WWE Raw: No Wrestling Fan Votes for a Hug over a Match
Despite all of the just criticisms levied at Raw’s three-hour format, WWE managed to pull it all together.
In fact, the biggest blunder in this week’s episode was not due to WWE Creative, but due to the so-called “WWE Universe.” If the company must shoulder any blame, it is trusting the opinion of the fans.
In this week’s RAWactive fans could vote on Twitter for Kane and Daniel Bryan to either tag together, have a one-on-one match...or hug.
Fans were given the choice to see one of the world’s best technical wrestlers either team with or go against one of the most seasoned performers in the WWE.
The winning poll result was to “hug it out.”
Two options would have resulted in a wrestling match, which is presumably what you would expect—and want—to see when you tune into the number-one professional wrestling program. Instead we got an extremely drawn out segment that eventually lead to a hug.
Just as we voted.
Thankfully, WWE Creative managed the save the tedious segment by ending it with a brawl and a teasing of Kane’s vintage—and definitely not PG—chair throat-crusher from the top rope.
How does the Internet Wrestling Community compare to the whole WWE Universe?
Thank you for saving us from ourselves WWE’s booking team.
This week RAWactive did nothing but show us what is truly wrong with the WWE: the fans. When the majority of the audience votes for a hug over a match there is a serious issue. This very segment made it apparent that we need to stop criticizing the WWE for their booking decisions and start blaming our fellow viewers and ourselves.
Next time there’s a Michael Cole dance-off or ridiculous segments involving Santino as a detective, remember that the WWE audience would likely vote for what you’re seeing over watching a match.
With RAWactive results like these—and even a Chicago crowd chanting “hug it out"—it seems that the WWE does actually know how to give the audience what the majority of them want.
Sadly, it’s not wrestling.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?