It's pretty simple this week: yes or no?

We do pad out the answers a bit more than that, but we're coming down off any fences we might be on to bring you the definitive response.

Is TNA a blip on our radars? Has 2010 been a memorable year? Michael Cole is making NXT worse?

All this and more in this week's edition of Gimme Five.

1) TNA is not even a blip on your wrestling radar: Yes/No?

David:
Gosh, sting me with a double negative, why don't you? Yes, TNA is not even a blip on my wrestling radar. No, TNA is not even a blip on my wrestling radar. Hmmm... TNA is a blip on my wrestling radar. While I can't really say I keep up with TNA on a weekly basis, I like to take note of what happens at their pay-per-views, like Team 3D retiring at Turning Point, for example.

Simon:
Well I'd like to say it's not a blip on my wrestling radar but I still read about it - and when the DVDs become available I tend to check them out (just the ppvs). But it's more than lost its way as anything beyond an occassional novelty. Crazy to think it was once, almost, briefly, a threat.

Steph:
Not the tiniest of blips. But I'd watch it if it came to NZ TV.

Kirsty:
Yes, it's a blip. Quite a few blips. I keep up with the news, watch the occasional match on YouTube and would totally watch if it was on NZ screens. However, I do think it's become an absolute car crash of a show (thanks to Russo and Hogan) and as Simon said, it's crazy to think that at one time it was a threat. 2005 was a golden year for TNA. I think of it fondly.

Matt:
No. TNA is an entertainingly bad, must-watch, slow motion car crash! For those who missed the demise of WCW, tune in and watch history repeat itself with pretty much the same "recycled superstars" doing all the damage. Someone once referred to it as like "watching an old friend, in a coma, slowly pass away." Bang on!

Scott:
No. I don’t watch as much as I want; when it comes to decisions about bandwidth use TNA comes in below some other uses, but I try to keep in touch with what ‘the competition’ are doing. But it’s incredibly frustrating; both in terms of the quality of product and the complete randomness of some of the booking. But to be honest, if it were on New Zealand TV I’d probably watch it in preference to WWE, at least in terms of novelty car-crash value.

Luke:
Yes and No. I have started to tune into TNA's product just to expand my viewing outside of WWE. I totally agree with Matt's comments as every week it's just more recycled superstars repeating history. Though I say it's not a blip as it's nowhere near being "must see" wrestling, which is why I wouldn't care if I missed it.

Stevie:
The double negative threw me as well. I pay TNA all the attention that I can without the events actually being shown here. It epitomizes everything that was awful about the end of WCW. Car crash TV lives at TNA and I find it difficult to look away from. I always want to see what they'll do next. Is it good? No. If only they had agreed to Paul Heyman's terms, I think you'd have one heck of a company.

2) The only thing worse than NXT is Michael Cole's sabotage and burial of it: Yes/No?

David:
No. Pretty much everything is worse than NXT.

Simon:
I don't quite get Cole's burial of NXT. I sorta thought it was funny - but now I don't. At all. It's a bizarre case of being allowed to bite the hand that feeds; usually a wrestling no-no, if not a no-no in all walks of life. So I'm going to say Yes - Cole's sabotage is worse than the actual show.

Steph:
No! I really like NXT. And yes, this season has been a bit horrid and fuelled many feminist rants in my house, but come on! A Rhodes wedding! Kaitlyn dressed as Vickie! But Cole's desperate sabotage attempts have been truly awful, and not in a good, healthy-heel-hate way.

Kirsty:
Haven't been watching NXT so I can't really comment, other than to repeat what I said the other week about Michael Cole - he needs to be consistent across all shows, or reduced to one show and stick with it.

Matt:
No. Does Michael Cole = The WWE Creative Team? Tuned in the other day to see a limbo competition going down. What the?

Scott:
No? Yes? I can’t argue this question when I can’t agree with the opening premise. NXT is great television. Some people, however, get it confused with a ‘wrestling show’, which will inevitably lead to disappointment. And the commentary is part of the package. We, the viewers, know it’s fake, it’s ridiculous, and it’s car-crash entertainment at its worse. We know it’s not a reality show; and we also know that everyone is following a script... or are they?

And that’s why the commentary is so brilliant – it’s calling us and the show on our preconceptions, forcing us to reconsider what we’re seeing and the terms in which it is presented to us. It’s breaking the fourth-wall superbly, and is part of why NXT is must-watch post-modern ‘reality’ television.

