TDL XXXI: ANDRE COMIN YO
Andre
Oxi vs mr.socko2101
Which show had a better Divas Title Match, NXT TakeOver R-Evolution or NXT TakeOver Rival?
Andre
Oxi vs mr.socko2101
Which show had a better Divas Title Match, NXT TakeOver R-Evolution or NXT TakeOver Rival?
Oxi
Though both matches were by definition, exceptional womens' wrestling, the singles bout between Charlotte and Sasha Banks at R-Evolution is much more exceptional than Rival's fatal four way, for a few but very important reasons; the characters involved; the input of those wrestlers; and the detrimental, formulaic booking of a four way match.
THE CHARACTERS
Prior to the four way match, Becky Lynch had flip-flopped between an Irish jigging face, to a rocker chick face who headbangs... and... not much more, and then somehow to Sasha Banks lite, after being 'corrupted' by Sasha herself, similarly to how Summer Rae originally did the same to Sasha much earlier.
The fact that Becky went through many abrupt changes in her character and ring work, without fleshing out either, and then just becoming what seemed a lot like an Irish version of Sasha Banks (with the attitude combined with the corruption angle) made her participation in the match questionable. Even with storyline betrayal making sense kayfabe-wise, realistically, Becky just wasn't on par with the other three, and it was simply out of place.
Bayley and Sasha Banks are among the top of the entire NXT roster when it comes to portraying characters on screen. They understand that the little things in matches are just as important as the big spots and manoeuvres. From Sasha's well-timed grins of arrogance, grimaces of desperation, and consistent taunt-mocking, to Bayley's frowns of sadness and disappointment, to the AIR HIGH FIVE, these two women are leaps ahead of even some popular male stars in NXT in this category. Charlotte's strong fighting champion character at the time, albeit not as good as Sasha or Bayley, was also very fitting.
But, Bayley and Sasha were the four way match, so why is the singles better?
Simple...
THE INPUT
The strongest aspect of the women wrestlers in NXT isn't their MOVEZ, but their character work, and how they portray their characters in their matches with their manoeuvres and mannerisms.
In the singles match between Charlotte and Sasha, two extraordinary talent were given a fair amount of time to go all out in a great match. It was, at the time, the culmination of a rivalry that lasted months on end. With a fantastic story behind them, Charlotte and Banks both managed to show off their ability in-ring, as Sasha threw all she had at Charlotte, but was unable to be victorious in a fair singles match.
Sasha showed resiliency in her desparation to not only defeat someone she has had trouble with in the past, but also to win the championship she has coveted from day one. Sasha displayed her incredible heel ability (as well as looking the part - that hairstyle was ratchet!) with the aforementioned mannerisms, as well as the manoeuvres and execution.
Take a basic corner spot: Sasha does a typical diva spot - a hair pull - but uses it as a tactic to get ahead, and sells the anger and desparation in her face. Immediately after this, Sasha locks in Charlotte's signature headlock, and Sasha mocks her, shouting "WOOO!"", as well as mocking the fans cheering her on.
Sasha however, was not the only highlight. Charlotte managed to impress again, not by perfecting facial emotion, but by displaying great understanding of a 'never say die' fighting champion; overcoming the tactics of Sasha throughout the match, and not once giving in to anger or desparation; instead, competing fairly, and still winning.
The fact that Charlotte also utilised manoeuvres that we hadn't seen her use before - or much at all - in the top rope moonsault and the elevated Natural Selection finish, shows understanding in keeping the BIG MOVEZ in BIG MATCHES, which is lost on some these days. Especially in four way matches...
THE DETRIMENTAL, FORMULAIC BOOKING
WWE (and by extension NXT) have always had a problem booking the majority of four way matches the same way, consisting of multiple participants laying on the outside, waiting to come back in to either a) do a big spot, or b) break up a pin.
The four way bout, though decent, was a victim of booking, and was further hindered in quality because of it.
When the singles match at R-Evolution had twelve minutes of almost non-stop action that was well storied, the four way of Rival had a badly booked amalgamation of four performers, two of whom were often waiting outside of the ring.
Instead of showing the world their GRINS and GRIMACES, they'd wait outside to a) or b). And that's not good wrestling... it's bad booking.
Though there was a sweet victory for Sasha Banks, even the finish was nonsensical: The submission-into-pin lasted a lengthy time in the middle of the ring, with Becky Lynch being knocked virtually unconscious for almost half a minute from a single toe kick.
mr.socko2101
I would like to start my debate by commenting on the current state of women’s wrestling in NXT. Had you told me even just one year ago that I would be debating the merits of two WWE developmental system Women’s Title matches I probably would have assumed you were jesting. However, now we live in a time where these said matches not only deserve the merit of being debated but of being thoroughly enjoyed by a vociferous fan base also. Alas, in a debate such as this, much like my fellow participants and I, there can be only one winner. And that, my friends, is without a shadow of a doubt the NXT Takeover Rival Fatal 4-Way.
Firstly, the match at NXT Rival quite simply stole the show on a night where some of the greatest in ring workers of the past decade competed. Let that just sink in for a moment. On a night where world-renowned performers such as Sami Zayn, Adrian Neville, Finn Bálor and Kevin Owens competed, it was the foursome of Charlotte, Sasha Banks, Bayley and Becky Lynch that gave us the show stealing match of the night and all from a match format often criticized for being too messy and contrived at times.
In ring we were treated to a fantastic display of athleticism and psychology as well as wonderful use of the four-way match format. It delivered some truly awe-inspiring moments from Bayley’s top rope Bayley-to-Belly Suplex to Sasha’s spectacular simultaneous Double Knee Stomp in the corner to a rope hung Charlotte and Becky. Whilst spots such as these may live long in the memory, it was the usage of the four-way match format that convinced me this was the better of the two matches. Where this match harnessed the strengths of the much maligned fatal four-way to great effect was in utilising the extra participants to make saves at crucial times which helped preserve the integrity of the participants signature moves without making anyone appear weak. The selling by all four participants and the hard-hitting nature of the match, as seen in the ringside video board’s malfunction really helped engross me as a viewer in the ongoing struggle between the four competitors in a way that is hard to find in wrestling these days. To me this match was the epitome of what a fatal four-way can be when done right. Everyone was important to the match and played a vital role. Nobody was there just to eat a pin or take a crazy bump as is too often the case.
Not only did this match deliver in ring but it also accomplished the incredible feat of making each competitor appear stronger by virtue of their participation in this match. The fighting champion Charlotte made a valiant attempt at retaining her title only to be undone by the combined efforts of Becky, Bayley and finally her nemesis Sasha, a fitting end for a championship run such as this. The previously much derided Becky Lynch turned in an amazing performance in defeat to cement her place as one of the top female wrestlers on this NXT roster and move out of the shadow of her ally Sasha. The naïve but lovable fan favorite Bayley turned it up a gear and found the intensity and drive to further highlight her growth as a performer. Last but certainly not least, the magnificent Sasha Banks showed off the savviness and guile needed if one is to become the true Boss of NXT.
In stark contrast, the NXT R-Evolution match was merely a solid match between two competitors. It did little to elevate either competitor and it’s build if anything trivialized both Bayley and Becky as mere cannon fodder for Sasha and Charlotte. The match also suffered as a result of Charlotte’s conflicted status as a babyface who still flaunts being genetically superior. This was evidenced in the split, at best, reaction of the crowd with only a few scattered ‘wooo‘ chants thrown in occasionally.
This brings me to my next point in that, whilst this was a perfectly serviceable match, I felt the incessant use of Ric Flair tribute spots were to it’s detriment. These spots only served to trivialise this match in comparison to the battle of wills seen at NXT Rival. Whilst one match served to lay down a new foundation and help build up the legitimacy of the NXT Women’s division the other match was just another solid match on a wrestling card.
In closing, I would like to say I hope this debate has shown that the NXT Rival match was far superior to the NXT R-Evolution match from a storyline, in ring and historic importance point of view. For these reasons I believe the match at NXT Rival was superior.
Though both matches were by definition, exceptional womens' wrestling, the singles bout between Charlotte and Sasha Banks at R-Evolution is much more exceptional than Rival's fatal four way, for a few but very important reasons; the characters involved; the input of those wrestlers; and the detrimental, formulaic booking of a four way match.
THE CHARACTERS
Prior to the four way match, Becky Lynch had flip-flopped between an Irish jigging face, to a rocker chick face who headbangs... and... not much more, and then somehow to Sasha Banks lite, after being 'corrupted' by Sasha herself, similarly to how Summer Rae originally did the same to Sasha much earlier.
The fact that Becky went through many abrupt changes in her character and ring work, without fleshing out either, and then just becoming what seemed a lot like an Irish version of Sasha Banks (with the attitude combined with the corruption angle) made her participation in the match questionable. Even with storyline betrayal making sense kayfabe-wise, realistically, Becky just wasn't on par with the other three, and it was simply out of place.
Bayley and Sasha Banks are among the top of the entire NXT roster when it comes to portraying characters on screen. They understand that the little things in matches are just as important as the big spots and manoeuvres. From Sasha's well-timed grins of arrogance, grimaces of desperation, and consistent taunt-mocking, to Bayley's frowns of sadness and disappointment, to the AIR HIGH FIVE, these two women are leaps ahead of even some popular male stars in NXT in this category. Charlotte's strong fighting champion character at the time, albeit not as good as Sasha or Bayley, was also very fitting.
But, Bayley and Sasha were the four way match, so why is the singles better?
Simple...
THE INPUT
The strongest aspect of the women wrestlers in NXT isn't their MOVEZ, but their character work, and how they portray their characters in their matches with their manoeuvres and mannerisms.
In the singles match between Charlotte and Sasha, two extraordinary talent were given a fair amount of time to go all out in a great match. It was, at the time, the culmination of a rivalry that lasted months on end. With a fantastic story behind them, Charlotte and Banks both managed to show off their ability in-ring, as Sasha threw all she had at Charlotte, but was unable to be victorious in a fair singles match.
Sasha showed resiliency in her desparation to not only defeat someone she has had trouble with in the past, but also to win the championship she has coveted from day one. Sasha displayed her incredible heel ability (as well as looking the part - that hairstyle was ratchet!) with the aforementioned mannerisms, as well as the manoeuvres and execution.
Take a basic corner spot: Sasha does a typical diva spot - a hair pull - but uses it as a tactic to get ahead, and sells the anger and desparation in her face. Immediately after this, Sasha locks in Charlotte's signature headlock, and Sasha mocks her, shouting "WOOO!"", as well as mocking the fans cheering her on.
Sasha however, was not the only highlight. Charlotte managed to impress again, not by perfecting facial emotion, but by displaying great understanding of a 'never say die' fighting champion; overcoming the tactics of Sasha throughout the match, and not once giving in to anger or desparation; instead, competing fairly, and still winning.
The fact that Charlotte also utilised manoeuvres that we hadn't seen her use before - or much at all - in the top rope moonsault and the elevated Natural Selection finish, shows understanding in keeping the BIG MOVEZ in BIG MATCHES, which is lost on some these days. Especially in four way matches...
THE DETRIMENTAL, FORMULAIC BOOKING
WWE (and by extension NXT) have always had a problem booking the majority of four way matches the same way, consisting of multiple participants laying on the outside, waiting to come back in to either a) do a big spot, or b) break up a pin.
The four way bout, though decent, was a victim of booking, and was further hindered in quality because of it.
When the singles match at R-Evolution had twelve minutes of almost non-stop action that was well storied, the four way of Rival had a badly booked amalgamation of four performers, two of whom were often waiting outside of the ring.
Instead of showing the world their GRINS and GRIMACES, they'd wait outside to a) or b). And that's not good wrestling... it's bad booking.
Though there was a sweet victory for Sasha Banks, even the finish was nonsensical: The submission-into-pin lasted a lengthy time in the middle of the ring, with Becky Lynch being knocked virtually unconscious for almost half a minute from a single toe kick.
mr.socko2101
I would like to start my debate by commenting on the current state of women’s wrestling in NXT. Had you told me even just one year ago that I would be debating the merits of two WWE developmental system Women’s Title matches I probably would have assumed you were jesting. However, now we live in a time where these said matches not only deserve the merit of being debated but of being thoroughly enjoyed by a vociferous fan base also. Alas, in a debate such as this, much like my fellow participants and I, there can be only one winner. And that, my friends, is without a shadow of a doubt the NXT Takeover Rival Fatal 4-Way.
Firstly, the match at NXT Rival quite simply stole the show on a night where some of the greatest in ring workers of the past decade competed. Let that just sink in for a moment. On a night where world-renowned performers such as Sami Zayn, Adrian Neville, Finn Bálor and Kevin Owens competed, it was the foursome of Charlotte, Sasha Banks, Bayley and Becky Lynch that gave us the show stealing match of the night and all from a match format often criticized for being too messy and contrived at times.
In ring we were treated to a fantastic display of athleticism and psychology as well as wonderful use of the four-way match format. It delivered some truly awe-inspiring moments from Bayley’s top rope Bayley-to-Belly Suplex to Sasha’s spectacular simultaneous Double Knee Stomp in the corner to a rope hung Charlotte and Becky. Whilst spots such as these may live long in the memory, it was the usage of the four-way match format that convinced me this was the better of the two matches. Where this match harnessed the strengths of the much maligned fatal four-way to great effect was in utilising the extra participants to make saves at crucial times which helped preserve the integrity of the participants signature moves without making anyone appear weak. The selling by all four participants and the hard-hitting nature of the match, as seen in the ringside video board’s malfunction really helped engross me as a viewer in the ongoing struggle between the four competitors in a way that is hard to find in wrestling these days. To me this match was the epitome of what a fatal four-way can be when done right. Everyone was important to the match and played a vital role. Nobody was there just to eat a pin or take a crazy bump as is too often the case.
Not only did this match deliver in ring but it also accomplished the incredible feat of making each competitor appear stronger by virtue of their participation in this match. The fighting champion Charlotte made a valiant attempt at retaining her title only to be undone by the combined efforts of Becky, Bayley and finally her nemesis Sasha, a fitting end for a championship run such as this. The previously much derided Becky Lynch turned in an amazing performance in defeat to cement her place as one of the top female wrestlers on this NXT roster and move out of the shadow of her ally Sasha. The naïve but lovable fan favorite Bayley turned it up a gear and found the intensity and drive to further highlight her growth as a performer. Last but certainly not least, the magnificent Sasha Banks showed off the savviness and guile needed if one is to become the true Boss of NXT.
In stark contrast, the NXT R-Evolution match was merely a solid match between two competitors. It did little to elevate either competitor and it’s build if anything trivialized both Bayley and Becky as mere cannon fodder for Sasha and Charlotte. The match also suffered as a result of Charlotte’s conflicted status as a babyface who still flaunts being genetically superior. This was evidenced in the split, at best, reaction of the crowd with only a few scattered ‘wooo‘ chants thrown in occasionally.
This brings me to my next point in that, whilst this was a perfectly serviceable match, I felt the incessant use of Ric Flair tribute spots were to it’s detriment. These spots only served to trivialise this match in comparison to the battle of wills seen at NXT Rival. Whilst one match served to lay down a new foundation and help build up the legitimacy of the NXT Women’s division the other match was just another solid match on a wrestling card.
In closing, I would like to say I hope this debate has shown that the NXT Rival match was far superior to the NXT R-Evolution match from a storyline, in ring and historic importance point of view. For these reasons I believe the match at NXT Rival was superior.
Seabs
Oxi - How were both matches "by definition exceptional womens' wrestling"? It doesn't really matter but I didn't understand your choice of wording there. In an either or debate it's essential to not only present a convincing argument for your pick but to also do it at the expense of the alternative. You have some good stuff in favour of your stance but the knocks against the 4 way and more importantly direct reasons why one match was better were really lacking and as such you failed to convince me that one match was actually better, just that Charlotte/Sasha was good. The characters part I didn't really get because it came across more as positive than a negative for the 4 way because you were giving Bayley so much credit. Even with Becky you knock her booking in the build but don't really translate it back into a reason why it made the 4 way match weaker than Charlotte/Sasha. The input section was very good at arguing the positives for Charlotte/Sasha but you needed to also show that this wasn't as good in the 4 way match to show why one was better than the other. Was the 4 way not full of great character spots too? Did the 4 way spam big moves and not keep them special? B actually countered you here with " It delivered some truly awe-inspiring moments from Bayley’s top rope Bayley-to-Belly Suplex to Sasha’s spectacular simultaneous Double Knee Stomp in the corner to a rope hung Charlotte and Becky.". With the 4 way knock you're only really saying what happened rather than linking it to why it made the match weaker than Charlotte/Sasha. " Instead of showing the world their GRINS and GRIMACES, they'd wait outside to a) or b)." absolutely needs examples to prove it. The last paragraph is a super odd way to finish a debate because it feels mid argument and what happened to conclusions to wrap up debates? So you needed to show what the difference between the two matches was quality wise. Just saying Charlotte/Sasha had this doesn't argue that it's better than 4 way unless you show it didn't have that.
mr.socko2101 - Your first paragraph was a waste bar the line where you state your stance. 800 words isn't much and using an entire paragraph that doesn't add anything to your argument will be costly for you. It's nice to read that but it adds nothing to your debate. Likewise for the 2nd paragraph. It's nice but it doesn't tell me anything about which match is better. This is a lot of your word count that could have been used to present an extra argument than can so often be the difference between winning and losing a debate. Not sure that the 4 way was the show stealing match over Zayn/Owens is a consensus opinion either. Once you finally get to arguing for the 4 way itself it gets very good and you do a better job arguing for your pick than your opponent does for me. Like A though you also fall short of convincing me that it was better at the expense of the other match. 3rd paragraph though is really good and does a good job and not only illustrating the strengths of the match with specific examples but also explaining why they added to the match. " Where this match harnessed the strengths of the much maligned fatal four-way to great effect was in utilising the extra participants to make saves at crucial times which helped preserve the integrity of the participants signature moves without making anyone appear weak." could have done with an example or two though and is an example of where your wasted words at the start can hurt you when you need to expand more on area that will actually help you win the debate. Following paragraph did a really good job of showing how the match managed to put over all 4 in some way. That was good stuff. Then you get to your counter arguments for Charlotte/Sasha and they're not very convincing. The reasons you do have feel pretty tame and you did nothing to really show why it was just a solid match as you said which felt like you were really selling it short even despite your stance but with no real explanation as to why other than a few minor spots it was just an empty statement. Also with an either or debate you really need to make direct comparisons between the two matches. Pros of one match and cons of the other match will only get you so far. You need to be showing why one was better not just with arguments for it but also why it was better at the expense of the other match too. For example both were well wrestled but the booking was much better in one match and analyse the good booking in one and what let the other down in that aspect. So if you're arguing that the 4 way had more memorable spots for example then you also need to show that Charlotte/Sasha didn't benefit from this strength as much as the 4 way did and then you not only have a reason why the 4 way was great but why it was better than Charlotte/Sasha.
mr.socko2101 wins as his arguments in favour of his pick were better both in terms of quality and quantity and he had a better attempt at countering the opposing stance too.
Winner - mr.socko2101
RealManRegal
Oxi
I like the format and structure of your debate, and I like the criteria/arguments you chose to base your decision on.
You border on being almost ‘evangelical’ at points, and I can’t decide whether this adds passion to your arguments in a positive way, or whether it makes them seem subjective and overblown. It’s perhaps a bit of both. Tightening things up and reigning in the more hyperbolic elements will make for better debates in the future.
I think you do a good job of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each match, albeit in a somewhat fragmented way as you jump around a little. More direct, organised comparison would be good.
My main problem with this debate is that it just ends. There should be something, even if it’s just a single sentence, to provide some sort of conclusion. The lack of this lets your debate down.
mr.socko2101
While I appreciate and agree with the sentiment of your opening paragraph, it’s a waste of word count for debate purposes.
Declaring the four way as the show-stealing match at NXT Rival is a touch too hyperbolic for me, particularly since it can be argued that R-Evolution was a much better show overall and thus it was easier for the 4 way to steal the show than it was for Sasha/Charlotte.
For a topic which requires comparison, you need to provide more actual direct comparison between the two matches - lay out some criteria and use them to break each match down. Instead you fall into the trap of simply speaking positively about one side and negatively about the other, relying too much on subjective hyperbole.
Your debate probably suffers from you trying to downplay the Sasha/Charlotte match too much - acknowledging it as a good match but making compelling counter arguments against it being better than the 4-way would help you out. Remember you’re not arguing one was bad and the other was good - just that one was better than the other.
Decision: Oxi wins it for me.
CGS
First time judging and I manage to get opposing stances. Yay me.
Oxi
Nice intro. It’s straight to the point, highlights your stance from the get go and outlines exactly what the debate is gonna be about. No complaints thus far.
The characters section was very meh. You never really get into why the R-Evolution match was better than the Rival match due to their characters. You try to dismiss Becky saying she “wasn’t on par with the other three, and was simply out of place” but also mention the logical reasoning for her being in the match which if anything is a stronger case for her than saying “she wasn’t on par with them which is a very opinionated statement to make. Then you heap praise for the other three. If you're gonna praise Bayley at least provide an argument against her too.
Frankly the characters section was pretty pointless as a whole since you never really got out of first gear with it. If you were gonna go with the TakeOver R-Evolution match there were better topics you could have discussed such as comparing storyline developments between the two matches, showing why the R-Evolution match was more heated and intense than the Rival match. Especially considering you actually said it was at the time a culmination of months of build up and how Becky was just “thrown” into the Rival match. Huge missed opportunity if you ask me.
“The Input” was your best paragraph for me and if you really were gonna use “characters” to show why Takeover R-Evolution was better than the Rival Match, half the stuff you wrote in here should have gone in that section instead. Still you did well to break down the match and show how both girls not only provided us with a good wrestling match but managed to mix good storytelling and implemented their characters into the match well to help sell it and also back it up with some good examples. Good stuff.
The formulaic booking paragraph falls flat for me though; I’m not really convinced you’re fully behind what you’re actually saying. You say the fatal four way stipulation suffered from booking and the quality was hindered by it despite the fact the general opinion on the match was that it was pretty well booked for a fatal four way. It's a pretty empty statement with no backing. Shame considering the first half was actually pretty decent.
mr.socko2101
Your opening statement is a nice shout out to the NXT women’s division but it’s not needed at all and frankly you wasted vital word count on it. Word count that easily could have been used elsewhere in your debate to back up some of the points you made. Same goes for your 2nd paragraph. It’s a nice read but honestly adds nothing to your debate. Those paragraphs wasted a lot of extra words you could have used elsewhere. Also like I said with Oxi, for a debate such as this it’s a good idea to have a checklist to help structure and focus your debate a bit more.
The next two paragraphs are decent but too descriptive for me. Be careful when using "match of the night", some people may have seen Owens/Zayn or Balor/Neville as the MOTN instead. You touch upon some decent aspects such as it creating some awe inspiring moments, The four way format helping to preserve the integrity of each girls signature move, moments such as Charlotte getting smashed into the ringside video board and having it malfunction to show the intensity of the match and how the match itself helped develop each girls characters going forward but never really develop any of these points. Let me take an example from Oxi. They spoke about Sasha showing off her heel mannerisms to help sell the match and then took it further using the examples during the match of the hair pulling and mocking Charlotte with the WOO chants to anger her while having Charlotte remain calm dismissing Sasha's tactics and competing fairly to win as a clean cut champ. What you wrote itself was fine and had potential but you needed to take it that little bit further.
As for your final counterargument on the R-Evolution match you make the claim that the match did little to elevate either different but at the same time you haven’t really said HOW the Rival match did. All you said is that the match helped elevate all four divas in one way or another but never how it did that. I could go on and on about it but yeah the key things is to focus on is depth and examples to back up your statements for your next debate. Outside that the debate actually is a good easy read so if there is one positive I can take from the debate is that you have a nice flow, just need to structure that flow to help give it some focus.
One last thing, never say “I hope this has shown…” your job in the debate is to PROVE that your choice is the right choice you have 800 words to convince the judge that your choice is obviously right. It’s a minor thing but it’s something many people have been criticized for in the past so just be careful.
Decision
Neither debate was really amazing. Both had some good aspects and both had a good amount of flaws. In the end I’ve decided to go with Oxi as the winner. Mainly down to the fact that they had a better structure, used their word count more efficiently and used better examples to back up some of their statements than mr.socko2101.
