WWE Night of Champions 2011 Results: What Kelly Kelly's Win Means
Kelly Kelly defended her Divas Championship successfully against Beth Phoenix at Night of Champions 2011. What does it mean?
Beth Phoenix has now lost twice to Kelly Kelly at consecutive Pay-Per-Views. If we can conclude anything, it is that Beth Phoenix will not be in the Divas title picture for some time. The WWE used Beth Phoenix to try to make Kelly Kelly look more like a legitimate champion.
I will admit, I got caught up in the hometown crowd’s reaction. I found myself rooting for Beth Phoenix to win the title. I really did get excited for Beth as she broke character and gave the crowd some emotion.
Then my heart broke when I saw Kelly Kelly pull out another last minute victory.
Maybe the WWE did not think Buffalo, New York would step up for Beth. Either way, I can’t help but feel somewhat cheated at the ending. For once, I felt emotion…some kind of connection to this match.
To see Kelly Kelly come out the victor and not have a fantastic match troubles me. If she was going to win, I wanted to see more. As Champion, she really should have separated herself by now instead of constantly looking average or worse.
Now we will see where the WWE goes with the Divas division. Beth Phoenix will be completely out of the picture. Most fans seem to think Natalya will be the one to step up and challenge Kelly Kelly.
Wouldn’t that really just be the same match type just different opponent?
I do not want to see the pretty girl vs. the powerful diva again. What would be the point? Beth Phoenix lost twice in a row, so let’s give up that angle and move on.
The conclusion of this match truly means that the WWE plans on riding Kelly Kelly for as long as they can. Until the writers decide who they want Kelly Kelly to feud with, we will have to just put up with the current champ.
I can’t help but agree with the fans of Buffalo, New York tonight: “Kelly sucks.”
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?