WWE Mailbag: Answering Your Questions on Ric Flair, Stone Cold, Sheamus and More

Today is a very special day.

It's Friday, and for some people, the fact that it's 4/20 makes it doubly special. But as for me personally, I'm actually talking about it being mailbag day.

I'm back again with the latest WWE mailbag installment, which features my answers to your WWE and wrestling-related questions.

If you want to ask a question that receives consideration for the mailbag, you can do that either through Twitter or Formspring.

Give me a good question that I haven't been asked 100 times, and I'll probably answer it.

In today's mailbag, I tackle questions on Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan, a debate about The Rock and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and many others.

All right, let's get on with the show. Here is the latest WWE Mailbag.

What Can WWE Do to Improve the IC/US Title Scenes? Unify Them?

How do you think WWE can make the United States and Intercontinental Championships relevant again? Do you thing WWE will unify these titles?

I don't think unifying the titles is the solution because, in the end, it would probably just shrink the mid-card.

If there's only one secondary title, that provides fewer opportunities for advancement for the lower-card and mid-card stars. Thus, it would probably shrink the mid-card on both Raw and Smackdown, which is already getting smaller by the day.

The first thing I would do is put both the IC and US belts on up-and-coming stars who can actually wrestle and have serious gimmicks.

As much as I love Santino Marella and as over as he is, having him hold the United States Championship is doing nothing to help the belt's prestige and has turned it into even more of a joke than it already is.

We need to see the mid-card titles on guys like Tyson Kidd, Drew McIntyre and Jack Swagger, who aren't going to be held out of the main event by holding those belts and instead will benefit from them.

The US and IC belts should focus more on guys who are good pure wrestlers and use their title reigns to build them up as characters.

I also think that it's imperative that we see longer title reigns and the champions defending their titles on a more consistent basis.

Dolph Ziggler and Cody Rhodes had lengthy runs with the US and IC belts, respectively, but the US title has flip-flopped between three different stars since then while Rhodes would often go well more than a month without defending it.

Wanna make the belts relevant? Defend them, and defend them often.

When Will Sheamus Lose the World Heavyweight Title?

When do you think Sheamus will lose the World Heavyweight Championship?

I think Sheamus is going to have a decent reign. Maybe not CM Punk lengthy, but a reasonably lengthy one, nonetheless.

Prior to his win at WrestleMania, Sheamus actually hadn't won a World title since the summer of 2010, so I think he's due to get a run that lasts more than a month this time around.

He's not going to drop the World Heavyweight Championship at Extreme Rules (sorry, Daniel Bryan fans), but I'll go out on a limb and say that he's going to drop it at Money in the Bank in July.

My theory is that whoever wins Smackdown's MITB match will go after Sheamus that night following Sheamus's successful title defense, successfully cash in the briefcase and set up a World title match with Sheamus at SummerSlam.

I'll probably be totally off on that prediction, but still, I think Sheamus is going to have a three-to-four-month title reign, so losing it at MITB or SummerSlam seems likely.

Hogan and Flair Tarnishing Their Careers in TNA?

How much have the careers of Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan been tarnished by going to TNA?

Honestly? Not that much.

The main reason why I say that is because I don't think enough people that watch WWE also watch or even care about TNA, meaning that they may not even realize what either Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair are doing over there.

In Hogan's case, he hasn't really wrestled much for TNA, and while he's been a failed experiment in whatever his role is exactly, he's still considered to be the biggest name in wrestling history and hasn't done much to change that perception.

As for Flair, I think some people hate the fact that he's done ridiculous things in TNA (remember when he jobbed to Jay Lethal?). But I think they also realize that it's out of necessity.

Flair has had some serious financial problems because of all of his failed marriages, and I think that's the No. 1 reason why he's in TNA.

Even though it was kind of BS that he wrestled in TNA after that great WWE sendoff, he had to do it.

Can't hate on the guy for making a living, and thus, I think both he and Hogan's legacies remain basically intact.

Ranking the Undertaker's WrestleMania Matches with HHH and HBK

Rank the four Undertaker WM matches that he's had with HBK and HHH.

Hmm. That's a toughie because I think they were all either 4.75- or 5-star matches.

But I'll give it a shot:

4. Undertaker vs. Triple H (WrestleMania 27): A phenomenal match, but not as good as their Hell in a Cell encounter.

3. Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker (WrestleMania 26): This match was almost as good as their bout at WrestleMania 25, but given that the WM25 one obviously came first, I think it was always going to be nearly impossible to top it.

2. HHH vs. Undertaker (WrestleMania 28): The best Hell in a Cell match ever? I think so. There was a brilliant story told here, and both men left it all on the line to deliver a hell of a performance.

1. Undertaker vs. HBK (WrestleMania 25): For me, this is still the best pure wrestling match that I have ever seen. Again, some awesome storytelling here and some incredible false finishes.

You can certainly debate all of these, but those are my rankings. What do you guys think?  

Is the Hall of Fame Pointless?

is the HOF a waste of time, particularly the celeb wing?

For the most part, I think the celebrity wing is pretty pointless.

Outside of maybe Mike Tyson, I can't really think of anyone in the celeb wing who had a legitimate, long-lasting impact on the pro wrestling business.

As for the rest of the Hall of Fame, I still think that it's a great honor to be inducted. I wouldn't call it a waste of time, but I would definitely say that it needs some serious revamping.

Who gets in and who doesn't is basically Vince McMahon's call, and that's resulted in a seriously tainted Hall that features someone like Koko B. Ware but has left out guys like Rick Rude and "Macho Man" Randy Savage.

