Joined
·
32,162 Posts
TDL IX: CAPTAIN WARS - THE LADY KILLER VS WOOLCOCK
![]()
i$e
Special Handicap Rules: 200 Word Count vs 1000 Word Count
THE DARK ANDRE vs Klunderbunker
Are WWE wasting the opportunity to make a new star by elevating Big Show, Randy Orton & Kane back up to the main event with The Authority storyline?
i$e
Special Handicap Rules: 200 Word Count vs 1000 Word Count
THE DARK ANDRE vs Klunderbunker
Are WWE wasting the opportunity to make a new star by elevating Big Show, Randy Orton & Kane back up to the main event with The Authority storyline?
THE DARK ANDRE
No. Conversely, Orton, Kane and Show could help Daniel Bryan become a star.
What makes a star?
A star is someone who’s super over and pushed hard by WWE. Daniel Bryan is currently mega over despite NOT being a true star like Cena, Orton, HHH and Punk, workers who are all majorly over and have been established as top guys by WWE over long periods of time. Bryan just needs to be established as a top guy by WWE.
How can Orton, Kane and Big Show help with this?
ORTON was needed as a credible heel champion to put over Bryan at Night of Champions and to add star power to their main event programme.
KANE has a history with Daniel Bryan through Team Hell No, so he could keep Bryan busy via the authority angle before WrestleMania in a logical feud that would maintain Bryan’s heat.
BIG SHOW is a perfect protagonist versus HHH, a credible babyface who could be used to pass the WWE title from Orton to HHH before the inevitable HHH vs Bryan match, possibly at WrestleMania.
NONE of those roles are likely to lead to stardom, but would certainly help establish Bryan as a star.
Klunderbunker
The WWE isn’t wasting an opportunity to create a new star in the main event at Survivor Series. Historically speaking, the autumn months post-SummerSlam are usually the months where the WWE has done the weakest business of each year. There are three ways to prove that the WWE isn’t going to be wasting an opportunity to create a new star.
First off, the WWE has already attempted to create a new star in this past summer in Daniel Bryan. After months and months of hype and build up, Bryan got screwed over and over again. Buyrates were down. Ratings went down. We’ve all heard the popular IWC saying, “Small guys don’t draw”. In this case, it is true. Each Monday on RAW the 3 hour format has been strong in the first two hours, and fairly weaker in the last hour. Daniel Bryan has had numerous matches in the last hour of RAW in such, the ratings fell dramatically. CM Punk in 2012 was one of the top guys in the company last year. CM Punk while a solid champion, didn’t draw the ratings the WWE was looking for. However, the promotion had a plan. Enter The Rock. Rock faced Punk and won at the Royal Rumble. The next night on RAW, RAW had a rating of 3.7 or something like that. Bottom Line: Smaller Guys haven’t had success on the top spot in recent years.
Survivor Series is a Pay-Per-View that recently, has been such a big deal. Historically, the event is one of the “Big 4” WWE shows. Since 2013 is nearing an end, it’s a possibility that the WWE isn’t going to take a chance on creating a new star at this time. Why bother? In about 1 and a half months, the calendar flips to 2014. Then the road to wrestlemania 30 begins. To build a star right now would be not a good idea. There wouldn’t be any momentum for the person since the momentum usually shifts around the Royal Rumble. If the WWE has an opportunity to create a new star it would be at the Royal Rumble, where the fans can witness and see some stars being built on one of the biggest stages of all: WrestleMania 30.
Looking past Survivor Series for a moment, I can’t see a new star being created. I believe that most of the matches at Survivor Series and next month’s TLC, will be filler until 2014 hits. The perfect example of building a star is what the WWE did this past spring through the Summer, with Daniel Bryan. Have him get enough fans to care about him and cheer him on and have him move up the card slowly until the summer hits.
The Authority angle isn’t going to go anywhere anytime soon. I see this storyline going to last until the spring of next year. With Big Show, and Kane, you have 2 Giants that are experienced and able wrestlers to accompany the main event. Why would the WWE rush someone to be pushed right now? The Authority is the main storyline right now and building a star at the moment would be a mistake. We’ve seen one guy (Daniel Bryan) attempt to stop the Authority angle by himself and went nowhere.
No. Conversely, Orton, Kane and Show could help Daniel Bryan become a star.
What makes a star?
A star is someone who’s super over and pushed hard by WWE. Daniel Bryan is currently mega over despite NOT being a true star like Cena, Orton, HHH and Punk, workers who are all majorly over and have been established as top guys by WWE over long periods of time. Bryan just needs to be established as a top guy by WWE.
How can Orton, Kane and Big Show help with this?
ORTON was needed as a credible heel champion to put over Bryan at Night of Champions and to add star power to their main event programme.
KANE has a history with Daniel Bryan through Team Hell No, so he could keep Bryan busy via the authority angle before WrestleMania in a logical feud that would maintain Bryan’s heat.
BIG SHOW is a perfect protagonist versus HHH, a credible babyface who could be used to pass the WWE title from Orton to HHH before the inevitable HHH vs Bryan match, possibly at WrestleMania.
NONE of those roles are likely to lead to stardom, but would certainly help establish Bryan as a star.
Klunderbunker
The WWE isn’t wasting an opportunity to create a new star in the main event at Survivor Series. Historically speaking, the autumn months post-SummerSlam are usually the months where the WWE has done the weakest business of each year. There are three ways to prove that the WWE isn’t going to be wasting an opportunity to create a new star.
First off, the WWE has already attempted to create a new star in this past summer in Daniel Bryan. After months and months of hype and build up, Bryan got screwed over and over again. Buyrates were down. Ratings went down. We’ve all heard the popular IWC saying, “Small guys don’t draw”. In this case, it is true. Each Monday on RAW the 3 hour format has been strong in the first two hours, and fairly weaker in the last hour. Daniel Bryan has had numerous matches in the last hour of RAW in such, the ratings fell dramatically. CM Punk in 2012 was one of the top guys in the company last year. CM Punk while a solid champion, didn’t draw the ratings the WWE was looking for. However, the promotion had a plan. Enter The Rock. Rock faced Punk and won at the Royal Rumble. The next night on RAW, RAW had a rating of 3.7 or something like that. Bottom Line: Smaller Guys haven’t had success on the top spot in recent years.
Survivor Series is a Pay-Per-View that recently, has been such a big deal. Historically, the event is one of the “Big 4” WWE shows. Since 2013 is nearing an end, it’s a possibility that the WWE isn’t going to take a chance on creating a new star at this time. Why bother? In about 1 and a half months, the calendar flips to 2014. Then the road to wrestlemania 30 begins. To build a star right now would be not a good idea. There wouldn’t be any momentum for the person since the momentum usually shifts around the Royal Rumble. If the WWE has an opportunity to create a new star it would be at the Royal Rumble, where the fans can witness and see some stars being built on one of the biggest stages of all: WrestleMania 30.
Looking past Survivor Series for a moment, I can’t see a new star being created. I believe that most of the matches at Survivor Series and next month’s TLC, will be filler until 2014 hits. The perfect example of building a star is what the WWE did this past spring through the Summer, with Daniel Bryan. Have him get enough fans to care about him and cheer him on and have him move up the card slowly until the summer hits.
The Authority angle isn’t going to go anywhere anytime soon. I see this storyline going to last until the spring of next year. With Big Show, and Kane, you have 2 Giants that are experienced and able wrestlers to accompany the main event. Why would the WWE rush someone to be pushed right now? The Authority is the main storyline right now and building a star at the moment would be a mistake. We’ve seen one guy (Daniel Bryan) attempt to stop the Authority angle by himself and went nowhere.
Seabs
THE DARK ANDRE - I wasn't sure what to expect from 200 words but this better than what it was. With 200 words you've basically got one argument so you've not only gotta go big, you've also gotta go memorable. This was both. I've criticised a bunch of debates recently for not thinking outside of the box enough with their points and only making the basic points in their debate. This really went beyond just the basics and I doubt many people's first reaction to the question would have been this. Your two sections link together brilliantly too and I loved that. Great job defining what you're considering a star to be and then effortlessly transitioning into why Bryan isn't a star yet but who these already established acts can contribute to him becoming one. Orton answer is pretty obvious but I loved how you found a reason for Kane and Show getting the limelight now so that Bryan going after Hunter and/or the Title is fresh again when the actual match arrives. I don't like the idea of the title going from Orton to Show to Hunter to Bryan between now and Mania but I get your point that it fills the time between now and Mania and keeps Bryan away from the end destination in the meantime. That was really smart. This whole debate was really smart.
Klunderbunker - This would have been really interesting if you didn't defeat yourself with a poor argument. Also was a bit disappointed that you had 800 more words to use than Andre but only used 300 and change more. The whole now isn't a good time to create a new star argument I didn't get at all. The argument that debuting a new act going into Wrestlemania season isn't good because they'll be overshadowed is a good one but that wasn't the topic. The topic is talking acts that are already somewhat established and turning them into stars. That generally doesn't happen overnight or even other a 3 month time span. You could even argue that going into Wrestlemania season is actually the best time to start creating a new star because there's more eyes on the product so there's a better chance of him getting over to the whole WWE audience rather than just the smaller numbers who infrequently watch during the autumn/winter months. Your paragraph about smaller guys not drawing was actually pretty good but it didn't really have much to do with this topic. The topic never says that the new star has to be a small babyface guy like Punk or Bryan. It's just a new star period. For example are they wasting the opportunity to make Cesaro a new star by giving Orton the champion role rather than Cesaro or should someone in the position of a Cody Rhodes get the Big Show role. Your point about the timing could have worked if for example you brought it full circle and said Rumble to Mania is a better time to give someone like Bryan or Cody the Big Show role than giving it to them now which is why Show is best in that role so that the new star can be made in front of a higher audience. You also contradicted your point at the start about Bryan not being a star because of his size and the ratings but then you cited him as the perfect example of WWE creating a new star. Your argument had too many holes in it and wasn't convincing I'm afraid.
Winner - THE DARK ANDRE
The Lady Killer
Well, this was tricky. One debate didn't really have enough words to say what it wanted, and the other didn't say much in the words it got. Hmm...
THE DARK ANDRE = This was solid given the obvious restrictions. Flipping the question on its side by stating that the Authority angle could actually help Bryan become a star was good, as was the definition of what makes a star. I'm not sure why the focus is solely on Bryan, however, as the topic never specifically mentions Bryan. I'm guessing you cut to the chase and brought up the most relevant example given your limited word count. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there. Stating how each of the three named - Show, Orton, Kane - could help establish Bryan was good. I like how you separated being over from being established over time. The last sentence kinda threw me for a loop, as you stated none of those roles will likely lead to stardom (didn't you just argue that this would help him become a star?), but could help establish Bryan as a star. Doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting, though I doubt it since this isn't a soccer topic. :hb Still, a solid entry given the handicap.
