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 Laurence from London, England asks: I’m interested in the business side of WWE and whilst I think NXT is amazing to watch, does WWE’s business model not risk eating itself up? For example, if everyone has the WWE Network and watches NXT because it’s so good, when talent is called up to the roster these acts like Adrian Neville and Sami Zayn are not new to the WWE universe and the exciting matches/feuds they have would just be reruns of what the WWE Universe has already seen. Yes they can feud with the Zigglers and the Rollins but eventually, if all new talent comes from WWE’s feeding system, then all future match-ups would have been seen on the Network in NXT if WWE succeeds in their business model where people buy the Network.

PWTorch senior columnist Bruce Mitchell answers: We found out this isn't a problem for WWE, at least not yet, when four NXT stalwarts appeared on Raw and only a few hundred fans out of the thousands there reacted, and they only reacted to one of the four.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: Raw is seen by around four million people. WWE Network is subscribed to by around 700,000 people. Those 700,000 represent ardent fans who won't stop watching because they've seen the match ups before in NXT, for the most part. And most of those subscribers are there for other content, not NXT, especially the big PPVs and big star documentaries and countdown shows. So it's less than 10 percent of Raw viewers who are likely exposed to NXT. It's just not at a point that WWE would be concerned.

===

PWTorch reader Dan Cartwright asks: Why do I keep reading that it's such a great story to have Brock Lesnar dominate the good guys from now until WrestleMania 31? That's the complete opposite of good storytelling. There are only two outcomes: (1) Everyone stops watching - nobody watches the good guy lose week after week. (2) Everyone is cheering for Brock - nobody watches the good guy lose week after week. I always remember the interviews with Scott Hall where he said the job of the bad guy is to make the fans want to see him get beat up. Get beat up (the easy part). Then make the fans want to see him get beat up again - enough to pay to see it (the hard part). Using Paul Heyman to get Brock over after he dominates John Cena is a waste. I could do that. What makes him great is getting over Brock after he lost. That's the job of a bad guy.

PWTorch columnist Greg Parks answers: What is important here is how WWE books the babyfaces who lose... if they're treated like losers who mope around because they lost and there's no journey back to the top, then yes, fans could tune out or cheer Lesnar. But a heel should be built up big because, eventually, the babyface who slays him will be golden, with that babyface expected to be Roman Reigns. If at WrestleMania, Reigns beats a heel who has been beaten before, and often, the win won't mean as much. If the heels don't dominate on occasion, wins by the babyfaces mean nothing.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: There is no one single formula that always works or never works. It's situational. In this situation, Lesnar ENDED THE FREAKIN' STREAK. That was done, solely, to set up Lesnar as a dominant, unbeatable heel champion as a one-year story arc so that whomever beats him at WM31 can be elevated into super-stardom (Roman Reigns). If Lesnar lost now and then, the entire effect of ending the Streak is mitigated. Lesnar dominating everyone is a means to an ends, and he's a freak of nature. WWE will never have a wrestler with as much talent and the UFC Championship background that Lesnar does, so utilizing that as part of a dominant heel storyline makes total sense. Doing it with another heel makes less sense. Doing it all the time makes no sense. But doing it this one time makes total sense.

===

PWTorch reader Blaine S. asks: If ECW didn't exist, would the Monday Night War end the same way it did?

PWTorch columnist Sean Radican answers: I think the Monday Nights Wars would have been much different if ECW hadn't existed. ECW had a huge influence on bringing an edgier product to WWE and WCW. I think if ECW didn't exist, WWE would have had a much harder time moving away from the cartoonish aspects of their product, which would have stalled their momentum and perhaps WCW would have stayed on top longer. I still feel like the way WCW was mismanaged, they did a lot of damage to their product and with Triple H, Mankind, The Rock, and Steve Austin in the pipeline, WWE still would have won the Monday Night Wars. I believe that without ECW's influence, it would have taken WWE longer to overtake WCW, but it was inevitable that it was going to happen given the way WCW managed their talent and the up and coming talent ready to make an impact in WWE.

PWTorch senior columnist Bruce Mitchell answers: Theres really no way to tell.

PWTorch editor Wade Keller answers: There is no way to tell for sure. I think Vince McMahon was destined to outlast Ted Turner/Eric Bischoff because McMahon absolutely had to win because it was his life, whereas it was just one division within Time-Warner and Bischoff didn't have the drive or discipline or desperation (three-D construction copyright Paul Heyman) to outlast Vince. Where ECW fits in isn't as obvious. There's no doubt Paul Heyman tapped into something, and developed talent that otherwise wouldn't have been given a second-look based on the stupid size/body type standards of the early 1990s. He sparked the approach that led to the Attitude Era, so if you were going to make a case that the outcome would have been different in the Monday Night War, you'd have to point to WWE's need for the Attitude Era in order to sprint past WCW, and without ECW the Attitude Era wouldn't have happened. It's a bit of a stretch as I still think Vince would have found a way, but ECW's existence ultimately sparked the key change (including Steve Austin tapping into a new version of himself during his short stay in ECW and Mick Foley really evolving as an act in ECW) that cemented WWE's ultimate win.

===

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?