Oxi - How were both matches "by definition exceptional womens' wrestling"? It doesn't really matter but I didn't understand your choice of wording there. In an either or debate it's essential to not only present a convincing argument for your pick but to also do it at the expense of the alternative. You have some good stuff in favour of your stance but the knocks against the 4 way and more importantly direct reasons why one match was better were really lacking and as such you failed to convince me that one match was actually better, just that Charlotte/Sasha was good. The characters part I didn't really get because it came across more as positive than a negative for the 4 way because you were giving Bayley so much credit. Even with Becky you knock her booking in the build but don't really translate it back into a reason why it made the 4 way match weaker than Charlotte/Sasha. The input section was very good at arguing the positives for Charlotte/Sasha but you needed to also show that this wasn't as good in the 4 way match to show why one was better than the other. Was the 4 way not full of great character spots too? Did the 4 way spam big moves and not keep them special? B actually countered you here with " It delivered some truly awe-inspiring moments from Bayley’s top rope Bayley-to-Belly Suplex to Sasha’s spectacular simultaneous Double Knee Stomp in the corner to a rope hung Charlotte and Becky.". With the 4 way knock you're only really saying what happened rather than linking it to why it made the match weaker than Charlotte/Sasha. " Instead of showing the world their GRINS and GRIMACES, they'd wait outside to a) or b)." absolutely needs examples to prove it. The last paragraph is a super odd way to finish a debate because it feels mid argument and what happened to conclusions to wrap up debates? So you needed to show what the difference between the two matches was quality wise. Just saying Charlotte/Sasha had this doesn't argue that it's better than 4 way unless you show it didn't have that.
mr.socko2101 - Your first paragraph was a waste bar the line where you state your stance. 800 words isn't much and using an entire paragraph that doesn't add anything to your argument will be costly for you. It's nice to read that but it adds nothing to your debate. Likewise for the 2nd paragraph. It's nice but it doesn't tell me anything about which match is better. This is a lot of your word count that could have been used to present an extra argument than can so often be the difference between winning and losing a debate. Not sure that the 4 way was the show stealing match over Zayn/Owens is a consensus opinion either. Once you finally get to arguing for the 4 way itself it gets very good and you do a better job arguing for your pick than your opponent does for me. Like A though you also fall short of convincing me that it was better at the expense of the other match. 3rd paragraph though is really good and does a good job and not only illustrating the strengths of the match with specific examples but also explaining why they added to the match. " Where this match harnessed the strengths of the much maligned fatal four-way to great effect was in utilising the extra participants to make saves at crucial times which helped preserve the integrity of the participants signature moves without making anyone appear weak." could have done with an example or two though and is an example of where your wasted words at the start can hurt you when you need to expand more on area that will actually help you win the debate. Following paragraph did a really good job of showing how the match managed to put over all 4 in some way. That was good stuff. Then you get to your counter arguments for Charlotte/Sasha and they're not very convincing. The reasons you do have feel pretty tame and you did nothing to really show why it was just a solid match as you said which felt like you were really selling it short even despite your stance but with no real explanation as to why other than a few minor spots it was just an empty statement. Also with an either or debate you really need to make direct comparisons between the two matches. Pros of one match and cons of the other match will only get you so far. You need to be showing why one was better not just with arguments for it but also why it was better at the expense of the other match too. For example both were well wrestled but the booking was much better in one match and analyse the good booking in one and what let the other down in that aspect. So if you're arguing that the 4 way had more memorable spots for example then you also need to show that Charlotte/Sasha didn't benefit from this strength as much as the 4 way did and then you not only have a reason why the 4 way was great but why it was better than Charlotte/Sasha.
mr.socko2101 wins as his arguments in favour of his pick were better both in terms of quality and quantity and he had a better attempt at countering the opposing stance too.
Winner - mr.socko2101
RealManRegal
Oxi
I like the format and structure of your debate, and I like the criteria/arguments you chose to base your decision on.
You border on being almost ‘evangelical’ at points, and I can’t decide whether this adds passion to your arguments in a positive way, or whether it makes them seem subjective and overblown. It’s perhaps a bit of both. Tightening things up and reigning in the more hyperbolic elements will make for better debates in the future.
I think you do a good job of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each match, albeit in a somewhat fragmented way as you jump around a little. More direct, organised comparison would be good.
My main problem with this debate is that it just ends. There should be something, even if it’s just a single sentence, to provide some sort of conclusion. The lack of this lets your debate down.
mr.socko2101
While I appreciate and agree with the sentiment of your opening paragraph, it’s a waste of word count for debate purposes.
Declaring the four way as the show-stealing match at NXT Rival is a touch too hyperbolic for me, particularly since it can be argued that R-Evolution was a much better show overall and thus it was easier for the 4 way to steal the show than it was for Sasha/Charlotte.
For a topic which requires comparison, you need to provide more actual direct comparison between the two matches - lay out some criteria and use them to break each match down. Instead you fall into the trap of simply speaking positively about one side and negatively about the other, relying too much on subjective hyperbole.
Your debate probably suffers from you trying to downplay the Sasha/Charlotte match too much - acknowledging it as a good match but making compelling counter arguments against it being better than the 4-way would help you out. Remember you’re not arguing one was bad and the other was good - just that one was better than the other.
Decision: Oxi wins it for me.
CGS
First time judging and I manage to get opposing stances. Yay me.
Oxi
Nice intro. It’s straight to the point, highlights your stance from the get go and outlines exactly what the debate is gonna be about. No complaints thus far.
The characters section was very meh. You never really get into why the R-Evolution match was better than the Rival match due to their characters. You try to dismiss Becky saying she “wasn’t on par with the other three, and was simply out of place” but also mention the logical reasoning for her being in the match which if anything is a stronger case for her than saying “she wasn’t on par with them which is a very opinionated statement to make. Then you heap praise for the other three. If you're gonna praise Bayley at least provide an argument against her too.
CGS level grammar right there tbh :side:
Frankly the characters section was pretty pointless as a whole since you never really got out of first gear with it. If you were gonna go with the TakeOver R-Evolution match there were better topics you could have discussed such as comparing storyline developments between the two matches, showing why the R-Evolution match was more heated and intense than the Rival match. Especially considering you actually said it was at the time a culmination of months of build up and how Becky was just “thrown” into the Rival match. Huge missed opportunity if you ask me.
“The Input” was your best paragraph for me and if you really were gonna use “characters” to show why Takeover R-Evolution was better than the Rival Match, half the stuff you wrote in here should have gone in that section instead. Still you did well to break down the match and show how both girls not only provided us with a good wrestling match but managed to mix good storytelling and implemented their characters into the match well to help sell it and also back it up with some good examples. Good stuff.
The formulaic booking paragraph falls flat for me though; I’m not really convinced you’re fully behind what you’re actually saying. You say the fatal four way stipulation suffered from booking and the quality was hindered by it despite the fact the general opinion on the match was that it was pretty well booked for a fatal four way. It's a pretty empty statement with no backing. Shame considering the first half was actually pretty decent.
mr.socko2101
Your opening statement is a nice shout out to the NXT women’s division but it’s not needed at all and frankly you wasted vital word count on it. Word count that easily could have been used elsewhere in your debate to back up some of the points you made. Same goes for your 2nd paragraph. It’s a nice read but honestly adds nothing to your debate. Those paragraphs wasted a lot of extra words you could have used elsewhere. Also like I said with Oxi, for a debate such as this it’s a good idea to have a checklist to help structure and focus your debate a bit more.
The next two paragraphs are decent but too descriptive for me. Be careful when using "match of the night", some people may have seen Owens/Zayn or Balor/Neville as the MOTN instead. You touch upon some decent aspects such as it creating some awe inspiring moments, The four way format helping to preserve the integrity of each girls signature move, moments such as Charlotte getting smashed into the ringside video board and having it malfunction to show the intensity of the match and how the match itself helped develop each girls characters going forward but never really develop any of these points. Let me take an example from Oxi. They spoke about Sasha showing off her heel mannerisms to help sell the match and then took it further using the examples during the match of the hair pulling and mocking Charlotte with the WOO chants to anger her while having Charlotte remain calm dismissing Sasha's tactics and competing fairly to win as a clean cut champ. What you wrote itself was fine and had potential but you needed to take it that little bit further.
As for your final counterargument on the R-Evolution match you make the claim that the match did little to elevate either different but at the same time you haven’t really said HOW the Rival match did. All you said is that the match helped elevate all four divas in one way or another but never how it did that. I could go on and on about it but yeah the key things is to focus on is depth and examples to back up your statements for your next debate. Outside that the debate actually is a good easy read so if there is one positive I can take from the debate is that you have a nice flow, just need to structure that flow to help give it some focus.
One last thing, never say “I hope this has shown…” your job in the debate is to PROVE that your choice is the right choice you have 800 words to convince the judge that your choice is obviously right. It’s a minor thing but it’s something many people have been criticized for in the past so just be careful.
Decision
Neither debate was really amazing. Both had some good aspects and both had a good amount of flaws. In the end I’ve decided to go with Oxi as the winner. Mainly down to the fact that they had a better structure, used their word count more efficiently and used better examples to back up some of their statements than mr.socko2101.
Winner via Split Decision - Oxi
Bearodactyl vs deepelemblues
Which Season of Orange Is The New Black was better, Season 1 or 2?
Bearodactyl vs deepelemblues
Which Season of Orange Is The New Black was better, Season 1 or 2?
Bearodactyl
Season one of “Orange is the New Black” (OITNB henceforth) was a marvellous piece of Television. It first introduced us to the inmates of Litchfield Penitentiary and to the staff that run the place, from Piper and Alex and their tumultuous relationship, to Healey and the unforgettable Pornstash.
Yet when all is said and done, it’s season two of the award winning show that will go down in the historybooks as being the “better” of the two, as this debate will come to show you.
Season one of OITNB introduced us to a new world through the eyes of its main character. Piper Chapman, long after having settled down in real life, finds herself suddenly tossed into the deep end of the pool when she is sentenced to a jailterm at Litchfield Penitentiary. It is through her eyes that we first start to explore these new surroundings, the written and unwritten rules that govern day to day life, and start to acclimatize to our new home.
It was necessary to do so and done beautifully at that, yet in the grand scheme of things by focusing so much time (the first six episodes easily) on Piper settling in, it decidedly takes away from arguably the biggest factor that sets this series apart so much from other contemporary tv shows: the women (and the stories behind them) that inhabite this somewhat peculiar place.
Because for all the typical stereotypes we seemingly find ourselves confronted with at first glance (the butch lesbian, the cranky and fierce Russian woman, the crazy chick, not to mention several racial stereotypes) we soon find ourselves getting glimpses in people’s pasts that show us that more often than not, there’s more to these people than meets the eye.
Even though the first episode of the second season is once again firmly focused on Piper, it quickly becomes apparent that season two has been blessed with a much broader perspective on the larger prison family than its predecessor. Piper to a certain degree takes a step into the background (and with her her on-off love interest Alex), but what we get in return is plentiful. Four women previously described as “recurring characters” (1) now qualify as main characters based on the focus put on them and their stories. And as we get to know these four (Crazy Eyes, Nicky, Taystee and Pennsatucky to wit) in all their complexity as not just inmates but human beings, it is the depth of these characters that makes the overcompassing storyline come alive.
But it’s not just these four characters. The lessened focus on Piper gives us the opportunity to both get to know some new characters (the strangely positive and naive Brook Sono and her polar opposite, the dark and charismatic Vee) as well as become much more familiar with old favorites, slowly but surely building their characters up to main event status also through the show’s signature use of the flashback. Turns out Lorna is the real crazy chick, and Black Cindy is actually a better person inside the pen than out. I could go on.
Executive producer Jenji Kohan doesn’t stop here though. Not only is there much more focus on the cast in its entirety, but the storyline becomes a lot more complex than “the hardships of trying to make an unexpected holiday behind bars work out” also.
Season two, simply put, is about power. But it’s not just the larger power struggle between the latinas and african americans that bring this to the forefront, things are much more complicated than that. The struggle for power is ever present, even in the smallest facets of inmate life. Think about Healy and his mail order bride. Or the relationship between Bennett and his secret latin lover and her extended next of kin. Even within the rising tide of power masterminded by Vee, it’s the confusing relationship between both Pousey and Taystee and Taystee and Vee and the (power) struggle over Taystee’s loyalty and heart that firmly drives the momentum of these episodes forward. (2)
Furthermore, with an increased amount of hijinx (which the creative mind behind “Weeds” is known for) but without falling into the trap of overdoing it (he fell victim to this in the later seasons of the aforementioned show) Kohan makes sure the comedic side of this show is fully utilized this season.
Taking all this into consideration, is it really any wonder that on several critical review sites the average rating of the second season as given by the critics the world over is distinctly superior to the first? (3,4)
Concluding, the answer to this question is abundantly clear under anything more than the merest of glances. Season two has more charactergrowth, more humor and better and bigger storylines. It is the superior season. Period.
References:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orange_Is_the_New_Black_episodes
3 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orange-is-the-new-black/s01/
4 http://www.metacritic.com/tv/orange-is-the-new-black/season-2
deepelemblues
It can be hard to judge whether the first or second season of a show is the "better" season. The characters and plotlines are more developed in the second season, you are invested in the characters, etc. But in the case of Orange is the New Black, reasons don't quite reach up to the level of justifications. Season Two is better.
I'm going to start at the season one finalé, because this bothered me more than anything else: I thought it was totally unnecessary to have Crazy Eyes come out and beat up Piper. It was revealed during season two, but it happened at the end of season one. They make up after, but not really. There could have been a better way to check yet another name off the list of inmates naive Piper has to make good with. As to Pennsyltucky, I think it would have been better for Piper's explosion to be on someone else. She seems to exist as a role-filler: Piper has to prove herself violently eventually, so here's a religious freak who spouts off crazy visionary Bibletalk. I find Pennsyltucky pretty boring, despite Taryn Manning hamming it up just right. Good dialogue can't mask the fact that she's a cliché.
In season one, Piper swings between numbness, frustration, and when she finally gets some confidence by making lotion for Red's back, Piper continues on in her "college" ways. The reveal of Alex and their renewed relationship and eventual reveal that Alex did betray Piper could have been done to toughen up Piper by breaking her down some more the way it was done in season two: have Larry cheat on Piper. I would have loved to see Alex be the top heel of season two, perhaps taking part of Vee's role as the new top smuggler / prisoner overlord on the make.
Perhaps it was unavoidable, as it usually takes me a good 7-8 episodes to start getting into more than 3 or 4 characters in a show, but the only real connection to the stories I felt during season one was the growing love between Daya and Bennett. Matt McGorry and Dascha Polanco turn in really good performances throughout. Aleida could have been a bit less prominent during the plot to frame Pornstache for the pregnancy, but she does need to remain fairly visible to remind of the threat Cesar poses.
I could do with less time spent on the people who aren't prisoners or guards or in flashbacks. There are too many characters on the outside butting in the show as a whole, and I think they're particularly prominent in season one. How many times do we need Larry's mom to ask the same kinds of questions about prison? What role does Piper's brother play, other opportunities for humorous dialogue with Neri, and to voice what little of a conscience Larry has?
Vee and Red and Piper showing emotional independence by refusing Larry and still investigating the prison's finances make season two for me. Mendez leaning on Red is the only season one storyline that moved briskly enough for me and had a payoff that I liked. That probably had something to do with Daya and Bennett getting involved. His return in season two is perfect. After getting caught with Daya he could never have had the same impact. Anyone could simply threaten to go to Caputo and give him just what he wants, enough reason to get rid of Mendez. What is Pornstache with wilted whiskers? I don't want to know and we didn't have to find out.
I would have liked to see Nicky end up doing something other than having to face her addiction again, but I guess you can't be a funny nympho forever, and whatever Natasha Lyonne does she does wonderfully. "A Whole Other Hole" is my favorite episode, despite Morello's story which I could not get into at all. I was having some 'everybody has to get their story' overload at that point.
Season two is smoother and more consequential than season one. And maybe it had to be that way, to set the stage for season two. But if a story like Vee's can be contained to a single season, then surely we could have got something similar in the first thirteen episodes. Plots developed too slowly, and the show really hit a stride in the second thirteen. Perhaps it was a deliberate decision, to evoke Piper's numbness at being in prison, and being a new fish who is really not important at all, by having events inside the jail stay mainly on a contained and, really, usually petty level. And maybe that was the right decision. But it, along with all the other reasons, make season two the better season of Orange is the New Black.
Season one of “Orange is the New Black” (OITNB henceforth) was a marvellous piece of Television. It first introduced us to the inmates of Litchfield Penitentiary and to the staff that run the place, from Piper and Alex and their tumultuous relationship, to Healey and the unforgettable Pornstash.
Yet when all is said and done, it’s season two of the award winning show that will go down in the historybooks as being the “better” of the two, as this debate will come to show you.
Season one of OITNB introduced us to a new world through the eyes of its main character. Piper Chapman, long after having settled down in real life, finds herself suddenly tossed into the deep end of the pool when she is sentenced to a jailterm at Litchfield Penitentiary. It is through her eyes that we first start to explore these new surroundings, the written and unwritten rules that govern day to day life, and start to acclimatize to our new home.
It was necessary to do so and done beautifully at that, yet in the grand scheme of things by focusing so much time (the first six episodes easily) on Piper settling in, it decidedly takes away from arguably the biggest factor that sets this series apart so much from other contemporary tv shows: the women (and the stories behind them) that inhabite this somewhat peculiar place.
Because for all the typical stereotypes we seemingly find ourselves confronted with at first glance (the butch lesbian, the cranky and fierce Russian woman, the crazy chick, not to mention several racial stereotypes) we soon find ourselves getting glimpses in people’s pasts that show us that more often than not, there’s more to these people than meets the eye.
Even though the first episode of the second season is once again firmly focused on Piper, it quickly becomes apparent that season two has been blessed with a much broader perspective on the larger prison family than its predecessor. Piper to a certain degree takes a step into the background (and with her her on-off love interest Alex), but what we get in return is plentiful. Four women previously described as “recurring characters” (1) now qualify as main characters based on the focus put on them and their stories. And as we get to know these four (Crazy Eyes, Nicky, Taystee and Pennsatucky to wit) in all their complexity as not just inmates but human beings, it is the depth of these characters that makes the overcompassing storyline come alive.
But it’s not just these four characters. The lessened focus on Piper gives us the opportunity to both get to know some new characters (the strangely positive and naive Brook Sono and her polar opposite, the dark and charismatic Vee) as well as become much more familiar with old favorites, slowly but surely building their characters up to main event status also through the show’s signature use of the flashback. Turns out Lorna is the real crazy chick, and Black Cindy is actually a better person inside the pen than out. I could go on.
Executive producer Jenji Kohan doesn’t stop here though. Not only is there much more focus on the cast in its entirety, but the storyline becomes a lot more complex than “the hardships of trying to make an unexpected holiday behind bars work out” also.
Season two, simply put, is about power. But it’s not just the larger power struggle between the latinas and african americans that bring this to the forefront, things are much more complicated than that. The struggle for power is ever present, even in the smallest facets of inmate life. Think about Healy and his mail order bride. Or the relationship between Bennett and his secret latin lover and her extended next of kin. Even within the rising tide of power masterminded by Vee, it’s the confusing relationship between both Pousey and Taystee and Taystee and Vee and the (power) struggle over Taystee’s loyalty and heart that firmly drives the momentum of these episodes forward. (2)
Furthermore, with an increased amount of hijinx (which the creative mind behind “Weeds” is known for) but without falling into the trap of overdoing it (he fell victim to this in the later seasons of the aforementioned show) Kohan makes sure the comedic side of this show is fully utilized this season.
Taking all this into consideration, is it really any wonder that on several critical review sites the average rating of the second season as given by the critics the world over is distinctly superior to the first? (3,4)
Concluding, the answer to this question is abundantly clear under anything more than the merest of glances. Season two has more charactergrowth, more humor and better and bigger storylines. It is the superior season. Period.
References:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orange_Is_the_New_Black_episodes
3 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orange-is-the-new-black/s01/
4 http://www.metacritic.com/tv/orange-is-the-new-black/season-2
deepelemblues
ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK: 2 > 1
It can be hard to judge whether the first or second season of a show is the "better" season. The characters and plotlines are more developed in the second season, you are invested in the characters, etc. But in the case of Orange is the New Black, reasons don't quite reach up to the level of justifications. Season Two is better.
I'm going to start at the season one finalé, because this bothered me more than anything else: I thought it was totally unnecessary to have Crazy Eyes come out and beat up Piper. It was revealed during season two, but it happened at the end of season one. They make up after, but not really. There could have been a better way to check yet another name off the list of inmates naive Piper has to make good with. As to Pennsyltucky, I think it would have been better for Piper's explosion to be on someone else. She seems to exist as a role-filler: Piper has to prove herself violently eventually, so here's a religious freak who spouts off crazy visionary Bibletalk. I find Pennsyltucky pretty boring, despite Taryn Manning hamming it up just right. Good dialogue can't mask the fact that she's a cliché.
In season one, Piper swings between numbness, frustration, and when she finally gets some confidence by making lotion for Red's back, Piper continues on in her "college" ways. The reveal of Alex and their renewed relationship and eventual reveal that Alex did betray Piper could have been done to toughen up Piper by breaking her down some more the way it was done in season two: have Larry cheat on Piper. I would have loved to see Alex be the top heel of season two, perhaps taking part of Vee's role as the new top smuggler / prisoner overlord on the make.
Perhaps it was unavoidable, as it usually takes me a good 7-8 episodes to start getting into more than 3 or 4 characters in a show, but the only real connection to the stories I felt during season one was the growing love between Daya and Bennett. Matt McGorry and Dascha Polanco turn in really good performances throughout. Aleida could have been a bit less prominent during the plot to frame Pornstache for the pregnancy, but she does need to remain fairly visible to remind of the threat Cesar poses.
I could do with less time spent on the people who aren't prisoners or guards or in flashbacks. There are too many characters on the outside butting in the show as a whole, and I think they're particularly prominent in season one. How many times do we need Larry's mom to ask the same kinds of questions about prison? What role does Piper's brother play, other opportunities for humorous dialogue with Neri, and to voice what little of a conscience Larry has?
Vee and Red and Piper showing emotional independence by refusing Larry and still investigating the prison's finances make season two for me. Mendez leaning on Red is the only season one storyline that moved briskly enough for me and had a payoff that I liked. That probably had something to do with Daya and Bennett getting involved. His return in season two is perfect. After getting caught with Daya he could never have had the same impact. Anyone could simply threaten to go to Caputo and give him just what he wants, enough reason to get rid of Mendez. What is Pornstache with wilted whiskers? I don't want to know and we didn't have to find out.
I would have liked to see Nicky end up doing something other than having to face her addiction again, but I guess you can't be a funny nympho forever, and whatever Natasha Lyonne does she does wonderfully. "A Whole Other Hole" is my favorite episode, despite Morello's story which I could not get into at all. I was having some 'everybody has to get their story' overload at that point.
Season two is smoother and more consequential than season one. And maybe it had to be that way, to set the stage for season two. But if a story like Vee's can be contained to a single season, then surely we could have got something similar in the first thirteen episodes. Plots developed too slowly, and the show really hit a stride in the second thirteen. Perhaps it was a deliberate decision, to evoke Piper's numbness at being in prison, and being a new fish who is really not important at all, by having events inside the jail stay mainly on a contained and, really, usually petty level. And maybe that was the right decision. But it, along with all the other reasons, make season two the better season of Orange is the New Black.