Klunderbunker = Well, to be honest, you should have shat all over your opposition - as it's truly hard to be convincing in 200 words, and even then it was just a decent debate - but that didn't really happen here. Just for future reference, please try to format your debate accordingly:
Intro paragraph where you state your stance
Supporting paragraph 1
Supporting paragraph 2
Supporting paragraph 3
Conclusion
--------
Given your opening, you claim that there are 3 reasons why WWE isn't wasting an opportunity to create a new star. However, you don't list the reasons. Your intro should be your stance (they aren't wasting an opportunity) followed by the list of reasons why. Your following supporting paragraphs should each explain one of the three reasons. As it is, I can't really discern anything past the first reason, which was that they failed with Daniel Bryan. Again, the topic isn't specific to Bryan, so whereas the first debate had a word limit and honed in on the obvious superstar most likely to be affected by the storyline, you could've spent a bit more time on other superstars involved who are getting passed by by the already established veterans.
The part about Bryan not drawing in the third hour is fine, but leaves itself open to counterarguments that the final hour has been the lowest on numerous occassions, not just when Bryan was main eventing. I did like the part where you stated the period of time between Summerslam-new calendar year is mostly filler, and that it's typically not the time to create a new star. This was probably the strongest part of your debate.
Basically, I just felt the first debate was more cohesive. It defined "star," stated how the Authority storyline could HELP Bryan become a star (again, I don't like the singling out of just Bryan in either debate, but it is what it is), then listed reasons why the three people in the topic could help this become reality. All you can do in as little as 200 words.
Winner = THE DARK ANDRE
WOOLCOCK
THE DARK ANDRE – very sparse but given the stipulations surrounding the match that was to be expected. The debate does a good job at concisely ridiculing the question by focusing on how each individual could be used to work with Bryan and help him develop in the eyes of the fans as a star. A basic definition of what a star is in WWE’s eyes and you’ve got a solid argument for what each individual offers to the storyline and why they’re far from a wasted inclusion.
Klunderbunker – This...just wasn’t much of anything. The first argument fails because you’re arguing Bryan alone is the reason for viewership falling, which is just far too simplistic and lazy given the array of circumstances that might indicate why viewership throughout THE ENTIRE HOUR (not just a segment) might fail. Also, surely if you give up at the first sign of a low rating then that sets a bad precedent for developing future stars if you only persist with them if they deliver instant results? I just don’t think you put much thought into actually reading this paragraph back over to see how it read to someone other than yourself. I also thought you were especially lazy to write ‘a 3.7 or something like that’. C’mon, we live in the age of the internet where you can easily obtain viewing figures and given it was Rock’s return it wouldn’t be hard to find the exact figure via google and cite it. You’re also ignoring other ways in which Bryan and Punk could prove useful at the top of the card, namely merchandise sales and live reactions. But at the same time, this is concerned primarily with the Authority storyline and whether Orton, Show and Kane should be positioned where they are, and you’re next paragraphs don’t even touch on this argument which is the core aspect of the question. I don’t really understand what you’re trying to argue with these paragraphs. Surely if you book a guy well between now and the road to Wrestlemania you could feasibly book him in a more high profile match and possibly increase his appeal? Disregarding that flaw in your logic, YOU’RE STLLL NOT CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH THE QUESTION! Should Orton, Show and Kane be involved? Should Bryan or another younger guy be in their position?
Winner – THE DARK ANDRE. It did what Klunderbunker couldn’t, it actually gave a valid reason as to why each of the three individuals in the question are worthy of being involved in the angle.
THE DARK ANDRE - I wasn't sure what to expect from 200 words but this better than what it was. With 200 words you've basically got one argument so you've not only gotta go big, you've also gotta go memorable. This was both. I've criticised a bunch of debates recently for not thinking outside of the box enough with their points and only making the basic points in their debate. This really went beyond just the basics and I doubt many people's first reaction to the question would have been this. Your two sections link together brilliantly too and I loved that. Great job defining what you're considering a star to be and then effortlessly transitioning into why Bryan isn't a star yet but who these already established acts can contribute to him becoming one. Orton answer is pretty obvious but I loved how you found a reason for Kane and Show getting the limelight now so that Bryan going after Hunter and/or the Title is fresh again when the actual match arrives. I don't like the idea of the title going from Orton to Show to Hunter to Bryan between now and Mania but I get your point that it fills the time between now and Mania and keeps Bryan away from the end destination in the meantime. That was really smart. This whole debate was really smart.
Klunderbunker - This would have been really interesting if you didn't defeat yourself with a poor argument. Also was a bit disappointed that you had 800 more words to use than Andre but only used 300 and change more. The whole now isn't a good time to create a new star argument I didn't get at all. The argument that debuting a new act going into Wrestlemania season isn't good because they'll be overshadowed is a good one but that wasn't the topic. The topic is talking acts that are already somewhat established and turning them into stars. That generally doesn't happen overnight or even other a 3 month time span. You could even argue that going into Wrestlemania season is actually the best time to start creating a new star because there's more eyes on the product so there's a better chance of him getting over to the whole WWE audience rather than just the smaller numbers who infrequently watch during the autumn/winter months. Your paragraph about smaller guys not drawing was actually pretty good but it didn't really have much to do with this topic. The topic never says that the new star has to be a small babyface guy like Punk or Bryan. It's just a new star period. For example are they wasting the opportunity to make Cesaro a new star by giving Orton the champion role rather than Cesaro or should someone in the position of a Cody Rhodes get the Big Show role. Your point about the timing could have worked if for example you brought it full circle and said Rumble to Mania is a better time to give someone like Bryan or Cody the Big Show role than giving it to them now which is why Show is best in that role so that the new star can be made in front of a higher audience. You also contradicted your point at the start about Bryan not being a star because of his size and the ratings but then you cited him as the perfect example of WWE creating a new star. Your argument had too many holes in it and wasn't convincing I'm afraid.
Winner - THE DARK ANDRE
The Lady Killer
Well, this was tricky. One debate didn't really have enough words to say what it wanted, and the other didn't say much in the words it got. Hmm...
THE DARK ANDRE = This was solid given the obvious restrictions. Flipping the question on its side by stating that the Authority angle could actually help Bryan become a star was good, as was the definition of what makes a star. I'm not sure why the focus is solely on Bryan, however, as the topic never specifically mentions Bryan. I'm guessing you cut to the chase and brought up the most relevant example given your limited word count. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there. Stating how each of the three named - Show, Orton, Kane - could help establish Bryan was good. I like how you separated being over from being established over time. The last sentence kinda threw me for a loop, as you stated none of those roles will likely lead to stardom (didn't you just argue that this would help him become a star?), but could help establish Bryan as a star. Doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Maybe I'm just misinterpreting, though I doubt it since this isn't a soccer topic. :hb Still, a solid entry given the handicap.
Klunderbunker = Well, to be honest, you should have shat all over your opposition - as it's truly hard to be convincing in 200 words, and even then it was just a decent debate - but that didn't really happen here. Just for future reference, please try to format your debate accordingly:
Intro paragraph where you state your stance
Supporting paragraph 1
Supporting paragraph 2
Supporting paragraph 3
Conclusion
--------
Given your opening, you claim that there are 3 reasons why WWE isn't wasting an opportunity to create a new star. However, you don't list the reasons. Your intro should be your stance (they aren't wasting an opportunity) followed by the list of reasons why. Your following supporting paragraphs should each explain one of the three reasons. As it is, I can't really discern anything past the first reason, which was that they failed with Daniel Bryan. Again, the topic isn't specific to Bryan, so whereas the first debate had a word limit and honed in on the obvious superstar most likely to be affected by the storyline, you could've spent a bit more time on other superstars involved who are getting passed by by the already established veterans.
The part about Bryan not drawing in the third hour is fine, but leaves itself open to counterarguments that the final hour has been the lowest on numerous occassions, not just when Bryan was main eventing. I did like the part where you stated the period of time between Summerslam-new calendar year is mostly filler, and that it's typically not the time to create a new star. This was probably the strongest part of your debate.
Basically, I just felt the first debate was more cohesive. It defined "star," stated how the Authority storyline could HELP Bryan become a star (again, I don't like the singling out of just Bryan in either debate, but it is what it is), then listed reasons why the three people in the topic could help this become reality. All you can do in as little as 200 words.
Winner = THE DARK ANDRE
WOOLCOCK
THE DARK ANDRE – very sparse but given the stipulations surrounding the match that was to be expected. The debate does a good job at concisely ridiculing the question by focusing on how each individual could be used to work with Bryan and help him develop in the eyes of the fans as a star. A basic definition of what a star is in WWE’s eyes and you’ve got a solid argument for what each individual offers to the storyline and why they’re far from a wasted inclusion.
Klunderbunker – This...just wasn’t much of anything. The first argument fails because you’re arguing Bryan alone is the reason for viewership falling, which is just far too simplistic and lazy given the array of circumstances that might indicate why viewership throughout THE ENTIRE HOUR (not just a segment) might fail. Also, surely if you give up at the first sign of a low rating then that sets a bad precedent for developing future stars if you only persist with them if they deliver instant results? I just don’t think you put much thought into actually reading this paragraph back over to see how it read to someone other than yourself. I also thought you were especially lazy to write ‘a 3.7 or something like that’. C’mon, we live in the age of the internet where you can easily obtain viewing figures and given it was Rock’s return it wouldn’t be hard to find the exact figure via google and cite it. You’re also ignoring other ways in which Bryan and Punk could prove useful at the top of the card, namely merchandise sales and live reactions. But at the same time, this is concerned primarily with the Authority storyline and whether Orton, Show and Kane should be positioned where they are, and you’re next paragraphs don’t even touch on this argument which is the core aspect of the question. I don’t really understand what you’re trying to argue with these paragraphs. Surely if you book a guy well between now and the road to Wrestlemania you could feasibly book him in a more high profile match and possibly increase his appeal? Disregarding that flaw in your logic, YOU’RE STLLL NOT CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH THE QUESTION! Should Orton, Show and Kane be involved? Should Bryan or another younger guy be in their position?
Winner – THE DARK ANDRE. It did what Klunderbunker couldn’t, it actually gave a valid reason as to why each of the three individuals in the question are worthy of being involved in the angle.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - THE DARK ANDRE
*Shepard approaches the judging table and begins to interview TLK and SI about the upcoming Captains Wars debates. TLK not acting like his usual self grabs the mic off Shepard and tells him to "be gone with yourself". TLK asks SI if he wants to raise the stakes, such as his confidence in winning with his team of (apparent) all-stars. TLK suggests that if Team SI is somehow victorious that he will give his mother's favorite sheep, Garfunkel, to SI to do with as he pleases. This leaves SI ecstatic. TLK gets carried away with himself and continues to stake sheep on debates. A dangerous game for sure. He decides that should SI beat him at TDL X for his Wrestling Division Championship that he will also wager off his father's favorite sheep, Simona. SI obviously accepts. In his words - "what's better than one sheep? TWO SHEEP.*
*Shepard segways out into the next debate and dueling rivals TLK and SI share a embraceful giggle at the funny that was created by going from Sheep to Shepard.*
DwayneAustin vs Desecrated vs Bullseye
Who was more to blame for Chelsea's winning goal vs Man City, Hart or Nastasic?
Who was more to blame for Chelsea's winning goal vs Man City, Hart or Nastasic?
