The John Report: For Love or Money #8

For Love or Money: Round Eight


John: Welcome to the first edition of For Love or Money in 2005. As we did last year, Matt and I plan to continue to make this a monthly column where we'll talk about issues involving WWE. The first eight questions will deal with current topics while the final two questions deal with "classic" moments from the past that we feel like talking about. On with the show.

Note: The blue (odd numbered) questions were chosen by Matt. The green (even numbered) questions were chosen by John.

1. Forget about Orton being the number one contender. In your opinion, who on Raw is the most deserving of a title shot?

Matt: I say Edge at this point. His character has just been so awesome ever since turning heel. With the new music and entrance, the whole presentation of "Edge" has been phenomenal. Of course, presentation alone doesn't make you deserving of a title shot, but his in-ring work has picked up much more. In his heel role, he can dictate the pace of the match better, and that works to his advantage I feel. He's just a guy you can root against rather than root for. He'd do great with a title shot, becuase he's wanted one forever. I say Edge is the guy.

John: Who will get to main event Mania with HHH? Batista. I don't think he's most deserving though. I'd say Jericho is. I could always give an answer like Benoit or Michaels because whenever they are healthy they are always deserving of title shots. For now, and for this question, I'll pick Jericho because of how awesome he has been for many years now, yet he's never been put over and been in a position to stay over for that long. Even when he was put over three years ago, all people remember is him babysitting Stephanie's dog, not going over Austin and Rock in a night.

Matt: See, I've kinda given up on Jericho going for the title. Jericho has said many times that he's done it all in wrestling, and right now he's just happy to perform. Plus, Jericho's kinda stuck in a midcard rut. He hasn't done anything discernable to declare his intentions for the title. So both in the ring and out of the ring, I question your decision to consider Jericho the most deserving. If this was 2003 I may have agreed with you. At this point, I just can't.

John: He's the most deserving because of all the work he's done. You think Batista's clothesline would look as good as it does if it was anybody other than Jericho selling it? He's performing at a high level. The fact that he's not around the belt is a choice of McMahon. It's not due to lack of talent. As for Edge, as long as HHH is on Raw I don't know if any other heel will sniff the World Title. Edge deserves it, sure, especially after he goes over the likes of Benoit and Michaels in singles feuds, but in WWE you don't always get what you deserve.

Matt: That's a shame. I'd love to see Edge win the title around Summerslam, as we discussed last month. Edge and Batista are the two reasons I watch Raw now. It's gotten to the point that Benoit is becoming an afterhought. Imagine that?

John: Batista will be just as stale as Orton is by the summer. Batista winning the belt at Mania makes the most sense now. Look ahead, though. Once he's done feuding with HHH, how are fans going to rally behind the biggest guy on the show when he's fighting smaller men? It won't work. It's like WWE is a dog chasing its own tail at this point.

Matt: I dunno, the fans took to Brock for a little after he won the title at Wrestlemania XIX. I think talent vs. size could work. Edge having a program with HBK will hone Edge's workrate even more, to the point where Edge could carry Batista to a great match for the belt. And speaking of Shawn Michaels, here's FLOM's [b]Segue of the month[/b].

John: Brock is way better as a heel than a face. The only time as a face he got sympathy was against Big Show. Big men need to be heels, not faces. Simple as that. Now onto that segue...

2. In the Oratory forums we had a thread asking what match you want to see more at WrestleMania XXI: Shawn Michaels vs. Edge or Michaels vs. Kurt Angle. What's your pick?

John: Angle/Michaels. You can do Edge/Michaels at Backlash or some other show that I'm not ordering anyway. If that match is at a show other than WrestleMania or the Rumble then I will order it. I'll order Mania anyway, so give me Angle/Michaels because that's the one match I want to see at WrestleMania. I would love for Edge/Michaels to take place over a couple of PPVs anyway, not just Edge going over at WrestleMania. Do Angle/Michaels at Mania because it's one of the few "dream matches" the company has left at this point. The place for dream matches is WrestleMania. It's not like I'd complain about either match, I just want Angle/Michaels more. Voting in the forums is 50-38 for Angle/Michaels.

