Sunday's "Hell in a Cell" pay per view and the subsequent Raw on Monday has definitely made for a lot of good wrestling chatter online. Both shows opened the door to speculation wide open and wrestling fans ran in. Not walked – RAN in.
Analyzing is commonplace among fans of pro wrestling, but there are times it gets out of hand even. Often, it's when WWE (or any company, I guess) does something that lacks rhyme and reason, seems lost from all logic and the basic principles wrestling was build on, and simply leaves you scratching your head with that blank, "deer in a headlight" expression on your face.
When WWE took the title from Alberto Del Rio and put it back on John Cena so quickly, wrestling fans nearly reached that point. When they cashed in their mulligan and gave it BACK to Del Rio Sunday – less than two weeks removed from the previous title change – I think wrestling fans passed that point, lapped the field, and passed it a second time.
Forget that the WWE seems to have forgotten the importance of a wrestling championship and what it (and a lengthy title run) can do to help someone's career, what was their suggested logic for this series of events? Why take the title off of ADR in the first place? And how and why has that changed in a mere two weeks?
I received the answer I was looking for two days ago. It came out of nowhere – actually, it came directly from Peter Dawson's mail server to mine – and it was like a lightning bolt of clarity for me. The serious overtone of this email is what first captured my attention, but as I continued reading, the details and specifics described in this story dating back nearly 100 years ago are what finally made me come to the following realization: this is bigger than all of us!
I had to share this email with all of you. From Peter Dawson (don't ask who he is – just read his "truth") – the "real" reason Alberto Del Rio lost to John Cena at NoC, only to win two weeks later at HIAC.
Have a news tip?Attended an event and want to send a live report?