Desecrated
I think it is quite obviously Nastastic's error.
Few scoffs there? That's because anyone who has seen the footage knows that it was a mistake by Joe Hart. Even Joe Hart knew it was his own error, own misjudgement that caused the goal. There is no other side of the sheet here. It's a one way street of blame. Big shame for Manchester City too because they lost vital points they should of earned & not for the very first time this season through Hart's fault.
I really don't see how it's a mistake by Nastastic. He has done nothing wrong. He stood his ground, followed his marker and done the routine of heading the ball clear of Torres. Had Hart stayed his spot and sweeped up the free ball once Nastastic had sent it his way, Chelsea wouldn't of got the two extra points and I'd probably be writing a debate that actually has a viable alternative stance. I don't think communication is an excuse in Hart's favour either. It is one of the very basic principles of Nastastic's role and something that Hart should be accustomed to as a Premier League goalkeeper.
Joe Hart has found himself in a ever-sinking quagmire through his latest blunder. In hindsight, we can look back at decisions that goalkeepers make, like these, and ridicule them as bad decisions. Which is what makes Hart's more baffling. He had put himself in no mans' land once more. He should know better. There are previous cases (vs Sweden, vs Villa) where he has sweeped off his line to kick the ball away and found himself conceding goals so he has no excuse this time around.
So, what's next for Hart? Being benched for a few games is definately the way forward. But how do you re-introduce him to the team? Especially if Pantilimon hits stride with fantastic form? You would be taking a risk to place him back on the bench for a goalkeeper who has been the cause of more than 7 points this season (vs Chelsea, vs Villa, vs Cardiff) and other various games (vs Bayern). There is also no guarantee he won't make those same mistakes again. It's too soon for Manchester City to ship him off or even purchase a younger or better goalkeeper. It is perhaps best to see him in action for England against Chile & Germany, two fantastic attacking sides of different style & quality, before making any rash decisions about his forseeable future in the Manchester City shirt. All we know for now is Manchester City would be in a better position without his continuous errors. And the latest one is the perfect opportunity to continue to grow and establish himself as a class player. Or in the minds of some people, a world class player.
DwayneAustin
The person to blame for Chelsea’s winning goal is Joe Hart.
When the Chelsea player sent a long ball down the pitch towards the Man City goal, out of hope more than anything, there was little danger of a Chelsea goal being scored. Joe Hart, as goalkeeper, was in his own eighteen yard box, and defender Matija Nastasic had moved in front of Chelsea striker, Fernando Torres, and was in a position to deal with the situation, a situation which centerbacks deal with several times every match, especially in a Premierleague match where long balls are prominent.
However, the situation only took a turn for the worse when Hart decided to run out of his eighteen yard box and attempt to clear the ball himself, even though Nastasic appeared to be perfectly in control of what he was doing. What resulted was possibly the most embarrassing mix-up we are likely to see this season. Nastasic headed the ball back towards his own goal, over the on-rushing Hart, which allowed the opportunistic Torres, who had been behind Nastasic, to capitalise on the mistake and score into an empty net.
To be fully sure of who is culpable for this goal, the situation must be examined from the view of both Hart and Nastasic, individually.
Nastasic’s View
When the ball is hoofed down the pitch towards the Man City goal, Nastasic already has a five yard headstart on Torres and is in clear control of the situation. He is running towards his own goal, and carefully watches over his own shoulder as the ball falls out of the sky in front of him, at the same time, he can see Torres chasing him and with Torres’ reputation of being a fast player, and having already witnessed him destroy one of City’s fastest players earlier in the same match, Nastasic is aware that he must clear the ball from danger as soon as he can. He has several options, he can:
1. Try to kick the ball sideways out for a Chelsea throw-in: this would result in Chelsea getting the ball deep in the City half of the itch late on in the game, giving them a chance to win.
2. Kick the ball out for a Chelsea corner: this would probably be the worst option he could take at this moment. It would give Chelsea an even greater opportunity to score and it would suggest to his manager that he panics under the pressure.
3. Try and control the ball and dribble it away from Torres: far too dangerous against a player of Torres’ speed.
4. Pass the ball back to his goalkeeper and allow him to clear the ball to safety: this option would deal with the danger and allow City to remain in possession of the ball, perhaps giving them one last chance to mount an attack and win the game.
Nastasic chose option 4. Pass the ball back to his goalkeeper so his team could remain in possession. What Nastasic did not account for, however, was that his keeper was at the same time running out of goal like a mad man and was only a couple of yards away from him when he headed the ball back towards goal.
Hart’s View
As the ball is cleared down the pitch towards his goal, Joe Hart has a clear view of the entire field. He can see where the ball is headed, he can see Nastasic getting to it first and he can see Torres running behind him. Hart will have faced this situation countless times in his career, however, he decides to take matters into his own hands and he leaves his box. Outside of their eighteen yard box, keepers are at their most vulnerable, and when keepers get a rush of blood to the head and go crazy for a split second, that’s when defenders are at their most vulnerable. This is exactly what Hart did in this moment. Despite making numerous blunders over the previous eighteen months which resulted in opposition goals, he decided to take a this chance, even though it was quite clear that out of the three players involved; he was always third best to get anywhere near the ball.
He failed to provide every goalkeeper’s most important role for their team: be the last line of defence. Be the defenders’ safety net. Joe Hart failed in his role here. Even when he got there, he appeared to be unsure whether he was going to kick it or head it and ended up kneeing Nastasic instead, which suggested indecisiveness on his part.
Conclusion: From examining the situation from the view of both players, there is only one person to blame for Chelsea’s winning goal, and that person is Joe Hart.
Bullseye
Who was more to blame for Chelsea's winning goal vs Man City, Hart or Nastasic?
Sunday, the 27th of October, 2013. The English capital, London, was in a brisk evening. 41,495 fans had packed themselves into Stamford Bridge, the home ground of Chelsea FC, to witness the premier league match against title rivals, Manchester City. The game ebbed and flowed, until the 90th minute arrived, with a calamity of an error in defence between defender Matija Nastasic and goalkeeper Joe Hart, led to Fernando Torres scoring the winning goal for Chelsea, and attributing to increased speculation about Joe Hart’s ability. The question that will be answered here is who was more to blame for the goal – the defender, Nastasic, or the goalkeeper, Hart. I will suggest and prove categorically that the clear answer for who is more to blame for the goal is Joe Hart.
The reason it is clearly Hart’s fault is because of his position. He is the goalkeeper, the custodian, the general commandeering his army. It is up to him to perform the most important job on the pitch, and that is to keep the opposition from scoring. In cricket, it is the job of the batsmen running towards the ‘danger end’ to signal if a run is possible. In football, it is ultimately the keepers call on how to defend long range kicks, such as the one that led to Torres’ goal.
When addressing a question such as this, it’s important to look at the track record of the player. Joe Hart is no stranger to blunders between the posts. February 9th, 2013, Hart’s blunder of dropping Lambert’s shot against Southampton allowed Steven Davis to score, thus ending City’s chances of victory. August 14th, 2013, and Hart, playing for England, fumbled James Morrison’s shot into his goal. Fortunately for England, this mistake did not cost them victory. August 25th, 2013, and Hart again makes a blunder against Cardiff City, making an airswing in an attempt to clear a corner which lead to Campbell’s decisive goal. September 28, 2013, against Aston Villa, Hart again messed up and allowed Weimann to score his decisive goal. October 2, 2013, against Bayern Munich, Hart came up with two blunders – the first, fumbling Ribery’s powerful shot over the line, and the second, his inability to deal with Robben’s near-post shot. This is in the space of half a season, which suggests that Hart’s mentality is clearly being affected. A man who had a fast rise from loanee to national player, the comfortable nature of his position could be affecting his game, but that is for another discussion.
One could suggest that these errors in his keeping had nothing to do with the error that contributed to Torres’ goal in London. That is a legitimate case, as most of them were due to a great strike or sublime finishing as opposed to poor keeping. However, the exact same scenario that led to the Torres goal has also occurred more than once with Hart.
Instance #1
A long ball booted forward by Blackburn, Hart advances out his penalty area and gets caught up with his defender, which allows the Rovers attacker, Kalinic, to bypass the attempted blockade and strike the ball into an empty net. Hart could have surely trusted his defender, Toure, but elected to advance out of his box, and attributed to the error.
Instance #2
Long ball forwarded by Amazulu, and again, Hart advances. This time there are no defenders in sight, just the Amazulu striker, Ndulula, and Hart, and Ndulula bypasses Hart to score the goal. Nobody to blame here except for Hart advancing from his penalty box
Instance #3 – the goal in question
Long ball forwarded by Chelsea, Hart advancing, causing confusion with his defender, Nastasic. Amidst the confusion, Torres pounces and scores the definitive goal.
After examining Hart’s history of blunders, especially those which have occurred in similar circumstances, it is quite clear that Joe Hart is more to blame for the Torres’ goal than Nastasic is.
I think it is quite obviously Nastastic's error.
Few scoffs there? That's because anyone who has seen the footage knows that it was a mistake by Joe Hart. Even Joe Hart knew it was his own error, own misjudgement that caused the goal. There is no other side of the sheet here. It's a one way street of blame. Big shame for Manchester City too because they lost vital points they should of earned & not for the very first time this season through Hart's fault.
I really don't see how it's a mistake by Nastastic. He has done nothing wrong. He stood his ground, followed his marker and done the routine of heading the ball clear of Torres. Had Hart stayed his spot and sweeped up the free ball once Nastastic had sent it his way, Chelsea wouldn't of got the two extra points and I'd probably be writing a debate that actually has a viable alternative stance. I don't think communication is an excuse in Hart's favour either. It is one of the very basic principles of Nastastic's role and something that Hart should be accustomed to as a Premier League goalkeeper.
Joe Hart has found himself in a ever-sinking quagmire through his latest blunder. In hindsight, we can look back at decisions that goalkeepers make, like these, and ridicule them as bad decisions. Which is what makes Hart's more baffling. He had put himself in no mans' land once more. He should know better. There are previous cases (vs Sweden, vs Villa) where he has sweeped off his line to kick the ball away and found himself conceding goals so he has no excuse this time around.
So, what's next for Hart? Being benched for a few games is definately the way forward. But how do you re-introduce him to the team? Especially if Pantilimon hits stride with fantastic form? You would be taking a risk to place him back on the bench for a goalkeeper who has been the cause of more than 7 points this season (vs Chelsea, vs Villa, vs Cardiff) and other various games (vs Bayern). There is also no guarantee he won't make those same mistakes again. It's too soon for Manchester City to ship him off or even purchase a younger or better goalkeeper. It is perhaps best to see him in action for England against Chile & Germany, two fantastic attacking sides of different style & quality, before making any rash decisions about his forseeable future in the Manchester City shirt. All we know for now is Manchester City would be in a better position without his continuous errors. And the latest one is the perfect opportunity to continue to grow and establish himself as a class player. Or in the minds of some people, a world class player.
DwayneAustin
The person to blame for Chelsea’s winning goal is Joe Hart.
