WWE TLC 2011: WWE Gets the Wrong Idea Allowing Randy Orton to Beat Wade Barrett
Don't get me wrong: Sunday night's Tables, Ladders and Chairs match between Randy Orton and Wade Barrett was great TV.
At the same time, allowing Orton to defeat Barrett via RKO was a step in the wrong direction, right after it appeared the WWE was going the right direction when Zack Ryder beat Dolph Ziggler.
What made Ryder's ascension to the U.S. title so encouraging was that it appeared to show that the WWE was trying to go back to the days of when champions lived longer inside the ring. It was refreshing because it gave you hope that the WWE would stop all the nonsense of making the title a non-stop rollercoaster.
But when "The Barrett Barrage" was put to an end on Sunday—albeit in dramatic fashion—it gave me a sickening feeling. Barrett, like CM Punk, had a great chance of becoming a giant in the sport, and once again the WWE proved it has absolutely no idea what it's doing.
"The Barrett Barrage" was one of the most exciting things to come out of wrestling in a long time, and fans began to live for it.
Was this the right outcome for the WWE?
Instead, Barrett's run ended, crushing the hearts of him and the WWE's fans. While Orton has been one of the best wrestlers in the organization's history, this match was supposed to mark a changing of the guard and catapult Barrett to superstar status. While Orton certainly wouldn't like losing, it would have hurt him far less than it did Barrett.
Unpredictability is nice from time to time, but when it takes away from the sport's strength, it does more damage than good.
I still can't decide what the WWE is doing. I like to think it is moving toward a beneficial direction, but I'm constantly disappointed year in and year out these days.
It's time for the WWE to start taking responsibility and start making a fantastic product.
It has the right wrestlers.
It just doesn't know how to use them.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?