another girl to get physical with. Kharma destroying one of them would take people by surprise, and generate her heat as a monster heel without burying anyone on the full-time roster.
Fellow Bleacher Report writer Justin LeBar recently reported that Vince McMahon is pulling out all the stops to make Raw 1,000 a truly special moment.
Backstage politics are being ignored, opening the floodgates to an array of WWE alumni. I would not be shocked if this is a work, leaving the idea that someone who has been kayfabe fired like Kharma could show up despite all the heat/fear she generated among the various other WWE Divas.
Whatever happens, I believe Kharma will be back on the 1,000th episode, ready to launch her into a major Divas storyline that will play out until SummerSlam.
I have researched the rumours of Kharma's being let go by WWE. Most people point to the legitimate news source TMZ as the originator for the reports. It appears their source is Dave Meltzer. This article is not about debating if Kharma has been fired or not, it simply explores possibilities under the assumption she has not been, as it is hard to be certain at present. My two cents on Meltzer is he is wrong as often as he is right.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?