Matt: Well, given what I said before, Edge storyline-wise isn't ready for a title shot...yet. I'd MUCH rather have Edge/HBK at Wrestlemania, because THAT'S the storyline they're building right now, and it's been phenomenal so far. It wouldn't make sense for them to just drop Edge and give Angle to HBK, only to pick up the Edge storyline afterwards for Backlash. Yes, Angle/HBK is special, but Angle is a shell of his former self in the ring, and I think Edge/HBK would be a MUCH better match to watch on the biggest stage of them all.

John: I'm ready to accept that Michaels/Angle isn't happening. I still want it to happen, though. Maybe one of them can get traded or something. I think Edge/Michaels has a chance to be match of the year, feud of year and all that. It's just that Michaels and Angle are two of my favorites ever and it's one of the few dream matches left for me at this point. Plus, who's to say either guy will be healthy when it comes time to WrestleMania XXII.

Matt: I know, but sometimes Dream Matches need to stay a dream. Do you know how many marks were clamoring for Brock vs. Goldberg, and look what happened! Now, I'm not saying Angle/HBK would be a 5-finger-stinker, but it might not meet our lofty expectations.

John: I remember when Benoit/Michaels happened. I was so excited that night on Raw. For me to be really excited at Mania I need Michaels vs. Angle. I'll be more than happy if it's Michaels/Edge because I know the story is good, the quality will be good and it could be that breakthrough match for Edge. It's just that this is WrestleMania and I'm a Kurt Angle fan. I'd much rather see the guy against Michaels then some crap feud with Undertaker. Why do I know it's crap? Because it's Undertaker. As it stands, I won't get my dream match. It's okay. I'll live.

Matt: If anybody can get a good match out of Undertaker, it's Angle. And there's a possibility that Angle might end Taker's streak, should the WM match happen. Let Angle help those on Smackdown who need to be helped. Yeah, I would have loved to see Angle/HBK too, but I think it would be a huge disservice to Edge to have HBK drop his program just so he can wrestle a dream match.

John: I could give a fuck about good Undertaker matches. There are no good matches left in his tank. His best match to me will be his last one. I guess this means I'll get to complain about Angle/Michaels for longer. Yay me.

3. Do you think there should be Raw vs. Smackdown matches at Wrestlemania? And if so, which ones?

Matt: I think Undertaker/Kane vs. Snitsky/Heidenreich will be good...just lump all the crap into one match. Hell, do me an even bigger favorite and make it career ending (with Snitsky and Heidenreich losing), I also think that having Benoit vs. Guerrero as a special challenge match will be REALLY cool to see. They were both holding the belts last year, this year they're representing their brand. Plus, neither are in a major storyline right now, so it could work.

John: As I said in the previous answer, I think Angle/Michaels should be one. I think Kane & Undertaker vs. Snitsky & Heidenreich might happen too, although it's not like I think it should happen. I just think it will. My other pick for a match would be something like a twenty minute tag match between Benoit & Jericho vs. Mysterio & RVD just because I think it would rock and I don't know what any of those guys are doing at WrestleMania anyway. I'm all about the great matches at Mania and that's one I think I'd like a lot.

Matt: I think we both agree that Benoit and Jericho should represent Raw in an interpromotional match. Bottom line is that there's nothing going on between those two, and they seriously need a high-profile match on the card, because they deserve one. I think having them take part in some interpromotional action would be awesome, whether in singles or as a tag team. But have you changed your mind about RVD now that he's got this apparent knee injury?

John: Yeah, I didn't know about RVD's injury at the time. At this point I say fuck the tag match. Give me Guerrero vs. Mysterio for like 25 minutes at WrestleMania. Make it 2/3 falls or something. They might be going in that direction considering the whole "Rey has his number" angle going on SD now. I guess that means do Benoit vs. Jericho. Fine with me. Both matches would be winners to me. I can't really think of interpromotional matches that would be "hot" right now. We'll probably know more after the Rumble.

