NOTE: This version of Ask PWTorch today is an APP EXCLUSIVE and not available at our free www.PWTorch.com website (although it is also available at our VIP website, where members enjoy full access to every article on every one of our platforms). Thanks for your support of our App and keep spreading the word about PWTorch to your friends who are wrestling fans!

Pro Wrestling Torch was established in 1987 by Wade Keller. One of the primary traits PWTorch has been credited with over the years is assembling the best and most diverse staff of columnists with broad knowledge, but also areas of specialty where they have a particularly strong grasp of history. Every day PWTorch.com presents that team of writers answering your questions, some of which are fact-based and others of which are opinion-based. Either way, we've got you covered with Bruce Mitchell, Pat McNeill, Sean Radican, Greg Parks, James Caldwell, and Wade Keller. Collectively they have over 80 years working for the Torch, writing about wrestling and studying industry history and trends.

If you have a question you'd like us to respond to, send your question to askpwtorch@gmail.com. I, along with the Torch staff, will address you questions in this feature and also the “Ask PWTorch: All-Star Panel” edition which is also published most days here at PWTorch.

===

PWTorch reader Iain B. from Scotland asks: My question this time relates to the present situation with the WWE Title not being defended regularly. We have all grown up with the regulation that the title should be defended every 30 days or forfeited if it is not. However, in boxing, the titles are defended maybe twice a year, yet no one claims they are any less valid or valuable. While I would have maybe shot some backstage scenes or sit-down interviews with Brock if the plan was to keep him off until January, could WWE not claim that they are in fact treating the title and champion more realistically by not having him defend so often, thus building anticipation? Incidentally, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's something I've been wondering about. Thanks as always for all your work, guys.

PWTorch columnist Greg Parks answers: I don't think the 30-day rule has really been emphasized enough lately in WWE for that to be a valid complaint. That's probably one of those old-time 'rasslin' rules that Vince McMahon abandoned because it got in the way of "telling stories." The difference between wrestling and boxing is that there are a large number of boxing championships besides the heavyweight title that have been draws over the years or can main-event PPVs. WWE has several titles, but have not built them to a point where they can successfully replace the World Title as a draw when WWE runs into a situation like the one they're currently in. That's their own fault, and even without the World Title, they haven't focused on building those secondary titles. Theoretically, WWE could treat the title more realistically by not having it defended every month, but they missed the chance by pretty much ignoring Lesnar and the title in the weeks following Night of Champions.

PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell answers: This is a really good topic. I think WWE should do away with the historical, but infrequently-mentioned 30-day rule, as it does bring up the questions WWE cannot answer about why Brock Lesnar has disappeared without explanation. (Shhh, maybe if we don't mention him, they won't notice that the top champion in the company is gone!) WWE has not handled Lesnar's absence very well, discarding one of the top stories from Night of Champions as to why Seth Rollins tried to cash in MITB on Lesnar. I think a better approach would be as you suggested - Lesnar heelishly says that he's taking the belt and going home until a suitable title contender is found. That way, WWE could have moved into the next phase of storylines without clumsily acting like their WWE champion just vanished.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: Yeah, the issue isn't that the title hasn't been defended in 30 days that jumps out at outrageous, as WWE doesn't really push that as an actual regulation. What was a credibility-killer for WWE - its announcers and top wrestlers, especially - is that they didn't mention Lesnar for several weeks or acknowledge that their reigning champion had gone MIA. With so many ways to address it, it was a cowardly, sneaky, discrediting approach to just ignore his absence. I'm glad they mentioned him on Monday's Raw, finally.

===

PWTorch reader Michael S. asks: While watching the WWE Network, I had a thought. What was the best non-Mania PPV of all time? Is there a random PPV that just had a stacked card?

PWTorch columnist Sean Radican answers: I'm going to go with Money in the Bank 2011, which had a red hot crowd in Chicago for C.M. Punk challenging John Cena after his infamous pipe bomb promo. That match was incredible and the fans were rabid leading into Punk capturing the WWE Championship in a five star match. The show also featured two excellent MITB Ladder matches, but the crowd in Chicago carried the entire night and provided a great atmosphere. In Your House 16: Canadian Stampede or Fully Loaded 2000 are your best bets for stacked cards to check out.

===

PWTorch reader Forrest M. asks: I realize that this question will probably get negative feedback, but with online reports of a decline in U.S. pro wrestling, I'm curious if we might see the end of pro wrestling on national television eventually? (There are several other questions that could be added to this but I'll leave it as is.)

PWTorch columnist Greg Parks answers: As long as WWE is around in some shape or form, I think pro wrestling will have a national television presence of some kind. Even though the number of cable/satellite subscribers is declining, there are enough cable channels that could use the consistent, weekly ratings that WWE gets.

PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell answers: Another J.C., Jim Cornette, would probably argue that pro wrestling no longer exists on national television with the product WWE presents. But, if grouping WWE and TNA into a "pro wrestling" genre, I don't see pro wrestling going away from national TV. At least, not for the next several years following WWE's renewed TV deal with NBC Universal. What might change before pro wrestling goes away from national TV is "national TV" no longer exists. With more and more networks considering "cutting the cord" from cable/satellite, what we know as "national TV" where everyone sits around the TV watching a particular event or TV show at 8:00 p.m. EST may not exist the same way by the time WWE's new TV deal expires. So, it might be a more fragmented market where viewers can pull up a live stream of Raw or Smackdown or their device, but there isn't that universal feeling of everyone is watching the same channel on their cable or satellite. I think it's unfortunate TV is moving that way, as there's something to be said for communal viewing, but in our self-interested, consumer-driven culture, community is being sacrificed at the expense of convenience and technology. Perhaps social media will bridge the gap to keep everyone connected, but I don't think it will be the same as that sense of everyone sitting around their TV watching Raw, Smackdown, or a PPV. Major tangent from the question, but it's hard to say what "national TV" will look like down the road.

===

PWTorch reader Forrest M. asks: I have always been a huge fan of Dustin Runnells (Rhodes/Goldust) ever since I first saw him in WCW. His late-'90s version of Goldust I could've done without, but I still enjoyed his work. He seems to be in really great shape now, so my question is: Could Goldust have one more good singles run? Not a main event run but possibly a high middle of the card run?

PWTorch columnist Greg Parks answers: Goldust's resurgence, and perhaps more impressive, his consistency, has been remarkable. That being said, at this point, I think tag title contender is really where he should be situated at this point in his career. It's valuable to have a veteran like him, with credibility, to help anchor the tag division.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: I believe there are a lot of wrestlers who it would benefit WWE to give a run at the top if for no other reason than to save us from seeing the same few people against each other incenstuously over and over on top year after year. Whether it's a short run of Titus O'Neil or a mid-40s Goldust, there is room for stories to be told of unlikely rises to the top of the card. Ryback is an example of someone who had a brief run on top and it broke up the monotony of the same ol' matches. At least we have some new talent on top, but WWE shouldn't restrict themselves to pushing only people they have hopes can be a perennial long-term main eventer. There can be flawed wrestlers who aren't long-term top tier prospects who can freshen up main events now and again, and Goldust coming out of his tag run with his brother is probably among those.

===

Catch up on past Ask PWTorch articles...

-ASK PWTORCH - FREE WEBSITE.
-CLICKING HERE - ASK PWTORCH - VIP VERSION

********

(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?