Amazon.com Widgets

Mauro Ranallo joined the WWE this past January. Do you think wrestling should be televised?

  • WWE wrestling is acceptable because of what else is on television.

    WWE's wrestling should be televised because it is no different from many other programs on television. It features a cast of presentable characters who are obviously acting in many of their actions. The primary argument against wrestling would be how it encourages violence but it doesn't condone people trying anything they view at home. Violence is used much more harshly in other television shows that are viewed as acceptable so the WWE should be allowed to continue.

  • Yes, wrestling should be televised

    I believe that wrestling should be televised, simply because it is recognized as both a sport and as entertainment. I don't see any reason as to why wrestling SHOULDN'T be televised; there's no sport that isn't shown on television. The WWE and wrestling shouldn't be held to a different standard.

  • Yes, he's good because he sounds like a real sports commentator.

    Ranallo is awesome! He and Jerry had good chemistry. I hope they take Saxton out of the table, the guy shows no signs of improving unfortunately. I'm not a fan of the three announcer table in general; works better with two. He's good because he sounds like a real sports commentator.

  • Yes, wresting should be televised

    Yes, wresting should be televised. Wrestling has a large amount of fans that want to see it. There is no reason that wrestling should not be televised. The fact that Mauro Ranallo joined the WWE this past January says nothing about whether or not it should be televised. It is not a sport but it should be televised.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.