This Or That (9/3/2014)

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 four questions, @TimWelcomed, @JoeySplashwater and @TomBlargh 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!

Before we start, here’s last week‘s results:

Which return would get you more excited for WM 31?

CM Punk – 66%, Steve Austin – 34%

Better WWE production?

The Shield WWE Network special – 67%, Paul Heyman’s DVD – 33%

Which are you anticipating more?

NXT Takeover II – 54%, PWG BOLA – 46%

Which painful experience would you rather suffer through in full?

MTV Music Awards – 57%, Transformers: Age of Extinction – 43%

Will The Undertaker wrestle another match: Yes or no?

Will we see the Dead Man again?

Tim:

We will definitely see The Undertaker again. I think we’ll get a proper retirement match and then he’ll probably get inducted into the Hall of Fame the next year. Whether he wrestles at Wrestlemania 31 or not we will see him wrestle at least one more time. I just can’t see him going out with Wrestlemania 30.

Yes

Joey:

There’s no way I see The Undertaker quietly retiring or entering the Hall of Fame without a huge festivity taking place. I think we’ll see one or two more Undertaker matches before he heads into the sunset. It will probably be like Shawn Michaels where a Wrestlemania ends with him getting the standing ovation.

However, I don’t know how confident I am in him wrestling at Wrestlemania 31. Cowboy Stadium in Dallas is rumored to be the home of Wrestlemania 32 in Undertaker’s home state of Texas. I can see ‘Taker taking two years off then having a final match with Hall of Fame and retirement match in 2015.

Yes

Tom:

Welcome to a special edition of This Or That where I’ve got a cold and really can’t be fucked! Anyway, this first question can shut up, of course Undertaker will wrestle another match. His last one was a shiter and it’s not like he’s going to go start a podcast or something. NEXT.

Yes

Worse writing in wrestling: Bella vs. Bella or Crazy Samuel Shaw?

Samuel Shaw is crazy and does bad things. The Bellas are bad actors and do crazy things. Which writing is worse?

Tim:

The Bella storyline is some of the most cringe-inducing stuff on television. It’s hard to say anything is worse. I mean, you’d have to be doing something really scummy like jokingly playing off of mental disorders to be worse than this. Oh… yeah. That is almost exactly Samuel Shaw’s character. Let’s not forget that he started off as an American Psycho type and was really hard to watch with Christy Hemme. Wrestling really embarrasses me with how many storylines are distasteful nowadays. Oh, and outside of that it’s still a horribly written storyline.

Samuel Shaw

Joey:

In terms of wrestling, the Bella stuff is probably worse due to the volume of how much time they get and it being one of the main stories on the show. Brie vs. Stephanie was fine due to Stephanie’s character work but Nikki Bella is truly abysmal. Every time she casually says “oh my gawd” mid sentence, it makes me want to quit watching wrestling.

That being said, I’m still going to lean towards Samuel Shaw. Mental health is not a joke yet they’re writing it to basically make someone with mental issues into a wacky heel character. Then again, this shows why TNA is in the shape it is.

Samuel Shaw

Tom:

Maybe this is the Robitussin talking, but I don’t mind the Bella stuff. There was a bit too much of it on Raw but it’s not like it was taking time from anything decent because EVERYTHING IS AWFUL RIGHT NOW. “Fearless” Nikki Bella is the Reality Era’s Meryl Streep so I won’t hear a word said against her. Brie’s definitely rubbish though, yeah.

Contrarily, the Samuel Shaw stuff is totally dumb and has way too much Mr. Anderson for me to ever invest the time to care about it, so that’s definitely the worst.

Samuel Shaw

Which wrestling journalist do you enjoy more: Dave Meltzer or Wade Keller?

Who ya got?

Tim:

I don’t have any problems with Wade Keller but I can’t say no to “Big” Dave. I disagree with Meltzer a great bit but I think he comes off really likable most of the time. I love hearing him talk about the old days the most. I don’t go out of my way to listen or read anything by either of these two guys often because quite frankly I’m the superior pro wrestling journalist here.

My fingers are rugged from typing so many scoops and important essays. Sting’s song “Desert Rose” is about my first popular piece of written content which, as we all know, was Dune fan fiction entitled “Sand Sphere Crisis X.”  I demand respect… but whatever. I got your back Meltz. People in the biz call him Alka-Meltzer because he’s so bubbly and full of life. Yeah.

Dave Meltzer

Joey:

Dave Meltzer is universally loved or hated by most diehard wrestling fans who pay attention to this kind of stuff but Wade Keller tends to fly under the radar. I’ll say when it comes to gossip or inside scoops, I prefer Meltzer for news but in general, I enjoy Wade Keller much more.

I prefer Keller’s analysis and insight over any other wrestling pundit in the wrestling journalism world. His interviews with wrestlers are also usually a fun listen and I once won a Mother’s Day PW Torch giveaway for Shari Berri’s (they weren’t good). How can I not take Wade?

(Note: While I love PWTorch, I need to point out Bruce Mitchell is the worst in the world. THERE. I SAID IT.)

Wade Keller

Tom:

Wade Keller seems like a more likeable person and he doesn’t go on about stupid MMA as much as Big Dave but his comic timing is really weird and off a lot of the time and it makes me cringe (especially when he’s trying to engage in banter with the crazies who regularly call-in to his show).

Meanwhile. Meltzer’s sense of humour seems almost non-existent at times. My favourite times are when Alvarez says something flippantly and Dave just dissects it as if it’s a serious point of discussion. Anyway, I’m with the Meltz-man. He’s definitely somewhere on some spectrum but I kinda love it.

Dave Meltzer

What would you rather give up: Video games or junk food?

Stolen from a random Drake & Josh episode, which would you cut out of your life?

Tim:

I would want to cut junk food out. I’m so tired of stuffing my facehole with junk food but yet I still do it. Sometimes you don’t have time for anything but a fast food meal and that stinks, sisters and brothers. I can tell you one thing right now, I do not want to cut video games out of my life. I very much use those to relieve stress and entertain myself when I am bored. Maybe not the best use of my time but I enjoy a good video game. I am NOT a gamer though, Jack. Gamers are vile creatures. Don’t misunderstand me.

Junk food

Joey:

I actually don’t even play video games anymore and I’m a little sad about that. It may be time to change it as I miss them dearly but yeah, since I already cut video games out of my life, it’s that. What it comes down to is, you have to commit $400+ in one purchase to get the best of the video game world. You can cheap binge on junk food any time you want.

Also, pizza.

Video games

Tom:

Uhhh. Hmm. I mean, the two go so well together, y’know? I dunno, man. I’m gonna find a loophole here and say I’ll give up video games, with the caveat that I can still watch videos of other people playing them (which I’ve been doing a lot more than actual gaming lately, thanks to the guys at Giant Bomb doing great stuff like this).

So, yeah. I can still get something out of video games from watching other people enjoy them, which isn’t so much the case with junk food.

Video games