Matt: Man, I'd LOVE to see those two matches, hell, keep them face vs. face. Taker/Kane vs. Snitsky/Heidenreich was added to the Supershow House Show cards, so it looks like a lock for Mania, which frees up Angle I guess.

John: Maybe they'll do Angle vs. Orton then. Who knows? That would be a big match. I still think they do Angle vs. Undertaker although I have no idea where that would leave Orton.

Matt: World Title Triple Threat Part 2, my friend.

John: Another triple threat? Yawn.

4. Where do you think Eddie Guerrero is headed in the near future? Could he be turning heel or will he remain a face?

John: I think WWE really dropped the ball with Eddie Guerrero last year. Yes, they put the belt on him at the right time, but his reign was far too short and everything he did after losing the belt at the Great American Bash was weak. Angle-Guerrero was okay, but they were never allowed to make it special because of the overbooking involved in almost all of their matches. I still think Guerrero is the best babyface on the entire WWE roster, but I don't think WWE sees it that way. Don't turn him heel. The crowd likes him. They want to cheer him. It's just up to WWE to push him the right way and at the moment, they haven't figured out how to do that. Basically, everything he did after WrestleMania was a letdown to me. Not because of him, but because of how he was used by management.

Matt: I think he'll remain a face. I think even as a heel he'll still get cheered for doing heel tactics. I honestly have NO idea where Eddie is headed in the near future, but I WANT him to be in the Bret Hart role of having the title, losing the title, fading into the midcard for a while, only to re-emerge and become champion again. I'd still like to see Eddie as champion, and I hope he gets another shot at holding the belt.

John: Good comparison. I see him in that Bret Hart role. He can lose matches and the crowd won't care. He'll always be over, he'll always have their love and respect. If he went heel it would be really hard to get the crowd to be against him. I just want him to be in a good storyline more than anything. Remember how good Lesnar-Guerrero was? He needs something like that to sink his teeth into. And sorry JBL fans, but a guy scaring a man's mom does not equate to a good feud.

Matt: Hah. Try telling that to our Forums. I feel so bad for Eddie Guerrero. Being around such shitty talent on Smackdown has made him a worse wrestler. Sure, he can have a great match with Rey Mysterio every now and then, but for the most part, Eddie's workrate has decreased. It's totally not his fault, but you can't help but feel for the guy. That being said, I'd much rather see him as a face, because he's still a guy I can root for.

John: His story has been told well and he's just a likable guy in many ways. You can see in his face that he loves what he does. It shows in his performance. Keep him face, just give him something to make me excited. This Guerrero/Mysterio is exciting me, so maybe there's something to get excited about.

5. Now that we've seen Muhammad Hassan in the ring, has your opinion on him changed? Is he still primed for big things?

Matt: Well, putting him in a match with no announcers against Jerry Lawler didn't help his cause. I think he still needs a big profile match to help establish himself. Maybe he should make use of the great workers on the Raw roster. I think a Chris Jericho feud wouldn't be out of the question. Yeah, Jericho isn't from America, but Hassan could play on the fact that Jericho likes to say he hails from New York now. Either way, it would sure be a war of words on the mic, as long as Jericho wouldn't get too patriotic. But if he stays in his current position, he'll be nothing but hot air, with no substance.

John: He's fine in the ring. I like his work on the microphone. The crowd heat he gets is great. However, after reading about how he can't put away a 50+ year old former wrestler cleanly in less than ten minutes it makes you think that there's no big things in his future. I mean, come on, it's Jerry Lawler! They're telling us that Hassan can't beat a retired guy who, by all logic, should be much weaker and in worse shape than a guy debuting on the program? What a joke. Not only that, but Lawler was the last guy Hassan should have feuded with. By mid-April Hassan will be a Heat regular and you'll be able to chalk it up to another one of those "what could have been" type characters.

