Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Indy Wrestling, Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling Forums

-   The Debate League (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/debate-league/)
-   -   JIM'S GYM PRESENTS TDL DOJO #2. (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/debate-league/1036985-jims-gym-presents-tdl-dojo-2-a.html)

seabs 11-26-2013 01:21 PM


OXI vs The Fourth Wall vs MarkC1984
Would WWE benefit from an increased focus on managers with wrestlers?

RugbyRat vs MoveMent vs killacamt vs RichardHagen
Should more title changes occur on house shows?

TAR vs Bullseye vs Comedy Inc
Did the ICC made the correct decision in choosing to fine Michael Clarke over his comment to Jimmy Anderson?

Doing this as there's been a few sign ups recently that won't make it onto the card for X but I wanted to give them something in the meantime so they don't get bored and forget about us. That and another chance for the debaters with the weaker records to get some more experience and feedback. Usual rules from the main cards apply. Minimum word count = 300, Maximum word count = 800. These debates won't count towards your records, they're just practice if you like. Post your debates in here with hide tags so the others can't see it before the deadline. So wrap [*hide=50000][/hide] around your debate but without the * next to hide.

Deadline is 5 days from the time of this post. Short deadline because the card for X is going up soon and nobody will be free to judge once them debates are in to judge. You don't HAVE to submit anything but I figured you'd all appreciate another debate opportunity or in some cases a first debate opportunity.

Oxi X.O. 11-26-2013 01:26 PM

I won't not disappoint on purpose.

Would WWE benefit from an increased focus on managers with wrestlers?

One of the best ways to understand the power of a manager is to compare their heyday to the current product, and how managers are perceived and portrayed now.

A few decades ago, a man renowned as one of the greatest managers of all time – Bobby “The Brain” Heenan was in his managing heyday. Heenan is one of the most well-known names from the 1980s and 1990s; and he was just a manager. Though Heenan managed some of the biggest names in WWE history, like Jesse Ventura, Paul Orndorff, Mr Perfect, and André the Giant, it can be easily said that Heenan is a much more famous wrestling name than most of his clientele.

In this time, a manager was synonymous with one dimensional heels. The combination of a weasel-like master of wordplay, badgering, and a forceful wrestler toying with their opponents garnered some great reactions from the fans – for good reason too.
Basically, Heenan was able to use his undeniable charisma and skills to directly make his clients look much more unstoppable than they really were, and catapulted some men to stardom.

In modern times, it seems that managers have not played as much of a role in WWE programming as “The Brain” had. But it’s not because people with traits like Heenan haven’t come around; it seems to purely be booking.

In the past few years, one name who is also synonymous with the phrase “one of the greatest managers of all time”, Paul Heyman, has been using his undeniable charisma, wordplay, constant badgering, and all-round skills to attempt to catapult his clientele to stardom too. However, booking has not been so kind to Heyman and his clientele – namely Curtis Axel and Ryback.

One of the largest similarities between managers from the 1980s and managers today is that they are often the opponents’ main enemy, and their clients are pawns. However, decades ago, when the manager and his pawns were defeated, the manager would eventually come back, with bigger, better, badder pawns. Today, it doesn’t seem to be this way.

Currently, WWE book face managers as more important than their clients, and heel managers as more important as their clients. The difference is that the face managers are protected, and the heel managers are almost always beaten and essentially finished after the first feud!

Take for example, Paul Heyman against CM Punk, before, during, and after SummerSlam 2013. Punk had to work his way through a total of three of Paul Heyman’s clientele. In the first match, Punk was screwed out of a victory and lost the match. The next PPV, Heyman was able to pin Punk in a handicap match in which Ryback, another “Paul Heyman Guy” interfered. Everything was looking good for Heyman in theory. He and his clients were winning matches.

Eventually though, Punk was able to defeat Ryback on two different occasions with relative ease. After this, Heyman wanted nothing to do with Ryback.

So, what was the problem?