When the Chelsea player sent a long ball down the pitch towards the Man City goal, out of hope more than anything, there was little danger of a Chelsea goal being scored. Joe Hart, as goalkeeper, was in his own eighteen yard box, and defender Matija Nastasic had moved in front of Chelsea striker, Fernando Torres, and was in a position to deal with the situation, a situation which centerbacks deal with several times every match, especially in a Premierleague match where long balls are prominent.
However, the situation only took a turn for the worse when Hart decided to run out of his eighteen yard box and attempt to clear the ball himself, even though Nastasic appeared to be perfectly in control of what he was doing. What resulted was possibly the most embarrassing mix-up we are likely to see this season. Nastasic headed the ball back towards his own goal, over the on-rushing Hart, which allowed the opportunistic Torres, who had been behind Nastasic, to capitalise on the mistake and score into an empty net.
To be fully sure of who is culpable for this goal, the situation must be examined from the view of both Hart and Nastasic, individually.
Nastasic’s View
When the ball is hoofed down the pitch towards the Man City goal, Nastasic already has a five yard headstart on Torres and is in clear control of the situation. He is running towards his own goal, and carefully watches over his own shoulder as the ball falls out of the sky in front of him, at the same time, he can see Torres chasing him and with Torres’ reputation of being a fast player, and having already witnessed him destroy one of City’s fastest players earlier in the same match, Nastasic is aware that he must clear the ball from danger as soon as he can. He has several options, he can:
1. Try to kick the ball sideways out for a Chelsea throw-in: this would result in Chelsea getting the ball deep in the City half of the itch late on in the game, giving them a chance to win.
2. Kick the ball out for a Chelsea corner: this would probably be the worst option he could take at this moment. It would give Chelsea an even greater opportunity to score and it would suggest to his manager that he panics under the pressure.
3. Try and control the ball and dribble it away from Torres: far too dangerous against a player of Torres’ speed.
4. Pass the ball back to his goalkeeper and allow him to clear the ball to safety: this option would deal with the danger and allow City to remain in possession of the ball, perhaps giving them one last chance to mount an attack and win the game.
Nastasic chose option 4. Pass the ball back to his goalkeeper so his team could remain in possession. What Nastasic did not account for, however, was that his keeper was at the same time running out of goal like a mad man and was only a couple of yards away from him when he headed the ball back towards goal.
Hart’s View
As the ball is cleared down the pitch towards his goal, Joe Hart has a clear view of the entire field. He can see where the ball is headed, he can see Nastasic getting to it first and he can see Torres running behind him. Hart will have faced this situation countless times in his career, however, he decides to take matters into his own hands and he leaves his box. Outside of their eighteen yard box, keepers are at their most vulnerable, and when keepers get a rush of blood to the head and go crazy for a split second, that’s when defenders are at their most vulnerable. This is exactly what Hart did in this moment. Despite making numerous blunders over the previous eighteen months which resulted in opposition goals, he decided to take a this chance, even though it was quite clear that out of the three players involved; he was always third best to get anywhere near the ball.
He failed to provide every goalkeeper’s most important role for their team: be the last line of defence. Be the defenders’ safety net. Joe Hart failed in his role here. Even when he got there, he appeared to be unsure whether he was going to kick it or head it and ended up kneeing Nastasic instead, which suggested indecisiveness on his part.
Conclusion: From examining the situation from the view of both players, there is only one person to blame for Chelsea’s winning goal, and that person is Joe Hart.
Bullseye
Who was more to blame for Chelsea's winning goal vs Man City, Hart or Nastasic?
Sunday, the 27th of October, 2013. The English capital, London, was in a brisk evening. 41,495 fans had packed themselves into Stamford Bridge, the home ground of Chelsea FC, to witness the premier league match against title rivals, Manchester City. The game ebbed and flowed, until the 90th minute arrived, with a calamity of an error in defence between defender Matija Nastasic and goalkeeper Joe Hart, led to Fernando Torres scoring the winning goal for Chelsea, and attributing to increased speculation about Joe Hart’s ability. The question that will be answered here is who was more to blame for the goal – the defender, Nastasic, or the goalkeeper, Hart. I will suggest and prove categorically that the clear answer for who is more to blame for the goal is Joe Hart.
The reason it is clearly Hart’s fault is because of his position. He is the goalkeeper, the custodian, the general commandeering his army. It is up to him to perform the most important job on the pitch, and that is to keep the opposition from scoring. In cricket, it is the job of the batsmen running towards the ‘danger end’ to signal if a run is possible. In football, it is ultimately the keepers call on how to defend long range kicks, such as the one that led to Torres’ goal.
When addressing a question such as this, it’s important to look at the track record of the player. Joe Hart is no stranger to blunders between the posts. February 9th, 2013, Hart’s blunder of dropping Lambert’s shot against Southampton allowed Steven Davis to score, thus ending City’s chances of victory. August 14th, 2013, and Hart, playing for England, fumbled James Morrison’s shot into his goal. Fortunately for England, this mistake did not cost them victory. August 25th, 2013, and Hart again makes a blunder against Cardiff City, making an airswing in an attempt to clear a corner which lead to Campbell’s decisive goal. September 28, 2013, against Aston Villa, Hart again messed up and allowed Weimann to score his decisive goal. October 2, 2013, against Bayern Munich, Hart came up with two blunders – the first, fumbling Ribery’s powerful shot over the line, and the second, his inability to deal with Robben’s near-post shot. This is in the space of half a season, which suggests that Hart’s mentality is clearly being affected. A man who had a fast rise from loanee to national player, the comfortable nature of his position could be affecting his game, but that is for another discussion.
One could suggest that these errors in his keeping had nothing to do with the error that contributed to Torres’ goal in London. That is a legitimate case, as most of them were due to a great strike or sublime finishing as opposed to poor keeping. However, the exact same scenario that led to the Torres goal has also occurred more than once with Hart.
Instance #1
A long ball booted forward by Blackburn, Hart advances out his penalty area and gets caught up with his defender, which allows the Rovers attacker, Kalinic, to bypass the attempted blockade and strike the ball into an empty net. Hart could have surely trusted his defender, Toure, but elected to advance out of his box, and attributed to the error.
Instance #2
Long ball forwarded by Amazulu, and again, Hart advances. This time there are no defenders in sight, just the Amazulu striker, Ndulula, and Hart, and Ndulula bypasses Hart to score the goal. Nobody to blame here except for Hart advancing from his penalty box
Instance #3 – the goal in question
Long ball forwarded by Chelsea, Hart advancing, causing confusion with his defender, Nastasic. Amidst the confusion, Torres pounces and scores the definitive goal.
After examining Hart’s history of blunders, especially those which have occurred in similar circumstances, it is quite clear that Joe Hart is more to blame for the Torres’ goal than Nastasic is.
Seabs
Desecrated - This was way too basic for me and lacking any depth on the points you made. What you've got is actually pretty good but there's not enough of it to be a strong debate. I thought your persuasive tone was really good and added a lot to your points. Your point about Hart making the same error before and not learning from it was good too although it could have done with a link to them examples. I don't think you explained your communication counter argument very well though. The last paragraph is totally pointless and was just you creating your own topic and answering it. I have no idea why.
DwayneAustin - I liked this. Largely because you had a strong structure to your debate which made it really easy to follow rather. Writing style is good too in emphasising your stance even greater. This was good. Could have expanded on a few points perhaps to make them even stronger and maybe countered some arguments for why Nastasic might be to blame but overall I liked this.
Bullseye - I liked your intro and especially the Cricket comparison. 2nd paragraph I didn't feel was relevant though and you even stated that yourself in the next paragraph. So why was it there and why was it so long? It's a shame because I think if you used that word count wisely and at the level of the rest of your debate then you might have had this one. The examples of Hart making the same error before was brilliant and added more strength to your argument than Desecrated and DwayneAustin came up with. Sadly you botched the support to that point though and it made your argument too one dimensional for me. Needed some more specific points about the actual goal in question and about Nastasic's role in the goal. Disappointed that nobody addressed Nastasic's role in the goal and if he should have been more aware of his surroundings, especially as you could clearly pick up Hart shouting keepers to alter Nastasic.
Bullseye peaked higher but DwayneAustin's was more consistent throughout so gets the win.
Winner - DwayneAustin
THE DARK ANDRE
I’m not going to give extensive feedback for this match because quite frankly it isn’t needed. All three debaters went for the same obvious route and made the same obvious arguments. While I agree that it was DEFINITELY Hart’s fault (the midweek England game confirmed that he has a real weakness at judging when to come for long balls), I would have loved to have read a convincing argument to the contrary. None the less…
Desecrated:
Nice cheeky intro that established the debater’s personality, entertainment value can certainly help separate similar standard debates. Your points about Hart and Nasty are all valid, but don’t really go into great depth like DwayneAustin's. You also covered the point that Hart has form for rushing off his line in daft scenarios, which obviously established that his error was more to do with his generally poor reading of the game than anything else. Your first three paragraphs were good, but the last one was irrelevant and killed the fire within your debate. If you could have maintained that initial standard of writing while also going into as much detail as your opponents then I think you could have won my vote quite easily.
DwayneAustin:
You covered the same points as Desecrated, just with slightly less attitude yet much more detail. I thought that the breakdown of both players’ “views” was a good move and established exactly why Hart created a needless situation through piss poor judgement. Having said that, I don’t think that you took into account that Nasty actually headed the ball AFTER he saw that Hart was off his line, thus leaving a question mark over Nasty’s decision to head the ball where he did. You should have acknowledged this and made the point that Hart put Nasty under immense pressure and that’s why it was Hart’s fault for Nasty’s poor split second decision. This was quite a mechanical debate and was far from a riveting read, but you nailed all of your basic arguments.
Bullseye:
The opening paragraph was far too long, far too narrative based and far too whimsical. You should have cut that down by half at least. It made sense to mention Hart’s errors that were similar to the Nasty incident, but listing ALL of his errors seemed a bit overkill and pointless. However, during your third paragraph the debate started to get going and was looking promising. The use of video footage was a smart move, as was the implementation of the short break downs and explanations as to why Hart’s form for making these types of errors suggests that it’s a huge flaw within his game and that it should focus the spotlight on him in a situation where the defender could have possibly smashed the ball into row z, but 999 times out of 1000 would just simply nod the ball back to his keeper. Then your debate just…stopped…when it had really just got going. That was an abrupt ending to a promising but ultimately one dimensional debate.
Results:
In all honesty I didn’t think that this match was anywhere near as good as it should have been. I’m not saying that any of the debates were terrible, but none of them were better than average. I certainly would have won this match with ease if I was involved, anyway. :brodgers
Desecrated had by far the best writing style. DwayneAustin had by far the best break down of the incident. Bullseye had by far the best implementation of evidence via cross comparisons. If someone had put all three of these components together in one debate it would have made something special. Oh well…
However, the winning debate for me was the one which had the most detailed explanations of the ACTUAL situation. It might have lacked cross comparisons to the other Hart blunders (unlike Desecrated & Bullseye), it might have been a bit formulaic in terms of writing style, but it dealt with the situation between Hart and Nasty with the best approach. There was also far less fat on this debate, whereas Desecrated and Bullseye rambled on a bit aimlessly in places. Hardly a clear cut victory though. With a just bit more effort Desecrated would have easily won my vote.