Seabs
Bearodactyl - Meh I've made my feelings known regarding word count cheaters. I don't think it's fair that you shorten Orange Is The New Black when your opponent types it out in full. You only actually used it once after though so you don't really save much word count. Personally I think in the interest of fairness everyone should be following the same rulebook which I've made known to be if you'd shorten it in an article for work or academic purposes (WWE or NBA for example) then it's fine but if not then spell it out. I know people groan at this and it's almost becoming a parody of itself but if some are following it then in the interest of fairness so should everyone else. Now that's out of the way this was a brilliant direct comparison debate. There's been a few of these direct comparison topics lately where nearly all of them have failed to master the art of arguing their stance but also arguing it at the expense of the alternative. Here all your arguments are not only in favour of your stance but also argued against the opposing stance. If you mention any factor then you look at it from the POV of both seasons which is perfect. I'll 100% use this debate as a reference in my feedback for those who don't get this right now. Character argument making Season 2 better was really good. I think you could have maybe given a bit more towards why the lesser air time on Piper made Season 2 better but for an 800 word debate there's enough. I would have used different names than Crazy Eyes, Nicky, Taystee and Pennsatucky to illustrate your point there. Pousey and Black Cindy would have worked much better because they truly went from nothing to fleshed out characters with backstory whereas all of those 4 got their fair share of air time and development in Season 1. All I could say could be improved here was a bit more explanation on how this made Season 2 better. It is there and I got it but adding in some lines about how it added longevity to the show, made viewers less likely to bore out on Piper and Alex and created some great episodes Season 1 didn't have Lorna's and Pousey's backstory episodes. Power argument is really good too. Again I think more focus on how Season 1 didn't fare as well on this factor would have bolstered it but is there and I appreciate that you can't expand on everything in 800 words. It was there though and you got your argument over so it did its job. The comedy point was a DUD without specific examples. There's maybe the odd sentence here and there you could chop but nothing really to free up enough word count to do that point justice. I'm glad you only used the reviews as a final supporting argument rather than as a main argument. It would have annoyed me as a main argument because it's more popular rather than better and it's up to you not reviews to argue it but as a final supporting sentence it added a nice final touch to your debate. Just make sure you don't rely on popular = better. Great stuff.
deepelemblues - Ok this is a review not a debate and thus I can't give great detailed feedback on it. Besides that last paragraph you do nothing to directly compare the two seasons and the rest is just your opinion written as that. You never really going into why one season was better, just which you prefer and it's written as a personal opinion review too. Second paragraph being used as a knock on Season 1 rather than 2 was odd because it happened in Season 2 no matter which way you twist it. Ways you think the show could be improved aren't really needed in this debate and are again why I call this more of a review than a debate on which season is better. "I would have loved to see Alex be the top heel of season two, perhaps taking part of Vee's role as the new top smuggler / prisoner overlord on the make." ultimately has nothing to do with Season 2 being better than 1. Same with "Perhaps it was unavoidable, as it usually takes me a good 7-8 episodes to start getting into more than 3 or 4 characters in a show, but the only real connection to the stories I felt during season one was the growing love between Daya and Bennett.". Yes the debate is your opinion but just stating your opinion doesn't turn it into a debate. You have to state why and you also have to show why it makes one season better than the other. Was there more of a connection to characters in Season 2 than 1? That's how you argue which is a better season. Same with the next paragraph. No arguments as to why one season is better than the other and no reason why "There are too many characters on the outside butting in the show as a whole" is bad for the show. Ok you say this is prominent in Season 1 but you don't show it stopped/slowed down in Season 2. Throughout all of this I'm just reading it as a review because I can't see actual reasons why one season was better than the other and what made it so. You tell me you like things, you don't like other things and you'd like some things improved in these ways but none of them have reasons linking them to a better quality season. Your final paragraph is what everything before it should have been. Direct comparisons between the two seasons and actual reasons for one being better than the other. I never got that in your debate before that final paragraph.
Winner - Bearodactyl
Headliner
Bearodactyl
This was good. I think you did a good job showing what season 1 was ultimately all about through it's introduction of the story and the drawbacks that came with it. Then you went into season 2 to show how they decided to explore more stories to add more variety and interest. It flowed well because it allowed us to clearly see how the show progressed from season 1 to season 2. Good job mentioning all of the new/extra characters & stories that made it big in season 2. You showed us what season 2 had, that season 1 did not have.
deepelemblues
This was ok. I thought you analysis of different storylines and events were ok, but eventually they seemed to lead to you wondering off about performances and individual actors like you were a movie critic. You seemed to get a little too caught up in your own critique of things that your focus seemed to lose it's way a bit.
What would have made this better was if you focused more on the focus on other characters in season 2. The expansion, the broader scope, the development, the growth and how it all came together.
Winner-Bearodactyl
Kiz
While both of these are good debates, I feel that Bearodactyl's is the superior debate of the two. With the question concerning which of the two seasons is better, Bearodactyl specifies why. There is no part about how the season could be improved to how you would prefer it. deepelemblues seems to discuss too much about how to improve the show instead of why they prefer it. Bearodactyl also feels a lot more succinct and to the point when it comes to describing precisely why Season 2 was preferred.
So overall, while both are good debates, I feel Bearodactyl does a superior job in terms of explaining why they feel that season 2 was the superior season of Orange Is The New Black. This is not the sort of debate that can really be backed up by statistics, and trying to convince based on personal opinion can be difficult, especially when both sides argue the same view.
Bearodactyl - Meh I've made my feelings known regarding word count cheaters. I don't think it's fair that you shorten Orange Is The New Black when your opponent types it out in full. You only actually used it once after though so you don't really save much word count. Personally I think in the interest of fairness everyone should be following the same rulebook which I've made known to be if you'd shorten it in an article for work or academic purposes (WWE or NBA for example) then it's fine but if not then spell it out. I know people groan at this and it's almost becoming a parody of itself but if some are following it then in the interest of fairness so should everyone else. Now that's out of the way this was a brilliant direct comparison debate. There's been a few of these direct comparison topics lately where nearly all of them have failed to master the art of arguing their stance but also arguing it at the expense of the alternative. Here all your arguments are not only in favour of your stance but also argued against the opposing stance. If you mention any factor then you look at it from the POV of both seasons which is perfect. I'll 100% use this debate as a reference in my feedback for those who don't get this right now. Character argument making Season 2 better was really good. I think you could have maybe given a bit more towards why the lesser air time on Piper made Season 2 better but for an 800 word debate there's enough. I would have used different names than Crazy Eyes, Nicky, Taystee and Pennsatucky to illustrate your point there. Pousey and Black Cindy would have worked much better because they truly went from nothing to fleshed out characters with backstory whereas all of those 4 got their fair share of air time and development in Season 1. All I could say could be improved here was a bit more explanation on how this made Season 2 better. It is there and I got it but adding in some lines about how it added longevity to the show, made viewers less likely to bore out on Piper and Alex and created some great episodes Season 1 didn't have Lorna's and Pousey's backstory episodes. Power argument is really good too. Again I think more focus on how Season 1 didn't fare as well on this factor would have bolstered it but is there and I appreciate that you can't expand on everything in 800 words. It was there though and you got your argument over so it did its job. The comedy point was a DUD without specific examples. There's maybe the odd sentence here and there you could chop but nothing really to free up enough word count to do that point justice. I'm glad you only used the reviews as a final supporting argument rather than as a main argument. It would have annoyed me as a main argument because it's more popular rather than better and it's up to you not reviews to argue it but as a final supporting sentence it added a nice final touch to your debate. Just make sure you don't rely on popular = better. Great stuff.
deepelemblues - Ok this is a review not a debate and thus I can't give great detailed feedback on it. Besides that last paragraph you do nothing to directly compare the two seasons and the rest is just your opinion written as that. You never really going into why one season was better, just which you prefer and it's written as a personal opinion review too. Second paragraph being used as a knock on Season 1 rather than 2 was odd because it happened in Season 2 no matter which way you twist it. Ways you think the show could be improved aren't really needed in this debate and are again why I call this more of a review than a debate on which season is better. "I would have loved to see Alex be the top heel of season two, perhaps taking part of Vee's role as the new top smuggler / prisoner overlord on the make." ultimately has nothing to do with Season 2 being better than 1. Same with "Perhaps it was unavoidable, as it usually takes me a good 7-8 episodes to start getting into more than 3 or 4 characters in a show, but the only real connection to the stories I felt during season one was the growing love between Daya and Bennett.". Yes the debate is your opinion but just stating your opinion doesn't turn it into a debate. You have to state why and you also have to show why it makes one season better than the other. Was there more of a connection to characters in Season 2 than 1? That's how you argue which is a better season. Same with the next paragraph. No arguments as to why one season is better than the other and no reason why "There are too many characters on the outside butting in the show as a whole" is bad for the show. Ok you say this is prominent in Season 1 but you don't show it stopped/slowed down in Season 2. Throughout all of this I'm just reading it as a review because I can't see actual reasons why one season was better than the other and what made it so. You tell me you like things, you don't like other things and you'd like some things improved in these ways but none of them have reasons linking them to a better quality season. Your final paragraph is what everything before it should have been. Direct comparisons between the two seasons and actual reasons for one being better than the other. I never got that in your debate before that final paragraph.
Winner - Bearodactyl
Headliner
Bearodactyl
This was good. I think you did a good job showing what season 1 was ultimately all about through it's introduction of the story and the drawbacks that came with it. Then you went into season 2 to show how they decided to explore more stories to add more variety and interest. It flowed well because it allowed us to clearly see how the show progressed from season 1 to season 2. Good job mentioning all of the new/extra characters & stories that made it big in season 2. You showed us what season 2 had, that season 1 did not have.
deepelemblues
This was ok. I thought you analysis of different storylines and events were ok, but eventually they seemed to lead to you wondering off about performances and individual actors like you were a movie critic. You seemed to get a little too caught up in your own critique of things that your focus seemed to lose it's way a bit.
What would have made this better was if you focused more on the focus on other characters in season 2. The expansion, the broader scope, the development, the growth and how it all came together.
Winner-Bearodactyl
Kiz
While both of these are good debates, I feel that Bearodactyl's is the superior debate of the two. With the question concerning which of the two seasons is better, Bearodactyl specifies why. There is no part about how the season could be improved to how you would prefer it. deepelemblues seems to discuss too much about how to improve the show instead of why they prefer it. Bearodactyl also feels a lot more succinct and to the point when it comes to describing precisely why Season 2 was preferred.
So overall, while both are good debates, I feel Bearodactyl does a superior job in terms of explaining why they feel that season 2 was the superior season of Orange Is The New Black. This is not the sort of debate that can really be backed up by statistics, and trying to convince based on personal opinion can be difficult, especially when both sides argue the same view.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Bearodactyl
RetepAdam. vs Stax Classic vs The Rabid Wolverine
Which player had a better playing career, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd?
RetepAdam. vs Stax Classic vs The Rabid Wolverine
Which player had a better playing career, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd?
Stax Classic
A Little History
Both Steve Nash and Jason Kidd played until their age 39 season, with Kidd starting at 21 and Nash at 22. Both are first ballot Hall of Fame point guards. Kidd was the 1992 USA Today, PARADE, and Naismith High School Player of the Year. Kidd was the second overall pick in 1994 and was the co-Rookie of the Year his first season in the NBA. 1 Nash, was a Canadian stand out before coming to the United States for college. Nash was the fifteenth pick in the 1996 draft and backed up Kidd before getting trading to Dallas two years later. Who had the better career though?
Miles on the Road
Kidd played 12,000 minutes more than Nash did over the length of their careers. While Nash played 18 seasons, he started ten games or less in his first two and last season. So while Nash only started for 15 years, Kidd had 15 years of averaging eight assists and six rebounds. 2 Kidd started 48 games in his 19th season, and in his career started almost 300 games more than Nash. Only two players have ever played more minutes than Jason Kidd, and of the top seven all-time, Kidd is the only non-power forward or center. 3 Kidd’s best modern comparison is Rajon Rondo, who is already falling apart at age 30, five years before Kidd started showing the age.
Stealing the Cake
Nash4 had career shooting percentages of .490 field goal, .428 three point, and .904 free throw percentages to Kidd’s5 .400, .372, and .785 percentages. Kidd was still an okay enough shooter that when matched with his longevity, Kidd made enough three’s in his career to place 5th all-time to Nash’s 15th. 6 Nash only made about 100 more field goals, despite shooting nine points better than Kidd for their careers. Kidd had 40 more free throws, despite Nash shooting twelve points better from the line. Kidd was never a great shooter, but he was always one of the best defensive point guards of his generation, making 1st or 2nd all-NBA defensive teams nine years in a row. Even in the 2011 NBA Finals, it was Kidd guarding Lebron James in his prime at times. 7 Kidd has a championship ring, and lost in two more finals appearances. Nash never made it past the Western Conference Finals.
Kidding around With Numbers
Kidd is 2nd all-time in assists to Nash’s 3rd8, Kidd averaged 0.2 assists more per game over their careers. Kidd had nearly three times as many steals as Nash and has the 2nd most all-time. The gap between Kidd and Nash in steals would be 18th best all-time for steals! Kidd is currently 60th all-time in rebounds for any position. 9 The gap in total rebounds between Kidd and Nash is equal to Kevin Love’s career rebounds! Kidd has 450 career blocks, which is not bad considering that is four and a half times what Nash had. Yes Kidd has more turnovers than Nash and is 3rd all-time, but coming back to the minutes played, Kidd turned it over at a 7.99% per minute rate to Nash’s 9.14%.
Tripling Down
Jason Kidd is 3rd all-time in triple-doubles. 10 Kidd has 107 career triple-doubles, accruing at least ten of a stat category in three different categories like points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, etc. Nash has 3. That 104 triple-double gap would not only finish 4th all-time, but is over twice as many as Lebron James has in his career. Kidd has 11 career triple-doubles in the post season, 2nd most all-time tied with James. He is the only guy to average a triple double for a playoff series since 1991, and he is one of only three men to do it more than once. 11 Kidd was the second person to ever average a triple-double for an entire post season in 2007. 12
Kidd was Better
While Nash is one of the best shooters of all-time, Kidd was the better all-around player. Nash was a one dimensional player with superb court vision but Kidd’s nearly identical vision, his longevity, his health, his tenacious defense that is even carrying over to his coaching style, and his nose for the ball outweigh everything Nash brings to the game. Kidd is the only player ever with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists, and 7,000 rebounds. Blame Magic Johnson’s illness, he never did it13, neither did Oscar Robertson14. When those two are your only contemporaries that come close to what you did, being compared to Steve Nash should be an insult. The Magic Johnson Era ended and we are in the midst of the Chris Paul Era, but that intermittent time can only have one name, THE JASON KIDD ERA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kidd
2. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/06/five-amazing-facts-about-jason-kidds-stellar-nba-career
3. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_career.html
4. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html
5. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html
6. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/fg3_career.html
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l605p9PUx9E
8. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_career.html
9. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_career.html
10. http://www.sportscity.com/nba/records/all-time-triple-doubles/
11. http://www.nba.com/playoffs2007/news/series_triple-doubles.html
12. http://www.nba.com/games/20070518/CLENJN/recap.html
13. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsma02.html
14. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/roberos01.html
The Rabid Wolverine
Since there what a players "playing career" is defined as is open to debate, I'm simply choosing to reword this as "who was better? Nash or Kidd?". The answer, to me, is Steve Nash.
The easiest way to do this is to go category by category to find which player was better at the skills required by an NBA point guard.
Who was the better scorer?
This goes to Steve Nash in an absolute landslide. Kidd shot just 40% from the field for his entire career! That's unbelievably bad, especially when you consider that as the teams point guard Kidd was responsible for having the ball more than any other player. If you are constantly playing 4 on 5 on offense, no matter how good Kidd was at all the other aspects of the game, it's going to seriously damper your offenses effectiveness. Nash retires this year as arguably the NBA's greatest shooter from a statistical stand point. There have only been 3 players in NBA history to finish the season with 50-40-90 shooting splits and make the All-NBA team. Larry Bird, Dirk Nowitzki, and Steve Nash, and Nash did it twice. Nash's shooting was so good, if you even dared to sag off him and just cover the 4 other guys on the court, he would bury you like he did the Spurs in the 2007 playoffs when he hung 48 pts on them because they were daring him to shoot. Jason Kidd just could never be counted on to do that, if his teammates where not making shots his team wasn't winning.
Who had the bigger positive impact on his teammates?
This one is a bit more tricky, as both players were the model of unselfishness on the court and were historically great passers. Steve Nash completely revitalized the Suns when he arrived in 2004, they were a team without an identity and without any consistent post season success, Nash's arrival changed all of that nearly over night. Kidd had a similar impact when he arrived in New Jersey, in fact he took a Nets team that had won just 26 games in 2000-2001 to a record of 52-30 in 2001-2002. This Nets team, with ZERO other All-Stars, won the Eastern Conference before losing to the Lakers in 4 games in the 2002 NBA finals. You can argue that the Eastern conference was incredible weak that year, and you wouldn't be wrong, but still, winning DOUBLE the games you won the year before and advancing to the Finals is no easy task, no matter which conference.
Nash cannot claim to have ever taken a team to the Finals, but he was also in the historically great Western Conference, featuring the legendary Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, and Kings teams of that era. In the end, I'm going with Nash, and here is why: 3 different teams (the Mavericks, the Suns, and the Nets) all decided that they would rather trade Kidd than keep him on their team during Kidd's prime. The Suns would have NEVER traded Nash in his prime. Jason Kidd was indeed unselfish on the court, but all the evidence points to him being quite a head case off the court. Not the case with Nash, you will not find a more beloved teammate in the 21st century than Steve Nash.
Which player played better defense?
I'm going to make this easy and just say Jason Kidd, and it's not close. Kidd made a combined 9 All-Defense teams over the span of his career (4 of them 1st team) while Nash made none. Nash's defensive liabilities are widely known, it's no secret he had trouble throughout his career staying in front of faster point guards like Tony Parker and Mike Bibby. Kidd was able to put the clamps on opposing teams guards and use his size and strength to keep them out of the paint and wall off passing lanes. Nash however was an exceptional pick pocket, he had an uncanny nack for poking the ball away from opposing guards and taking it coast to coast before you even knew what happened. That's not enough to even contemplate him being the same caliber of defensive player as Kidd, however.
In conclusion, Steve Nash was the better overall player than Jason Kidd. As statistics have become more advanced, and people understand better what skill sets lead to winning basketball, the ability to shoot has become the single most valued skill an NBA player can have. If you were trying to win an NBA championship, you would choose Steve Nash over Jason Kidd, because no matter how excellent Kidd was in all the other facets of basketball, his complete inability to shoot a basketball during his prime when compared to Nash's transcedent shooting prowess is an insurmountable obstacle.
RetepAdam.
Steve Nash. Jason Kidd. Two of the greatest point guards in NBA history. Born less than a year apart, the two of them traveled eerily similar paths throughout their playing careers. Both helped revitalize dormant college basketball programs. Both carved out NBA legacies that included countless individual achievements. Most importantly, both helped create a championship mentality for franchises with little historical success. For all intents and purposes, Nash and Kidd left very similar footprints. However, at just about every turn, Kidd has held the advantage between the two. Even in spite of Steve Nash’s two MVP awards, Jason Kidd had the better overall playing career.
How They Measure Up
Though Nash and Kidd were both primarily known as floor generals, they each impacted the game in different ways. For Nash, his combination of preternatural court vision and insane shooting efficiency made him an offensive dynamo. Kidd, on the other hand, was a poor shooter for most of his career (though he later developed into a knockdown 3-point shooter). However, he excelled in every other facet of the game on both ends of the court. In spite of his shooting struggles, Kidd averaged roughly 16 points-per-game during his peak seasons and ranked in the Top 5 in assists-per-game in every season from 1995-96 through 2009-10. Though Nash was primarily known for his passing wizardry, he only managed to accomplish that same feat in nine seasons. An expert rebounder to boot, Kidd ranks third all-time in triple-doubles, behind only Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson.
On top of that, Kidd consistently ranked as one of the premier defensive PGs in the NBA, earning All-Defense honors nine times. There is no question that Nash was the superior offensive player, but on the defensive end, it was simply no contest. That gap is a large part of the reason why Kidd was named First Team All-NBA five times to Nash’s three. Why Kidd was selected to the All-Star Game 10 times to Nash’s eight. Kidd may not have peaked any higher than second in MVP voting, but looking at the entirety of his career, his accolades stack up nicely.
#RINGZZZZ
Both Nash and Kidd were considered ultimate team players, so it’s only fair to dive into the amount of team success each enjoyed. It started in high school. While Nash led his St. Michaels team to a provincial championship his senior year, Kidd led St. Joseph-Alameda to back-to-back state championships in California. In college, this trend continued. Nash was scarcely recruited and ended up at Santa Clara, a small program that hadn’t seen much success since the 70s. Kidd, the nation’s top recruit, stunned everyone by opting to go to Cal, which hadn’t made the NCAA Tournament since 1960. As freshmen, both Nash and Kidd led their teams to the tourney and engineered shocking upsets, with Santa Clara taking down heavily favored Arizona while Cal knocked off defending champions Duke. However, in his four years at Santa Clara, Nash was never able to lead the Broncos further than the second round, whereas Kidd managed to take the Golden Bears to the Sweet 16 in his very first year.
In the NBA, the biggest disparity emerged. As a member of the Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns, Nash was the catalyst of many teams that finished at or near the top of the standings. However, Nash’s playoff track record is littered with disappointments. Four first-round flameouts, three second-round defeats and four losses in the Western Conference Finals. Zero rings. Not even a Finals appearance. This, of course, is hardly Steve Nash’s fault. The fact that his teams failed to climb that particular mountaintop isn’t an indictment on him as a player. But the question isn’t who was the better player, it’s who enjoyed the better career. Blame (Robert Horry) if you’d like, but Nash’s resume doesn’t quite stack up against Kidd’s which included three NBA Finals appearances, one NBA championship and two gold medals as part of Team USA.
Therein lies the biggest difference between the two. From an individual standpoint, their accomplishments are nearly indistinguishable. But in terms of team success, not only did Kidd lead the Nets further than Nash ever managed to get the Mavs or Suns (despite Nash having absolutely loaded teams)… he also got a ring. In Nash’s retirement statements, he expressed disappointment over failing to deliver a championship to the fans in Phoenix and not living up to the expectations set for him in L.A. Ultimately, that’s where the line is drawn. Steve Nash accomplished so much throughout the course of his career, but the questions about what might have been will always continue to hang over him. Jason Kidd retired with no regrets about his career. All else relatively equal, that’s how you know he had the better career.
A Little History
Both Steve Nash and Jason Kidd played until their age 39 season, with Kidd starting at 21 and Nash at 22. Both are first ballot Hall of Fame point guards. Kidd was the 1992 USA Today, PARADE, and Naismith High School Player of the Year. Kidd was the second overall pick in 1994 and was the co-Rookie of the Year his first season in the NBA. 1 Nash, was a Canadian stand out before coming to the United States for college. Nash was the fifteenth pick in the 1996 draft and backed up Kidd before getting trading to Dallas two years later. Who had the better career though?
Miles on the Road
Kidd played 12,000 minutes more than Nash did over the length of their careers. While Nash played 18 seasons, he started ten games or less in his first two and last season. So while Nash only started for 15 years, Kidd had 15 years of averaging eight assists and six rebounds. 2 Kidd started 48 games in his 19th season, and in his career started almost 300 games more than Nash. Only two players have ever played more minutes than Jason Kidd, and of the top seven all-time, Kidd is the only non-power forward or center. 3 Kidd’s best modern comparison is Rajon Rondo, who is already falling apart at age 30, five years before Kidd started showing the age.
Stealing the Cake
Nash4 had career shooting percentages of .490 field goal, .428 three point, and .904 free throw percentages to Kidd’s5 .400, .372, and .785 percentages. Kidd was still an okay enough shooter that when matched with his longevity, Kidd made enough three’s in his career to place 5th all-time to Nash’s 15th. 6 Nash only made about 100 more field goals, despite shooting nine points better than Kidd for their careers. Kidd had 40 more free throws, despite Nash shooting twelve points better from the line. Kidd was never a great shooter, but he was always one of the best defensive point guards of his generation, making 1st or 2nd all-NBA defensive teams nine years in a row. Even in the 2011 NBA Finals, it was Kidd guarding Lebron James in his prime at times. 7 Kidd has a championship ring, and lost in two more finals appearances. Nash never made it past the Western Conference Finals.
Kidding around With Numbers
Kidd is 2nd all-time in assists to Nash’s 3rd8, Kidd averaged 0.2 assists more per game over their careers. Kidd had nearly three times as many steals as Nash and has the 2nd most all-time. The gap between Kidd and Nash in steals would be 18th best all-time for steals! Kidd is currently 60th all-time in rebounds for any position. 9 The gap in total rebounds between Kidd and Nash is equal to Kevin Love’s career rebounds! Kidd has 450 career blocks, which is not bad considering that is four and a half times what Nash had. Yes Kidd has more turnovers than Nash and is 3rd all-time, but coming back to the minutes played, Kidd turned it over at a 7.99% per minute rate to Nash’s 9.14%.
Tripling Down
Jason Kidd is 3rd all-time in triple-doubles. 10 Kidd has 107 career triple-doubles, accruing at least ten of a stat category in three different categories like points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, etc. Nash has 3. That 104 triple-double gap would not only finish 4th all-time, but is over twice as many as Lebron James has in his career. Kidd has 11 career triple-doubles in the post season, 2nd most all-time tied with James. He is the only guy to average a triple double for a playoff series since 1991, and he is one of only three men to do it more than once. 11 Kidd was the second person to ever average a triple-double for an entire post season in 2007. 12
Kidd was Better
While Nash is one of the best shooters of all-time, Kidd was the better all-around player. Nash was a one dimensional player with superb court vision but Kidd’s nearly identical vision, his longevity, his health, his tenacious defense that is even carrying over to his coaching style, and his nose for the ball outweigh everything Nash brings to the game. Kidd is the only player ever with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists, and 7,000 rebounds. Blame Magic Johnson’s illness, he never did it13, neither did Oscar Robertson14. When those two are your only contemporaries that come close to what you did, being compared to Steve Nash should be an insult. The Magic Johnson Era ended and we are in the midst of the Chris Paul Era, but that intermittent time can only have one name, THE JASON KIDD ERA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kidd
2. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/06/five-amazing-facts-about-jason-kidds-stellar-nba-career
3. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_career.html
4. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html
5. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html
6. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/fg3_career.html
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l605p9PUx9E
8. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_career.html
9. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_career.html
10. http://www.sportscity.com/nba/records/all-time-triple-doubles/
11. http://www.nba.com/playoffs2007/news/series_triple-doubles.html
12. http://www.nba.com/games/20070518/CLENJN/recap.html
13. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsma02.html
14. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/roberos01.html
The Rabid Wolverine
Since there what a players "playing career" is defined as is open to debate, I'm simply choosing to reword this as "who was better? Nash or Kidd?". The answer, to me, is Steve Nash.