A few months prior to this, Heyman had re-debuted Curtis Axel, who won his first match against Triple H, and he was looking great. He had one of the best managers the WWE has ever had behind him, and he picked up a victory over one of the biggest names in wrestling today.

But when Axel and Heyman were booked in a proper feud against CM Punk, Heyman was the main enemy. Axel, a relatively new face to the product (as he was re-debuted) was booked as a pawn, and eventually after that, an afterthought and a regrettable decision by Heyman. Axel lost time and time again to CM Punk, and eventually, so did Heyman’s other client, Ryback. Punk abruptly ended the feud by beating down his nemesis in Heyman, and neither Axel nor Ryback wanted anything to do with him after.

Though Heenan and Heyman are very similar as managers, one was booked to put both their clients and their opponents over, whereas the other was booked to solely put their opponent over.

Ultimately, the concept of a manager is in no way going to inherently damage the product or any of the superstars/divas of the WWE, assuming the manager is at least average; but if booked well, a manager can do absolute wonders for everyone involved, and therefore, the entire product.
Though it is rare these days, a well booked manager who puts the clients first can assist in the development of all kinds of heels – cowards, weasels, monsters, you name it; and when that manager and their clients are defeated, and the babyface gets the sweet vengeance they strived for weeks to get, everything they worked so hard to get comes naturally.

The Fourth Wall 11-26-2013 05:15 PM

Will have a pop at this. (Y)

Ignignokt 11-26-2013 05:56 PM

Oxi with that completed debate 2 hours and 20 minutes after the OP.

Oxi X.O. 11-26-2013 06:19 PM


Took me 2 hours to do. :lol

MarkC1984 11-26-2013 06:49 PM

Will try my best to get one in for this, but am so busy at the moment that I may not be able to post. Will certainly do a rough draft though in the morning.

Rugrat 11-28-2013 04:26 PM

Should more title changes occur at house shows?

I'm going to have to reply with a strong no, I'll also add that in my opinion, this is possibly one of the worst times for either TNA or WWE to start having title changes at house shows. Firstly, I'll start with the potential problems of TNA implementing this.

It almost goes without saying that TNA is in severe financial trouble, with house show viewing figures to match. At an El Paso house show 2 months ago, TNA only drew 200 people, ROH and many other indies routinely draw more than this. Bear in mind that all 4 major titles were defended. A big title change on a house show will probably lead TNA to showing the title match on Impact. For a company the president perceives to be a strong number 2 to WWE, it will make TNA look so amateur having a title match in front of sub-400 people. It will just make it look like a glorified indie promotion. There is even a possibility that after seeing how few people turn up to house shows, some people may be less inclined to go to house shows, sort of like a cycle.

Secondly, TNA is only doing 4 PPVs a year, so they feel more special. When you think of it the big drawing factor of a PPV is that it is the start/culmination of a feud and a possible big title change. Given the lack of big varying characters in TNA it is less of the former and more of the latter. But, why would someone part with their money on watching title matches, which don't even merit a spot on TV to crown a new holder.

Now to WWE, at present, I can't think of a time when the titles have meant any less to them. With the dull Del Rio having shrouded the World title, as well as The Big Gold Belt constantly opening PPVs. After Barrett and Cesaro ended up losing in a large amount of non-title matches since winning the Intercontinental and United States title respectively, WWE has almost been looking at them like an inconvenience. In my opinion WWE needs to build up its midcard titles, having people drop them at house shows will only make the titles depreciate in value. WWE needs to book the midcard titles in intense feuds with fresh rivalries, as opposed to the same matches against the same wrestlers.

Theoretically speaking, the only scenario where a title change could/would work for would be if a hometown wrestler were to capture a belt for a hometown pop and then drop it back to the original holder before there is a live showing of the programme on TV. Even then, this would present difficulties for WWE, as it would further devalue the midcard titles. By passing the titles from person to person, it can reduce the prestige of a title, especially as WWE needs to desperately try and build up the credibility of their titles.

