This Or That: 1/20/2014

    • This Or That: 1/20/2014

      Everybody loves binary decisions, especially wrestling fans! In This Or That, we’ve forced ourselves to choose between two options that relate to wrestling.

      Over five questions, @TimWelcomed, @typicalROHfan and @TomBlackett will have to choose one of two options and give their reasoning on each of their choices. You can then vote on which one you’d choose, giving you the false impression that you’re somehow involved and we care about your opinion chance to join the conversation!

      First let’s take a look at how you voted for last week’s topics!

      More likely to win the Royal Rumble?

      Daniel Bryan – 61%, Batista – 39%

      Who will main event more PPV’s in 2014?

      Roman Reigns – 78%, Big E Langston – 22%

      Who is more likely to become WWE Champ in 2014?

      Bray Wyatt – 65%, Dean Ambrose – 35%

      Which title is AJ Styles more likely to hold in 2014?

      ROH World Title – 81%, TNA World Title – 19%

      More likely to be released in 2014?

      Ryback – 71%, The Miz – 29%

      Better yearly PPV: Royal Rumble OR Wrestlemania?

      With the Royal Rumble coming this Sunday being a fan favorite and Wrestlemania being the biggest night of the year in WWE, which yearly PPV is actually the better one?


      I’m going to have to say The Royal Rumble, mainly because Wrestlemania is hardly ever what it should and could be. Wrestlemania as a over-the-top event is something to experience as it has a certain atmosphere to it but that’s about as far as it goes for me usually. As a wrestling event and a gimmick I much more enjoy The Royal Rumble.

      With the Royal Rumble you get to see where the company is headed while on the road to Wrestlemania and you get some surprise entrants into the match itself. I always look forward to watching it.

      Royal Rumble


      While it is indeed true that the magic of the Royal Rumble relies on the importance of having a title match AT Wrestlemania, I think the Rumble is way more fun. There’s often a lot of unfulfilled hype when it comes to Wrestlemania. It’s “THE” show and things don’t always live up to expectations.

      With the Royal Rumble, it’s a foolproof format that is ALWAYS fun. A mix of feeling as if a new season is starting, the overall optimism surrounding the event and the silly yet important atmosphere the Rumble match provides will easily make the Royal Rumble my favorite wrestling PPV.

      Royal Rumble


      THE PAGEANTRY AND THE PRESTIGE OF WRESTLEMANIA IS UNBEATA- yeah, the Royal Rumble’s better. Just as even bad pizza is still pretty good, a bad Royal Rumble is still more fun than most every other PPV, whilst a bad Wrestlemania has a Miz main event.

      Royal Rumble

      More exciting potential Wrestlemania feud: Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar OR Triple H vs. CM Punk?

      Both of these matches are rumored to take place at Wrestlemania. Which feud would pique your interest more?


      Eh. We never really got the proper Triple H vs CM Punk feud when it should have happened but even then I would not have been too excited about the actual match it would be leading too. As for it being a Wrestlemania match? I feel like it’ll be a waste of CM Punk on the big stage. I’m sure the promos and such will be great between the two though.

      On the other hand we have The Undertaker whose Wrestlemania matches have been built up well over the last few years. Add Paul Heyman to that (and no one related to The Undertaker dying this year) and I think it will be a very good feud. The match should deliver as well… but we all know this isn’t going to happen because Sting is going to face The Undertaker at Wrestlemania!

      Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar


      As much as I’m sure the Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar match will ultimately be better at Wrestlemania if it does happen, I’m going with CM Punk vs. Triple H. I was quite excited about a CM Punk vs. Management Hunter feud after the red hot Summer of Punk angle but that turned out to be one of the worst related programs in the last decade. Finally we have heel Hunter to give us the real program we expected three years ago.

      The dynamic of CM Punk and Triple H is very interesting. Both have the reputations of being assholes and it shows in a positive light as it adds to the shows when they get intense in their promo battles as I hope would happen between these two. I see these two going all out on the mic and we get some edgy promos from Punk again, which will work way better against Triple H’s current position. Hopefully there’s a lack of Kevin Nash this time.

      Triple H vs. CM Punk


      I’m not really interested in either of these matches! Both will probably be good, assuming they happen, but neither of them are particularly fresh or new.

      I guess Brock and Taker is more interesting, even though they already had their run of matches during Brock’s first run – both guys are different in terms of their presence and style now, so I think it’ll be fun to watch, assuming Brock doesn’t inadvertently break the Undertaker in half.