The easiest way to do this is to go category by category to find which player was better at the skills required by an NBA point guard.
Who was the better scorer?
This goes to Steve Nash in an absolute landslide. Kidd shot just 40% from the field for his entire career! That's unbelievably bad, especially when you consider that as the teams point guard Kidd was responsible for having the ball more than any other player. If you are constantly playing 4 on 5 on offense, no matter how good Kidd was at all the other aspects of the game, it's going to seriously damper your offenses effectiveness. Nash retires this year as arguably the NBA's greatest shooter from a statistical stand point. There have only been 3 players in NBA history to finish the season with 50-40-90 shooting splits and make the All-NBA team. Larry Bird, Dirk Nowitzki, and Steve Nash, and Nash did it twice. Nash's shooting was so good, if you even dared to sag off him and just cover the 4 other guys on the court, he would bury you like he did the Spurs in the 2007 playoffs when he hung 48 pts on them because they were daring him to shoot. Jason Kidd just could never be counted on to do that, if his teammates where not making shots his team wasn't winning.
Who had the bigger positive impact on his teammates?
This one is a bit more tricky, as both players were the model of unselfishness on the court and were historically great passers. Steve Nash completely revitalized the Suns when he arrived in 2004, they were a team without an identity and without any consistent post season success, Nash's arrival changed all of that nearly over night. Kidd had a similar impact when he arrived in New Jersey, in fact he took a Nets team that had won just 26 games in 2000-2001 to a record of 52-30 in 2001-2002. This Nets team, with ZERO other All-Stars, won the Eastern Conference before losing to the Lakers in 4 games in the 2002 NBA finals. You can argue that the Eastern conference was incredible weak that year, and you wouldn't be wrong, but still, winning DOUBLE the games you won the year before and advancing to the Finals is no easy task, no matter which conference.
Nash cannot claim to have ever taken a team to the Finals, but he was also in the historically great Western Conference, featuring the legendary Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, and Kings teams of that era. In the end, I'm going with Nash, and here is why: 3 different teams (the Mavericks, the Suns, and the Nets) all decided that they would rather trade Kidd than keep him on their team during Kidd's prime. The Suns would have NEVER traded Nash in his prime. Jason Kidd was indeed unselfish on the court, but all the evidence points to him being quite a head case off the court. Not the case with Nash, you will not find a more beloved teammate in the 21st century than Steve Nash.
Which player played better defense?
I'm going to make this easy and just say Jason Kidd, and it's not close. Kidd made a combined 9 All-Defense teams over the span of his career (4 of them 1st team) while Nash made none. Nash's defensive liabilities are widely known, it's no secret he had trouble throughout his career staying in front of faster point guards like Tony Parker and Mike Bibby. Kidd was able to put the clamps on opposing teams guards and use his size and strength to keep them out of the paint and wall off passing lanes. Nash however was an exceptional pick pocket, he had an uncanny nack for poking the ball away from opposing guards and taking it coast to coast before you even knew what happened. That's not enough to even contemplate him being the same caliber of defensive player as Kidd, however.
In conclusion, Steve Nash was the better overall player than Jason Kidd. As statistics have become more advanced, and people understand better what skill sets lead to winning basketball, the ability to shoot has become the single most valued skill an NBA player can have. If you were trying to win an NBA championship, you would choose Steve Nash over Jason Kidd, because no matter how excellent Kidd was in all the other facets of basketball, his complete inability to shoot a basketball during his prime when compared to Nash's transcedent shooting prowess is an insurmountable obstacle.
RetepAdam.
Steve Nash. Jason Kidd. Two of the greatest point guards in NBA history. Born less than a year apart, the two of them traveled eerily similar paths throughout their playing careers. Both helped revitalize dormant college basketball programs. Both carved out NBA legacies that included countless individual achievements. Most importantly, both helped create a championship mentality for franchises with little historical success. For all intents and purposes, Nash and Kidd left very similar footprints. However, at just about every turn, Kidd has held the advantage between the two. Even in spite of Steve Nash’s two MVP awards, Jason Kidd had the better overall playing career.
How They Measure Up
Though Nash and Kidd were both primarily known as floor generals, they each impacted the game in different ways. For Nash, his combination of preternatural court vision and insane shooting efficiency made him an offensive dynamo. Kidd, on the other hand, was a poor shooter for most of his career (though he later developed into a knockdown 3-point shooter). However, he excelled in every other facet of the game on both ends of the court. In spite of his shooting struggles, Kidd averaged roughly 16 points-per-game during his peak seasons and ranked in the Top 5 in assists-per-game in every season from 1995-96 through 2009-10. Though Nash was primarily known for his passing wizardry, he only managed to accomplish that same feat in nine seasons. An expert rebounder to boot, Kidd ranks third all-time in triple-doubles, behind only Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson.
On top of that, Kidd consistently ranked as one of the premier defensive PGs in the NBA, earning All-Defense honors nine times. There is no question that Nash was the superior offensive player, but on the defensive end, it was simply no contest. That gap is a large part of the reason why Kidd was named First Team All-NBA five times to Nash’s three. Why Kidd was selected to the All-Star Game 10 times to Nash’s eight. Kidd may not have peaked any higher than second in MVP voting, but looking at the entirety of his career, his accolades stack up nicely.
#RINGZZZZ
Both Nash and Kidd were considered ultimate team players, so it’s only fair to dive into the amount of team success each enjoyed. It started in high school. While Nash led his St. Michaels team to a provincial championship his senior year, Kidd led St. Joseph-Alameda to back-to-back state championships in California. In college, this trend continued. Nash was scarcely recruited and ended up at Santa Clara, a small program that hadn’t seen much success since the 70s. Kidd, the nation’s top recruit, stunned everyone by opting to go to Cal, which hadn’t made the NCAA Tournament since 1960. As freshmen, both Nash and Kidd led their teams to the tourney and engineered shocking upsets, with Santa Clara taking down heavily favored Arizona while Cal knocked off defending champions Duke. However, in his four years at Santa Clara, Nash was never able to lead the Broncos further than the second round, whereas Kidd managed to take the Golden Bears to the Sweet 16 in his very first year.
In the NBA, the biggest disparity emerged. As a member of the Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns, Nash was the catalyst of many teams that finished at or near the top of the standings. However, Nash’s playoff track record is littered with disappointments. Four first-round flameouts, three second-round defeats and four losses in the Western Conference Finals. Zero rings. Not even a Finals appearance. This, of course, is hardly Steve Nash’s fault. The fact that his teams failed to climb that particular mountaintop isn’t an indictment on him as a player. But the question isn’t who was the better player, it’s who enjoyed the better career. Blame (Robert Horry) if you’d like, but Nash’s resume doesn’t quite stack up against Kidd’s which included three NBA Finals appearances, one NBA championship and two gold medals as part of Team USA.
Therein lies the biggest difference between the two. From an individual standpoint, their accomplishments are nearly indistinguishable. But in terms of team success, not only did Kidd lead the Nets further than Nash ever managed to get the Mavs or Suns (despite Nash having absolutely loaded teams)… he also got a ring. In Nash’s retirement statements, he expressed disappointment over failing to deliver a championship to the fans in Phoenix and not living up to the expectations set for him in L.A. Ultimately, that’s where the line is drawn. Steve Nash accomplished so much throughout the course of his career, but the questions about what might have been will always continue to hang over him. Jason Kidd retired with no regrets about his career. All else relatively equal, that’s how you know he had the better career.
Headliner
Stax Classic
Good debate.
What I liked about this debate the most was that you really took us from the start of both careers to the end. While doing that you showed the necessary progessions, faults and achivements that painted a very clear picture in regards to who was better. I would have liked to seen you break down their skill sets a little more, but I think your focus on stats and the overall big picture outweighted any need for that. Good job.
The Rabid Wolverine
This debate was ok. You focused on key concepts that are vital to the point guard position. The problem is, you left too much doubt in regards to Nash truly being better. You broke down your debate into 3 areas. You picked Kidd in 1 out of the 3 areas, but then in the positive impact area you basically admitted that Kidd was a better impact player because he did things Nash was never able to do. Yet you picked Nash for reasons that can be argued easily.
If you think Nash is better, you should slam home how better he is without putting over Kidd as much. It didn't come off as convincing.
RetepAdam.
This was a solid debate. Your picture of the stats really cemented what you were saying in the frst half. The second half of the debate took a cliff dive. I didn't think it was necessary to focus on their college careers much. Because it's not a true accurate representation of who the better player is. Sure, you can use it to show characteristics of these two as players, but college has little value because so much can change from college to the NBA. Michael Jordan wasn't Michael Jordan in college. So if you were to compare Michael to some player on who had the better career, you wouldn't focus on their college careers. It's all about the NBA.
Instead of focusing on their college careers, I think you could have took the stat pic and ran with it a little more. Show more longevity, paint the picture and convince us.
Winner-Stax Classic
Joel
Stax Classic
This debate is very unbalanced. No mention of Nash’s 2 MVP titles. No mention that Nash was the leading assistant in 6 seasons compare to Kidd’s 2. Man oh man. Don’t get me wrong here, you are selling Kidd really well here, but by refusing to list some of Nash’s big accomplishments, you make this whole debate pointless. I mean, all I can take from it is that everything Kidd did was better than what Nash did, but that simply is not true. It’s just too unbalanced for me to even break down properly.
You’ve done good research into this to show a lot of statistics, which highlights Kidd’s overall ability. When it comes to this, it shows that Kidd had so much to his game and really was a fantastic player. The defensive statistics are mind blowingly good. But by going down a complete statistical route, you make this so robotic. I mean you could have gone more into how he made his team mates better, or how his leadership was vital in the finals victory over Miami and a lot more. Statistics are very important, but it only tells half the story of a player.
Nash’s best seasons earned him the MVP award twice (back to back) – the best player in the league. That tells me that when Nash was at his best, he reached a level that Kidd doesn’t have in him. You say he is one dimensional and that may be right, but at one point in time, that dimension was crazy good and it made him one of the best play makers the game has seen. Everything he did can’t always be told by a statistic. Sometimes making room for another player won’t get you the assist stat, but it’s clear what your presence caused. Honestly, if you’re going to list one players credentials, you have to list the other’s to give credibility to the debate.
I can’t say much more. This is a very one sided debate that is based purely on statistics which you cannot use as the sole example of a whole career.
The Rabid Wolverine
I guess the one thing this debate had was parity when looking at both competitors. You’ve gone down the route of giving your opinion on it, rather than basing it off pure evidence. I don’t mind some of that, but without any of it, I think this debate is lacking a lot of depth. As I said, I think you’ve been fair on how you have rated them and I like the way how you have structured it by looking at the position these two play in and then scoring them on what you feel is key to this position. The way you have rated the competitors in these three sections you have created when looking at a point guard is hard to disagree with. The attacking prowess and defensive steal sections bodes clear winners. Impact on teammates is give or take and you have done ok to explain why you feel Nash has the edge here – how he went to three teams and had a positive impact that made them better.
But all of this can only be the start of the debate. This alone just makes there feel like there is a lot missing from this debate. It just feels like it is so simple to sum up two careers that have nearly 40 years combined. It really isn’t.
There’s no real mention of the accolades these two have (and there is a lot that could have given you some substance). There’s very little statistical comparison. No mention of the great moments these guys have had. It just feels rushed and unfinished.
I honestly think this debate could have been something, but the lack of depth hurts it a lot. It’s like a really nice interior, but when you get to the centre, there’s nothing really there.
RetepAdam.
Now this is a good debate. It has both balance when looking at the two competitors and it also has depth, which is backed up by some good evidence. I think you have assessed both these guys pretty well. You mentioned both of their accolades from their entire basketball careers and identified both their strong points and their weak points pretty well.
What I’ve taken from your debate is that Nash was on another level when it comes to his attacking, but when it comes to overall abilities, Kidd excelled. I think this is backed up by a lot of things you have mentioned such as being voted in the NBA first team more times, making many appearances in the NBA all defensive teams and making the All Star team more times.
It’s always hard to count rings as an individual difference, but hey, we’re talking about better career here, so Kidd’s one ring obviously trumps Nahs’s. The fact that Kidd got to two other finals prior to winning as well, helps the argument, as Nash as you said has zero appearances.
Think you could have given Nash a bit more credit for his MVP seasons. I know there’s a bit of controversy for the second one (I believe), but to win the award back to back means he was playing some pretty high level bastketball, that Jason Kidd couldn’t match. But when it comes down to it, longevity and consistency matters when looking at a whole career.
All in all, I think this is a good debate. Well thought out, well structured, well balanced and the decision that you came to is backed up by a lot of evidence.
Verdict: RetepAdam. obviously wins, as it was the only complete debate in this match up.
Aid
Stax Classic
I don’t even know what to say. I’m struggling to find something to criticize. I guess let’s look at what I really liked. The longevity point was creative and a nice addition. Longevity in the career with minutes played and seasons where he averaged good numbers show just how long of an impact Kidd had. Loved this part. “Only two players have ever played more minutes than Jason Kidd, and of the top seven all-time, Kidd is the only non-power forward or center.” Fantastic point here. Going onto shooting, which looked to be a tough task to counter, I enjoyed how you did attempt to counter. “Kidd made enough three’s in his career to place 5th all-time to Nash’s 15th.” Good point. It’s hard to really say Kidd stands up to Nash in shooting, but this helps. It’s better than admitting defeat and not countering at all. I like how you included defense in here and mentioned just how good Kidd was. Nice use of stats. You also mention the finals here too. Nice use of word limit here fitting so much in such a tiny space.
The next paragraph is absolute gold though. Here’s the part I loved the most about this paragraph. “Kidd is 2nd all-time in assists to Nash’s 3rd8, Kidd averaged 0.2 assists more per game over their careers. Kidd had nearly three times as many steals as Nash and has the 2nd most all-time. The gap between Kidd and Nash in steals would be 18th best all-time for steals! Kidd is currently 60th all-time in rebounds for any position. 9 The gap in total rebounds between Kidd and Nash is equal to Kevin Love’s career rebounds! Kidd has 450 career blocks, which is not bad considering that is four and a half times what Nash had. Yes Kidd has more turnovers than Nash and is 3rd all-time, but coming back to the minutes played, Kidd turned it over at a 7.99% per minute rate to Nash’s 9.14%.” You’re damn right it’s the entire paragraph. The amount of numbers and great stats in the paragraph would even make Bill James blush.
I already used the posting the entire paragraph schtick, so I won’t use it here for the triple double point, but damn bro. This one is great too. Hell, I might as well just post the rest of your debate. I really don’t have any criticisms. If I were to think of one thing I would have addressed, it probably would have been comparing Nash’s TWO MVPs to Kidd’s none. But then again, the guy that argued for Nash didn’t even mention this part. So great job.
The Rabid Wolverine
I know this is going to look overtly negative, but you didn’t do a bad job. This is fundamentally how a debate should be written and how a debate should look. However, that’s not the issue. The issue here is the information in the debate and the little parts you didn’t argue.
Case 1: “Jason Kidd just could never be counted on to do that, if his teammates where not making shots his team wasn't winning.”
Here’s where I think you first really missed the counter-argument. The whole scoring part was nice, and factually correct, but you did not address the winning aspect. At least I don’t feel you addressed it enough. What would you say to those that think Kidd’s NBA title win over the Heat in 2011 trumps anything that Nash has done? What about playoff success and the fact that Nash never made it to the NBA finals? The Jason Kidd Mavs made it to the finals in the west. Also Jason Kidd played in the post-season in 17 seasons compared to Nash’s 12. This would have been good to address too. You did address this slightly with the fact that the West was tough, but I would have liked a little more here.
Case 2: “I'm going to make this easy and just say Jason Kidd, and it's not close.”
Alright. Never ever ever ever use this sentence. lol. What I mean is, how convincing do you think it is when you are arguing for choice A and you say choice B is so good at this, 1/3rd of your argument, that it’s not even close. So essentially, paragraph 3 is all about how the player you are arguing against is great and paragraph 2 is essentially a tie as you talk about how they are both good passers, without addressing numbers, and how Nash changed the culture in Phoenix but Kidd doubled the Nets wins and took them to the finals. See what I mean. At this point you are basically arguing for Kidd. It’s just not convincing language here. That’s the big problem. Finally, your conclusion has this sentence: “If you were trying to win an NBA championship, you would choose Steve Nash over Jason Kidd” I feel that’s a tough point to agree with when one man won a title and actually went to the finals and the other never did go to the finals. Also, how can you not mention the biggest thing Nash has over Kidd, his two MVPs? Like only 11 players have ever won the MVP more than once, and Nash is one of them. Like man, that argument practically writes itself. Hell, I might just have voted for you if you got rid of the defensive paragraph and wrote about Nash’s MVPs and how important those are.
RetepAdam.
“Preternatural”. Well damn. I think I might just try using this in Scrabble next time I can. :lol. Anyway, your opponent wrote one of the better debates I’ve ever read, so this requires a fantastic effort from you.
To get to the debate, I loved this point: “Top 5 in assists-per-game in every season from 1995-96 through 2009-10. Though Nash was primarily known for his passing wizardry, he only managed to accomplish that same feat in nine seasons. An expert rebounder to boot, Kidd ranks third all-time in triple-doubles, behind only Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson.” In fact, this point was pretty good too: “There is no question that Nash was the superior offensive player, but on the defensive end, it was simply no contest. That gap is a large part of the reason why Kidd was named First Team All-NBA five times to Nash’s three. Why Kidd was selected to the All-Star Game 10 times to Nash’s eight.” So good work here.
Now here is where you and Stax Classic differ. Instead of diving into all the stats, you go into career, starting from high school. While I loved reading the narrative here and seeing the point and including all aspects of their basketball life, I felt like you dedicated too much time to a part that started off similarly with high school success and similar college choices. This space may have been better used for truly mentioning Kidd’s stats over Nash’s, like steals and assists etc. That or why Nash’s two MVPs aren’t as good to have. I believe only 11 players have won multiple MVPs. That’s a pretty damn good accomplishment. A counter for this would be great. However, as I told Stax Classic, The Rabid Wolverine did not mention the MVP awards at all and he picked Nash. So I guess it’s hard to see the need to counter it when it isn’t even brought up. However, countering this would have been amazing.
Honestly, this is pretty good for a conclusion too: “Therein lies the biggest difference between the two. From an individual standpoint, their accomplishments are nearly indistinguishable. But in terms of team success, not only did Kidd lead the Nets further than Nash ever managed to get the Mavs or Suns (despite Nash having absolutely loaded teams)… he also got a ring.” In fact, the last part of your conclusion is pretty damn awesome. Like, fucking killer. It really resonates with me. As you see, I am having trouble truly expressing just how much I loved your conclusion. Damn. This was a pretty fantastic effot. I said you needed it and you delivered. Good work man.
Decision: Damn guys. This is really a difficult choice for me. Like, if Stax Classic and RetepAdam. was a tag debate, it might be the best TDL submission ever. Team up please guys. :side: Anyway, I really have to be nitpicky to truly make a decision. I loved Stax Classic diving deep into the stats, but I also enjoyed RetepAdam. diving into the post-season career and the regrets. Like, this is truly nitpicky as fuck, but I really did like the inclusion of this stat, “Kidd is the only player ever with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists, and 7,000 rebounds.” This and if RetepAdam. linked a source for the Kidd no regrets part are the very slim reasons for why I am picking Stax Classic. Like, even now I’m not sure of my decision. It is that close for me. Hell, if either of you just mentioned why Nash's two MVPs don't really mean too much, then I would have awarded you the win. RetepAdam. was close by actually mentioning the MVP awards, but maybe mentioning how many times Kidd was voted second or third in the race would help. Honestly, if you guys could just give me a best of three series, I’d be happy as possible.
Winner: Stax Classic with the ever so slightest of margins.
Stax Classic
Good debate.
What I liked about this debate the most was that you really took us from the start of both careers to the end. While doing that you showed the necessary progessions, faults and achivements that painted a very clear picture in regards to who was better. I would have liked to seen you break down their skill sets a little more, but I think your focus on stats and the overall big picture outweighted any need for that. Good job.
The Rabid Wolverine
This debate was ok. You focused on key concepts that are vital to the point guard position. The problem is, you left too much doubt in regards to Nash truly being better. You broke down your debate into 3 areas. You picked Kidd in 1 out of the 3 areas, but then in the positive impact area you basically admitted that Kidd was a better impact player because he did things Nash was never able to do. Yet you picked Nash for reasons that can be argued easily.
If you think Nash is better, you should slam home how better he is without putting over Kidd as much. It didn't come off as convincing.
RetepAdam.
This was a solid debate. Your picture of the stats really cemented what you were saying in the frst half. The second half of the debate took a cliff dive. I didn't think it was necessary to focus on their college careers much. Because it's not a true accurate representation of who the better player is. Sure, you can use it to show characteristics of these two as players, but college has little value because so much can change from college to the NBA. Michael Jordan wasn't Michael Jordan in college. So if you were to compare Michael to some player on who had the better career, you wouldn't focus on their college careers. It's all about the NBA.
Instead of focusing on their college careers, I think you could have took the stat pic and ran with it a little more. Show more longevity, paint the picture and convince us.
Winner-Stax Classic
Joel
Stax Classic
This debate is very unbalanced. No mention of Nash’s 2 MVP titles. No mention that Nash was the leading assistant in 6 seasons compare to Kidd’s 2. Man oh man. Don’t get me wrong here, you are selling Kidd really well here, but by refusing to list some of Nash’s big accomplishments, you make this whole debate pointless. I mean, all I can take from it is that everything Kidd did was better than what Nash did, but that simply is not true. It’s just too unbalanced for me to even break down properly.
You’ve done good research into this to show a lot of statistics, which highlights Kidd’s overall ability. When it comes to this, it shows that Kidd had so much to his game and really was a fantastic player. The defensive statistics are mind blowingly good. But by going down a complete statistical route, you make this so robotic. I mean you could have gone more into how he made his team mates better, or how his leadership was vital in the finals victory over Miami and a lot more. Statistics are very important, but it only tells half the story of a player.
Nash’s best seasons earned him the MVP award twice (back to back) – the best player in the league. That tells me that when Nash was at his best, he reached a level that Kidd doesn’t have in him. You say he is one dimensional and that may be right, but at one point in time, that dimension was crazy good and it made him one of the best play makers the game has seen. Everything he did can’t always be told by a statistic. Sometimes making room for another player won’t get you the assist stat, but it’s clear what your presence caused. Honestly, if you’re going to list one players credentials, you have to list the other’s to give credibility to the debate.
I can’t say much more. This is a very one sided debate that is based purely on statistics which you cannot use as the sole example of a whole career.
The Rabid Wolverine
I guess the one thing this debate had was parity when looking at both competitors. You’ve gone down the route of giving your opinion on it, rather than basing it off pure evidence. I don’t mind some of that, but without any of it, I think this debate is lacking a lot of depth. As I said, I think you’ve been fair on how you have rated them and I like the way how you have structured it by looking at the position these two play in and then scoring them on what you feel is key to this position. The way you have rated the competitors in these three sections you have created when looking at a point guard is hard to disagree with. The attacking prowess and defensive steal sections bodes clear winners. Impact on teammates is give or take and you have done ok to explain why you feel Nash has the edge here – how he went to three teams and had a positive impact that made them better.
But all of this can only be the start of the debate. This alone just makes there feel like there is a lot missing from this debate. It just feels like it is so simple to sum up two careers that have nearly 40 years combined. It really isn’t.
There’s no real mention of the accolades these two have (and there is a lot that could have given you some substance). There’s very little statistical comparison. No mention of the great moments these guys have had. It just feels rushed and unfinished.
I honestly think this debate could have been something, but the lack of depth hurts it a lot. It’s like a really nice interior, but when you get to the centre, there’s nothing really there.
RetepAdam.
Now this is a good debate. It has both balance when looking at the two competitors and it also has depth, which is backed up by some good evidence. I think you have assessed both these guys pretty well. You mentioned both of their accolades from their entire basketball careers and identified both their strong points and their weak points pretty well.
What I’ve taken from your debate is that Nash was on another level when it comes to his attacking, but when it comes to overall abilities, Kidd excelled. I think this is backed up by a lot of things you have mentioned such as being voted in the NBA first team more times, making many appearances in the NBA all defensive teams and making the All Star team more times.
