My first post..
It is obvious, wwe only books for the moment, they do nothing for the long-term. They do something one month and pretend it never happened the next. Why? Lazy writers, who don't have a proper wrestling background and don't know the history.
One example for this is the Nash/HHH feud. It's common knowledge they were in the KLIQ together in the 90's, which is vaguely mentioned at times.. BUT!! Remember the big 2003 feud that HHH/Nash had? Culminating in a Hell in a Cell match, where a heel HHH clean pinned a face Nash for the blow off, it was a perfect fued where the veteran Nash put over a HHH in his prime.
Fast forward 9 years, the writers nowadays probably don't remember/have no idea it ever happened, and bring Nash back as a heel to face HHH in a meaningless angle that had it's blow off 9 years ago. I have no problem with Nash being back, but why couldn't they of put him in a proper program with Punk instead. That would of worked well, because of the real life beliefs both guys have against each other. Then after the blowoff when Nash would put Punk over, why not have him align with Del Rio as a Virgil? That would be perfect, wouldn't it?
Having a 2011 HHH/Nash fued was an insult to a perfect 2003 blow off, which highlights wwe's common problem of not aknowledging past relevance.
If they referred to the past more often, making the future relevant, wouldn't it gain more interest?