For TNA, this would manifest difficulties of its own, it could lead to TNA having to cram house shows. This is one of the last things they want to be doing, they want to reduce the amount of them, to increase the demand and ticket sales, to get out of embarrassingly low attendances. All in all, I see very little point for title changes at house shows in 2013.

Smitty 11-28-2013 07:11 PM

Topic: Would WWE benefit from an increased focus on managers with wrestlers?

I think the WWE would in fact benefit from an increased focus on managers
Now, the art of professional wrestling goes back hundreds of years, but I want to focus on one specific time period in its storied past: the 1970s and 80s. Back then, almost every heel had a manager. Think about the great names such as Nikoli Volkoff, the Iron Sheik, Bob Orton, Harley Race, Randy Savage, King Kong Bundy, and Andre the Giant, all these men had managers to make sure that they would get good heat. Hell, even Hulk Hogan had a manager, Jimmy Hart managed him during his final year in 1993, although he was a face then. Back then, heels used to get so much more heat then they do today. Who is the most over heel in the company today? Probably trips and Steph, who aren’t even competitors and are simply flashbacks to the attitude era. Who’s left? The top 2 heels in the company in ADR and Orton come out to indifference often, and the Shield actually comes out to CHEERS, mainly because they are great in the ring, but they do virtually nothing to get heat. If you look at WM 3, Andre the Giant is actually getting trash thrown at him, something that couldn’t be fathomed today was actually common back in the eighties.

This brings me to my first point: Mangers help the heel get over. Back in the heyday of mangers, heels and faces being over was most likely the least of the WWF’s and NWA’s worries. People like Andre and Flair were being booed out of the \building nightly. The main issue was what the competition was doing right and wrong, and of course that isn’t an issue now. It is obvious that faces are still over, but have faces ever needed a manager? People like Chris Benoit, The Rock, Stone Cold, and John Cena managed to go without managers and consistently stayed over. However heels do need a manager, and its quite obvious. Look at the Real Americans and Brock Lesnar as an example. All three of these men absolutely SUCK on the mic, are they over as heels? I think they are, and all three of these men happen to have awesome managers, and that’s a plus. Basically these guys do the wrestling, and Paul E and Zeb get them heat, its simple. Guys like Ryback and ADR are wallowing with indifferent reactions and cutting bad promos. If ADR had a manager not named Ricardo Rodriguez, he’d get over. Ryback just sucks and even having the GOAT manager didn’t work for him, so you at least need to be good in the ring, we’ve certainly learned that.

My second point is as follows: Managers create stars. We’ve already established that a good manager can most certainly help get a heel over if they don’t have the mic skills necessary for this. People like Brock Lesnar and Andre the Giant just don’t have the mic skills to cut a good promo out, so people like Paul Heyman and Bobby Heenan do it for their “clients” as their called in kayfabe. Now how does this benefit the WWE? Well, it makes it easier for the WWE to push new stars. Here’s a great example, where would Brock Lesnar be without Paul Heyman? He would be a big guy who can work but can talk shit, basically, a midcarder. Now, with managers you get that promo that further pushes a feud and in turn, makes it easier to push someone talented in the ring because theirs almost a guarantee that if they have the right manager, and the right in ring skills, they’ll become big. Brock Lesnar revitalized wrestling and basically started the Ruthless aggression era. Before Lesnar won the WWE title and HBK came back at Summerslam in 2002, the WWE was in a bad place business wise. By the time Lesnar left in 2004, we had stars such as Benoit and Eddie to take his place.

In summation, managers add to the WWE product because they can get stars over, which is obvious the WWE has an issue with( see ADR, Ryabck, ETC). Secondly, it helps push new stars, as WWE has also had an issue with outside of maybe Punk and the Shield. All in all, the WWE has brought more managers back in the past year or 2, but the more managers there are, the more money the WWE will make and the more success they will have, as its been proven countless numbers of times over pro wrestling’s history.

CamillePunk 11-30-2013 03:11 AM


seabs 11-30-2013 11:56 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome