Welcome to a new website-exclusive PWTorch feature! I am PWTorch founder and editor, Wade Keller. I've been covering pro wrestling since 1987 when I started the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter while still in high school. Over 25 years later, PWTorch reaches more wrestling fans every week than any other independent brand. When we launched PWTorch.com in 1999, one of the features I enjoyed doing the most was "Ask PWTorch." I haven't done it recently on the website, but did revive it in recent years in an audio format for PWTorch VIP members on my Keller Hotline. We reintroduced it to the website audience this month.

If you have a question you'd like me to respond to, send your question to askpwtorch@gmail.com. I, along with the Torch staff, will address you questions.

SPECIAL NOTE We have launched a new FREE PWTorch Email Alert service today where you can receive BREAKING NEWS ALERTS on occasion plus TOP FIVE STORIES OF THE DAY reports. To sign up (you can easily unsubscribe anytime), click here.)


PWTorch reader Kyle B. asks: I've been a WWE fan for a long time, but one storyline that splits fans in two was the whole WWE vs. WCW/ECW Alliance storyline. I think it was as good as it gets with the talent brought in from the rival companies. The biggest disappointment was obviously no Sting, Goldberg, or Ric Flair (until later) among others. I was wondering what you would have done.

PWTorch columnist Pat McNeill answers: Kyle, if you check the Torch VIP archives for 2001, you'll see that Bruce Mitchell, I, and the other Torch writers had numerous ideas for the WCW invasion storyline. Most of those ideas never came to pass. What we saw on television wasn't "as good as it gets." Sure, the July 2001 "Invasion" pay-per-view was a big success, but WWE should have been able to sustain the momentum from that show through at least WrestleMania XVIII, and that didn't happen.

I can't think of anyone WWE brought in for the invasion that they shouldn't have hired. After all, the point was to make WCW look like credible competition for WWE. With hindsight, it's obvious WWE should have brought Ric Flair, Scott Steiner, Hulk Hogan, and the Outsiders sooner than they did. Hogan and Flair would have given the WCW invasion more credibility. It was difficult to buy into the notion of Steve Austin as the "leader" of WCW. But Ric Flair could have pulled it off.

I stand by my opinion that WWE should have hired Jeff Jarrett, who was one of the hardest working wrestlers in WCW in 2000-2001. Given the circumstances, I can understand why WWE didn't try to buy out the rest of Bill Goldberg's contract, but he would have been a valuable asset.

The other big mistake WWE made was in ignoring its contract with Viacom and trying to peddle WCW programming to other networks. WWE should have sat down with Viacom and figured out the best way to launch WCW as a WWE-owned brand. Oh, and Stephanie McMahon shouldn't have been aligned with Extreme Championship Wrestling.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: Invasion angles are difficult enough to pull off with credibility. It's easier to tell a story within the logic of Wrestler A wants to beat Wrestler B to win a title, get closer to a title shot, or settle a grudge. It's more difficult to tell a story that Promotion A is letting wrestlers from Promotion B try to ruin them and beat up their top stars. It comes across as orchestrated nonsense that one company would allow wrestlers not on their roster invade their company and try to destroy it from within. It's a constant battle that TNA has with Aces & Eights. We still don't quite know why The Shield walks in from the crowd rather than backstage where other official wrestlers hang out until their match time.

I believe, and have argued for years, that WCW was such damaged goods that the Dream Matches that could have happened just a few years earlier were destroyed by the final 2-3 years of awful WCW booking. Also, keep in mind at that time the WWF was feeling good about their business, their roster depth, and their feuds. Just for the sake of finally having so-called "WCW vs. WWF" dream cards, was it really worth forcing wrestlers with no history against each other to fill out the card when WWE had great feuds yet to be fully explored using their own wrestlers. Also, this invasion angle would have required WWF wrestlers who had been feuding to put their differences aside to battle WCW wrestlers, who also didn't necessarily get along. It was just awkward.