      Meanwhile, a Punk / HHH match… I mean, the promos will be VERY real (i.e. they’ll call each other ‘Phil’ and ‘Paul’ and there will be lots of snarky little jibes), but I’m not sure if the matches will be any better or different to the ones they had a couple of years ago. Probably with less Kevin Nash, but we’ll see.

      Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar

      More likely to hold a TNA Title at the end of 2014: Sting OR The American Wolves?

      The American Wolves made their TNA debut last week and rumors have Sting’s contract ending this month. By the end of the year, who has a better chance of holding a TNA Title?


      I made that Sting vs. Undertaker joke above not knowing this was the next question. I do really believe Sting’s days in TNA are numbered, finally. If I’m wrong Sting definitely should not ever hold the TNA World Championship again but that’s usually one of the ways TNA gets him to stay around every time his contract is up. I really think The Wolves will be tag team champions by the end of the year with them being the first talents signed by Mr. or Mrs. New Investor. Not to mention that TNA doesn’t have that many tag teams so that raises their chances.

      The (American) Wolves


      Every year, Sting’s contract ends and we hear rumors about him leaving for WWE and a potential Wrestlemania weekend appearance. With TNA running out of many and saying farewell to most of their veterans, it’s more possible than ever to finally be true this year.

      The American Wolves already are involved in a somewhat big storyline according to TNA’s guidelines of what a big storyline is and you can expect them to be TNA Tag Champs by Lockdown. That being said, who has a better chance of being champ by year’s end?

      It’s Sting. In the past when TNA musters up the currency to keep him around, they immediately attempt to rebuild around him and make him champ. I see that being more sustainable than The Wolves lasting in the long as we see what TNA does after pushing a new talent for a few months like Kenny King and TJ Perkins, reminiscent of a child getting tired of a new toy.



      Hmm. I mean, as odd as the Wolves’ debut appearance on TNA was, I still think they’ll end up holding the tag titles for a while because there’s really not much else going on with that division. Bro Mans and Bad Influence are great, but man, they’ve been great for a while and now there’s a face tag team that doesn’t involve James Storm or Chavo who can hold the titles.

      What’s more, the Wolves seem likely to be involved with a somewhat major storyline as the signees of the secret investor, so that’s somewhat good news. Meanwhile, Sting could be gone for a little while (UNLESS HE IS THE SECRET INVESTOR!!!!) and with Magnus as champion and the general feeling I’m getting from the direction of the company… I dunno, I just don’t buy Sting being champ again, even if he does return.


      More enjoyable: Zoos OR Aquariums?

      We’ve decided to add a non-wrestling related topic each week because quite frankly, those are very fun! After our Zoo Animals post, it made us wonder about which provides a more fun experience – a trip to the zoo or the aquarium?


      I love zoos. I really do. But I also hate the animals being caged up. Aquariums are different because science proves that water-dwelling creatures are actually built for being confined. A new study (by me) proves this thanks to my discovery that fish do not actually have brains. They instead have a portabellum. No that’s not a mushroom, silly! It’s essentially a “mind-portal.” Let me direct you to this diagram I created showing this huge discovery.

      As you can see from this x-ray, where we always assumed the fish brain to be is actually some sort of magic portal that makes the fish believe he is in his “happy place.” The Happy Place or, as we scientist like to call it, the happlacè is essential to these aquatic beasts because being in the dark depths for an entire lifetime would cause anything with a brain to become even more depressed than dentists.

      With all of that being said, I think my answer is clear. I prefer aquariums because they do not make me feel guilty about enjoying them. Also, fish have fins and shit. That’s cool as hell. I know some people don’t trust fish but I do.



      It’s time for me to take a controversial stand and go with aquariums. I love zoos but aquariums are the greatest, guys. My personal favorite animals to see at the zoo are frogs, turtles and sea lions…. animals you can find at an aquarium!

      Sharks, dolphins, jelly fish, anemonefish (word to Finding Nemo), and sting rays! Maybe it’s the Aquarius in me, which means I’m supposed to love water things, but I find an exquisite beauty in sea animals so I have to go with the aquarium, hands down.



      I can only apologise for my idiot colleagues, because seriously, fuck aquariums. That’s maybe a little too harsh, but when it comes to debating the two… really, how can you even compare them? MOST GOOD ZOOS WILL HAVE AN AQUARIUM SECTION ANYWAY. If you’re that desperate to see fish and turtles, you can see them at a zoo! They might not have the underwater walkway thing, but come on, that’s pretty skippable.

      However, if you want to see a tiger or an elephant or polar bears or hippos or giraffes at an aquarium then FORGET IT, it’s not happening. How is this a debate? Come on. Completely ridiculous.



Leave a Reply