Luke:
No. Cole's commentary in NXT is quite possibly the most entertaining stuff I've heard in WWE for a long time. The segments on NXT, no longer being about wrestling, are entertaining due to the fact that Cole rips them to shreds, breaking boundaries such as the fourth wall of wrestling by referring to angles, people and past moments that smarks can identify with. In a world of WWE PG, this is a breath of fresh air, even if it is on NXT.

Stevie:
No. The only thing worse than NXT is every show that isn't NXT. NXT is the greatest sports-entertainment show of all the times. The self-referential nature of the programme is unparalleled for WWE, last week's show (featuring Goldust's wedding) is a prime example and should be watched by all wrestling fans - it doesn't take itself so seriously and it's how you do car crash TV, TNA! That being said, while I'm loving the majority of Cole's new persona, I don't understand his reasoning most of the time. He flip-flops between liking certain things and not. His strange hatred of the show is bizarre considering how bad RAW can be. I'd love to see him commentate RAW like he does NXT.

3) The Vince is still in a coma flashback sketch was lame and irrelevant: Yes/No?

David:
Yes. Who's supposed to believe that we somehow had Stephanie's daydream televised? And if that was a dream, what's to say that the entire episode, or everything we've seen in the past year hasn't been a dream that someone will wake up from next week?

Simon:
Yes - it was lame and irrelevant. Stephanie McMahon makes my teeth ache too. I realised in that snippet she's probably the worst on-screen character in the history of wrestling.

Steph:
... Well, yes. But I'm such a horrid Stephanie McMahon fan (for obvious reasons) that I cackled anyway.

Kirsty:
No. I liked it. Those sort of vignettes always make me laugh. Given Richard Blumenthal's degradation of WWE and WWE fans during his Senate campaign, I thought it was a humorous - although deliberately childish - dig.

You can't take them seriously. It's to your detriment if you do. Just laugh along with the shallow comedy it's intended to be.

I'm a fan of Steph, I've always liked her. I don't agree with every decision she's made in terms of Creative, but overall I think she's been an asset to WWE.

Matt:
No. We're all in a coma over how lame WWE programming has been of late! Maybe Vince was just relating to his audience? Hurry back Stone Cold. WWE needs a can of whoop ass opened... stat!

Scott:
Hmm, a two-answer question. Was it lame? Yes. Was it irrelevant? No. It proved that the culmination of the "Stand Up For WWE" campaign with the Fan Axxess and RAW shows in Connecticut in the days before the poles wasn't mere fortunate timing. Protests of impartiality from WWE on were shown by the sketch to be false.

What I don't understand is why it needed that "he's brain-dead" post-script. Do they (i.e., Vince) really think we're missing Vince McMahon and spend our days wondering where he's got to? I don't. Does anyone?

Luke:
Yes it was highly lame, and I loved every minute of it. It was funny, poked fun at the state of WWE right now and took stabs at the election (even though that's irrelevant to NZ, it was still funny).

Ending it with Stephanie awaking from a dream made it priceless. In defense of the segment, I can think of a few from the Attitude era that were worse.

Stevie:
No, I loved it. Again, like NXT, it's well past time to take WWE TV so seriously. Are we supposed to believe we actually saw Steph's dream? No. We saw a skit that Vince dreamed up, that's what it was. Not everything has to fit in 'reality', it was a comedy skit no different in execution than the horrid Dr. Heiney skit from a few years back. After all, we've seen Vince heading the Stand Up for WWE campaign, as well as supporting his wife, so the fans know he's not actually in a coma. I could do with more things like that on their shows. If you're going to sanitize all the violence then give me something to laugh at!

4) 2010 has been a memorable year for WWE: Yes/No?

David:
Yes. Edge returned, Batista and Shawn Michaels left, Daniel Bryan debuted and was fired and returned... there's a fair few things that people will talk about years from now.

Simon:
Yes and no. I take David's point, some milestones. But I do personally care about them? No. So, actually, it's not been positively memorable at all. But it will be remembered as the time when Vince decided to go PG to try get his wife a better job than she had. She probably should have stayed as Chair of WWE.

Steph:
Yes, Shawn retiring was a huge milestone, yes Daniel Bryan, but ... I've got to go with Simon, the PG era is not the stuff the highlight reels of twenty years from now are made of.

Kirsty:
No. There have been some memorable moments, for sure. Mostly due to Nexus, who are an awesome stable - one of the best Creative's come up with in recent years. But as Steph said, it's not full of the sort of things highlight reels are made from when looking back. I blame the PG status for this, and can only hope that now Linda's lost her Senate bid, we might gradually see a return to a more edgy product.