It’s always hard to count rings as an individual difference, but hey, we’re talking about better career here, so Kidd’s one ring obviously trumps Nahs’s. The fact that Kidd got to two other finals prior to winning as well, helps the argument, as Nash as you said has zero appearances.
Think you could have given Nash a bit more credit for his MVP seasons. I know there’s a bit of controversy for the second one (I believe), but to win the award back to back means he was playing some pretty high level bastketball, that Jason Kidd couldn’t match. But when it comes down to it, longevity and consistency matters when looking at a whole career.
All in all, I think this is a good debate. Well thought out, well structured, well balanced and the decision that you came to is backed up by a lot of evidence.
Verdict: RetepAdam. obviously wins, as it was the only complete debate in this match up.
Aid
Stax Classic
I don’t even know what to say. I’m struggling to find something to criticize. I guess let’s look at what I really liked. The longevity point was creative and a nice addition. Longevity in the career with minutes played and seasons where he averaged good numbers show just how long of an impact Kidd had. Loved this part. “Only two players have ever played more minutes than Jason Kidd, and of the top seven all-time, Kidd is the only non-power forward or center.” Fantastic point here. Going onto shooting, which looked to be a tough task to counter, I enjoyed how you did attempt to counter. “Kidd made enough three’s in his career to place 5th all-time to Nash’s 15th.” Good point. It’s hard to really say Kidd stands up to Nash in shooting, but this helps. It’s better than admitting defeat and not countering at all. I like how you included defense in here and mentioned just how good Kidd was. Nice use of stats. You also mention the finals here too. Nice use of word limit here fitting so much in such a tiny space.
The next paragraph is absolute gold though. Here’s the part I loved the most about this paragraph. “Kidd is 2nd all-time in assists to Nash’s 3rd8, Kidd averaged 0.2 assists more per game over their careers. Kidd had nearly three times as many steals as Nash and has the 2nd most all-time. The gap between Kidd and Nash in steals would be 18th best all-time for steals! Kidd is currently 60th all-time in rebounds for any position. 9 The gap in total rebounds between Kidd and Nash is equal to Kevin Love’s career rebounds! Kidd has 450 career blocks, which is not bad considering that is four and a half times what Nash had. Yes Kidd has more turnovers than Nash and is 3rd all-time, but coming back to the minutes played, Kidd turned it over at a 7.99% per minute rate to Nash’s 9.14%.” You’re damn right it’s the entire paragraph. The amount of numbers and great stats in the paragraph would even make Bill James blush.
I already used the posting the entire paragraph schtick, so I won’t use it here for the triple double point, but damn bro. This one is great too. Hell, I might as well just post the rest of your debate. I really don’t have any criticisms. If I were to think of one thing I would have addressed, it probably would have been comparing Nash’s TWO MVPs to Kidd’s none. But then again, the guy that argued for Nash didn’t even mention this part. So great job.
The Rabid Wolverine
I know this is going to look overtly negative, but you didn’t do a bad job. This is fundamentally how a debate should be written and how a debate should look. However, that’s not the issue. The issue here is the information in the debate and the little parts you didn’t argue.
Case 1: “Jason Kidd just could never be counted on to do that, if his teammates where not making shots his team wasn't winning.”
Here’s where I think you first really missed the counter-argument. The whole scoring part was nice, and factually correct, but you did not address the winning aspect. At least I don’t feel you addressed it enough. What would you say to those that think Kidd’s NBA title win over the Heat in 2011 trumps anything that Nash has done? What about playoff success and the fact that Nash never made it to the NBA finals? The Jason Kidd Mavs made it to the finals in the west. Also Jason Kidd played in the post-season in 17 seasons compared to Nash’s 12. This would have been good to address too. You did address this slightly with the fact that the West was tough, but I would have liked a little more here.
Case 2: “I'm going to make this easy and just say Jason Kidd, and it's not close.”
Alright. Never ever ever ever use this sentence. lol. What I mean is, how convincing do you think it is when you are arguing for choice A and you say choice B is so good at this, 1/3rd of your argument, that it’s not even close. So essentially, paragraph 3 is all about how the player you are arguing against is great and paragraph 2 is essentially a tie as you talk about how they are both good passers, without addressing numbers, and how Nash changed the culture in Phoenix but Kidd doubled the Nets wins and took them to the finals. See what I mean. At this point you are basically arguing for Kidd. It’s just not convincing language here. That’s the big problem. Finally, your conclusion has this sentence: “If you were trying to win an NBA championship, you would choose Steve Nash over Jason Kidd” I feel that’s a tough point to agree with when one man won a title and actually went to the finals and the other never did go to the finals. Also, how can you not mention the biggest thing Nash has over Kidd, his two MVPs? Like only 11 players have ever won the MVP more than once, and Nash is one of them. Like man, that argument practically writes itself. Hell, I might just have voted for you if you got rid of the defensive paragraph and wrote about Nash’s MVPs and how important those are.
RetepAdam.
“Preternatural”. Well damn. I think I might just try using this in Scrabble next time I can. :lol. Anyway, your opponent wrote one of the better debates I’ve ever read, so this requires a fantastic effort from you.
To get to the debate, I loved this point: “Top 5 in assists-per-game in every season from 1995-96 through 2009-10. Though Nash was primarily known for his passing wizardry, he only managed to accomplish that same feat in nine seasons. An expert rebounder to boot, Kidd ranks third all-time in triple-doubles, behind only Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson.” In fact, this point was pretty good too: “There is no question that Nash was the superior offensive player, but on the defensive end, it was simply no contest. That gap is a large part of the reason why Kidd was named First Team All-NBA five times to Nash’s three. Why Kidd was selected to the All-Star Game 10 times to Nash’s eight.” So good work here.
Now here is where you and Stax Classic differ. Instead of diving into all the stats, you go into career, starting from high school. While I loved reading the narrative here and seeing the point and including all aspects of their basketball life, I felt like you dedicated too much time to a part that started off similarly with high school success and similar college choices. This space may have been better used for truly mentioning Kidd’s stats over Nash’s, like steals and assists etc. That or why Nash’s two MVPs aren’t as good to have. I believe only 11 players have won multiple MVPs. That’s a pretty damn good accomplishment. A counter for this would be great. However, as I told Stax Classic, The Rabid Wolverine did not mention the MVP awards at all and he picked Nash. So I guess it’s hard to see the need to counter it when it isn’t even brought up. However, countering this would have been amazing.
Honestly, this is pretty good for a conclusion too: “Therein lies the biggest difference between the two. From an individual standpoint, their accomplishments are nearly indistinguishable. But in terms of team success, not only did Kidd lead the Nets further than Nash ever managed to get the Mavs or Suns (despite Nash having absolutely loaded teams)… he also got a ring.” In fact, the last part of your conclusion is pretty damn awesome. Like, fucking killer. It really resonates with me. As you see, I am having trouble truly expressing just how much I loved your conclusion. Damn. This was a pretty fantastic effot. I said you needed it and you delivered. Good work man.
Decision: Damn guys. This is really a difficult choice for me. Like, if Stax Classic and RetepAdam. was a tag debate, it might be the best TDL submission ever. Team up please guys. :side: Anyway, I really have to be nitpicky to truly make a decision. I loved Stax Classic diving deep into the stats, but I also enjoyed RetepAdam. diving into the post-season career and the regrets. Like, this is truly nitpicky as fuck, but I really did like the inclusion of this stat, “Kidd is the only player ever with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists, and 7,000 rebounds.” This and if RetepAdam. linked a source for the Kidd no regrets part are the very slim reasons for why I am picking Stax Classic. Like, even now I’m not sure of my decision. It is that close for me. Hell, if either of you just mentioned why Nash's two MVPs don't really mean too much, then I would have awarded you the win. RetepAdam. was close by actually mentioning the MVP awards, but maybe mentioning how many times Kidd was voted second or third in the race would help. Honestly, if you guys could just give me a best of three series, I’d be happy as possible.
Winner: Stax Classic with the ever so slightest of margins.
Winner via Split Decision - Stax Classic
BkB Hulk vs Curry
Which team is most likely to be relegated this season, Burnley, Sunderland or Hull?
BkB Hulk vs Curry
Which team is most likely to be relegated this season, Burnley, Sunderland or Hull?
Curry
Background:
After 32 games, Sunderland have 29 points, Hull 28 and Burnley 26.
Each team has 6 games to play:
Based on the current form, position and squads of these teams along with the fixtures remaining, Hull are most likely to be relegated from the Premier League this season.
Ruling out Sunderland:
Sunderland have the advantage of leading this group of teams on points. With a reasonable run in, a team filled with players like Connor Wickham and Jermain Defoe who are capable of scoring goals and winning games and a defensive unit that has kept 10 clean sheets this year, (the same number as defending champions and current 4th place team Manchester City and current 3rd place team Manchester United), Sunderland should have no trouble picking up the few points needed to keep themselves above Hull and Burnley, leaving them least likely to be relegated this season.
Hull:
If Premier League teams are sorted by form over the last 10 games, Hull are still to play 5 of the top 6. During that same period, Hull gained 9 points, 8 of which came across 4 games against teams in the bottom 6 places in the Premier League table. In fact, Hull have only won against teams in the bottom half this season and have taken just 4 points from teams in the top half. With Hull still to play so many in form top teams, they will struggle to gain points.
One of the reasons Hull will struggle is a lack of goals. With top goalscorer Nikita Jelavic potentially out for the rest of the season, Hull's highest scoring active players are Mohammed Diame (4 goals) who has played only 48 minutes of Premier League football this year, Abel Hernandez (4 goals) who has scored only once in his last seventeen games and Dame N'Doye (3 goals) who has played over 400 minutes of premier league football since he last scored.
Burnley:
Burnley have a better chance of surviving because they have two things Hull and Sunderland don't.
*An easy run in
*Goalscorers
Burnley are still to play 4 teams in the bottom half of the Premier League table and 5 teams in the bottom half of the Premier League form table. While Burnley haven't performed well over the past few weeks in no small part because their last 8 games have been against the top 8 teams in the Premier League.
Burnley's other great advantage is that they have players who have proven they can score goals this season. Danny Ings, George Boyd and Ashley Barnes have all score more goals than any fit Hull or Sunderland player this season.
Burnley vs Hull:
The key to this debate is whether or not Burnley will be able to make up the gap between themselves and Hull. To do this they'll either need to gain 3 points more than Hull or 2 points more than Hull while making up a 9 goal swing in goal difference.
The ideal time to make up these points would be when the two teams face eachother on May 9th at the KC stadium. This is the defining game of this debate, as a win for Hull could move them out of Burnley's reach while failure to win could be a waste of possibly their only opportunity to gain points.
Burnley's history against Hull gives a positive outlook ahead of this game:
*Burnley won the reverse fixture in November 1-0
*Burnley have won on their last 4 visits to the KC Stadium
*Burnley have won 8 of their last 9 games against Hull
Although Burnley should be going into this game looking for a win they are easily capable of getting, gaining even a draw from this game could conceivably allow them move them above Hull by winning just one of their 5 other games, all of which are potentially winnable against less than fantastic opposition.
Hull City have the hardest run in of these three teams, they have proven that they are unable to find success and gain points against top teams and have no one in their squad who looks like supplying the vital goals to keep them up.
All these factors will render them unable to surpass Sunderland's points total and leave them sitting ducks to a Burnley team who will be able to take advantage of an easy group of games thanks to the quality of their their front line and make up the points difference between the two teams.
Unable to catch Sunderland and falling victim to a late Burnley charge, Hull City will have the lowest points total and are most likely to be relegated.
Sources
BkB Hulk
There are many reasons why Burnley seem the popular choice as the club neutrals want to survive. They’re the ultimate underdog – they were a poor club by Championship standards last season, who were supposed to be closer to relegation to League One than promotion. They’re an even poorer club by Premier League standards. They have a squad that is full of British grafters, consistently featuring only homegrown players in their starting lineup in 2015. They, as a city, have a population lower than the capacity of Old Trafford.(1) They have a young British manager, who people want to see succeed if not for the national pride then for the sheer modern rarity of it. They also have a dedicated backing, none of which seem to be calling for any overhaul. It’s a shame that, despite – or perhaps because of all this – there’s no reason analytically why they will survive. Burnley will be relegated.
The Clarets currently sit two points behind Hull and three behind Sunderland, stuck in the quagmire of the relegation zone. They’ve been there almost all season, remarkably only getting as high as 17th at best at the conclusion of a weekend.(2) They show no signs of emulating that achievement now.
For all of their attempts to fight, Burnley are struggling against a rip. They’ll soon find themselves back in the Championship Sea. Their current form is as bad as it has been since the start of the season. With six games remaining, they need to win as many games as possible. In the last six games they’ve won one. A single game against a remarkably poor Manchester City. They’ve only had the chance to win once too, because they’ve only scored one goal in the entirety of those six games. A 0-0 draw has allowed them to snatch a fourth point in that time.(3)
No, Hull and Sunderland have not been in great form either. Hull have taken a measly two points from their past six games(4), while Sunderland have taken four.(5) The problem for Burnley is that, even while Hull appear to be standing still, their comparative formlines mean that at their current rate, they will only just catch Hull by point tally. Their goal difference is vastly inferior though.
On top of that, Hull and Sunderland actually possess the ability to occasionally score goals. They have the potential to win games. Hull have scored four goals in their past six games. Sunderland have scored three. If either of those teams scores those goals at the right time then the chase for Burnley almost makes insurmountable. A single three points seems enough to evade the Clarets, who haven’t seen a striker score in months. George Boyd was the last to do so, and seems to be the last to score for the foreseeable future.
While Sunderland have been able to enjoy recent local success off the back of Jermain Defoe, and Dame N’Doye has scored since arriving at KC Stadium, Burnley simply haven’t been able to reinforce their squad. There are no signs of a boost for them. Their ‘January arrival’ was Sam Vokes – a man who spent a year out with a knee injury after firing for Burnley in the Championship, and hasn’t scored since. For all of the hype surrounding Danny Ings, he hasn’t threatened of late, nor has Ashley Barnes. The only thing Lukas Jutkiewicz has challenged is for the title of worst Premier League footballer.
Burnley don’t have any favours in terms of fixturing in the coming weeks either. Only two of their remaining six games are at Turf Moor(6), meaning it’s highly unlikely that a landslide of goals would be incoming, even if any of their strikers were in any kind of form. Hull have four to come, while Sunderland get to host bottom-placed Leicester in their two remaining home games, favourably placing them with a winning opportunity.(7)(8)
Meanwhile Hull also host Burnley, in a game in which Hull have to be favourites because of their home ground advantage. It’s a game which potentially may, and probably will, seal Burnley’s fate. A win for Hull puts them out of reach, while Sunderland are almost out of reach for Burnley already. Their experience in surviving the drop – something Burnley don’t have – should see them home, even if the fixture against Leicester somehow doesn’t.
Burnley have fought a remarkably brave fight. It’s what you expect when you hear the gravelly voice of Sean Dyche. Unfortunately for Burnley, they’re clearly out of their league in terms of depth, talent, spending power, and just sheer size. And though they looked like the Championship was maybe even a level too high for them last season, they’re about to be in those familiar surroundings soon. That is their league. Burnley will be relegated.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...35caf2-e1fc-11e4-ae0f-f8c46aa8c3a4_story.html
(2) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html
(3) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true¶mSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(4) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true¶mSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(5) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true¶mSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(6) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=90¶mComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
(7) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=88¶mComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
(8) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=56¶mComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
Background:
After 32 games, Sunderland have 29 points, Hull 28 and Burnley 26.
Each team has 6 games to play:
Based on the current form, position and squads of these teams along with the fixtures remaining, Hull are most likely to be relegated from the Premier League this season.
Ruling out Sunderland:
Sunderland have the advantage of leading this group of teams on points. With a reasonable run in, a team filled with players like Connor Wickham and Jermain Defoe who are capable of scoring goals and winning games and a defensive unit that has kept 10 clean sheets this year, (the same number as defending champions and current 4th place team Manchester City and current 3rd place team Manchester United), Sunderland should have no trouble picking up the few points needed to keep themselves above Hull and Burnley, leaving them least likely to be relegated this season.
Hull:
If Premier League teams are sorted by form over the last 10 games, Hull are still to play 5 of the top 6. During that same period, Hull gained 9 points, 8 of which came across 4 games against teams in the bottom 6 places in the Premier League table. In fact, Hull have only won against teams in the bottom half this season and have taken just 4 points from teams in the top half. With Hull still to play so many in form top teams, they will struggle to gain points.
One of the reasons Hull will struggle is a lack of goals. With top goalscorer Nikita Jelavic potentially out for the rest of the season, Hull's highest scoring active players are Mohammed Diame (4 goals) who has played only 48 minutes of Premier League football this year, Abel Hernandez (4 goals) who has scored only once in his last seventeen games and Dame N'Doye (3 goals) who has played over 400 minutes of premier league football since he last scored.
Burnley:
Burnley have a better chance of surviving because they have two things Hull and Sunderland don't.
*An easy run in
*Goalscorers
Burnley are still to play 4 teams in the bottom half of the Premier League table and 5 teams in the bottom half of the Premier League form table. While Burnley haven't performed well over the past few weeks in no small part because their last 8 games have been against the top 8 teams in the Premier League.
Burnley's other great advantage is that they have players who have proven they can score goals this season. Danny Ings, George Boyd and Ashley Barnes have all score more goals than any fit Hull or Sunderland player this season.
Burnley vs Hull:
The key to this debate is whether or not Burnley will be able to make up the gap between themselves and Hull. To do this they'll either need to gain 3 points more than Hull or 2 points more than Hull while making up a 9 goal swing in goal difference.
The ideal time to make up these points would be when the two teams face eachother on May 9th at the KC stadium. This is the defining game of this debate, as a win for Hull could move them out of Burnley's reach while failure to win could be a waste of possibly their only opportunity to gain points.
Burnley's history against Hull gives a positive outlook ahead of this game:
*Burnley won the reverse fixture in November 1-0
*Burnley have won on their last 4 visits to the KC Stadium
*Burnley have won 8 of their last 9 games against Hull
Although Burnley should be going into this game looking for a win they are easily capable of getting, gaining even a draw from this game could conceivably allow them move them above Hull by winning just one of their 5 other games, all of which are potentially winnable against less than fantastic opposition.
Hull City have the hardest run in of these three teams, they have proven that they are unable to find success and gain points against top teams and have no one in their squad who looks like supplying the vital goals to keep them up.
All these factors will render them unable to surpass Sunderland's points total and leave them sitting ducks to a Burnley team who will be able to take advantage of an easy group of games thanks to the quality of their their front line and make up the points difference between the two teams.
Unable to catch Sunderland and falling victim to a late Burnley charge, Hull City will have the lowest points total and are most likely to be relegated.
Sources
Premier League Table:
Premier League Form Table:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/20/nikica-jelavic-hull-city-knee-surgery-steve-bruce
Premier League Form Table:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/20/nikica-jelavic-hull-city-knee-surgery-steve-bruce
BkB Hulk
There are many reasons why Burnley seem the popular choice as the club neutrals want to survive. They’re the ultimate underdog – they were a poor club by Championship standards last season, who were supposed to be closer to relegation to League One than promotion. They’re an even poorer club by Premier League standards. They have a squad that is full of British grafters, consistently featuring only homegrown players in their starting lineup in 2015. They, as a city, have a population lower than the capacity of Old Trafford.(1) They have a young British manager, who people want to see succeed if not for the national pride then for the sheer modern rarity of it. They also have a dedicated backing, none of which seem to be calling for any overhaul. It’s a shame that, despite – or perhaps because of all this – there’s no reason analytically why they will survive. Burnley will be relegated.
The Clarets currently sit two points behind Hull and three behind Sunderland, stuck in the quagmire of the relegation zone. They’ve been there almost all season, remarkably only getting as high as 17th at best at the conclusion of a weekend.(2) They show no signs of emulating that achievement now.
For all of their attempts to fight, Burnley are struggling against a rip. They’ll soon find themselves back in the Championship Sea. Their current form is as bad as it has been since the start of the season. With six games remaining, they need to win as many games as possible. In the last six games they’ve won one. A single game against a remarkably poor Manchester City. They’ve only had the chance to win once too, because they’ve only scored one goal in the entirety of those six games. A 0-0 draw has allowed them to snatch a fourth point in that time.(3)
No, Hull and Sunderland have not been in great form either. Hull have taken a measly two points from their past six games(4), while Sunderland have taken four.(5) The problem for Burnley is that, even while Hull appear to be standing still, their comparative formlines mean that at their current rate, they will only just catch Hull by point tally. Their goal difference is vastly inferior though.
On top of that, Hull and Sunderland actually possess the ability to occasionally score goals. They have the potential to win games. Hull have scored four goals in their past six games. Sunderland have scored three. If either of those teams scores those goals at the right time then the chase for Burnley almost makes insurmountable. A single three points seems enough to evade the Clarets, who haven’t seen a striker score in months. George Boyd was the last to do so, and seems to be the last to score for the foreseeable future.
While Sunderland have been able to enjoy recent local success off the back of Jermain Defoe, and Dame N’Doye has scored since arriving at KC Stadium, Burnley simply haven’t been able to reinforce their squad. There are no signs of a boost for them. Their ‘January arrival’ was Sam Vokes – a man who spent a year out with a knee injury after firing for Burnley in the Championship, and hasn’t scored since. For all of the hype surrounding Danny Ings, he hasn’t threatened of late, nor has Ashley Barnes. The only thing Lukas Jutkiewicz has challenged is for the title of worst Premier League footballer.
Burnley don’t have any favours in terms of fixturing in the coming weeks either. Only two of their remaining six games are at Turf Moor(6), meaning it’s highly unlikely that a landslide of goals would be incoming, even if any of their strikers were in any kind of form. Hull have four to come, while Sunderland get to host bottom-placed Leicester in their two remaining home games, favourably placing them with a winning opportunity.(7)(8)
Meanwhile Hull also host Burnley, in a game in which Hull have to be favourites because of their home ground advantage. It’s a game which potentially may, and probably will, seal Burnley’s fate. A win for Hull puts them out of reach, while Sunderland are almost out of reach for Burnley already. Their experience in surviving the drop – something Burnley don’t have – should see them home, even if the fixture against Leicester somehow doesn’t.
Burnley have fought a remarkably brave fight. It’s what you expect when you hear the gravelly voice of Sean Dyche. Unfortunately for Burnley, they’re clearly out of their league in terms of depth, talent, spending power, and just sheer size. And though they looked like the Championship was maybe even a level too high for them last season, they’re about to be in those familiar surroundings soon. That is their league. Burnley will be relegated.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...35caf2-e1fc-11e4-ae0f-f8c46aa8c3a4_story.html
(2) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html
(3) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true¶mSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(4) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true¶mSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(5) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true¶mSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(6) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=90¶mComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
(7) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=88¶mComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
(8) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=56¶mComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
Seabs
Curry - I actually found the background part including the fixtures list in a table really helpful here so props for including that. The biggest flaw of this is definitely how quickly you rule out Sunderland like it's just a given they'll stay up. Your argument for them is fine but it hurts you when you're comparing Hull and Burnley directly but not Sunderland. I get that word counts make it tough but it's definitely possible to do better than a quick paragraph at the start and out. "a team filled with players like Connor Wickham and Jermain Defoe who are capable of scoring goals and winning games" feels way too empty with nothing to back it up. The clean sheets stat was a good way of manipulating the fact that their goals conceded stat is worse than Hull's and not much better than Burnley's so that was good. The Hull arguments are really good. The argument regarding their remaining schedule is real good and their lack of goals was really well done too. Maybe add a line about how at this stage draws won't be enough for Hull and wins require goals. Burnley part again is very good. I thought you missed a great argument here in that Burnley have a lot of fixtures against teams who won't have anything to really play for. Everton, West Ham and Stoke are all pretty much done for the season now and Villa likely will be the last day too which obviously helps Burnley a lot and is arguably better than facing teams around them also fighting for survival. Use of the form table was really good though. Point about Burnley having more goals than Sunderland and Hull was strong too and served really well as a counter against BkB Hulk. As did the very valid explanation for Burnley's recent poor form and quite frankly 5 points vs all of the top 8 in 8 games is a good return. The Burnley vs Hull part was definitely weaker. The H2H stats really don't mean much. The fact they won the reverse fixture is a fine argument but the rest of the matches are going back at least 2 seasons when it's fair to say both teams were very different and even in a different league. H2H's only really mean something if they're featuring largely the same team or managers going H2H with distinct ways of playing, e.g. A is able to counter B's style of play every time with whatever players he fields. For the weakest part of your entry this used up too much word count too and is where you needed to pay Sunderland more attention. You've convinced me Burnley will climb over Hull but will Hull climb over Sunderland? That part is still left a bit misty. Outside of that though this had a lot of very strong arguments and only really missed out on one good one that I mentioned. Good stuff.