Because so many WCW wrestlers were under Time-Warner guaranteed contracts, still getting paid to sit at home, meant the WWF would have to blow up their own salary structure and create internal jealousy with their own wrestlers who helped them win the war because to sign some of the top WCW names, they'd not only have to buy out their Time-Warner contracts, but then pay them even more above that as an incentive to get them to actually then wrestle rather than collect pay for doing nothing. So suddenly these wrestlers who were part of WCW's nosedive would be brought in and paid more than some top tier WWF wrestlers. The WCW top stars weren't used to working a full time house show schedule, but if the WWF didn't require them to work house shows, also, it could have ruined morale among the WWF crew.

So while it's fun to fantasy book dream cards with Sting, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Scott Steiner, Jeff Jarrett, Booker T, and Ric Flair against WWF wrestlers, to me it's just a logistical pricey mess that was going to disrupt all of the great feuds the WWF had yet to explore on their own roster. Now, had the WWF bought out WCW during WCW's peak years, that's another story. If Bret Hart had never left the WWF and was part of Team WWF along with Rock and Austin against WCW led by Hogan, Nash, and Hall, that's big money. I just think any money WWE did make or could have made is offset greatly by tangible opportunity cost (what WWF wrestler vs. WWF wrestler feud was it replacing and was that going to draw better?) and intangibles such as locker room jealousy and morale issues as a result of paying WCW guys way more than the WWF guys just to get them out of their "sit-at-home-and-get-paid Time-Warner guarantees."

All of that said, once the decision was made to do it, I think there were much better ways to execute it. The fact that Austin and Stephanie switched teams just made a mockery of the whole concept. Yes, the first "WWF vs. WCW" card drew well, but that doesn't prove it wasn't overall worth the disruption of doing in the long run what made the most sense for the main WWF wrestlers and storylines.

***

Jeff from Michigan asks: Will the PG era of WWE ever end? Will they at least consider making Smackdown or Main Event TV-14?

PWTorch columnist Greg Parks answers: The PG era is much too lucrative for WWE to end any time soon. The deals they have with sponsors and toy manufacturers would be at-risk were they to become more edgy or more Attitude Era-like. Plus, with WWE now a publicly traded company, more eyes are on their business and what they do than ever before. I don't think WWE will be PG forever (and how Triple H and Stephanie McMahon change things when they take over remains to be seen), but this is the course WWE is likely to stay on for the immediate future.

PWTorch columnist Pat McNeill answers: Will the PG era "ever" end? Never is a mighty long time, so it could happen at some point.

WWE management likes having that PG rating. The company has more big-name advertisers than they did when WWE shows were TV-14, and that means more money. It also means WWE spends less time dealing with complaints from the Media Research Council and other watchdog groups.

I believe WWE likes that all of its shows carry a PG rating. (Saturday Morning Slam is on summer break right now, so it doesn't count.) When all the shows are PG, there's less confusion about what's allowed and what isn't.

If WWE does change any of its shows back to a TV-14 rating, the company would probably start with the final hour of Raw, not Smackdown or Main Event. Raw airs later in the evening in the United States, and when a show is outside the so-called "family hour" on US television, there's more leeway. Smackdown airs on Friday nights, which means a greater percentage of viewers are pre-teens and their parents (people who don't normally go out on Friday nights.)

***

PWTorch reader Iazlo asks: I've gotten back into wrestling after ten years of not watching at all, and what stands out to me is that WWE is very much G-rated/kid friendly, more so than it ever was, to my memory. But with ratings far lower for the business in general than they once were, why does TNA (T&A) not embrace their obviously more adult side? They do goofy storylines and no "hardcore" stuff, plus this "uproar" about the Aries-Hemme thing. I dont get it at all. What is TNA so afraid of?

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: First, the "uproar" about the Aries-Hemme thing is because it wasn't scripted and Aries put her in a threatening position, cornered in the ring against her will, and then stood on the ropes and shoved his crotch inches from her nose. There is no defending that. It was unscripted and a piggish, thuggish, asshole move on his part. Had Hemme agreed to all of that ahead of time, and if it was part of developing Aries's character, the situation would be entirely different. It wasn't, and therefore it was arguably grounds for his immediately dismissal. In any other job, a man would be fired for doing that to anyone, and Hemme didn't sign up for that when she agreed to be the ring announcer.