Matt: Where's Sean O'Haire when you need him? He can tell the story of how he had all the promise in the world, but they never capitalized. Hassan might have been handled poorly, but you can't count out the crowd reaction he gets. His mic work is just too good for him to be ignored. Yeah, O'Haire could do a taped vignette, but it never transferred over to live TV. Hassan can work the mic live. I wish he'd get a better feud than Lawler or Hurricane. I'd like to see him in a high-impact match against Rhyno.

John: Bring Back Hacksaw! HOOOOOOOO! Please don't let Jericho pretend like he's a New Yorker on my TV. Please. I think WWE is slow to push him because they need to see how crowds react to his matches. Of course the crowds chant USA during the match, so they're alive during them. I'd have pushed Hassan harder than what they've done. If he's against Lawler, beat him in three minutes. Not ten minutes due to interference. So much for the big splash. I don't even know who he should face on Raw. Mick Foley would be perfect at WrestleMania, actually, but I think if Mick wrestles it's against Flair or Vince McMahon.

Matt: Foley would be a great choice to get some crowd heat. But a better question to ask is with Triple H having a stranglehold on the top heel spot, just how high can Hassan go?

John: I think it's way too early to think about Hassan as the top heel. To put him there before somebody like Edge would be plain wrong. He's got plenty of time to work his away up. The key is not to rush feuds, that's all.

Matt: I just hope that since he's a gimmick wrestler, the gimmick will have a longer shelf life than Eugene's.

6. What FEUD THAT WILL NEVER FUCKING END!!! is the worse of the two: Snitsky vs. Kane or Undertaker vs. Heidenreich?

John: I cannot believe that these feuds are STILL going on. I don't get it. The faces win matches cleanly, then the heels come out to attack them again and all of a sudden we get rematches? What's he point. The faces won! The feuds should be over. The worse of the two is UT/Heidenreich only because Kane is the best character of the four men involved here and because of that, I'll put his feud (even with all of its moronic twists) ahead of the very tiresome Undertaker/Heidenreich match. Oh, and you want a prediction? Snitsky helps Heidenreich win that Casket Match against Undertaker at the Royal Rumble.

Matt: It's tough to decide. On one hand, Undertaker/Heidenreich didn't have anything extreme in their storyline involving pregnancy and rape, so it shouldn't be that bad. On the other hand, Snitsky/Kane has remained in the midcard, and it didn't eat into PPV main events like their Smackdown counterpart. I have to say Snitsky/Kane though, because Snitsky came from absolutely nowhere, and now he's being pushed harder than anybody on the Raw roster not in Evolution. And that's just not right. The guy has no discernable talents whatsoever. Without Kane, there is no Snitsky. So I want this storyline to end.

John: I don't even know what to say at this point, honestly. Not only are these two the worst feuds in WWE currently, but they are among the worst feuds of the past five years in WWE easily. Seriously, why are they going on still? You have the faces getting pinfalls in decisive matches, yet the heels come back with cheap attacks and suddenly the feuds continue? What the fuck? It's over. For the love of God, let the pain end! Both feuds are horrible. To rate them in terms of being horrible would be impossible. All I can say is I have lost many brain cells over the past several months trying to follow the crap that the writing teams calls these two rivalries.

Matt: By the way, I totally agree with you on Snitsky helping Heidenreich win, leading to the Wrestlemania tag. But you know what, I thought of something. Yeah, these feuds suck. But at least it keeps three out of the four worst wrestlers on the rosters occupied with each other, so they don't have to work the great workers. Think of it as a quarantine, I guess.

John: Thing is, I think Angle-Undertaker is happening at WrestleMania. I hope this tag match happens only because it will free Angle of Undertaker's "all feuds must suck" spell that he has.

Matt: I hope that's the case. And if they make the tag match a total squash with Taker and Kane just OWNING Heidi and Snitsky, the marks might eat it up. Drawing that tag out to 15 minutes or more should be considered crowd murder.

John: They've already killed me with it. Believe me.