BkB Hulk - That opening paragraph is really long. I assumed with how long it was that what you said would come into play during your debate but it really didn't so it was just a super long intro that wasn't at all needed. The argument against their form is really poor analysis and Curry counters it nicely by bringing up the obvious about the level of quality they're facing in that run. Because they lose to the top 8 they'll go down? That doesn't work when they don't face any more of the top 8 this season. It looks even worse when you then show how neither Sunderland nor Hull have picked up more points from their last 6 despite facing much easier competition. Curry had you countered here anyway but you then essentially counter yourself by showing how Burnley's current form isn't even bad relative to the other two picks. The idea that the points per game rate will continue given the disparity in who Hull and Burnley each face was a tad mad. The goal difference argument works but only if you show that Burnley won't catch Hull which you didn't. Goals argument is countered nicely by Curry too. Ok Burnley aren't scoring big right now but that's easily explained by who they're facing and Hull and Sunderland are both struggling for goals. Not sure what the January arrivals point made as Hull and Sunderland's form hasn't improved much since then. N'Doye going over 400 minutes since his last goal counters his effect nicely too. Using the fixture schedule against Burley was odd as it quite clearly favours them. If you're going to argue that Burnley's lack of home fixtures will be a factor then you need to show that their away form is just terrible regardless of who they face. Home fixtures are nice but are Hull more likely to beat Arsenal at home than Burnley are to beat a Villa/West Ham team with nothing to play for away from home? A win for Hull puts them out of reach of Burnley? It puts them 5 clear and they're favourites to lose every other game this season. Also 3 points ahead is already almost out of reach? What? It's just strange how little credit you give to Burnley and the remaining fixtures they have. It's almost like you thought they had Hull's fixtures and only saw one game they had a decent chance of picking up a win meaning one point for Hull would likely see Burnley down. The analysis here was poor and even if Curry hadn't repeatedly and effectively countered much of what you said, your reasoning didn't really hold up anyway.
Winner - Curry
Joel
Curry
First of all, I would have liked to see a little but more depth of why Sunderland is ruled out on going down, since you went down the route of saying why you don’t believe they will. You mention those key players, but the game after a morale boosting derby win vs Newcastle, they were hammered on their home patch by a side that were already safe and not really playing for anything. You cite Defoe and Wickham, but Defoe has 2 goals in 8 league games, Wickham has 4 goals in 30 league games… They’re hardly showing enough to guarantee safety right now.
I like the research you have done that shows Hull's struggles in picking up points against the teams above them and that they have to play 4 of the most inform teams in their fine 6 games. This strengthens your case about Hull going down. However, you also mention they have trouble scoring, but then go on to say that one of the reasons Burnley have a better chance to stay up is because of their goal scorers. Yet Burnley has scored fewer goals than Hull…
Something you also say is that Burnley's struggles in the past few weeks has been because they have played top sides. But this season, Burnley have seemed to pick up quite a few points against the top sides; a win and draw vs Manchester City, a draw at Chelsea, a draw vs Manchester United, a draw vs Tottenham and a win vs Southamptopn. That's 10 points and they have 26 points, which means more than a third of their points have come against teams in the top 7. So it may be a bit inaccurate to say their current position is to do with the opposition they have faced in the past few weeks.
Abel Hernandez: 4 in 22, N'Doye: 3 in 9, Boyd: 5 in 30 and Barnes: 5 in 31. You simply cannot say these Hull guys are not scoring enough, while saying one of the reasons Burnley will stay up is because Boyd and Barnes score goals. You should have just used Ings as your example if you were going to go down that route and even he is struggling for goals currently.
However, I give you a lot of credit how you dissected the Hull vs Burnley game. With the history of the past games you have displayed, you have made an incredibly strong case that Burnley will be the victors in this tie.
Overall, you've made 2 very strong points against Hull and their chances. But they were also some contradictions and inconsistencies in this debate.
BkB Hulk
First of all, I wanted to test your theory that Burnley’s form right now is as bad as the beginning of the season where they went a while without finding a win. I did it on the basis of the first 6 games and the last 6 games (from when the debate was completed). In the first 6 games, Burnley grabbed 3 points (3 draws and 3 losses). In the last 6 games (from the time the debate was completed), Burnley have amassed 4 points (1 win, 1 draw and 4 losses). So they’re 1 point better off, but yes, the form is very similar. What is exactly the same is that they have only scored one goal in those two sets of six games, which is very worrying. Good research.
You made a rather good point in noting that even though Hull are in worst form, at the current rate, they’d still be ahead of Burnley. Hull have a +10 GD (the time the debate was completed) on Burnely, which in itself is an extra point in this situation, meaning Burnley would have to get at least a point more in the final six games of the season than they did in the last six games. So yes, when looking at the current form guide, Burnley would be the ones to go down.
I don’t think it helps you to mention Defoe and N’Doye’s as goal sources for Sunderland and Hull respectively. Defoe has 2 goals in 8 league games. That’s a goal every four games. By my calculations, that means if he keeps up the trend he will only score 1 or 2 more goals this season. That may not be enough. N’Doye has 3 goals from 9 games. That’s 1 goal every 3 games. That could mean he only scores 2 more goals this season if the trend continues. So I don’t think any of the three teams has a real advantage over the other one when it comes to goal scorers.
When you brought up fixturing, you failed to note that Hull have the most difficult run in. They still have to play Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham. That is a lot harder than what Burnley have left.
On Burnley’s fixtures you note they only have 2 games at home and 4 away. But this season they have won 14 points at home and 12 points away. Not a massive difference here, so is that a big slight against them? I'm not convinced it is.
You have also undersold Burnley’s chances in the Hull vs Burnley fixture. They have history on their side when it comes to this fixture. Burnley have won in their last 4 visits to the KC Stadium. They also beat Hull at Turf Moore this season. It was their first league win of the season after a run of 10 games without a win. Burnley have a massive chance of winning here.
Overall, they were some good bits and some that weren't so good. I would have liked to see you give more counter arguments for the other teams though. I get the angle of your debate is showing how slim Burnley chances are, but the other two are in such poor form themselves, that I think the balance of this debate is a but lopsided. Good effort though.
Verdict: After reading both debates, I was more convinced that Burnley would go down. I'm giving the win to Curry, because his points on why Burnley's slim chances to survive, trumped the other's debaters points on Hull's slim chances.
Andre
Curry:
I wasn't convinced by your Sunderland section at all. Claiming Wickham is a good goal scorer was odd, especially when you panned those with similar records to him this season. You also failed to dismiss their tough run in (excluding the Leicester game). Claiming Sunderland will have no problem scoring the required goals is generally baffling as that has been their problem all season. The clean sheets point is better, although they've only taken 16 points with those ten clean sheets, which isn't as great as you portray it.
The Hull dismissal is much better. Their run in is clearly awful, while they lack potent goal scorers (although N'Doye has 5 in 10 as I write this, so there's a flaw with your argument about goal droughts).
Burnley's run in is obviously much "easier", but this overlooks how two of Burnley's five wins have been against sides that are ninth or above. In fact, Burnley have the worst results in the league vs bottom half sides. Giving credit to Boyd and Barnes as goal scorers is just as odd as giving this to Wickham, especially when the difference is marginal compared to some of Hull's scorers. You also ignored how Ings and Barnes have had goal droughts, which is dodgy considering you lamented Hull for similar.
The Hull/Burnley match history was really cute, but deeper tactical analysis as to why Burnley will continue to be Hull's bogey team would have enhanced this. The point about Burnley maybe only needing to draw this game is okay, but overlooks the point about Burnley's form vs dross sides. B also countered this by pointing out Burnley only have two home games left.
This was pretty average overall. There were too many double standards involved, plus exaggerated claims. However, you at least managed to convince me that Hull have it tough.
BkB Hulk:
This is really well written, but the intro is long winded without really making a strong point.
Your suggestion that Burnley have never looked like getting out of the relegation zone would have been strengthened if you had pointed out they were just as poor against bottom half sides as top half sides. This would have also enhanced your point about their recent form where they've played lots of good sides (well, good in terms of the premier league, which is shit) which Curry showed. The point about Burnley's form line failing to catch up with the stagnant Hull would have also been improved by this, seeing as Hull have a rough run in and Burnley are playing supposedly easier fixtures. You failed to dismiss Hull's fixtures too, unlike Curry. They have four top seven sides left to face and have a dreadful record against these teams so far this season.
The use of goals scored in recent games isn't much better than Curry's similar arguments about which teams are more likely to score, if I'm being honest. All I've seen from the pair of you is that all three teams have shit "goal scorers". Four and three goals against mediocre opposition isn't really much better than 1 against mostly top half teams. Showing how both Hull and Sunderland strengthened in January, while Burnley didn't, is superior and at least shows how they've got potential to improve, unlike Burnley.
The point about Burnley only having two home games left is very good, but would be great with the added stats of their 18 home points compared to 8 away points. This would have also tied in to the idea that Burnley still have to go away to Hull, where a defeat might relegate them. Curry made a decent counter here by arguing Burnley are Hull's bogey team.
This had some good potential, but felt a tad hollow due to the lack of extra depth needed to solidify certain points that ended up being a bit throwaway.
Neither of these debates were great to be honest. However, I'm voting for Curry. BkB Hulk didn't really convince me that one team was definitely much worse off than the others, whereas Curry did with his arguments against Hull. It's funny, because I'm certain that Burnley are the most fucked, but that's just the way it goes :shrug
Curry - I actually found the background part including the fixtures list in a table really helpful here so props for including that. The biggest flaw of this is definitely how quickly you rule out Sunderland like it's just a given they'll stay up. Your argument for them is fine but it hurts you when you're comparing Hull and Burnley directly but not Sunderland. I get that word counts make it tough but it's definitely possible to do better than a quick paragraph at the start and out. "a team filled with players like Connor Wickham and Jermain Defoe who are capable of scoring goals and winning games" feels way too empty with nothing to back it up. The clean sheets stat was a good way of manipulating the fact that their goals conceded stat is worse than Hull's and not much better than Burnley's so that was good. The Hull arguments are really good. The argument regarding their remaining schedule is real good and their lack of goals was really well done too. Maybe add a line about how at this stage draws won't be enough for Hull and wins require goals. Burnley part again is very good. I thought you missed a great argument here in that Burnley have a lot of fixtures against teams who won't have anything to really play for. Everton, West Ham and Stoke are all pretty much done for the season now and Villa likely will be the last day too which obviously helps Burnley a lot and is arguably better than facing teams around them also fighting for survival. Use of the form table was really good though. Point about Burnley having more goals than Sunderland and Hull was strong too and served really well as a counter against BkB Hulk. As did the very valid explanation for Burnley's recent poor form and quite frankly 5 points vs all of the top 8 in 8 games is a good return. The Burnley vs Hull part was definitely weaker. The H2H stats really don't mean much. The fact they won the reverse fixture is a fine argument but the rest of the matches are going back at least 2 seasons when it's fair to say both teams were very different and even in a different league. H2H's only really mean something if they're featuring largely the same team or managers going H2H with distinct ways of playing, e.g. A is able to counter B's style of play every time with whatever players he fields. For the weakest part of your entry this used up too much word count too and is where you needed to pay Sunderland more attention. You've convinced me Burnley will climb over Hull but will Hull climb over Sunderland? That part is still left a bit misty. Outside of that though this had a lot of very strong arguments and only really missed out on one good one that I mentioned. Good stuff.
BkB Hulk - That opening paragraph is really long. I assumed with how long it was that what you said would come into play during your debate but it really didn't so it was just a super long intro that wasn't at all needed. The argument against their form is really poor analysis and Curry counters it nicely by bringing up the obvious about the level of quality they're facing in that run. Because they lose to the top 8 they'll go down? That doesn't work when they don't face any more of the top 8 this season. It looks even worse when you then show how neither Sunderland nor Hull have picked up more points from their last 6 despite facing much easier competition. Curry had you countered here anyway but you then essentially counter yourself by showing how Burnley's current form isn't even bad relative to the other two picks. The idea that the points per game rate will continue given the disparity in who Hull and Burnley each face was a tad mad. The goal difference argument works but only if you show that Burnley won't catch Hull which you didn't. Goals argument is countered nicely by Curry too. Ok Burnley aren't scoring big right now but that's easily explained by who they're facing and Hull and Sunderland are both struggling for goals. Not sure what the January arrivals point made as Hull and Sunderland's form hasn't improved much since then. N'Doye going over 400 minutes since his last goal counters his effect nicely too. Using the fixture schedule against Burley was odd as it quite clearly favours them. If you're going to argue that Burnley's lack of home fixtures will be a factor then you need to show that their away form is just terrible regardless of who they face. Home fixtures are nice but are Hull more likely to beat Arsenal at home than Burnley are to beat a Villa/West Ham team with nothing to play for away from home? A win for Hull puts them out of reach of Burnley? It puts them 5 clear and they're favourites to lose every other game this season. Also 3 points ahead is already almost out of reach? What? It's just strange how little credit you give to Burnley and the remaining fixtures they have. It's almost like you thought they had Hull's fixtures and only saw one game they had a decent chance of picking up a win meaning one point for Hull would likely see Burnley down. The analysis here was poor and even if Curry hadn't repeatedly and effectively countered much of what you said, your reasoning didn't really hold up anyway.
Winner - Curry
Joel
Curry
First of all, I would have liked to see a little but more depth of why Sunderland is ruled out on going down, since you went down the route of saying why you don’t believe they will. You mention those key players, but the game after a morale boosting derby win vs Newcastle, they were hammered on their home patch by a side that were already safe and not really playing for anything. You cite Defoe and Wickham, but Defoe has 2 goals in 8 league games, Wickham has 4 goals in 30 league games… They’re hardly showing enough to guarantee safety right now.
I like the research you have done that shows Hull's struggles in picking up points against the teams above them and that they have to play 4 of the most inform teams in their fine 6 games. This strengthens your case about Hull going down. However, you also mention they have trouble scoring, but then go on to say that one of the reasons Burnley have a better chance to stay up is because of their goal scorers. Yet Burnley has scored fewer goals than Hull…
Something you also say is that Burnley's struggles in the past few weeks has been because they have played top sides. But this season, Burnley have seemed to pick up quite a few points against the top sides; a win and draw vs Manchester City, a draw at Chelsea, a draw vs Manchester United, a draw vs Tottenham and a win vs Southamptopn. That's 10 points and they have 26 points, which means more than a third of their points have come against teams in the top 7. So it may be a bit inaccurate to say their current position is to do with the opposition they have faced in the past few weeks.
Abel Hernandez: 4 in 22, N'Doye: 3 in 9, Boyd: 5 in 30 and Barnes: 5 in 31. You simply cannot say these Hull guys are not scoring enough, while saying one of the reasons Burnley will stay up is because Boyd and Barnes score goals. You should have just used Ings as your example if you were going to go down that route and even he is struggling for goals currently.
However, I give you a lot of credit how you dissected the Hull vs Burnley game. With the history of the past games you have displayed, you have made an incredibly strong case that Burnley will be the victors in this tie.
Overall, you've made 2 very strong points against Hull and their chances. But they were also some contradictions and inconsistencies in this debate.
BkB Hulk
First of all, I wanted to test your theory that Burnley’s form right now is as bad as the beginning of the season where they went a while without finding a win. I did it on the basis of the first 6 games and the last 6 games (from when the debate was completed). In the first 6 games, Burnley grabbed 3 points (3 draws and 3 losses). In the last 6 games (from the time the debate was completed), Burnley have amassed 4 points (1 win, 1 draw and 4 losses). So they’re 1 point better off, but yes, the form is very similar. What is exactly the same is that they have only scored one goal in those two sets of six games, which is very worrying. Good research.
You made a rather good point in noting that even though Hull are in worst form, at the current rate, they’d still be ahead of Burnley. Hull have a +10 GD (the time the debate was completed) on Burnely, which in itself is an extra point in this situation, meaning Burnley would have to get at least a point more in the final six games of the season than they did in the last six games. So yes, when looking at the current form guide, Burnley would be the ones to go down.
I don’t think it helps you to mention Defoe and N’Doye’s as goal sources for Sunderland and Hull respectively. Defoe has 2 goals in 8 league games. That’s a goal every four games. By my calculations, that means if he keeps up the trend he will only score 1 or 2 more goals this season. That may not be enough. N’Doye has 3 goals from 9 games. That’s 1 goal every 3 games. That could mean he only scores 2 more goals this season if the trend continues. So I don’t think any of the three teams has a real advantage over the other one when it comes to goal scorers.
When you brought up fixturing, you failed to note that Hull have the most difficult run in. They still have to play Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham. That is a lot harder than what Burnley have left.
On Burnley’s fixtures you note they only have 2 games at home and 4 away. But this season they have won 14 points at home and 12 points away. Not a massive difference here, so is that a big slight against them? I'm not convinced it is.
You have also undersold Burnley’s chances in the Hull vs Burnley fixture. They have history on their side when it comes to this fixture. Burnley have won in their last 4 visits to the KC Stadium. They also beat Hull at Turf Moore this season. It was their first league win of the season after a run of 10 games without a win. Burnley have a massive chance of winning here.
Overall, they were some good bits and some that weren't so good. I would have liked to see you give more counter arguments for the other teams though. I get the angle of your debate is showing how slim Burnley chances are, but the other two are in such poor form themselves, that I think the balance of this debate is a but lopsided. Good effort though.
Verdict: After reading both debates, I was more convinced that Burnley would go down. I'm giving the win to Curry, because his points on why Burnley's slim chances to survive, trumped the other's debaters points on Hull's slim chances.
Andre
Curry:
I wasn't convinced by your Sunderland section at all. Claiming Wickham is a good goal scorer was odd, especially when you panned those with similar records to him this season. You also failed to dismiss their tough run in (excluding the Leicester game). Claiming Sunderland will have no problem scoring the required goals is generally baffling as that has been their problem all season. The clean sheets point is better, although they've only taken 16 points with those ten clean sheets, which isn't as great as you portray it.
The Hull dismissal is much better. Their run in is clearly awful, while they lack potent goal scorers (although N'Doye has 5 in 10 as I write this, so there's a flaw with your argument about goal droughts).
Burnley's run in is obviously much "easier", but this overlooks how two of Burnley's five wins have been against sides that are ninth or above. In fact, Burnley have the worst results in the league vs bottom half sides. Giving credit to Boyd and Barnes as goal scorers is just as odd as giving this to Wickham, especially when the difference is marginal compared to some of Hull's scorers. You also ignored how Ings and Barnes have had goal droughts, which is dodgy considering you lamented Hull for similar.
The Hull/Burnley match history was really cute, but deeper tactical analysis as to why Burnley will continue to be Hull's bogey team would have enhanced this. The point about Burnley maybe only needing to draw this game is okay, but overlooks the point about Burnley's form vs dross sides. B also countered this by pointing out Burnley only have two home games left.
This was pretty average overall. There were too many double standards involved, plus exaggerated claims. However, you at least managed to convince me that Hull have it tough.
BkB Hulk:
This is really well written, but the intro is long winded without really making a strong point.
Your suggestion that Burnley have never looked like getting out of the relegation zone would have been strengthened if you had pointed out they were just as poor against bottom half sides as top half sides. This would have also enhanced your point about their recent form where they've played lots of good sides (well, good in terms of the premier league, which is shit) which Curry showed. The point about Burnley's form line failing to catch up with the stagnant Hull would have also been improved by this, seeing as Hull have a rough run in and Burnley are playing supposedly easier fixtures. You failed to dismiss Hull's fixtures too, unlike Curry. They have four top seven sides left to face and have a dreadful record against these teams so far this season.
The use of goals scored in recent games isn't much better than Curry's similar arguments about which teams are more likely to score, if I'm being honest. All I've seen from the pair of you is that all three teams have shit "goal scorers". Four and three goals against mediocre opposition isn't really much better than 1 against mostly top half teams. Showing how both Hull and Sunderland strengthened in January, while Burnley didn't, is superior and at least shows how they've got potential to improve, unlike Burnley.
The point about Burnley only having two home games left is very good, but would be great with the added stats of their 18 home points compared to 8 away points. This would have also tied in to the idea that Burnley still have to go away to Hull, where a defeat might relegate them. Curry made a decent counter here by arguing Burnley are Hull's bogey team.
This had some good potential, but felt a tad hollow due to the lack of extra depth needed to solidify certain points that ended up being a bit throwaway.
Neither of these debates were great to be honest. However, I'm voting for Curry. BkB Hulk didn't really convince me that one team was definitely much worse off than the others, whereas Curry did with his arguments against Hull. It's funny, because I'm certain that Burnley are the most fucked, but that's just the way it goes :shrug
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Curry
M-Diggedy vs samizayn
Which is the more career defining role for Harrison Ford: Han Solo or Indiana Jones?
M-Diggedy vs samizayn
Which is the more career defining role for Harrison Ford: Han Solo or Indiana Jones?
samizayn
The personal gain that comes from participating in a movie has means indicated far beyond monetary wealth. Intangible benefits such as recognition, legitimacy and further opportunity are equally as important in determining which roles have been pivotal and career defining to any one actor’s career. While Harrison Ford is equally known in both famous movie roles, it is obvious that all of those intangible benefits were boosted significantly more from his time doing Indiana Jones than it ever was for Star Wars.
It’s very rare for an actor of any kind to ever fully move away from his first big role, and Harrison Ford as Han Solo is no different. The original movie is coming on to 40 years old, yet the fandom surrounding the whole series means it is still relevant, to the extent that filming for the latest installment in the Star Wars series is ongoing even today. While some actors hate being the persistent association between them and a particular character they play, Ford clearly relishes the fact, and is donning the role of Han Solo right now as he films for this latest upcoming installment. The role has plagued him in a sense, as he demonstrated in a spoof sketch during a Jimmy Kimmel live interview. Star Wars became so popular that it spawned an entire subculture, and while it is obviously exciting being a part of the universally recognised film series, it can also become a bit much.
To be fair to Indiana Jones, it too is a movie franchise that has likewise become a brand name of its own. Ford reprived the Jones role as recently as 2008 as the genuine leading man of the movie, and the $786m intake for the film showed that neither Ford or the Indiana Jones name had lost the ability to be legitimate box office draws. Indiana Jones is a staple of the adventure film genre, and it would not have become such without Ford’s input; to carry that responsibility for a series as well known as this is without question a significant feather in the cap of Harrison Ford. Accomplishing this gives more legitimacy to Ford’s career, even though the cultural impact of the films is nowhere near reaching the magnitude of Star Wars’.
The overwhelming popularity of Star Wars would then indicate that Ford’s role as Han Solo is unquestionably his most career defining. However, that fails to consider the crucial contingent factor of pecking order. The concept is very common in the entertainment industries: pro wrestling sees upper midcarders play second fiddle to main eventers and eventually faces of the company as a rule, for example. The movie industry is no different, and this is where the pecking order comes into play. Han Solo to Star Wars is Randy Orton to WWE. A reliable star that floats around in the #2 or #3 spot, but always secondary, and never a John Cena, and never a Luke Skywalker.
In contrast, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. He is the franchise, and he is that face of the product. A product which, thanks to Ford, became one of the top twenty highest grossing film franchises of all time.
Star Wars is even more successful as one of the top ten all time, but Harrison Ford did not carry the franchise as Han Solo and that is the reason why the role of Han Solo is not as defining to Harrison Ford's career as Indiana Jones was. When looking on the career of any actor, the individual accomplishments always trump the group efforts. This is especially true for two series where the gap in success is as relatively negligible as it is here: had Ford spearheaded the Revenge of the Nerds series, for example, it would be more difficult to make that claim. But the lead role of a legendary film series would be anyone's career defining role, and Harrison Ford is no different in that regard.
sources
http://www.filmsite.org/series-boxoffice.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0vs9gYydo
M-Diggedy
Han Solo vs. Indiana Jones - the two popular culture heavyweights of Harrison Ford’s career. As both characters are synonymous with the 72-year-old actor, opinion will always be split between fans over which character best defines Ford’s legendary acting career. Is it the whip-cracking, fedora-adorned Indiana Jones? Or is it the wise-cracking, spaceship-flying Han Solo?
These debates are often tedious affairs, with emotion and opinion taking centre stage over facts and statistics. Admittedly, the concept of legacy can never be entirely objective, but that does not mean that statistical analysis should not assist the use of logic and reasoning in answering the question.
With that in mind, I hope to use the overarching concept of legacy together with statistics to illustrate why it is Han Solo, not Indiana Jones, that most defines the career of Harrison Ford.