Desecrated: **1/4
DwayneAustin: **1/2
Bullseye: **
DwayneAustin wins the vote :brodgers
But most importantly…
![]()
WOOLCOCK
Desecrated – Very much a short and sweet entry, though I’ll concede the nature of the topic definitely restricts the freedom people have to discuss depending on what they consider relevant to the question. I thought the paragraph discussing what’s next for Hart was really a waste and very much irrelevant to what was being asked. The writer definitely makes a number of points with a strong conviction against Hart, but perhaps video evidence or just a basic expansion on the critical aspects of the blunder would have made it stronger? Eh, there’s very little wrong here but at the same time I’m not convinced there’s enough that assuredly answers the question better than its competitors.
DwayneAustin – I liked the approach here. The writer did a good job breaking down what Nastasic and Hart could both reasonably be expected to do in this situation, although again for those unfamiliar with the incident perhaps supplying a brief video link might have been a smart use to aid your argument since you were breaking down the options presented to both individuals. I do think having watched the incident again you can argue Hart really places Nastastic in an uncomfortable situation since Nastasic spots Hart advancing towards him but he’s already committed to passing back to Hart and he reacts slowly in trying to hoof it out. It’s definitely a scenario where Nastasic looks quite daft in still heading the ball past Hart, but really Hart being out there in the first place creates an unnecessary moment of panic on Nastasic’s part which brings about the error. I think this argued more critically against Hart in a way that was more convincing than Debate A mainly due to expertly weighing what would be perceived as standard behaviour in that scenario and how Hart’s advancing created room for error that otherwise would not have likely happened given Nastasic’s positioning.
Bullseye – I’m in two minds about this. In a way I like the writer took the time to actually provide a link to the incident so anyone unfamiliar could make their own opinion about it, but I’m not really convinced linking past Hart errors necessarily adds to the argument. The writer spends very little of this debate actually considering the actual error, rather focusing on what appears to be an exaggerated and needlessly long intro before highlighting past Hart errors of decision making. The thing is, I think you could easily have highlighted Hart’s fault here without having to rely on past blunders to validate your claim. I mean, it’s not directly relevant to the question since it only concerns itself with one incident and often goalkeeping errors can have mitigating circumstances which afford the keeper more leeway than other blunders (although Hart was gash in both of the errors linked). I dunno, I just think the writer barely acknowledged the actual Hart-Nastasic incident itself and concerned themselves moreso with an overall evaluation of Joe Hart which didn’t feel applicable since the question wasn’t asking for a broad overview of Hart’s errors, but rather who specifically was to blame in this instance.
Based on the three entries and the nature of the question, I think DwayneAustin gets the nod here. It expanded upon the similar points raised by Desecrated, and sufficiently considered the actual incident in more detail than Bullseye which felt like a general overview of Hart’s history of errors without actually discussing where he faltered on this occasion.
Winner – DwayneAustin
Desecrated - This was way too basic for me and lacking any depth on the points you made. What you've got is actually pretty good but there's not enough of it to be a strong debate. I thought your persuasive tone was really good and added a lot to your points. Your point about Hart making the same error before and not learning from it was good too although it could have done with a link to them examples. I don't think you explained your communication counter argument very well though. The last paragraph is totally pointless and was just you creating your own topic and answering it. I have no idea why.
DwayneAustin - I liked this. Largely because you had a strong structure to your debate which made it really easy to follow rather. Writing style is good too in emphasising your stance even greater. This was good. Could have expanded on a few points perhaps to make them even stronger and maybe countered some arguments for why Nastasic might be to blame but overall I liked this.
Bullseye - I liked your intro and especially the Cricket comparison. 2nd paragraph I didn't feel was relevant though and you even stated that yourself in the next paragraph. So why was it there and why was it so long? It's a shame because I think if you used that word count wisely and at the level of the rest of your debate then you might have had this one. The examples of Hart making the same error before was brilliant and added more strength to your argument than Desecrated and DwayneAustin came up with. Sadly you botched the support to that point though and it made your argument too one dimensional for me. Needed some more specific points about the actual goal in question and about Nastasic's role in the goal. Disappointed that nobody addressed Nastasic's role in the goal and if he should have been more aware of his surroundings, especially as you could clearly pick up Hart shouting keepers to alter Nastasic.
Bullseye peaked higher but DwayneAustin's was more consistent throughout so gets the win.
Winner - DwayneAustin
THE DARK ANDRE
I’m not going to give extensive feedback for this match because quite frankly it isn’t needed. All three debaters went for the same obvious route and made the same obvious arguments. While I agree that it was DEFINITELY Hart’s fault (the midweek England game confirmed that he has a real weakness at judging when to come for long balls), I would have loved to have read a convincing argument to the contrary. None the less…
Desecrated:
Nice cheeky intro that established the debater’s personality, entertainment value can certainly help separate similar standard debates. Your points about Hart and Nasty are all valid, but don’t really go into great depth like DwayneAustin's. You also covered the point that Hart has form for rushing off his line in daft scenarios, which obviously established that his error was more to do with his generally poor reading of the game than anything else. Your first three paragraphs were good, but the last one was irrelevant and killed the fire within your debate. If you could have maintained that initial standard of writing while also going into as much detail as your opponents then I think you could have won my vote quite easily.
DwayneAustin:
You covered the same points as Desecrated, just with slightly less attitude yet much more detail. I thought that the breakdown of both players’ “views” was a good move and established exactly why Hart created a needless situation through piss poor judgement. Having said that, I don’t think that you took into account that Nasty actually headed the ball AFTER he saw that Hart was off his line, thus leaving a question mark over Nasty’s decision to head the ball where he did. You should have acknowledged this and made the point that Hart put Nasty under immense pressure and that’s why it was Hart’s fault for Nasty’s poor split second decision. This was quite a mechanical debate and was far from a riveting read, but you nailed all of your basic arguments.
Bullseye:
The opening paragraph was far too long, far too narrative based and far too whimsical. You should have cut that down by half at least. It made sense to mention Hart’s errors that were similar to the Nasty incident, but listing ALL of his errors seemed a bit overkill and pointless. However, during your third paragraph the debate started to get going and was looking promising. The use of video footage was a smart move, as was the implementation of the short break downs and explanations as to why Hart’s form for making these types of errors suggests that it’s a huge flaw within his game and that it should focus the spotlight on him in a situation where the defender could have possibly smashed the ball into row z, but 999 times out of 1000 would just simply nod the ball back to his keeper. Then your debate just…stopped…when it had really just got going. That was an abrupt ending to a promising but ultimately one dimensional debate.
Results:
In all honesty I didn’t think that this match was anywhere near as good as it should have been. I’m not saying that any of the debates were terrible, but none of them were better than average. I certainly would have won this match with ease if I was involved, anyway. :brodgers
Desecrated had by far the best writing style. DwayneAustin had by far the best break down of the incident. Bullseye had by far the best implementation of evidence via cross comparisons. If someone had put all three of these components together in one debate it would have made something special. Oh well…
However, the winning debate for me was the one which had the most detailed explanations of the ACTUAL situation. It might have lacked cross comparisons to the other Hart blunders (unlike Desecrated & Bullseye), it might have been a bit formulaic in terms of writing style, but it dealt with the situation between Hart and Nasty with the best approach. There was also far less fat on this debate, whereas Desecrated and Bullseye rambled on a bit aimlessly in places. Hardly a clear cut victory though. With a just bit more effort Desecrated would have easily won my vote.
Desecrated: **1/4
DwayneAustin: **1/2
Bullseye: **
DwayneAustin wins the vote :brodgers
But most importantly…
WOOLCOCK
Desecrated – Very much a short and sweet entry, though I’ll concede the nature of the topic definitely restricts the freedom people have to discuss depending on what they consider relevant to the question. I thought the paragraph discussing what’s next for Hart was really a waste and very much irrelevant to what was being asked. The writer definitely makes a number of points with a strong conviction against Hart, but perhaps video evidence or just a basic expansion on the critical aspects of the blunder would have made it stronger? Eh, there’s very little wrong here but at the same time I’m not convinced there’s enough that assuredly answers the question better than its competitors.
DwayneAustin – I liked the approach here. The writer did a good job breaking down what Nastasic and Hart could both reasonably be expected to do in this situation, although again for those unfamiliar with the incident perhaps supplying a brief video link might have been a smart use to aid your argument since you were breaking down the options presented to both individuals. I do think having watched the incident again you can argue Hart really places Nastastic in an uncomfortable situation since Nastasic spots Hart advancing towards him but he’s already committed to passing back to Hart and he reacts slowly in trying to hoof it out. It’s definitely a scenario where Nastasic looks quite daft in still heading the ball past Hart, but really Hart being out there in the first place creates an unnecessary moment of panic on Nastasic’s part which brings about the error. I think this argued more critically against Hart in a way that was more convincing than Debate A mainly due to expertly weighing what would be perceived as standard behaviour in that scenario and how Hart’s advancing created room for error that otherwise would not have likely happened given Nastasic’s positioning.
Bullseye – I’m in two minds about this. In a way I like the writer took the time to actually provide a link to the incident so anyone unfamiliar could make their own opinion about it, but I’m not really convinced linking past Hart errors necessarily adds to the argument. The writer spends very little of this debate actually considering the actual error, rather focusing on what appears to be an exaggerated and needlessly long intro before highlighting past Hart errors of decision making. The thing is, I think you could easily have highlighted Hart’s fault here without having to rely on past blunders to validate your claim. I mean, it’s not directly relevant to the question since it only concerns itself with one incident and often goalkeeping errors can have mitigating circumstances which afford the keeper more leeway than other blunders (although Hart was gash in both of the errors linked). I dunno, I just think the writer barely acknowledged the actual Hart-Nastasic incident itself and concerned themselves moreso with an overall evaluation of Joe Hart which didn’t feel applicable since the question wasn’t asking for a broad overview of Hart’s errors, but rather who specifically was to blame in this instance.
Based on the three entries and the nature of the question, I think DwayneAustin gets the nod here. It expanded upon the similar points raised by Desecrated, and sufficiently considered the actual incident in more detail than Bullseye which felt like a general overview of Hart’s history of errors without actually discussing where he faltered on this occasion.