With that out of the way, TNA hasn't fully decided what its identity is. They're on Spike TV which doesn't have nearly as clean-cut or high-end of an image as USA Network, so they have had more latitude to be edgier and more hardcore. The way TNA films the women who are on TV is definitely more raunchy than anything in WWE today, as are the wrestling outfits of the women. The threats of violence and use of a hammer by Aces & Eights is also pretty hardcore. The "Mr. Asshole" character is something WWE wouldn't do today. TNA has tried at times to be seen as the hardcore alternative to WWE, but it doesn't help that "hardcore" itself is a pretty burned out concept. How many times do you really want to see wrestlers hit each other with trash can lids before you realize it's not really a skillful display of anything, and it's often just a shortcut for wrestlers who can't justify their position with actual athletic skills. Add to it, what we know now about head injuries has made employing the hardcore style nearly impossible unless you're willing to crassly let wrestlers destroy their brains for your enjoyment (or, in the case of promoters, your profit).

I think TNA has been about as edgy as a prime time cable pro wrestling show can be. I don't think they're particularly tame. I think, if anything, they're at times lame in their attempts to be edgy and it's more a quality rather than quantity issue, especially when you look at some of the things Vince Russo pushed during his years in TNA. I think TNA would find more success being an alternative to WWE in other keys rather than pushing past the PG rating, and the no. 1 thing for them would be to build the company around a few younger fresh stars who were presented as the centerpiece of the promotion, and mix in a few veteran big names to help those younger stars get over. TNA has tried for more than a decade to live off of wrestlers whose best days were in before getting to TNA rather than truly committing to building their own new stars. That has been and continues to be what holds them back. You can't "sort of push" new stars while the 40-plus and 50-plus crowd has the major titles and are the center of the major TV storylines. As long as Sting, Hulk Hogan, and Bully Ray are eating the type of TV time they are in the very top storylines, no one will see younger stars as truly breakout centerpiece of the company. Heck, even A.J. Styles is old by pro wrestling standards at this point and should be utilized, but in a way that is helping establish the next generation of up-and-coming stars TNA believes in. That means TNA has to be better at scouting for talent and developing new stars and then getting past the internal politics and rationalizations that the older generation makes to explain why someone isn't ready or hasn't "earned it" yet.

***

NOTE: You can ask PWTorch staff questions live on the PWTorch Livecast (www.PWTorchLivecast.com) Monday through Friday. Mondays the show airs at 7 p.m. ET / 4 p.m. PT in the hour before Raw and Tuesday through Friday at 5:30 ET / 2:30 PT. The show airs five days a week and you can talk to PWTorch staff members Bruce Mitchell, Travis Bryant, Pat McNeill, James Caldwell, Greg Parks, Sean Radican, and me on other days during the week.

READ PREVIOUS "ASK PWTORCH" FEATURES BY CLICKING HERE.

(Send your question for PWTorch editor Wade Keller and the PWTorch staff exclusively to pwtorch@gmail.com for consideration! You can hear expanded conversation on the above topics from Wade Keller by becoming a VIP member and gaining access to the daily Wade Keller Hotline, posted every day for VIP members for over 1,000 days straight. Sign up at www.PWTorch.com/govip)

We suggest these recent related articles...

ASK THE SPECIALISTS ROUNDTABLE: Who will be WWE's Next Top Star?

SATURDAY’S ASK PWTORCH STAFF for 4/11: How should WWE cater to Texas at WM32? Does WWE using Sting and Hogan add to chances more TNA wrestlers are hired? Do NXT gimmick wrestlers have a chance? Is El Generico really Sami Zayn?

THURSDAY’S ASK PWTORCH ALL-STARS 4/9: Are El Generico & Sami Zayn the same person? Next MITB cash-in for IC or U.S. belt? What match do you show non-fans so they get it? Why don’t heel teams cheat?