I believe that there are two important factors that help define an acting career; having the opportunity to influence the masses as well as how that opportunity is used. The three criteria shown below largely show that the original Star Wars trilogy was more successful than the four Indiana Jones movies. The point this emphasises is that the character of Han Solo therefore had more of a chance to become a career defining role than that of Indiana Jones.
1) The first criterion that supports this assertion is the box office performance (all figures adjusted for inflation) for the films containing Indiana Jones and Han Solo. The four Indiana Jones films have made a combined total $1,952,622,000 at the box office. While this remains one of the most lucrative franchises of all time it still suffers in comparison to the three Star Wars movies that Ford starred in. The original trilogy of Star Wars movies made a staggering $3,073,358,300. In simpler terms, three Star Wars movies made 1.574 times the amount of money as four Indiana Jones movies.
2) Beyond the financial success of the movies, it is clear that the Han Solo films are better regarded than the Indiana Jones films. According to IMDb, the four Indiana Jones films have an average rating of 7.675. Again, this is impressive but it is overshadowed by the 8.63 average rating enjoyed by the Star Wars original trilogy.
3) To complement the above statistic, it is pertinent to add that the Star Wars films have been reviewed far more often than the Indiana Jones films. The latter series has been reviewed 1551702 times at an average of 387925 times per film. Yet again this is dwarfed by the original Star Wars trilogy which has been reviewed 1929835 times, or an average of 643278 reviews for each Han Solo film – a clear indication of the larger platform Star Wars represents.
While I appreciate that this does not definitively answer the question of which character defines Ford’s career, I do believe that it goes a long way towards it. By showing that the films involving Han Solo were more successful financially and in popularity, it is clear that Han Solo had a greater chance to define Ford’s career than Indiana Jones.
At this stage, I suspect many people would counter that Indiana Jones is the titular (and most prominent) character whereas Han Solo is not. While true, I feel that the importance of this fact to the debate is negligible; and here’s why. Firstly, history has shown that a so called supporting character can steal the show. Take Heath Ledger, for example. He starred in Brokeback Mountain and Casanova but his supporting performance as the Joker will always defines his career. The list goes on, with Christophe Waltz, Javier Bardem and Christian Bale showing that a supporting performance can be career defining if it is sufficiently acclaimed; surely true in the case of Harrison’s performance as Han Solo.
Ford’s portrayal of Han Solo within an ensemble cast makes the character’s enduring popularity all the more remarkable. Not only is Han Solo embedded in modern pop culture (Han shot first), he is also widely considered to be the standout character in the Star Wars series alongside Darth Vader. So much so, both Huffington Post and Empire magazine have named Solo as the best character of the entire franchise.
That said, I am willing to admit that there are many people out there who find Dr. Jones to be the more relatable/enjoyable character. However, even the most ardent Indiana Jones fan would likely admit that the two characters are closely matched in public opinion. Thus, the larger platform available to Solo via Star Wars must negate any hypothetical benefit Indiana Jones would receive through his popularity.
In the end, it comes down to the simple premise of; the more you are seen, the more you will be remembered. For that reason, above all else, Han Solo defines Harrison Ford.
References
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=indianajones.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwars.htm
www.imdb.com
http://www.empireonline.com/features/30-star-wars-characters/p30
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/star-wars-character-rankings_n_6368818.html
The personal gain that comes from participating in a movie has means indicated far beyond monetary wealth. Intangible benefits such as recognition, legitimacy and further opportunity are equally as important in determining which roles have been pivotal and career defining to any one actor’s career. While Harrison Ford is equally known in both famous movie roles, it is obvious that all of those intangible benefits were boosted significantly more from his time doing Indiana Jones than it ever was for Star Wars.
It’s very rare for an actor of any kind to ever fully move away from his first big role, and Harrison Ford as Han Solo is no different. The original movie is coming on to 40 years old, yet the fandom surrounding the whole series means it is still relevant, to the extent that filming for the latest installment in the Star Wars series is ongoing even today. While some actors hate being the persistent association between them and a particular character they play, Ford clearly relishes the fact, and is donning the role of Han Solo right now as he films for this latest upcoming installment. The role has plagued him in a sense, as he demonstrated in a spoof sketch during a Jimmy Kimmel live interview. Star Wars became so popular that it spawned an entire subculture, and while it is obviously exciting being a part of the universally recognised film series, it can also become a bit much.
To be fair to Indiana Jones, it too is a movie franchise that has likewise become a brand name of its own. Ford reprived the Jones role as recently as 2008 as the genuine leading man of the movie, and the $786m intake for the film showed that neither Ford or the Indiana Jones name had lost the ability to be legitimate box office draws. Indiana Jones is a staple of the adventure film genre, and it would not have become such without Ford’s input; to carry that responsibility for a series as well known as this is without question a significant feather in the cap of Harrison Ford. Accomplishing this gives more legitimacy to Ford’s career, even though the cultural impact of the films is nowhere near reaching the magnitude of Star Wars’.
The overwhelming popularity of Star Wars would then indicate that Ford’s role as Han Solo is unquestionably his most career defining. However, that fails to consider the crucial contingent factor of pecking order. The concept is very common in the entertainment industries: pro wrestling sees upper midcarders play second fiddle to main eventers and eventually faces of the company as a rule, for example. The movie industry is no different, and this is where the pecking order comes into play. Han Solo to Star Wars is Randy Orton to WWE. A reliable star that floats around in the #2 or #3 spot, but always secondary, and never a John Cena, and never a Luke Skywalker.
In contrast, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. He is the franchise, and he is that face of the product. A product which, thanks to Ford, became one of the top twenty highest grossing film franchises of all time.
Star Wars is even more successful as one of the top ten all time, but Harrison Ford did not carry the franchise as Han Solo and that is the reason why the role of Han Solo is not as defining to Harrison Ford's career as Indiana Jones was. When looking on the career of any actor, the individual accomplishments always trump the group efforts. This is especially true for two series where the gap in success is as relatively negligible as it is here: had Ford spearheaded the Revenge of the Nerds series, for example, it would be more difficult to make that claim. But the lead role of a legendary film series would be anyone's career defining role, and Harrison Ford is no different in that regard.
sources
http://www.filmsite.org/series-boxoffice.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0vs9gYydo
M-Diggedy
Han Solo vs. Indiana Jones - the two popular culture heavyweights of Harrison Ford’s career. As both characters are synonymous with the 72-year-old actor, opinion will always be split between fans over which character best defines Ford’s legendary acting career. Is it the whip-cracking, fedora-adorned Indiana Jones? Or is it the wise-cracking, spaceship-flying Han Solo?
These debates are often tedious affairs, with emotion and opinion taking centre stage over facts and statistics. Admittedly, the concept of legacy can never be entirely objective, but that does not mean that statistical analysis should not assist the use of logic and reasoning in answering the question.
With that in mind, I hope to use the overarching concept of legacy together with statistics to illustrate why it is Han Solo, not Indiana Jones, that most defines the career of Harrison Ford.
I believe that there are two important factors that help define an acting career; having the opportunity to influence the masses as well as how that opportunity is used. The three criteria shown below largely show that the original Star Wars trilogy was more successful than the four Indiana Jones movies. The point this emphasises is that the character of Han Solo therefore had more of a chance to become a career defining role than that of Indiana Jones.
1) The first criterion that supports this assertion is the box office performance (all figures adjusted for inflation) for the films containing Indiana Jones and Han Solo. The four Indiana Jones films have made a combined total $1,952,622,000 at the box office. While this remains one of the most lucrative franchises of all time it still suffers in comparison to the three Star Wars movies that Ford starred in. The original trilogy of Star Wars movies made a staggering $3,073,358,300. In simpler terms, three Star Wars movies made 1.574 times the amount of money as four Indiana Jones movies.
2) Beyond the financial success of the movies, it is clear that the Han Solo films are better regarded than the Indiana Jones films. According to IMDb, the four Indiana Jones films have an average rating of 7.675. Again, this is impressive but it is overshadowed by the 8.63 average rating enjoyed by the Star Wars original trilogy.
3) To complement the above statistic, it is pertinent to add that the Star Wars films have been reviewed far more often than the Indiana Jones films. The latter series has been reviewed 1551702 times at an average of 387925 times per film. Yet again this is dwarfed by the original Star Wars trilogy which has been reviewed 1929835 times, or an average of 643278 reviews for each Han Solo film – a clear indication of the larger platform Star Wars represents.
While I appreciate that this does not definitively answer the question of which character defines Ford’s career, I do believe that it goes a long way towards it. By showing that the films involving Han Solo were more successful financially and in popularity, it is clear that Han Solo had a greater chance to define Ford’s career than Indiana Jones.
At this stage, I suspect many people would counter that Indiana Jones is the titular (and most prominent) character whereas Han Solo is not. While true, I feel that the importance of this fact to the debate is negligible; and here’s why. Firstly, history has shown that a so called supporting character can steal the show. Take Heath Ledger, for example. He starred in Brokeback Mountain and Casanova but his supporting performance as the Joker will always defines his career. The list goes on, with Christophe Waltz, Javier Bardem and Christian Bale showing that a supporting performance can be career defining if it is sufficiently acclaimed; surely true in the case of Harrison’s performance as Han Solo.
Ford’s portrayal of Han Solo within an ensemble cast makes the character’s enduring popularity all the more remarkable. Not only is Han Solo embedded in modern pop culture (Han shot first), he is also widely considered to be the standout character in the Star Wars series alongside Darth Vader. So much so, both Huffington Post and Empire magazine have named Solo as the best character of the entire franchise.
That said, I am willing to admit that there are many people out there who find Dr. Jones to be the more relatable/enjoyable character. However, even the most ardent Indiana Jones fan would likely admit that the two characters are closely matched in public opinion. Thus, the larger platform available to Solo via Star Wars must negate any hypothetical benefit Indiana Jones would receive through his popularity.
In the end, it comes down to the simple premise of; the more you are seen, the more you will be remembered. For that reason, above all else, Han Solo defines Harrison Ford.
References
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=indianajones.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwars.htm
www.imdb.com
http://www.empireonline.com/features/30-star-wars-characters/p30
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/star-wars-character-rankings_n_6368818.html
Bearodactyl
Debate A
I like how you try and fleshen out the term “career defining role” right off the bat. On repeated reading I’m not fully sold on the remainder of the paragraph though. Simply stating that Indiana Jones did more for his further opportunity than Star Wars, to me at least, isn’t a given. So although it reads away nicely, I’m missing a “why”. Hopefully though, this will be made clear in the remainder of the debate.
The second paragraph is very well written but you spend an awful lot of time in the windup seemingly bigging up Star Wars, and even though you get around to the downside of Ford’s Han Solo role, what stays with me after reading repeatedly is that it indeed WAS a big deal.
The third paragraph in that respect does a lot more for solidifying the clame that Indy was the career defining role, but you experience a “liar, liar” moment in the last sentence when you again big up Star Wars for what seems to be no particular debating reason other than to be unnecessarily honest.
I think the point of a “pecking order” somewhat hits home, though I’m not sure about the WWE themed comparison tactic. Movies aren’t Wrestling, and I can name a TON of movies where leading characters are a lot less praised than their male or female supporting actor.
You then almost hit it fully home with me by pointing out the success of Indiana Jones, but for reasons unknown to me you immediately start the next paragraph pointing out Star Wars was even bigger. Why the repeated self sabotage?
Anyway, it all eventually seems to come down to leading role vs supporting role in this debate. I like the concluding sentence, but I’m not fully convinced. That being said, you haven’t fully lost me either, so I guess the ball’s in M-Diggedy’s court.
M-Diggedy
I’m slightly less impressed by this intro than samizayn’s, and I’ll tell you why. You’re not making an immediate impact. The first two paragraphs in, and all I really know is you’re trying to use logic and reasoning to answer a debate question. You then finally reveal your pick, but 137 words just to reveal a choice is a tad much for me, especially compared to samizayn’s quick opening stance.
The first sentence in what is the main part of your debate, and it must just be me but I don’t really.. get… what you’re saying at first. You talk about two factors that help define an acting career (note: not the same as a career defining ROLE) and then immediately start talking about three criteria right after which is slightly confusing. I do kind of see the connection, but it’s far from hammered home, until I start reading the following parts and it all eventually comes together for me. I end up agreeing with the point you realistically make of “it might not be the bloody knife with fingerprints on it, but it certainly makes it more likely”.
You then do yourself a giant favor by taking on the bread and butter of samizayn’s debate, namely the leading role vs supporting role conundrum. Your examples are spot on, and by the end of this paragraph I’m really starting to lean your way debate wise.
The end of this debate is a bit of a letdown for me unfortunately, in that I don’t see the point of your “negated benefit” argument (What benefit? I’m honestly not sure why you would postulate Indy being the more relatable character. Shades of samizayn’s selfsabotage all over again). And the final sentence somehow takes my “well I guess it IS Han Solo after all” mindset and breaks it down to one (fairly unconvincing on its own) argument, namely “the movie was bigger, more people saw it, therefore that was the part”. I honestly would’ve been more convinced without it, which is a shame.
Final Verdict
Both of these debates seem very convincing at first read, but then upon closer inspection somewhat fail to fully deliver. In the end however, after more than just a few readthroughs, it’s M-Diggedy that convinces me of its premis the most (be happy you added that Ledger/Waltz etc comparison) so I’m going to go with M-Diggedy.
BkB Hulk
samizayn:
This debate had good bits, but it also felt like you strayed away from what your crucial arguments were at times.
You gave criteria that you seemed to be using as crucial to your argument, but the further opportunity point never came back up, and recognition only just reappeared at the close of the debate.
I also thought the paragraph about how big Star Wars was didn’t really serve you well. It kind of put a point forward for Star Wars, but didn’t really do anything for you.
The face of the product argument is probably your strongest, as the other one is decent, but also recognises Star Wars’ strong points in the argument.
The conclusion was solid too, but I think you would have been overall better served by sticking to what seemed to be your original structure.
M-Diggedy:
The stats you used to show Star Wars had a greater reach were okay. I’m not sure it’s entirely convincing, as you would say the reach between the two movies probably doesn’t differ that much, and that most people would certainly be aware of both. They did work for your argument though.
I think what was better was you explained why Jones being the title character wasn’t as important as it could be seen. It doesn’t completely negate your opponent’s point, because it still feels like a factor and this is all purely opinion-based, but it does provide a counter.
I wasn’t overly convinced by this debate either – although you tried to eliminate opinion, it’s still very hard to factually back up what you’re saying, and the amount grossed doesn’t really seem to directly relate to whether something is ‘career defining’ when both films have such reach. This was the main premise of your argument too.
Not overly convinced either way, but samizayn narrowly wins for me on the back of their recognition argument.
Anark
samizayn
I liked that you established the wider indicators of a career-defining role, “…recognition, legitimacy and further opportunity are equally as important in determining which roles have been pivotal and career defining…” but you don’t really do enough in the rest of your debate to justify Jones over Solo according to these indicators. The first one you mention is also an issue, recognition, as there’s no way Ford would have got the Jones role had he not previously played Solo.
Your second paragraph didn’t really help your stance in any way. It began well and with a potential argument that could have had huge impact in this match (that an actor’s first big role is hard to move on from, but Ford managed it) but you don’t actually tie this in to Ford managing to escape the Solo role via his efforts in the Jones films. You shine a little light on the possible negatives the Star Wars fandom can bring, but that doesn’t really help your stance, and it shows the Star Wars role had more cultural impact if anything.
The third paragraph again lingers on issues which don’t really advance your case all that much. Sure, the Indiana Jones franchise is one of the best and Ford had a lot to do with that, but it’s not more successful than the Star Wars franchise which Ford also had a lot to do with. I don’t really see the relevancy to your stance in bringing this particular point up. Where you could have gone with this paragraph, and you very nearly did go, was to show how much input Ford had with both roles, assuming he had much more influence on the Jones character than he did on the Solo character. You just mention it in an off-hand manner though without backing it up with further information regarding his input into both characters.
Your next point is good, though now I feel like the previous two paragraphs were just a set-up for this point about Solo being a secondary character to Jones’ main character. It’s a good point, but you took a long time to make it. In fact, it’s pretty much the only argument you make, that Ford was the leading man in the Indiana films and thus that’s why it’s his most defining role. It’s a very good argument but I can think of so many counters to it already (lead roles do not always define an actor, and supporting roles often steal the show regardless of billing order, etc), though it’s up to your opponent to make them.
The debate was a good read though, it just could have done with a lot more focus on supporting arguments rather than setting of the scene and supplementary information that is ultimately irrelevant to your chosen stance, which was all the first half of your debate consisted of. Really good effort though, you just need to focus on including more relevant arguments that back up your stance.
M-Diggedy
Quick note before I get into it, with only 800 words to put your arguments across, I felt that your opening paragraph was a complete waste. It didn’t advance your stance or even declare your stance. It was a nice paragraph, don’t get me wrong, but you would have been better served to get your stance declared earlier allowing you to beef up an argument with additional information or even include an extra argument supporting your stance. Having said all that, it didn't damage you this time as your opponent left their debate open to an attack you executed perfectly.
Your main argument is that Star Wars is the bigger franchise and thus is the more defining role, and this debate would have been a lot harder to decide on if you had left it at that. However you did include some additional arguments, including a sexy counter for your opponent’s only argument of note.
Your definition of how to define an actor’s career was a bit wishy-washy in so far as it didn’t make it very clear what the defining factors were. “…having the opportunity to influence the masses…” is fairly obvious I suppose but “…as well as how that opportunity is used.” Doesn’t really tell me a lot. Do you mean how well the actor acted once given the opportunity to influence the masses? How well the PR company promoted the movie? It’s not a major issue as your debate really takes off after this, but it stuck out to me as a little underwhelming and might have been punished by an opponent with a wider variety of arguments than yours had.
The three criteria section was pretty good, laying out exactly how much more successful the three Star Wars films were to the four Jones films was fine, but was also well supplemented by the additional information regarding viewer ratings and review ratio. It painted a grander picture of Star Wars’ impact rather than just the money made at the box office (which, as we know these days, is not undeniable as an indicator of quality). You then tie in this information with your original definition of what defines an actor’s career which is something your opponent didn’t quite manage.
I chuckled heartily at your next paragraph, beginning with, “At this stage, I suspect many people would counter that Indiana Jones is the titular (and most prominent) character whereas Han Solo is not.” Because that’s exactly what your opponent did. You picked pretty much the perfect example of a supporting role that can define an actor’s career above their lead roles with Heath Ledger. Your next point about Ford shining brightest among an ensemble cast was also spot on.
This was pretty good overall, though had a few dodgy moments that I mentioned. Not a lot of criticism to make as you cut off your opponent’s main argument and surrounded it with multiple arguments which he failed to counter. Good job.
VERDICT
The winner is M-Diggedy. To summarise reasons stated already, samizayn only really offered one argument supporting their stance while samizayn countered it perfectly and added a few extra uncountered arguments on top for good measure.
Debate A
I like how you try and fleshen out the term “career defining role” right off the bat. On repeated reading I’m not fully sold on the remainder of the paragraph though. Simply stating that Indiana Jones did more for his further opportunity than Star Wars, to me at least, isn’t a given. So although it reads away nicely, I’m missing a “why”. Hopefully though, this will be made clear in the remainder of the debate.
The second paragraph is very well written but you spend an awful lot of time in the windup seemingly bigging up Star Wars, and even though you get around to the downside of Ford’s Han Solo role, what stays with me after reading repeatedly is that it indeed WAS a big deal.
The third paragraph in that respect does a lot more for solidifying the clame that Indy was the career defining role, but you experience a “liar, liar” moment in the last sentence when you again big up Star Wars for what seems to be no particular debating reason other than to be unnecessarily honest.
I think the point of a “pecking order” somewhat hits home, though I’m not sure about the WWE themed comparison tactic. Movies aren’t Wrestling, and I can name a TON of movies where leading characters are a lot less praised than their male or female supporting actor.
You then almost hit it fully home with me by pointing out the success of Indiana Jones, but for reasons unknown to me you immediately start the next paragraph pointing out Star Wars was even bigger. Why the repeated self sabotage?
Anyway, it all eventually seems to come down to leading role vs supporting role in this debate. I like the concluding sentence, but I’m not fully convinced. That being said, you haven’t fully lost me either, so I guess the ball’s in M-Diggedy’s court.
M-Diggedy
I’m slightly less impressed by this intro than samizayn’s, and I’ll tell you why. You’re not making an immediate impact. The first two paragraphs in, and all I really know is you’re trying to use logic and reasoning to answer a debate question. You then finally reveal your pick, but 137 words just to reveal a choice is a tad much for me, especially compared to samizayn’s quick opening stance.
The first sentence in what is the main part of your debate, and it must just be me but I don’t really.. get… what you’re saying at first. You talk about two factors that help define an acting career (note: not the same as a career defining ROLE) and then immediately start talking about three criteria right after which is slightly confusing. I do kind of see the connection, but it’s far from hammered home, until I start reading the following parts and it all eventually comes together for me. I end up agreeing with the point you realistically make of “it might not be the bloody knife with fingerprints on it, but it certainly makes it more likely”.
You then do yourself a giant favor by taking on the bread and butter of samizayn’s debate, namely the leading role vs supporting role conundrum. Your examples are spot on, and by the end of this paragraph I’m really starting to lean your way debate wise.
The end of this debate is a bit of a letdown for me unfortunately, in that I don’t see the point of your “negated benefit” argument (What benefit? I’m honestly not sure why you would postulate Indy being the more relatable character. Shades of samizayn’s selfsabotage all over again). And the final sentence somehow takes my “well I guess it IS Han Solo after all” mindset and breaks it down to one (fairly unconvincing on its own) argument, namely “the movie was bigger, more people saw it, therefore that was the part”. I honestly would’ve been more convinced without it, which is a shame.
Final Verdict
Both of these debates seem very convincing at first read, but then upon closer inspection somewhat fail to fully deliver. In the end however, after more than just a few readthroughs, it’s M-Diggedy that convinces me of its premis the most (be happy you added that Ledger/Waltz etc comparison) so I’m going to go with M-Diggedy.
BkB Hulk
samizayn:
This debate had good bits, but it also felt like you strayed away from what your crucial arguments were at times.
You gave criteria that you seemed to be using as crucial to your argument, but the further opportunity point never came back up, and recognition only just reappeared at the close of the debate.
I also thought the paragraph about how big Star Wars was didn’t really serve you well. It kind of put a point forward for Star Wars, but didn’t really do anything for you.
The face of the product argument is probably your strongest, as the other one is decent, but also recognises Star Wars’ strong points in the argument.
The conclusion was solid too, but I think you would have been overall better served by sticking to what seemed to be your original structure.
M-Diggedy:
The stats you used to show Star Wars had a greater reach were okay. I’m not sure it’s entirely convincing, as you would say the reach between the two movies probably doesn’t differ that much, and that most people would certainly be aware of both. They did work for your argument though.
I think what was better was you explained why Jones being the title character wasn’t as important as it could be seen. It doesn’t completely negate your opponent’s point, because it still feels like a factor and this is all purely opinion-based, but it does provide a counter.
I wasn’t overly convinced by this debate either – although you tried to eliminate opinion, it’s still very hard to factually back up what you’re saying, and the amount grossed doesn’t really seem to directly relate to whether something is ‘career defining’ when both films have such reach. This was the main premise of your argument too.
Not overly convinced either way, but samizayn narrowly wins for me on the back of their recognition argument.
Anark
samizayn
I liked that you established the wider indicators of a career-defining role, “…recognition, legitimacy and further opportunity are equally as important in determining which roles have been pivotal and career defining…” but you don’t really do enough in the rest of your debate to justify Jones over Solo according to these indicators. The first one you mention is also an issue, recognition, as there’s no way Ford would have got the Jones role had he not previously played Solo.
Your second paragraph didn’t really help your stance in any way. It began well and with a potential argument that could have had huge impact in this match (that an actor’s first big role is hard to move on from, but Ford managed it) but you don’t actually tie this in to Ford managing to escape the Solo role via his efforts in the Jones films. You shine a little light on the possible negatives the Star Wars fandom can bring, but that doesn’t really help your stance, and it shows the Star Wars role had more cultural impact if anything.
The third paragraph again lingers on issues which don’t really advance your case all that much. Sure, the Indiana Jones franchise is one of the best and Ford had a lot to do with that, but it’s not more successful than the Star Wars franchise which Ford also had a lot to do with. I don’t really see the relevancy to your stance in bringing this particular point up. Where you could have gone with this paragraph, and you very nearly did go, was to show how much input Ford had with both roles, assuming he had much more influence on the Jones character than he did on the Solo character. You just mention it in an off-hand manner though without backing it up with further information regarding his input into both characters.