Winner – DwayneAustin
Winner via Unanimous Decision - DwayneAustin
*Scott Hall's Ghost is seen stumbling around backstage. He approaches BOLO YEUNG and The Lady Killer backstage who are comparing the size of their dicks. We only catch the end of the conversation but it was clear to all watching that TLK had a good few yards on BOLO's. The two pull their trousers back up and shake hands on a hard fought competition.*
*Scott Hall's Ghost being the dick that he is walks right through the handshake. TLK and BOLO are confused. SHG looks drunk and begins to ramble about something nobody really gives a fuck about. I can't even be 50% sure but lets say he challenges TLK to a debate. I am certain however that he whipped his dick out and shook it a little. He would have came third. And probably been last in the competition too. TLK holds up his Wrestling Division Championship belt to signal his superiority. BOLO feeling left out whips out his Etch-A-Sketch that he just so happened to have on him for some reason and draws himself his own title belt with "undefeated in some debates but not all" sketched on. BOLO lifts his Etch-A-Sketch above his head and also signal his superiority. Granted not as well as TLK did earlier. Much earlier. BOLO is a very slow sketcher. SHG rambles on some more about some incoherent shit and I think he challenges them both. TLK and BOLO comment on how manly they are feeling and agree to a rematch. They both pull their trousers down and we go back to the debating action before a winner is revealed. It was probably TLK again. Just like the other 96 times.*
LUCK vs Notorious vs DARTH COCK
Michael Jordan is widely regarded as the GOAT basketball player. Can LeBron James surpass His Airness?
Michael Jordan is widely regarded as the GOAT basketball player. Can LeBron James surpass His Airness?
Notorious
LeBron James or Michael Jordan? It has been a recurring question since LeBron was a high school athlete and has followed him all throughout his career. LeBron was/is considered his heir and they are both two of the greatest players of all-time. LeBron still has a long way to go before retirement and has already had an illustrious career, but can he surpass Jordan? For me, the answer is quite simply: No.
Let’s take a look at each individual’s accolades. Jordan is a 6x NBA champion with 6 Final MVP’s, a 5x MVP, a 14x All-Star, has 10 All-NBA 1st team selections, a 1x Defensive Player of the Year, 9 All-Defensive 1st team selections, Rookie of the Year, 10x NBA scoring champion, 3x league leader in steals and has career averages of 30.1 points per game, 6.2 rebounds per game and 5.3 assists per game.
LeBron is a 2x NBA champion with 2 Final MVP’s, a 4x MVP, 9x All-Star, 7 All-NBA 1st team selections, 5 All-Defensive 1st team selections, Rookie of the Year and 1x scoring champion with career stats of 27.6 points per game, 7.3 rebounds per game and 6.9 assists per game.
While Jordan has the advantage now, LeBron is only 28 and he is only in his 11th season so he could have about 4-6 more years still playing at a high level before he retires. When it’s all said and done, I think when it comes to accolades the two won’t be far apart at all and LeBron could potentially surpass Jordan in some categories. But what truly separates the two is playoff success.
Jordan was a guy that never shied away from the big moments; he made his name off stepping up in the big games. He won six championships in an 8 year span including 6 Finals MVP’s. Most of Jordan’s greatest moments came in the playoffs. His buzzer beater against the Cavs in the 1989 playoffs, 63 points against the 86 Celtics in Boston, who some say are the greatest team of all time. “The Flu Game”, “The Last Shot”, averaging 41 points per game against the Suns in the 93 Finals, all examples of Jordan’s legendary performances when it mattered most. His career averages in the Finals were 33.6 points per game on 48% shooting.
Now LeBron has had some bright spots such as his performance in game 5 of the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons and game 6 against the Boston Celtics in the 2012 Eastern Conference Finals. But for LeBron, his failures far outweigh the good. The 2007 Finals against the Spurs, LeBron averaged 22.0 points per game on 35.6% shooting. His team ended up being swept in 4 games and his high for the Finals was 25 points. In the 2008 semifinals against the Celtics, LeBron averaged 26.7 points per game on 35.5% shooting, and despite his poor play, the Cavs would take the series to 7. In game 5 of the 2010 semifinals against Boston, LeBron had 15 points on 3-14 shooting, in what was considered one of the poorest performances of his career and what is considered the game in which he quit on Cleveland. In the 2011 Finals, LeBron set the record for the biggest decline in production from the first 3 rounds of the playoffs to the Finals. He averaged 17.8 points per game on 47.8% shooting in the series. During the series, the Mavs were able to switch point guards such as Jason Kidd and Jason Terry to guard him and LeBron still struggled. In game 4 of the series, he had one of the worst games of his career, only scoring 8 points on 3-11 shooting in route to a Miami loss. Throughout six fourth quarters in the Finals, LeBron scored a total of 18 points, an average of 3 points per quarter, including one game where he went scoreless in the 4th. It’s considered one of the biggest chokejobs in NBA history. Throughout his first 10 Finals games, LeBron failed to score 30 points.
Regardless of what LeBron does for the rest of his career, the damage has already been done. His case for being the greatest ever will always have that significant asterisk on it. There is no coming back from the repeated failures and consistent underachieving in the playoffs for most of his career when comparing him to all-time greats, and in this case Michael Jordan. LeBron has great regular season stats, he has great regular season accomplishments and accolades, but his failures in the playoffs simply outweigh all of that. Unless he magically pulls off winning 5 or 6 titles in a row, there simply isn’t a way for me to rank LeBron over Jordan, one of the greatest winners in NBA history.
LUCK
Michael Jordan is widely regarded as the GOAT basketball player. Can LeBron James surpass His Airness?
No. Now unfortunately I’m not a psychic and I can’t predict what type of success Lebron will have in the remainder of his career, but based on what Lebron has currently achieved in his career, along with his failures, he isn’t even close. What separates the greats from the other greats is what they accomplish when it matters most. And what matters most in the NBA? The playoffs. Of course the regular season matters to some degree, but are you really going to state that the difference in Lebron’s or Jordan’s greatness has to do with what they managed to achieve against a team like the Charlotte Bobcats? No, because what truly defines success, and more importantly greatness, is what you do when your season is on the line and the championship is being played for by the best teams in the league.
Yes I know it sounds absolutely preposterous to say Lebron isn’t even close to Jordan because he’s a 4 time MVP, two time champion, and two time finals MVP. So how is it that he cannot even be close to Jordan in GOAT discussion? Well mostly because of how dominant Jordan was in his 13 year stretch with the Bulls. If you exclude the season in which he broke his foot 7 games in and the season he made his return to basketball for 17 games, as well as his two seasons in Washington which added nothing to his overall legacy, then you have Jordan winning 6 titles in 11 full years with the Bulls. Lebron only got his first ring after his ninth season in the NBA. Even if Lebron wins another ring this year he still has 3 less than Jordan did after 11 full seasons.
But I know what you’re saying, rings don’t tell the whole story, but general playoff success usually does and no one was more dominant in the playoffs than Jordan with a ridiculous 124-57 record! Meanwhile Lebron sits at a modest 88-50 record. Now you look at that and you think they’re not very far off percentage wise, but that isn’t looking at the big picture. Lebron has had the benefit of having 7 game first round series while Jordan had 5, which gives Lebron an extra win against typically an overmatched low seeded team. Not only that but Jordan seemingly is unfazed as he goes deeper in the playoffs against better teams with a ridiculous 53-29 record in the final two rounds of the NBA playoffs. Lebron, on the other hand, goes in the complete opposite direction with a record of 30-25 in the final two rounds. That tells us that when facing the toughest teams in the most important circumstances, Lebron led teams faltered while Jordan kept on winning. But wait, Lebron has managed to pass Jordan in one thing when it comes to the playoffs; Lebron, in a much shorter career, has already lost more playoff series, 6, than Jordan did in his whole career, 5.
Typically when discussing the greatest of great’s people only ever focus on what they did right in their careers and what their accomplishments were while ignoring the failures that they endured. Well Lebron has already had more failures and downs than Jordan endured in his entire career. Jordan went to 6 NBA finals and won every single one without ever even facing an elimination game or game 7. Lebron has already suffered two loses in the NBA finals, including getting swept in the 2007 finals by the Spurs, and had to go to a game 7 last year just to win the series. That folks is not domination that is barely surviving and pulling out a win in a series he almost lost. Jordan did nothing but dominate with the highest scoring average in NBA finals history at 33.6, which is almost 10 points higher than Lebron, as well as the highest PER(PER Is a stat used to determine what type of production, stats wise, a player puts up per minute), and the highest efficiency. Speaking of scoring, Lebron hit an all-time low in the 2011 finals when he managed just 8 points in a game. Another low point for him last year was when he didn’t manage to get over 20 points in three straight games against the Spurs. Jordan never once scored less than 20 points in any finals game.
When you think of the greatest of all time you think of someone that dominated their entire careers at every aspect. That is what Jordan did, he was always great regardless of the circumstances. Lebron has managed great success in the regular season, but has failed during the most important time of the playoffs, and that is why he will never surpass Jordan as the greatest of all time.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html
http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Chicago-Bulls/4/Playoff_History
DARTH COCK
No I do not think that lebron james will surpass Michael Jordan as the widely regarded greatest of all time. Lebron is almost the unanimous choice for best in the game currently and one of the of the greatest players of all time, and rightly so in my opinion. He’s the 4 time NBA mvp, 2 time finals mvp., 2 time nba champ, 9 time all star. All before the age of 30. But to put him above Michael Jordan when it is all said and done will require a lot of work on his part.
I think that when choosing between who is the better player, a good way to settle it is
“game on the line, who you got” and right now the unquestioned choice is Jordan. I know that recently Lebron has seemingly become more “clutch” but it’s not always been that way at all. He has had plently on moments in the playoffs where he has come through big. From memory there’s the first half in game 6 of the 2012 ECF, Game winning lay up in game one of the 2013 ECF,Game winning 3 against the magic and scoring 20+ straight points in the ECF against the Pistons to help propel his team to the finals. So there’s been time when he has played out of his mind and been the reason they won the game.
But there’s also been plently of times where he has came up woefully short. There’s game 5 of the 2010 Eastern Conference Semi Finals where he had a bad game and people accused him of quitting on the team. Now I’m not one to say a player quits on his team, but it does speak to how bad his performance was. He backed that game up with a near triple double in game 6. But he also had 9 turnovers and if anybody saw that game, it was a quit triple double and one you barely noticed till it was brought up.
Then after The Decision when he made it to the finals against the Dallas Mavericks, he played well in the first couple games, then in the fourth quarter of the final 4 games in which the mavs won. It was like he was victimized by the Monsters from space jam and couldn’t play anymore. Also in the 4 finals he has played in, I’d say he only played well throughout the series vs the Thunder. He even admitted that he sucked in a couple games during the finals vs the spurs. He’s also a ray allen 3 away from being 1-3 in the finals.
Micheal Jordan’s Career is at least a little similar because it took him a while to get over the hump. Losing to those great Celtic and Piston teams that had collectively more talent ,seeing as they were stacked with Hall of Famers like Bird,Mchale,Isaiah Thomas,Dennis Rodman and Joe Dumars. And as anybody will tell you, having all the hall of famers that they had, is gonna put you over a team with one Hall of Famer, even if that player is Jordan.
Another thing is while Lebron had plenty of moments both good and bad in the playoffs, before he won his first championship, he was known fairly or not, as a choker who didn’t come through. Does anybody remember a time when Jordan was accused of playing big when his team needed it, win or lose? Jordan holds the record for most points scored in a playoff game, and that came in a loss to the Celtics. After that game even Larry Bird said “it was god in the form of micheal Jordan” that a heavy compliment coming from a guy who himself is among the handful of greatest players of all time.