7. If you had to cut one person from Raw and one from Smackdown, who would you cut?

Matt: I actually wouldn't cut Snitsky from Raw. I'd cut Viscera. They fire ten people so they can make room for THIS piece of crap? 1999 is long gone, and Viscera wasn't even over then. Get rid of him. It'll save room on the plane. As for Smackdown? It's a tossup between Holly and Heidenreich. But you know, despite Holly's bad attitude, he can at least put on good matches with great workers like Angle. So Heidenreich gets the boot.

John: I think I said this last time you asked this months ago for Raw, Jerry Lawler. Won't happen since they re-signed him for five years, but Raw needs a new voice. Put Paul Heyman there. Of course that won't happen either since the McMahons hate him because he actually has a brain that questions their moronic ideas. Lawler is the definition of somebody being past their prime. For Smackdown, I'll pick Heidenreich. I see no redeeming qualities in that guy.

Matt: They'll never cut Lawler. He's like WWE's version of Americana. Yeah, I enjoyed Heyman's commentary in 2001 with Lawler gone but I always felt something was missing. He should retire soon, but it's kinda hard to let go. I don't know what they were thinking making Heidenreich a main player, but he won't go soon either.

John: They signed Lawler to a five year deal recently. He's not going anywhere, sadly. I wouldn't even mind if they made it a three man team with Heyman. That could be epic, because there was real life heat between Heyman, Ross & Lawler at various points in their careers. I just want something different on Raw, that's all. It's too stale for my tastes. Viscera's on Raw? I barely knew that. See, I don't care about the really low guys who have no impact on the show. I'm up for the big time cuts. Holly's a good pick, though.

Matt: Yeah, you can't even use the veteran excuse with Holly, because we saw Billy Gunn get the axe. I'm making it my prediction that Holly doesn't last the whole year. By the end of 2005, Holly will be GONE.

John: If he isn't, who cares? Not like he's getting pushed. Get rid of Heidenreich. He kills storylines and matches much more than anybody else on Smackdown.

8. Can you come up with a good reason why WWE has hired about 8,417 women in the past two months even though none of them can actually work a damn match? Bonus points if you can name all the women that have been hired.

John: I think they hired them because they want to do a WWE Playboy edition with many of the women from the company. They probably asked these women in interviews if they would pose for Playboy and those that said yes got hired. Those that said no didn't. Plus, they have those diva special videos that they do every year with the women on the beach or whatever and I guess they need more women for that. I have no problem with beautiful women. I just don't think you need five or six of them on a show where they have no defined roles. Saying Maria is hired as an interviewer and Candice is hired as a makeup artist is weak. Just say they're there because you need more tits on the show and be done with it.

Matt: Management seems to think that wrestling fans enjoy staring at beautiful women. Well, we do, but we have our time for that, and we have our time for watching wrestling. I want...these girls...to wrestle. Some of these segments involving lingerie pillow fights are just time wasters. I actually liked Stacy MORE when she was trying to be a wrestler than now where she's nothing and nobody. And okay, let me see if I can name everybody that's been hired. Christy, Maria, Candace, Malena, Michelle, Joy, Amy. Am I missing anybody?

John: You liked Stacy when she was wrestling? Oh man, that's funny. She is one of the least believable wrestlers I have ever seen in the history of this business. Worse than even her old flame, David Flair. It seemed like everything was written neatly on a piece of paper for her before the match and she'd slowly do everything as scheduled, making sure not to do anything physical the entire time. I don't mind looking at the new women, but I think it's stupid to hire them just to pose for some Diva magazine or possible Playboy spread. Isn't this supposed to be a wrestling...err sports entertainment...company?

Matt: I agree with your concern about giving these people "jobs." Image consultant? Makeup artist? (I mark for Jan) Backstage interviewer? Fitness consultant? It's just not believable. I'm interested in Michelle though. As I said before, Fit Finlay can do wonders for her. And lord knows we need some more female WRESTLERS.

