- As previously reported, WWE's VP of Creative Eric Pankowski was let go last week which has led to Vince McMahon being more hands-on this week on Raw. The final straw that led to Pankowski's firing was his decision to book Fatal 4 Way match last week on Raw between CM Punk, Randy Orton, Sheamus and Big Show with the winner getting to be Undertaker's WrestleMania 29 opponent.
Pankowski was reportedly told that it was a bad idea, but he went through with it anyway. McMahon signed off on it, but it is believed he did so in order to let Pankowski's work speak for itself.
Source: PWInsider
__________________
They don't hang Conference Championship Banners from the rafters here. - Carey Price
I don't know if it was a bad idea, but I was kind of against it. I don't think so many wrestlers should want to wrestle Undertaker, let alone at Wrestlemania.
I don't see why it was needed to lead into the feud. Taker's Wrestlemania feuds should be booked better than it being what was essentially like how #1 contenders are decided for midcard belts.
They should have just let Punk challenge Taker and leave everyone else out of it.
maybe Vince didnt want to have anyone take a loss, or whoever took the pin look weak before wrestlemania.
takers return was random... i liked the idea of fighting to earn the right to face him.
To me, it seemed forced. Sort of like a, "I am Spartacus!" "No, I am Spartacus" type build. Everyone watching the match, even before it started, knew Punk was going to win. In fact, some were already calling the Shield vs. Show/Sheamus/Orton match for Wrestlemania.
__________________
"CS is one of my favorite people on this entire site." - ColePens
At the very least, it gave Punk a win and some momentum heading into a match where he's the heavy underdog. This sounds like the straw that broke the camel's back and Vince just needed the extra push to pull the trigger on letting him go.
It wasn't the greatest idea, but it certainly wasn't the worst thing they've ever done. It wasn't entirely necessary to bring three other guys into it, but I think the purpose was to get all 4 of them written into the show on a whim, and to give Punk a clean win before he loses his 3rd ppv match in a row. It wasn't that bad at all IMO.
It would have been a lot easier to have Punk just challenge and insult the Undertaker, then hold off a week for Taker to make his decision. They still could've booked Kane v Punk, with the reason being Kane is pissed that he would disrespect his brother like that. Mind you, this all still could've been written even before Moody's passing. They could have done the exact same thing they ended up doing without having Sheamus, Orton and Show involved.
Seems like a petty decision. Vince probably just wanted to let him go and pulled that excuse out of a hat. Literally.
I don't see why it was needed to lead into the feud. Taker's Wrestlemania feuds should be booked better than it being what was essentially like how #1 contenders are decided for midcard belts.
They should have just let Punk challenge Taker and leave everyone else out of it.
This, pretty much. It was the easy way out of booking an actual reason for the feud.
Maybe if Vince decided to let feuds start for Wrestlemania weeks in advance instead of throwing stuff together last minute, you wouldn't have this problem.
WWE is a joke these days. I'm the biggest wrestling fan alive, but their lack of storytelling and direction kills it for me. It would be different if I was consistently getting 3 1/2-5 star matches, but I don't get that either.
It's pretty bad when I'm more excited for a Bully Ray match than an Undertaker match.