Jordan was always known for coming through and playing the best when his best was need, Averaging a finals high in points and winning the finals mvp a record 6 finals mvp’s. I didn’t matter if he was fully healthy or scroring 38 points while he could barely walk, he brought it. Also most of his most famous moments came in the playoffs or finals. Like the shot vs the lakers where he switches hands in mid air. Series winning shot vs the Jazz, six 3’s in one half against the Blazers, or the shot over the cavs, which is arguably the most famous shot ever. The only time I remember someone playing him well on defense is Gary Payton, who was a in his prime as a elite defender.
So for the reasons stated I don’t think that lebron will surpass Jordan as the greatest ever. He will go down as a top ten player, maybe even a top 5 player, but not the top one player.
LeBron James or Michael Jordan? It has been a recurring question since LeBron was a high school athlete and has followed him all throughout his career. LeBron was/is considered his heir and they are both two of the greatest players of all-time. LeBron still has a long way to go before retirement and has already had an illustrious career, but can he surpass Jordan? For me, the answer is quite simply: No.
Let’s take a look at each individual’s accolades. Jordan is a 6x NBA champion with 6 Final MVP’s, a 5x MVP, a 14x All-Star, has 10 All-NBA 1st team selections, a 1x Defensive Player of the Year, 9 All-Defensive 1st team selections, Rookie of the Year, 10x NBA scoring champion, 3x league leader in steals and has career averages of 30.1 points per game, 6.2 rebounds per game and 5.3 assists per game.
LeBron is a 2x NBA champion with 2 Final MVP’s, a 4x MVP, 9x All-Star, 7 All-NBA 1st team selections, 5 All-Defensive 1st team selections, Rookie of the Year and 1x scoring champion with career stats of 27.6 points per game, 7.3 rebounds per game and 6.9 assists per game.
While Jordan has the advantage now, LeBron is only 28 and he is only in his 11th season so he could have about 4-6 more years still playing at a high level before he retires. When it’s all said and done, I think when it comes to accolades the two won’t be far apart at all and LeBron could potentially surpass Jordan in some categories. But what truly separates the two is playoff success.
Jordan was a guy that never shied away from the big moments; he made his name off stepping up in the big games. He won six championships in an 8 year span including 6 Finals MVP’s. Most of Jordan’s greatest moments came in the playoffs. His buzzer beater against the Cavs in the 1989 playoffs, 63 points against the 86 Celtics in Boston, who some say are the greatest team of all time. “The Flu Game”, “The Last Shot”, averaging 41 points per game against the Suns in the 93 Finals, all examples of Jordan’s legendary performances when it mattered most. His career averages in the Finals were 33.6 points per game on 48% shooting.
Now LeBron has had some bright spots such as his performance in game 5 of the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons and game 6 against the Boston Celtics in the 2012 Eastern Conference Finals. But for LeBron, his failures far outweigh the good. The 2007 Finals against the Spurs, LeBron averaged 22.0 points per game on 35.6% shooting. His team ended up being swept in 4 games and his high for the Finals was 25 points. In the 2008 semifinals against the Celtics, LeBron averaged 26.7 points per game on 35.5% shooting, and despite his poor play, the Cavs would take the series to 7. In game 5 of the 2010 semifinals against Boston, LeBron had 15 points on 3-14 shooting, in what was considered one of the poorest performances of his career and what is considered the game in which he quit on Cleveland. In the 2011 Finals, LeBron set the record for the biggest decline in production from the first 3 rounds of the playoffs to the Finals. He averaged 17.8 points per game on 47.8% shooting in the series. During the series, the Mavs were able to switch point guards such as Jason Kidd and Jason Terry to guard him and LeBron still struggled. In game 4 of the series, he had one of the worst games of his career, only scoring 8 points on 3-11 shooting in route to a Miami loss. Throughout six fourth quarters in the Finals, LeBron scored a total of 18 points, an average of 3 points per quarter, including one game where he went scoreless in the 4th. It’s considered one of the biggest chokejobs in NBA history. Throughout his first 10 Finals games, LeBron failed to score 30 points.
Regardless of what LeBron does for the rest of his career, the damage has already been done. His case for being the greatest ever will always have that significant asterisk on it. There is no coming back from the repeated failures and consistent underachieving in the playoffs for most of his career when comparing him to all-time greats, and in this case Michael Jordan. LeBron has great regular season stats, he has great regular season accomplishments and accolades, but his failures in the playoffs simply outweigh all of that. Unless he magically pulls off winning 5 or 6 titles in a row, there simply isn’t a way for me to rank LeBron over Jordan, one of the greatest winners in NBA history.
LUCK
Michael Jordan is widely regarded as the GOAT basketball player. Can LeBron James surpass His Airness?
No. Now unfortunately I’m not a psychic and I can’t predict what type of success Lebron will have in the remainder of his career, but based on what Lebron has currently achieved in his career, along with his failures, he isn’t even close. What separates the greats from the other greats is what they accomplish when it matters most. And what matters most in the NBA? The playoffs. Of course the regular season matters to some degree, but are you really going to state that the difference in Lebron’s or Jordan’s greatness has to do with what they managed to achieve against a team like the Charlotte Bobcats? No, because what truly defines success, and more importantly greatness, is what you do when your season is on the line and the championship is being played for by the best teams in the league.
Yes I know it sounds absolutely preposterous to say Lebron isn’t even close to Jordan because he’s a 4 time MVP, two time champion, and two time finals MVP. So how is it that he cannot even be close to Jordan in GOAT discussion? Well mostly because of how dominant Jordan was in his 13 year stretch with the Bulls. If you exclude the season in which he broke his foot 7 games in and the season he made his return to basketball for 17 games, as well as his two seasons in Washington which added nothing to his overall legacy, then you have Jordan winning 6 titles in 11 full years with the Bulls. Lebron only got his first ring after his ninth season in the NBA. Even if Lebron wins another ring this year he still has 3 less than Jordan did after 11 full seasons.
But I know what you’re saying, rings don’t tell the whole story, but general playoff success usually does and no one was more dominant in the playoffs than Jordan with a ridiculous 124-57 record! Meanwhile Lebron sits at a modest 88-50 record. Now you look at that and you think they’re not very far off percentage wise, but that isn’t looking at the big picture. Lebron has had the benefit of having 7 game first round series while Jordan had 5, which gives Lebron an extra win against typically an overmatched low seeded team. Not only that but Jordan seemingly is unfazed as he goes deeper in the playoffs against better teams with a ridiculous 53-29 record in the final two rounds of the NBA playoffs. Lebron, on the other hand, goes in the complete opposite direction with a record of 30-25 in the final two rounds. That tells us that when facing the toughest teams in the most important circumstances, Lebron led teams faltered while Jordan kept on winning. But wait, Lebron has managed to pass Jordan in one thing when it comes to the playoffs; Lebron, in a much shorter career, has already lost more playoff series, 6, than Jordan did in his whole career, 5.
Typically when discussing the greatest of great’s people only ever focus on what they did right in their careers and what their accomplishments were while ignoring the failures that they endured. Well Lebron has already had more failures and downs than Jordan endured in his entire career. Jordan went to 6 NBA finals and won every single one without ever even facing an elimination game or game 7. Lebron has already suffered two loses in the NBA finals, including getting swept in the 2007 finals by the Spurs, and had to go to a game 7 last year just to win the series. That folks is not domination that is barely surviving and pulling out a win in a series he almost lost. Jordan did nothing but dominate with the highest scoring average in NBA finals history at 33.6, which is almost 10 points higher than Lebron, as well as the highest PER(PER Is a stat used to determine what type of production, stats wise, a player puts up per minute), and the highest efficiency. Speaking of scoring, Lebron hit an all-time low in the 2011 finals when he managed just 8 points in a game. Another low point for him last year was when he didn’t manage to get over 20 points in three straight games against the Spurs. Jordan never once scored less than 20 points in any finals game.
When you think of the greatest of all time you think of someone that dominated their entire careers at every aspect. That is what Jordan did, he was always great regardless of the circumstances. Lebron has managed great success in the regular season, but has failed during the most important time of the playoffs, and that is why he will never surpass Jordan as the greatest of all time.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html
http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Chicago-Bulls/4/Playoff_History
DARTH COCK
No I do not think that lebron james will surpass Michael Jordan as the widely regarded greatest of all time. Lebron is almost the unanimous choice for best in the game currently and one of the of the greatest players of all time, and rightly so in my opinion. He’s the 4 time NBA mvp, 2 time finals mvp., 2 time nba champ, 9 time all star. All before the age of 30. But to put him above Michael Jordan when it is all said and done will require a lot of work on his part.
I think that when choosing between who is the better player, a good way to settle it is
“game on the line, who you got” and right now the unquestioned choice is Jordan. I know that recently Lebron has seemingly become more “clutch” but it’s not always been that way at all. He has had plently on moments in the playoffs where he has come through big. From memory there’s the first half in game 6 of the 2012 ECF, Game winning lay up in game one of the 2013 ECF,Game winning 3 against the magic and scoring 20+ straight points in the ECF against the Pistons to help propel his team to the finals. So there’s been time when he has played out of his mind and been the reason they won the game.
But there’s also been plently of times where he has came up woefully short. There’s game 5 of the 2010 Eastern Conference Semi Finals where he had a bad game and people accused him of quitting on the team. Now I’m not one to say a player quits on his team, but it does speak to how bad his performance was. He backed that game up with a near triple double in game 6. But he also had 9 turnovers and if anybody saw that game, it was a quit triple double and one you barely noticed till it was brought up.
Then after The Decision when he made it to the finals against the Dallas Mavericks, he played well in the first couple games, then in the fourth quarter of the final 4 games in which the mavs won. It was like he was victimized by the Monsters from space jam and couldn’t play anymore. Also in the 4 finals he has played in, I’d say he only played well throughout the series vs the Thunder. He even admitted that he sucked in a couple games during the finals vs the spurs. He’s also a ray allen 3 away from being 1-3 in the finals.
Micheal Jordan’s Career is at least a little similar because it took him a while to get over the hump. Losing to those great Celtic and Piston teams that had collectively more talent ,seeing as they were stacked with Hall of Famers like Bird,Mchale,Isaiah Thomas,Dennis Rodman and Joe Dumars. And as anybody will tell you, having all the hall of famers that they had, is gonna put you over a team with one Hall of Famer, even if that player is Jordan.
Another thing is while Lebron had plenty of moments both good and bad in the playoffs, before he won his first championship, he was known fairly or not, as a choker who didn’t come through. Does anybody remember a time when Jordan was accused of playing big when his team needed it, win or lose? Jordan holds the record for most points scored in a playoff game, and that came in a loss to the Celtics. After that game even Larry Bird said “it was god in the form of micheal Jordan” that a heavy compliment coming from a guy who himself is among the handful of greatest players of all time.
Jordan was always known for coming through and playing the best when his best was need, Averaging a finals high in points and winning the finals mvp a record 6 finals mvp’s. I didn’t matter if he was fully healthy or scroring 38 points while he could barely walk, he brought it. Also most of his most famous moments came in the playoffs or finals. Like the shot vs the lakers where he switches hands in mid air. Series winning shot vs the Jazz, six 3’s in one half against the Blazers, or the shot over the cavs, which is arguably the most famous shot ever. The only time I remember someone playing him well on defense is Gary Payton, who was a in his prime as a elite defender.