John: What do Torrie and Jackie do anyway? I say it in the Smackdown Grades weekly. They're there for like 30 seconds. Okay, so why are they even there? How fucking hard is it to make a woman a manager of a singles wrestler or a tag team? You're paying the women, use them!

Matt: They're paying the women a LOT of money. So much its embarrassing. I'm sure a few of them make more money than the WRESTLERS! What does that do for morale? I do think managers are great. That's why Amy's role makes the most sense out of all of them. I love managers. It's a throwback to the old school.

John: Managers are so underrated. How valuable were the likes of a Bobby Heenan or Jim Cornette to their wrestlers? Huge. Women can do it too, as they have shown in the past. Just takes some effort, as opposed to the current stance of no effort.

9. What's your favorite Raw TV match of all time?

Matt: I'd have to go with Austin/Benoit from Calgary in 2001. A lot of people like the Smackdown match better, but I thought the Calgary crowd was hotter for Benoit, the match was worked better, and it had a more dramatic finish. Yeah, it was a screwjob, and they've WAY overdone the screwjob in Canada finish, but I just seemed to enjoy that match so much. Second would probably be Benoit/Angle in the cage.

John: This is tough to say because there's been so many matches. Off the top of my head, I'd probably pick that Jericho/Benoit vs. Austin/HHH tag match from 2001 when HHH tore his quad and the Canadians got put over strong. I don't mark out much for TV matches, but I did for this one and the fact that it a ****1/2 match helps too. Other matches I'd like to mention would be a tag from '97 featuring Michaels/Austin over Bulldog/Owen, Jannety over Michaels back in '93, the two Michaels vs. Benoit matches from the past year (because that's always been a dream match to me) and of course the lingerie pillow fights that we have come to know as match of the year contenders pretty much every year. You can't top that shit.

Matt: You gotta love the great Raw matches. I mean, WWE's main goal is to get people to buy PPVs, I said that before in a previous column. Why give great matches away when you can get people to pay for them? Still, you have some great gems like the ones we've previously mentioned. There's nothing more satisfying for me than seeing a great match on Raw.

John: I love the Austin/Benoit match you speak of, but not as much as the one that happened on Smackdown a night later. There have been so many great matches over the years on Raw, though. It's hard to name them all or list them all. Personally, I think there should be at least two matches every week that are over 12 minutes long and usually there is. You've got two hours to fill, fill it with great wrestling. Even if it's a formulaic tag match I like it. Promos and angles are nice, but the actual matches are like the filling of a sandwich. If it's not there, you're missing out on something.

Matt: Absolutely. I'd rather see only three matches on Raw if all three of them are going to be between 15-20 minutes with a decisive finish. That's what I loved about the 3 hour Nitros. You at least would get ONE awesome match that got so much time, at a time when WWE was in a "Crash TV" era. I remember you talking about a great Raw where Austin beat up Bret in the ambulance. That was great, but all the matches were between 4-7 minutes. To me, I'd take more wrestling.

John: That Austin/Bret thing was part of what I felt was the greatest angle WWE has ever done though. Angles work, but I think you need the wrestling on every show. For the most part, these days WWE does that well and they don't get enough credit for it.

10. What's your favorite Smackdown TV match of all time?

John: Tough call here. I'm probably going with Austin over Benoit from Smackdown in Edmonton in May 2001. That's one of my ten favorite matches ever. It's one of those matches where the loser of the match was put over stronger than the actual winner and it worked perfectly. I liked the Lesnar-Angle Ironman match a hell of a lot, the four team TLC match that Benoit and Jericho won, Edge over Guerrero in a NO DQ match and many other ones from 2002 that slip my mind now. They could use some lingerie pillow fights I think too. Those are always epics on Raw. Maybe they're "exclusive" to Raw. Who knows?

Matt: I'm tempted to go Austin/Benoit on this one too, but I'll go against it. I'll take the Angle/Lesnar Ironman, because it was great to see actual wrestling on the show. And I loved how Lesnar kept cheating, giving up a fall by DQ to win two falls easier than he would have if he fought fair. I'd say it's the best Ironman Match out of the four that have been. Also good choices would be TLC III, the Smackdown Royal Rumble and Edge/Eddie No DQ.