Matt:
No. Memorable for not being memorable? There really hasn't been one angle that has grabbed a hold of me, or one match (sans Taker/Michaels which was an anomaly) which has floated my boat. It's all been massive potential, followed by huge anticlimax. Flaccid feuds, marks missed on pay-offs, bumbled angles, injuries... how is TNA not winning a ratings war at the moment?

Scott:
No. And I blame WWE's politicing for that. The desire to avoid controversy, to not take the ridiculous plunges seen in the past to grab ratings, has led to this year being rather ho-hum. Even if the PG content remains, I do hope the end (for now) of McMahon's political aspriations may see more willingness to do some things to grab the public eye.

Luke:
No. Apart from the Nexus coming in and the rise of new stars, its been a terrible year. We have seen the departures of HBK, Jericho and Batista and the injury of Triple H which have not helped WWE at all. This year, and possibly next, are going to be huge transition periods in WWE in order to create and elevate new superstars. So, we can only expect these next few years to be the least memorable compared to the early to mid 2000s.

Stevie:
Yes. It may not look amazing in highlight reels down the track but then it does feature HBK/Undertaker II with Shawn leaving, Batista leaving too, as well as Nexus and Daniel Bryan - and their impact down the road will decide how memorable the year was in retrospect. As for right now it feels like a decent one.

5) WrestleMania 27 is shaping up to be superb given the increase in talent and the development of feuds right now: Yes/No?

David:
Yes and No. On one hand, I've no reason to doubt that WrestleMania will be anything but sensational, although we've not even got past Survivor Series yet. Maybe there are seeds planted for an Undertaker vs. Kane, or Undertaker vs. Nexus match, but aside from that we're simply too far removed from WrestleMania to be trying to figure out what the card will be like.

Simon:
Of course it's impossible to predict but I want to say Yes - so I'm going to. I want WrestleMania 27 to be a ripper because I want all WrestleManias to retain that special magic; that something extra/different that ups the celebratory atmosphere. Also, done right, the PG era could really be correctly cemented with a dynamic card here. I expect Wade Barrett and Daniel Bryan to feature somehow - and maybe some other Nexus goons. I expect a Kane/Taker match to end all Kane/Taker matches (if not quality-wise, then at least with some permanance) and I expect some cool celeb cameos again - given the number we've had over the last 18 months on RAW. So it's a yes, with fingers crossed.

Steph:
By the grace of god it will be a fantastic year for divas at WrestleMania! I have high hopes of some Natalya-heavy awesomeness (even if Mrs Undertaker continues to reign supreme). The guys? Too early to say.

Kirsty:
Well, yes and no. It's got the potential to be superb, but then you could say that in any given year. It all depends what Creative decide to do. We haven't seen anything really spectacular since WrestleMania 21 in my opinion (attending WrestleMania 23 live in Detroit notwithstanding, but on telly it wasn't as great as it was actually being there), but I'm always hopeful that Creative will come up with something incredible. They have all the ingredients, that's for sure. They just need to know how to cook them.

Matt:
No. Past Mania's have been saved only by old school players who are very thin on the ground now. No more Michaels, Jericho, Batista. Pretty soon, all we'll have to look forward to is the Hall Of Fame cermony? Help us Taker... you're our only hope!!

Scott:
No. Well, too early to tell, at this stage. The only thing I'm really looking forward to with WrestleMania is where The Miz may end up on the road to the big show.

Luke:
Ten years ago, WrestleMania X-Seven was arguably the biggest super card in professional wrestling. Ever. Ten years later, WWE are struggling to build new superstars in a completely changed world. My point is, ten years ago they had talent to boot and today, they are struggling to make main event wrestlers. I mean, what are the odds that we will see Wade Barrett and/or The Miz in the main event at WrestleMania 27? Highly likely but they are no Rock and Stone Cold or even Cena. Like this year, I think WrestleMania will be average at best as the WWE continue their hopes to build new stars.

Stevie:
No. Because this happens every year. They build up a selection of stars, elevating certain people and putting the focus on them for about eight months, then as soon as the WrestleMania build begins (often as late as Elimination Chamber) part-timers and old stars grab the spotlight back and hog the main matches. I understand that the event is a showcase for dream matches and so on. But as a viewer, when you invest time in characters that are being pushed into the foreground, you expect a payoff (see: Kofi Kingston last year). I'll be thrilled if they do change it up, as they have some great talent being built. Current logic points to The Miz heading for gold at the event - so expect HHH to return (along with Undertaker) one month before WrestleMania and headline while Miz probably has a tag match. Again, I'll be over the moon if they have some courage and take the punt on the guys they spend all year building.