Like with legitimate sports, I'm in favor of an actual voting process that would require a certain percentage of votes to get in.

Let's say, for example, that there is a committee of 50 WWE legends/Hall of Famers, employees and so on and so forth, and to get into the Hall, something like 75 percent of the committee has to vote you in.

Each year, only a certain amount of guys would be eligible for voting (15-20 maybe?), and the rest of the process would be up to the committee.

Some voting process that is similar to that would go a long way toward making the Hall of Fame much more legitimate.

What's the 5th-Most Important PPV?

What do you think is the fifth-most important WWE pay-pier-view?

Last week, I ranked the "Big Four" PPVs from most important to least important, and the rankings went like this: WrestleMania, Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, Survivor Series.

So, what's the fifth-most important PPV? I'll go with Money in the Bank.

Although it's only been around for two years now, last year's MITB show was incredible, and even if that wasn't the case, the importance of the MITB briefcases can't be denied.

Last year's Money in the Bank pay-per-view led to Alberto Del Rio's first WWE title win, as well as Daniel Bryan's first World title run and his excellent heel turn.

Meanwhile, the MITB PPV in 2010 helped launch the career of The Miz and resulted in Kane's best main event run in a decade.

Who wins the MITB briefcases has a long-lasting effect on storylines that can take shape over the course of an entire year, whereas most other B-level pay-per-views are simply throwaway shows.

Yep, I definitely gotta go with Money in the Bank.

Better Wrestler: The Rock or "Stone Cold"?

Better wrestler: The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin?

Wow. This one's a toughie, especially when you consider that a few of their best matches (Backlash in 1999, WrestleMania XIX and WrestleMania X-Seven) actually came against each other.

When I first thought about this question, I was leaning toward "Stone Cold" Steve Austin because of some of his phenomenal matches, such as his unforgettable bout against Bret Hart at WrestleMania XIII or his 1997 King of the Ring match against Shawn Michaels.

But The Rock has had some amazing matches as well.

There was The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania 18, The Rock vs. Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam in 2002, The Rock vs. Mankind in an "I Quit" Match in 1999, The Rock vs. Triple H in a Ladder Match in 1998, etc.

Realistically, it's a tossup for me between The Rock and Austin.

If I had to choose, though (like if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose), I would go with The Rock, ever so slightly ahead of "Stone Cold."

I can't really pinpoint why. It's just that more Rock matches stick out in my mind than Austin matches.

Which FCW Star Will Have the Most Success in WWE?

From @MaxKHallam: Out of all the current FCW talent, who do you think will have the most successful career? Including the likes of Ryback, etc.

Dean Ambrose.

I know he's probably the popular pick, but they're already building up this guy to be huge thanks to his Internet feud with Mick Foley, and that's before he's even made his TV debut.

Ambrose is arguably the best all-around talent in FCW at the moment. He's great on the mic, and as you can see by this match, he's already damn good in the ring as well.

And guess what? He's only 26 years old, which means he has a ton of time to get even better.

Although a question like this is hard to predict because of the up-and-down booking of the creative team, at least from what I've seen/heard/read, there isn't a more talented superstar in FCW than Ambrose.

While guys like Richie Steamboat and Seth Rollins are great in the ring, they're not quite the total package that Ambrose is.

Who Is "The Best in the World"?

What other wrestlers could actually have legitimate claims of being "best in the world"?

Note: This is assuming we're just talking about the WWE (otherwise, I'd include guys like Kurt Angle, AJ Styles, Austin Aries, etc.) in the discussion.

But in the WWE land, I think that only five guys can truly be under consideration to call themselves "the best in the world": Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler and Randy Orton.

These are the the five wrestlers who, at least in my view, put on the best matches on the most consistent basis.

There really isn't much separating these five, as they all go through their hot streaks, so it's basically just a matter of personal preference.

I think Orton has the best in-ring psychology in the business, Bryan's the best technical wrestler, Punk's the best all-around wrestler and Ziggler's the most physically gifted of the bunch.

So, what constitutes "the best in the world" exactly?

Everyone's definition of that is going to differ, but if (like with the Rock/Austin question) I was forced to choose, my pick would be Punk.

He never puts on bad matches, has been on fire for a year now and is great on the mic as well.

It's hard to get any better than CM Punk.

Who Is the Most Underrated Superstar of All Time?

From @Daniel_Allen455: Question for mailbag. Who would you say are the most underrated WWE superstars of all time? And Why?

You're looking at him.

While William Regal has almost become so underrated that he's become overrated (make sense?), the guy really is an amazing all-around talent.

His technical skills are nearly unmatched in the WWE, and he's always been a fantastic mic worker. But aside from his brief push as the King of the Ring winner in 2008 (a push that was halted by a failed Wellness test), I don't think he ever really reached the level that he should have.

Just look at Regal running circles around Goldberg in the ring, or even a match as simple as this Superstars bout against Daniel Bryan.

It's pretty clear from these matches that Regal was/is an incredibly talented overall performer, but for whatever reason (his physique, failed Wellness tests, etc.), he never made it to the top of the WWE.

I definitely think he should have, though, and that's why he's the most underrated superstar of all time.

Note: As part of the new WWE blog, I'll be asking all of the B/R wrestling readers for questions for a new mailbag that I will post on Fridays. It will be a slideshow featuring 10-to-20 questions and answers on a wide range of topics. You can submit questions either through Formspring or Twitter, and the best ones will be answered in the B/R mailbag.