John: I can't dispute you on this. My 1-2 for Smackdown matches would be Austin-Benoit and Angle-Lesnar in the Ironman. They're both epic to me. Four of my favorite wrestlers in Smackdown history in heated matches with hot crowds and a creative wrestling through it. The kind of matches that make me love being a wrestling fan.

Matt: For all intents and purposes, John, Smackdown is "your show." After all, you've been reviewing it since (almost) the beginning. So I know you take great matches on Smackdown seriously. I just wish we were back to the days when Smackdown was the "wrestling show." An Eddie/Rey feud might spark some great matches, but for the most part, it's been a sad, sad Smackdown in 2004.

John: Smackdown was the "wrestling" show of the two after the roster split in 2002. I thought it was better than Raw in 2002 and 2003 in large part because of that. Then things happened to cause Smackdown to lose that wrestling quality and the booking of SD went from being wrestling oriented to Raw Lite, leaving us with two similar shows except Smackdown had the inferior workers. Thus, the low quality of a show. It's a shame. They could have differentiated the two very well by utilizing more wrestling on SD. Instead, it's the same junk twice a week.

Matt: What they need to do is push the actual "wrestlers" so they can have great matches. Guys like Charlie Haas, Paul London, Mysterio, etc. They HAVE the talent, they just don't use it.

John: Imagine a feud around the cruiserweight title. Oh wait, my brain just exploded thinking about that. Let's just move on.

QUICK HITS
Matt: Speaking of the Cruiserweight Division, am I an asshole for thinking they were going somewhere with the division when it's obvious they're not?
John: I told you that you were wrong. Give up hope. Join the crowd!
Matt: Even I have to slam myself for this one. I just thought things were going to change. How wrong I was.

John: Do you see Benoit turning heel in 2005? If so, when?
Matt: Never. There's no reason to boo the guy now.
John: I say no. He can work well in either role, but he's so solid as a face that he needs to stay there and elevate the younger heels.

Matt: Should more "big" things happen at house shows?
John: Yes, but only if they film the ending of title switches and/or altercations, then show clips on TV.
Matt: Well yeah. I think they should. Make people think that anything can and will happen.

John: If Cena faces JBL at WrestleMania as we suspect, will he still be US Champion?
Matt: That would be interesting, but I think he'll drop it, possibly at No Way Out.
John: I say yes. They'll do champ vs. champ with Cena winning and then a tourney for the US title to follow.

Matt: If Evolution breaks up, what will happen with Ric Flair?
John: Let him work as a face for about a year or so, let the fans cheer him. You know they want to.
Matt: I'd like to see him back in his role that he was in late 2002 as Triple H's manager. I don't think I can watch another chop chop backdrop match featuring him anymore.

John: Finish this sentence. The best person in WWE to have a good match with anybody is...
Matt: Benoit. Period.
John: Benoit. Sorry Shawn. Sorry Rey.

Matt: Who's worse: Sylvan Grenier or Rene Dupree?
John: Probably Grenier. Dupree seems to have more potential to me.
Matt: I say Dupree. At least Grenier has Conway to cover for his ass.

John: If you could only see one of these two men at WrestleMania in a non-wrestling role, who would you pick: Hogan or Austin?
Matt: Austin. Because I know Austin would at least keep it to a one-time thing.
John: Austin for sure. I don't need to see Hogan again, especially after he proposed a Hogan & His Daughter vs. Vince & Steph match. Yuck.

----------------------------------

Thoughts? Questions? Comments. Email us at the addresses below or feel free to talk about it with us in the column feedback section of our forums. Also, if you've got an idea for a topic that we can use please let us know and we might use it.

To view the For Love or Money archive, click here.

The next edition of For Love or Money will come to you in February.

Matt "The Love" Seagull - OratorBirdman@gmail.com
John "JC Money" C. - oratoryjohn@gmail.com