Your next point is good, though now I feel like the previous two paragraphs were just a set-up for this point about Solo being a secondary character to Jones’ main character. It’s a good point, but you took a long time to make it. In fact, it’s pretty much the only argument you make, that Ford was the leading man in the Indiana films and thus that’s why it’s his most defining role. It’s a very good argument but I can think of so many counters to it already (lead roles do not always define an actor, and supporting roles often steal the show regardless of billing order, etc), though it’s up to your opponent to make them.
The debate was a good read though, it just could have done with a lot more focus on supporting arguments rather than setting of the scene and supplementary information that is ultimately irrelevant to your chosen stance, which was all the first half of your debate consisted of. Really good effort though, you just need to focus on including more relevant arguments that back up your stance.
M-Diggedy
Quick note before I get into it, with only 800 words to put your arguments across, I felt that your opening paragraph was a complete waste. It didn’t advance your stance or even declare your stance. It was a nice paragraph, don’t get me wrong, but you would have been better served to get your stance declared earlier allowing you to beef up an argument with additional information or even include an extra argument supporting your stance. Having said all that, it didn't damage you this time as your opponent left their debate open to an attack you executed perfectly.
Your main argument is that Star Wars is the bigger franchise and thus is the more defining role, and this debate would have been a lot harder to decide on if you had left it at that. However you did include some additional arguments, including a sexy counter for your opponent’s only argument of note.
Your definition of how to define an actor’s career was a bit wishy-washy in so far as it didn’t make it very clear what the defining factors were. “…having the opportunity to influence the masses…” is fairly obvious I suppose but “…as well as how that opportunity is used.” Doesn’t really tell me a lot. Do you mean how well the actor acted once given the opportunity to influence the masses? How well the PR company promoted the movie? It’s not a major issue as your debate really takes off after this, but it stuck out to me as a little underwhelming and might have been punished by an opponent with a wider variety of arguments than yours had.
The three criteria section was pretty good, laying out exactly how much more successful the three Star Wars films were to the four Jones films was fine, but was also well supplemented by the additional information regarding viewer ratings and review ratio. It painted a grander picture of Star Wars’ impact rather than just the money made at the box office (which, as we know these days, is not undeniable as an indicator of quality). You then tie in this information with your original definition of what defines an actor’s career which is something your opponent didn’t quite manage.
I chuckled heartily at your next paragraph, beginning with, “At this stage, I suspect many people would counter that Indiana Jones is the titular (and most prominent) character whereas Han Solo is not.” Because that’s exactly what your opponent did. You picked pretty much the perfect example of a supporting role that can define an actor’s career above their lead roles with Heath Ledger. Your next point about Ford shining brightest among an ensemble cast was also spot on.
This was pretty good overall, though had a few dodgy moments that I mentioned. Not a lot of criticism to make as you cut off your opponent’s main argument and surrounded it with multiple arguments which he failed to counter. Good job.
VERDICT
The winner is M-Diggedy. To summarise reasons stated already, samizayn only really offered one argument supporting their stance while samizayn countered it perfectly and added a few extra uncountered arguments on top for good measure.
Winner via Split Decision - M-Diggedy
TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Eliminator Qualifying Match
PoyPoy14 vs MichaelDD vs sharkboy22 vs Soul Cat
Which Wrestlemania main event was better, Lesnar vs Reigns @ 31 or Undertaker vs Edge @ 24?
sharkboy22
Although they are both great matches, Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns was a better main event than Edge vs The Undertaker.
Going into Wrestlemania 31, there was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding Reigns/Lesnar. Many questioned whether the match would have exposed Reigns’ limited abilities as a worker and if he was just too green to hang with Lesnar. Furthermore, the lack of a proper build really hurt it and many felt as if Roman Reigns did not deserve the spot. Needless to say, the match super exceeded expectations and was worked so well that Roman’s greenness was a non-issue. The end result was a match that made both opponents look very strong and arguably one of the best Wrestlemania main events of all time.
With Taker/Edge, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone that these two would have knocked it out the park. However, this match didn’t have the aura surrounding it like Reigns/Lesnar did. While one may argue that, in addition to it being a World Title match, the Undertaker’s (at the time) undefeated streak is more than enough to enthrall an audience, their match just did not boast the uniqueness of a modern-day Brock Lesnar match.
A substantial portion of Edge/Taker was Edge wearing down the Undertaker. This was your basic, but fantastically executed, wrestling match. The fact that Edge was able to do so much damage to ‘The Deadman’ made the Undertaker seem, well, mortal. The aura of the Phenom was slowly chipped away at. Lesnar, on the other hand, was just a bad-ass, suplexing, beat the fuck out of you war machine. The reason why a Lesnar match feels so special is because he is able to maintain this image of badassery throughout the entire match. Even when he’s getting his ass handed to him!
Once the Undertaker started to make a comeback the match was pretty much 50/50 as the two went back and forth. Reigns, however, had to work for a comeback. He had to throw everything at him and when he did, it still couldn’t knock him down (once again Lesnar maintains that aura about him). Busting Lesnar open wasn’t enough to get the Beast wobbling. Three superman punches and two spears later and the Beast was still moving. It was such a display of brute tenacity that Reigns’ offense is taking just as much out of him as it does Lesnar. Lesnar/Reigns had such a unique feel to it whereas Taker/Edge was worked like your typical WWE main event- a la trading punches.
Perhaps the one knock against Lesnar/Reigns is that it’s near-falls, while heart stopping, were a bit unrealistic. Three F-5s in ten miniutes (especially when the third was preceded by two German suplexes) was overkill. In fact, it’s the one thing that Edge/Taker may have done better than Lesnar/Reigns. While at no time, except for the shenanigans at the end, did it feel like Undertaker’s streak was in jeopardy, the near-falls were at least believable. There would be some sort of a pause after hitting a signature move, adding credibility to the kick-outs. Also, there was a gradual build rather just spamming finishers. The first fall occurred because of neckbreaker, the next by an Edgecution and the last by a streak-threatening spear.
However, the belief that the streak might actually end is needed throughout an entire Undertaker Wrestlemania match for it to really be special (as exhibited in the following year against HBK). Every near-fall needs to serve as a constant a reminder that there is something greater on the line than the title or a mere loss. The fact that this match only had one true moment really brings it down.
Roman Reigns kicking out of two Germans and an F-5 in rapid succession may have been unbelievable but it is easily forgiven. It made Reigns look strong plus he needed something to balance out the immunity Lesnar would have had for his offense later on in the match. It also gave the few Roman Reigns fans in attendance hope that he stood some chance.
In terms of the finish, Lesnar/Reigns is no doubt one of the most memorable Wrestlemania endings of all time. This match saw the very first Money In The Bank cash-in at a Wrestlemania. It was a finish that many did not see coming and those that had a hunch were dubious about it actually happening. Undertaker catching Edge in the Gogoplata may have gotten a huge pop, but the interactions among Lesnar, Reigns and Rollins was just sheer chaos, excitement and unpredictability.
In the end, Taker/Edge simply marks the Undertaker’s 16th victim at a Wrestlemania. Lesnar/Reigns is a milestone in the company’s history.
PoyPoy14
To decide which Wretlemania main event was better; Undertaker vs Edge or Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns, you must first explore what criteria a main event match on the biggest show of the year should be judged on. The three main categories are:
After carefully considering each of the above criteria, it becomes apparent that Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 31 is the better main event. Both were very good for different reasons, but Lesnar/Reigns beats its counterpart in two of the three listed criteria, as well as more than holding its own in the third.
Star Power
Both matches were similar in that they had one established star facing somebody participating in their first Wrestlemania main event in an attempt to create a new star. Whilst Undertaker was the biggest star in any of the matches, due to being around for so long and being a household name around the world, Brock Lesnar pushes him close. Lesnar's star is so bright following his time in UFC, that WWE put their World Heavyweight Title on him despite knowing that the champion wouldn't appear on the majority of their shows. Even though he has only been around for a fraction of the time Undertaker has, Lesnar certainly rivals him in terms of name value.
Where the Wrestlemania 24 match 'edges' this category is when comparing Edge and Reigns. Despite being in his first Wrestlemania main event, Edge was already a legitimate main event calibre superstar and had spent years earning his reputation. In contrast, Reigns was thrown into the main event after just two singles matches on PPV. He certainly hadn't proved himself deserving of a match of this magnitude and the fans made that opinion known. Therefore, the win in this category has to go to Edge/Undertaker.
Entertainment Value
The problem with Undertaker being involved in a Wrestlemania match is the predictability of the outcome (especially in 2008, when Undertaker was 15-0) which hurts the entertainment value of the match. To illustrate this point, the crowd struggled to get into this match and only became invested towards the end, when the match transitioned into its high spots. Compare that to Lesnar/Reigns and the crowd were emotionally invested from the start because the result was always in doubt. As soon as Lesnar announced that he'd re-signed with WWE, the result was up in the air.
Predictability is hard to overcome because knowing who's going to win makes it hard to suspend your disbelief. If you conpare the reactions of the crowd, particularly at the end then you'll see a marked difference. Although happy to see Undertaker win, the pop was weak because everybody knew it was coming. In contrast, when Rollins pinned Reigns, the crowd gave such an big, organic reaction that many spectators were jumping around in celebration. The investment into that match by the fans gives Lesnar/Reigns a massive win in this category.
Match Quality
The match quality in both of these bouts was very high and both told very different stories. Undertaker/Edge was that of Edge being one step ahead of Undertaker until his one, fatal mistake. Lesnar/Reigns was that of Reigns never saying die in the face of a hellacious beating by the beast.
It's important to consider that Undertaker/Edge got 7 minutes more than Lesnar/Reigns to tell their story and didn't do anything with that extra time to make their match better than Lesnar/Reigns. The start was slow and the crowd really struggled to get into it until the end. With the predictability factor, it was really important that they counteract it by having multiple spots that created doubt and suspended the crowd's disbelief. Unfortunately, this wasn't accomplished and even after a spear, the crowd failed to get excited as kicking out of at least one finisher each is basically mandatory at Wrestlemania.
Lesnar/Reigns took the crowd on a rollercoaster and had them in the palm of their hands for the duration. It first looked like Lesnar would squash Reigns, only for Reigns to make his comeback and have most of the crowd sure that his win was inevitable, drawing deafening boos. Add the shocking ending to that and Lesnar/Reigns emerges the clear winner in this category due to accomplishing more with their match in a much shorter amount of time.
Conclusion
Lesnar/Reigns takes two of the three categories and a comfortable victory in this contest. Whilst both certainly lived up to being the main event of Wrestlemania, Lesnar/Reigns succeeded in getting the crowd emotionally invested on a much greater scale. This, combined with having a better match in a shorter amount of time, seals Lesnar/Reigns as the greater Wrestlemania main event.
MichaelDD
Ever since I was a little jimmy I had two favourite guys, Edge and The Undertaker. But it’s clear to anybody when looking past fandoms that Lesnar vs Reigns was the better of the two of these matches.
Firstly let’s look at these matches from a technical standpoint. Undertaker vs Edge was a great back and forth match including many false finishes, lots of great spots, a ref spot and even interference by the edge heads.
Lesnar vs Reigns on the other hand was 80% one sided the entire time with Lesnar absolutely dominating Roman until the near final moments where Roman finally managed to startle the beast and get him on the ropes.
Now sure Taker hit all his trademarked spots in his match that always deliver, but I’d give match quality wise to Roman and Brock. It was filled with absolute dominance from Brock delivering suplex after suplex after suplex only for Roman to shock Brock and come back swinging and get him shook. It was a unique style beat down match that was reminiscent of the match Brock and Cena had at SummerSlam, but this time it included a comeback that actually made you think, is Roman going to do it?
Next let’s look at storytelling.
Taker and Edge’s story was pretty much a streak match, can Edge end the undefeated streak of The Undertaker? There was also the added bit of information that Taker had never beaten Edge in a match. But this was never really a good example to get us thinking that Edge may end the streak.
Their major documented match at Armageddon didn’t even have a clean ending. The only reason Edge actually won the match was due to using heel tactics such as interference and weapons. So this never really proved that Taker couldn’t beat Edge in the first place so it was a ridiculous selling point. Not to mention it also took Edge cashing in his Money in the Bank to originally beat Taker for his belt.
There’s also something very integral to this matches story. The streak arguably didn’t become actually important until the following year where Shawn Michaels targeted The Undertaker in attempt to end his streak. Up until this point The Streak was mentioned in the way that Edge talked about ending it, but it was never glorified in such a way until Shawn Michaels stepped up to try and end the streak.
Moving on let’s look at Brock vs Roman.
This story for this match was that Brock Lesnar after defeating The Undertaker he’d become an unstoppable killing machine. He tore through opponents such as John cena crushing him like he was The Hurricane, something that’d never been done before nor was expected.
This coupled with his dominant victory over Taker set the tone for Lesnar’s year where devastated anybody that stood in his way. Until one man stepped up claiming “I can and I will” This man was Roman Reigns. Unfortunately Roman wasn’t booked completely dominant like he should have been but a Rumble victory paired with a clean victory over Daniel Bryan at least brought the man some credibility.
Their lead up to the match wasn’t booked as greatly as it could have been but from a storyline perspective the match absolutely delivered. You had the beast incarnate dominating, suplexing, f5ing, and simply besting Roman all throughout the match. But Roman Reigns never gave up; he kept getting back up no matter what and even smiled as Brock beat him down.
This all lead up to the matches climax where we’d see roman take advantage of the ring post and send Brock hurdling head first into it busting him clean open. From here we could see Brock was shook, he was out of it and didn’t know what hit him. This was Roman’s moment and he ceased it. Superman Punch and another and another all to follow up with multiple spears, only for Brock to kick out.
Both men left bruised and lifeless on the mat only for the twist in our tale, Seth Rollins.
Seth’s association in this match is what put this over the edge as great storytelling. You had two men absolutely decimate each other in the middle of that ring only for the slimy corporate heel to come down and take away everything Roman earned. Not to mention through this it kept everyone looking strong where as Edge and Taker only really made Taker look strong in victory and Edge weak, as he couldn’t win even with interference and a shot with the camera.
As much as I dislike Roman, he and Brock hands down had the better match, believe that.
Soul Cat
Although they are both great matches, Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns was a better main event than Edge vs The Undertaker.
Going into Wrestlemania 31, there was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding Reigns/Lesnar. Many questioned whether the match would have exposed Reigns’ limited abilities as a worker and if he was just too green to hang with Lesnar. Furthermore, the lack of a proper build really hurt it and many felt as if Roman Reigns did not deserve the spot. Needless to say, the match super exceeded expectations and was worked so well that Roman’s greenness was a non-issue. The end result was a match that made both opponents look very strong and arguably one of the best Wrestlemania main events of all time.
With Taker/Edge, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone that these two would have knocked it out the park. However, this match didn’t have the aura surrounding it like Reigns/Lesnar did. While one may argue that, in addition to it being a World Title match, the Undertaker’s (at the time) undefeated streak is more than enough to enthrall an audience, their match just did not boast the uniqueness of a modern-day Brock Lesnar match.
A substantial portion of Edge/Taker was Edge wearing down the Undertaker. This was your basic, but fantastically executed, wrestling match. The fact that Edge was able to do so much damage to ‘The Deadman’ made the Undertaker seem, well, mortal. The aura of the Phenom was slowly chipped away at. Lesnar, on the other hand, was just a bad-ass, suplexing, beat the fuck out of you war machine. The reason why a Lesnar match feels so special is because he is able to maintain this image of badassery throughout the entire match. Even when he’s getting his ass handed to him!
Once the Undertaker started to make a comeback the match was pretty much 50/50 as the two went back and forth. Reigns, however, had to work for a comeback. He had to throw everything at him and when he did, it still couldn’t knock him down (once again Lesnar maintains that aura about him). Busting Lesnar open wasn’t enough to get the Beast wobbling. Three superman punches and two spears later and the Beast was still moving. It was such a display of brute tenacity that Reigns’ offense is taking just as much out of him as it does Lesnar. Lesnar/Reigns had such a unique feel to it whereas Taker/Edge was worked like your typical WWE main event- a la trading punches.
Perhaps the one knock against Lesnar/Reigns is that it’s near-falls, while heart stopping, were a bit unrealistic. Three F-5s in ten miniutes (especially when the third was preceded by two German suplexes) was overkill. In fact, it’s the one thing that Edge/Taker may have done better than Lesnar/Reigns. While at no time, except for the shenanigans at the end, did it feel like Undertaker’s streak was in jeopardy, the near-falls were at least believable. There would be some sort of a pause after hitting a signature move, adding credibility to the kick-outs. Also, there was a gradual build rather just spamming finishers. The first fall occurred because of neckbreaker, the next by an Edgecution and the last by a streak-threatening spear.
However, the belief that the streak might actually end is needed throughout an entire Undertaker Wrestlemania match for it to really be special (as exhibited in the following year against HBK). Every near-fall needs to serve as a constant a reminder that there is something greater on the line than the title or a mere loss. The fact that this match only had one true moment really brings it down.
Roman Reigns kicking out of two Germans and an F-5 in rapid succession may have been unbelievable but it is easily forgiven. It made Reigns look strong plus he needed something to balance out the immunity Lesnar would have had for his offense later on in the match. It also gave the few Roman Reigns fans in attendance hope that he stood some chance.
In terms of the finish, Lesnar/Reigns is no doubt one of the most memorable Wrestlemania endings of all time. This match saw the very first Money In The Bank cash-in at a Wrestlemania. It was a finish that many did not see coming and those that had a hunch were dubious about it actually happening. Undertaker catching Edge in the Gogoplata may have gotten a huge pop, but the interactions among Lesnar, Reigns and Rollins was just sheer chaos, excitement and unpredictability.
In the end, Taker/Edge simply marks the Undertaker’s 16th victim at a Wrestlemania. Lesnar/Reigns is a milestone in the company’s history.
PoyPoy14
To decide which Wretlemania main event was better; Undertaker vs Edge or Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns, you must first explore what criteria a main event match on the biggest show of the year should be judged on. The three main categories are:
- Star power
- Entertainment value
- Match quality
After carefully considering each of the above criteria, it becomes apparent that Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 31 is the better main event. Both were very good for different reasons, but Lesnar/Reigns beats its counterpart in two of the three listed criteria, as well as more than holding its own in the third.
Star Power
Both matches were similar in that they had one established star facing somebody participating in their first Wrestlemania main event in an attempt to create a new star. Whilst Undertaker was the biggest star in any of the matches, due to being around for so long and being a household name around the world, Brock Lesnar pushes him close. Lesnar's star is so bright following his time in UFC, that WWE put their World Heavyweight Title on him despite knowing that the champion wouldn't appear on the majority of their shows. Even though he has only been around for a fraction of the time Undertaker has, Lesnar certainly rivals him in terms of name value.
Where the Wrestlemania 24 match 'edges' this category is when comparing Edge and Reigns. Despite being in his first Wrestlemania main event, Edge was already a legitimate main event calibre superstar and had spent years earning his reputation. In contrast, Reigns was thrown into the main event after just two singles matches on PPV. He certainly hadn't proved himself deserving of a match of this magnitude and the fans made that opinion known. Therefore, the win in this category has to go to Edge/Undertaker.
Entertainment Value
The problem with Undertaker being involved in a Wrestlemania match is the predictability of the outcome (especially in 2008, when Undertaker was 15-0) which hurts the entertainment value of the match. To illustrate this point, the crowd struggled to get into this match and only became invested towards the end, when the match transitioned into its high spots. Compare that to Lesnar/Reigns and the crowd were emotionally invested from the start because the result was always in doubt. As soon as Lesnar announced that he'd re-signed with WWE, the result was up in the air.
Predictability is hard to overcome because knowing who's going to win makes it hard to suspend your disbelief. If you conpare the reactions of the crowd, particularly at the end then you'll see a marked difference. Although happy to see Undertaker win, the pop was weak because everybody knew it was coming. In contrast, when Rollins pinned Reigns, the crowd gave such an big, organic reaction that many spectators were jumping around in celebration. The investment into that match by the fans gives Lesnar/Reigns a massive win in this category.
Match Quality
The match quality in both of these bouts was very high and both told very different stories. Undertaker/Edge was that of Edge being one step ahead of Undertaker until his one, fatal mistake. Lesnar/Reigns was that of Reigns never saying die in the face of a hellacious beating by the beast.
It's important to consider that Undertaker/Edge got 7 minutes more than Lesnar/Reigns to tell their story and didn't do anything with that extra time to make their match better than Lesnar/Reigns. The start was slow and the crowd really struggled to get into it until the end. With the predictability factor, it was really important that they counteract it by having multiple spots that created doubt and suspended the crowd's disbelief. Unfortunately, this wasn't accomplished and even after a spear, the crowd failed to get excited as kicking out of at least one finisher each is basically mandatory at Wrestlemania.
Lesnar/Reigns took the crowd on a rollercoaster and had them in the palm of their hands for the duration. It first looked like Lesnar would squash Reigns, only for Reigns to make his comeback and have most of the crowd sure that his win was inevitable, drawing deafening boos. Add the shocking ending to that and Lesnar/Reigns emerges the clear winner in this category due to accomplishing more with their match in a much shorter amount of time.
Conclusion
Lesnar/Reigns takes two of the three categories and a comfortable victory in this contest. Whilst both certainly lived up to being the main event of Wrestlemania, Lesnar/Reigns succeeded in getting the crowd emotionally invested on a much greater scale. This, combined with having a better match in a shorter amount of time, seals Lesnar/Reigns as the greater Wrestlemania main event.
MichaelDD
Ever since I was a little jimmy I had two favourite guys, Edge and The Undertaker. But it’s clear to anybody when looking past fandoms that Lesnar vs Reigns was the better of the two of these matches.
Firstly let’s look at these matches from a technical standpoint. Undertaker vs Edge was a great back and forth match including many false finishes, lots of great spots, a ref spot and even interference by the edge heads.
Lesnar vs Reigns on the other hand was 80% one sided the entire time with Lesnar absolutely dominating Roman until the near final moments where Roman finally managed to startle the beast and get him on the ropes.
Now sure Taker hit all his trademarked spots in his match that always deliver, but I’d give match quality wise to Roman and Brock. It was filled with absolute dominance from Brock delivering suplex after suplex after suplex only for Roman to shock Brock and come back swinging and get him shook. It was a unique style beat down match that was reminiscent of the match Brock and Cena had at SummerSlam, but this time it included a comeback that actually made you think, is Roman going to do it?
Next let’s look at storytelling.
Taker and Edge’s story was pretty much a streak match, can Edge end the undefeated streak of The Undertaker? There was also the added bit of information that Taker had never beaten Edge in a match. But this was never really a good example to get us thinking that Edge may end the streak.
Their major documented match at Armageddon didn’t even have a clean ending. The only reason Edge actually won the match was due to using heel tactics such as interference and weapons. So this never really proved that Taker couldn’t beat Edge in the first place so it was a ridiculous selling point. Not to mention it also took Edge cashing in his Money in the Bank to originally beat Taker for his belt.
There’s also something very integral to this matches story. The streak arguably didn’t become actually important until the following year where Shawn Michaels targeted The Undertaker in attempt to end his streak. Up until this point The Streak was mentioned in the way that Edge talked about ending it, but it was never glorified in such a way until Shawn Michaels stepped up to try and end the streak.
Moving on let’s look at Brock vs Roman.
This story for this match was that Brock Lesnar after defeating The Undertaker he’d become an unstoppable killing machine. He tore through opponents such as John cena crushing him like he was The Hurricane, something that’d never been done before nor was expected.
This coupled with his dominant victory over Taker set the tone for Lesnar’s year where devastated anybody that stood in his way. Until one man stepped up claiming “I can and I will” This man was Roman Reigns. Unfortunately Roman wasn’t booked completely dominant like he should have been but a Rumble victory paired with a clean victory over Daniel Bryan at least brought the man some credibility.
Their lead up to the match wasn’t booked as greatly as it could have been but from a storyline perspective the match absolutely delivered. You had the beast incarnate dominating, suplexing, f5ing, and simply besting Roman all throughout the match. But Roman Reigns never gave up; he kept getting back up no matter what and even smiled as Brock beat him down.
This all lead up to the matches climax where we’d see roman take advantage of the ring post and send Brock hurdling head first into it busting him clean open. From here we could see Brock was shook, he was out of it and didn’t know what hit him. This was Roman’s moment and he ceased it. Superman Punch and another and another all to follow up with multiple spears, only for Brock to kick out.
Both men left bruised and lifeless on the mat only for the twist in our tale, Seth Rollins.
Seth’s association in this match is what put this over the edge as great storytelling. You had two men absolutely decimate each other in the middle of that ring only for the slimy corporate heel to come down and take away everything Roman earned. Not to mention through this it kept everyone looking strong where as Edge and Taker only really made Taker look strong in victory and Edge weak, as he couldn’t win even with interference and a shot with the camera.
As much as I dislike Roman, he and Brock hands down had the better match, believe that.
Soul Cat