So for the reasons stated I don’t think that lebron will surpass Jordan as the greatest ever. He will go down as a top ten player, maybe even a top 5 player, but not the top one player.
The Lady Killer
Well, everyone effectively chose the same exact argument - focusing on LeBron's playoff failures with respect to Jordan's success - so this might be a bit tough.
Notorious = Short, effective intro that sets the tone for your debate. In your opinion, LeBron won't surpass Jordan. The next paragraph, you delve into their individual stats, and show how close they are. You even go on to say that since LeBron is still young, he can possibly match Jordan's individual stats. You need to be careful here, since you haven't yet clearly stated that you're basing your stance solely on playoff success as the distinguishing argument. As of now, I'd think you were contradicting yourself. Thankfully, you state that what separates them is playoff success right after this. I think this should've been mentioned a bit earlier, so that it's in the back of my mind when I read how close they are statistically.
I thought the next two paragraphs were pretty great. First, you herald Jordan's postseason succcess with some frankly mindblowing stats. You start off the LeBron paragraph by conceding his handful of standout performances, but quell these counterarguments by illustrating how terrible he was for stretches at a time when it mattered most. Again, the stats were a great use of support. Can't argue with FACTS.
Conclusion was a nice way to wrap it up, and drive home the "asterisk" that will forever plague LeBron's name. I don't think the last sentence was necessary, because again, that gives the reader the idea that if LeBron were to win 5 more rings, he'd surpass Jordan - but you just spent 790 words on why he won't suprass Jordan. Just little things that I think you could cut. You never want to give the reader the idea that the other side of the argument has a chance of being true. All in all, a very solid debate.
LUCK = This took a very similar stance to Notorious. Strong intro, and I like that you stated you're basing your claim on what LeBron has (or hasn't) already accomplished, and extrapolating on that to support the notion that LeBron won't surpass MJ. Unlike Notorious, you state in the intro that playoff success is the distinguishing factor. You concede LeBron's regular season prowess, and dismiss it from your argument by emphasizing his postseason failures. Very nice.
Next paragraph solidifies your stance, again conceding LeBron's individual stats and driving home Jordan's sheer dominance. Comparing Jordan's playoff record to LeBron's looked staggering at first, but I went ahead and did the win % math, and they're almost identical. Luckily, you one-upped me and shot that down as a counterargument by narrowing their respective records down to the final 2 rounds, in which Jordan clearly has the advantage. What perhaps was most staggering was that LeBron has already lost more playoff series than did Jordan in his entire career. A counterargument might be the support Jordan had compared to the lack thereof for LeBron in Cleveland, so I think something to shoot that down would've strengthened your claim a bit, but the use of stats was great in this paragraph. I actually stopped and said "WOW!" at some of MJ's lesser known stats.
You continue this into the next paragraph, stating how MJ never faced an elimination game in the Finals, and did a great job comparing their individual performances in the Finals, clearly giving the edge to Michael. Even though the question asks CAN LBJ suprass Jordan (ie in the future), you do a great job of providing past/present reasons why that won't happen because James has already amounted more "failures" than MJ did throughout his career. The concluding sentence sums this up nicely. Very well done here.
DARTH COCK = There are already some grammar/capitalization issues right off the bat. I'm not sure if you typed this from your phone, but it's a bit distracting. The intro basically mirrors the other two debates, as does your mode of attack. Basically, who are you going to choose with the game on the line? LBJ or MJ? As did the others, you went with MJ.
The next paragraph falls under the same criticism that I gave to Debate A. You say you'd go with MJ when it comes to crunchtime, then spend a paragraph on LeBron's growing clutch-ness (IDGAF if that's a word). A bit contradictory. I think you could've condensed that into "Although LeBron has definitely had a handful of clutch moments, the failures far outweigh the successes," or something to that effect. I think one of the other debates even said this exact thing. This would've been a great opening line for your paragraph on LeBron's failures. You then go into MJ's past, and state that MJ had his share of failures, just like LeBron, before getting over the hump and winning a title. I think this hurts your argument as well, because you're drawing similarties between them when you should be creating distance to make it clear that James will never surpass MJ as the GOAT. A solid effort that could've been really good without some of the contradictions.
Winner = Close between Notorious & LUCK, but I'm gonna go with LUCK because it did a better job defining the crux of his argument being playoff success being LeBron's biggest detriment to becoming the GOAT right from the get-go.
Headliner
Notorious and LUCK's debates are quite similar. Very similar in fact.
Notorious had a strong opening. Right off the bat you defined both players career stats to show the superiority of 'Michael'. You also showed that Jordan came up big in the playoffs and even though Lebron did too, he failed too many times for his successes to be highlighted. Good debate.
LUCK's opening wasn't as good as Notorious', but you closed much stronger. In addition I think you did a better job showing the specific success/failure between 'Michael' and Lebron in the playoffs by showing their playoff records and the numbers you put with it.
DARTH COCK's was ok. I think you bombed out early when you asked the question of "game on the line, who you got?". That doesn't help your argument of proving why the other person is better. You can ask that same question again between Ray Allen and Lebron and anyone with a basketball IQ would say Ray. That doesn't mean he's better than Lebron. The rest of the debate was ok. Somewhat similar to Notorious and LUCK. Just not as well written.
Winner-LUCK. (Good Debate though Notorious)
MrMister
Holy shit @ all these STATS:mark:
Ok, I gotta eliminate DARTH COCK right off the bat. You were all over the place and borderline incoherent. Sorry to be brutal, but I'm also assuming you might have rushed this and turned in a rough draft. You mentioned the MAVS, however, so I still love you. Really, the essay just lacked focus. Keep at it.
So now it's between nOTORIOUS AND luck. No one had the balls to defend :lelbron here. I can't blame you. Seems an impossible task. Both of these are pretty close. They touch on a lot of the same things and STATS. You guys got to the crux of the matter here with playoff success. I lean LUCK because he cited that Lebron has already lost more playoff series than Jordan in his career. It's impossible to improve on this. I reckon series winning percentage could roll Lebron's way, but we can't know this. Also, the point about Jordan's Bulls never being in an elimination game in the Finals. That's insane.
Notorious also played Devil's Advocate a bit too much. Now I love Advocacy for the Devil. It shows a good critical mind. You can see more than one side, and there's always more than one side. This is good for most everything but a debate. Because of this, and I do feel Debate B's was stronger, LUCK wins this.
Just to give Notorious some love, I liked your opening the most. LUCK closed better. Notorious seemed to compare Lebron to Lebron too much, instead of keeping the spotlight on comparing Lebron to Jordan. LUCK kept the focus on Lebron v Jordan.
LUCK wins.
Well, everyone effectively chose the same exact argument - focusing on LeBron's playoff failures with respect to Jordan's success - so this might be a bit tough.
Notorious = Short, effective intro that sets the tone for your debate. In your opinion, LeBron won't surpass Jordan. The next paragraph, you delve into their individual stats, and show how close they are. You even go on to say that since LeBron is still young, he can possibly match Jordan's individual stats. You need to be careful here, since you haven't yet clearly stated that you're basing your stance solely on playoff success as the distinguishing argument. As of now, I'd think you were contradicting yourself. Thankfully, you state that what separates them is playoff success right after this. I think this should've been mentioned a bit earlier, so that it's in the back of my mind when I read how close they are statistically.
I thought the next two paragraphs were pretty great. First, you herald Jordan's postseason succcess with some frankly mindblowing stats. You start off the LeBron paragraph by conceding his handful of standout performances, but quell these counterarguments by illustrating how terrible he was for stretches at a time when it mattered most. Again, the stats were a great use of support. Can't argue with FACTS.
Conclusion was a nice way to wrap it up, and drive home the "asterisk" that will forever plague LeBron's name. I don't think the last sentence was necessary, because again, that gives the reader the idea that if LeBron were to win 5 more rings, he'd surpass Jordan - but you just spent 790 words on why he won't suprass Jordan. Just little things that I think you could cut. You never want to give the reader the idea that the other side of the argument has a chance of being true. All in all, a very solid debate.
LUCK = This took a very similar stance to Notorious. Strong intro, and I like that you stated you're basing your claim on what LeBron has (or hasn't) already accomplished, and extrapolating on that to support the notion that LeBron won't surpass MJ. Unlike Notorious, you state in the intro that playoff success is the distinguishing factor. You concede LeBron's regular season prowess, and dismiss it from your argument by emphasizing his postseason failures. Very nice.
Next paragraph solidifies your stance, again conceding LeBron's individual stats and driving home Jordan's sheer dominance. Comparing Jordan's playoff record to LeBron's looked staggering at first, but I went ahead and did the win % math, and they're almost identical. Luckily, you one-upped me and shot that down as a counterargument by narrowing their respective records down to the final 2 rounds, in which Jordan clearly has the advantage. What perhaps was most staggering was that LeBron has already lost more playoff series than did Jordan in his entire career. A counterargument might be the support Jordan had compared to the lack thereof for LeBron in Cleveland, so I think something to shoot that down would've strengthened your claim a bit, but the use of stats was great in this paragraph. I actually stopped and said "WOW!" at some of MJ's lesser known stats.
You continue this into the next paragraph, stating how MJ never faced an elimination game in the Finals, and did a great job comparing their individual performances in the Finals, clearly giving the edge to Michael. Even though the question asks CAN LBJ suprass Jordan (ie in the future), you do a great job of providing past/present reasons why that won't happen because James has already amounted more "failures" than MJ did throughout his career. The concluding sentence sums this up nicely. Very well done here.
DARTH COCK = There are already some grammar/capitalization issues right off the bat. I'm not sure if you typed this from your phone, but it's a bit distracting. The intro basically mirrors the other two debates, as does your mode of attack. Basically, who are you going to choose with the game on the line? LBJ or MJ? As did the others, you went with MJ.
The next paragraph falls under the same criticism that I gave to Debate A. You say you'd go with MJ when it comes to crunchtime, then spend a paragraph on LeBron's growing clutch-ness (IDGAF if that's a word). A bit contradictory. I think you could've condensed that into "Although LeBron has definitely had a handful of clutch moments, the failures far outweigh the successes," or something to that effect. I think one of the other debates even said this exact thing. This would've been a great opening line for your paragraph on LeBron's failures. You then go into MJ's past, and state that MJ had his share of failures, just like LeBron, before getting over the hump and winning a title. I think this hurts your argument as well, because you're drawing similarties between them when you should be creating distance to make it clear that James will never surpass MJ as the GOAT. A solid effort that could've been really good without some of the contradictions.
Winner = Close between Notorious & LUCK, but I'm gonna go with LUCK because it did a better job defining the crux of his argument being playoff success being LeBron's biggest detriment to becoming the GOAT right from the get-go.
Headliner
Notorious and LUCK's debates are quite similar. Very similar in fact.
Notorious had a strong opening. Right off the bat you defined both players career stats to show the superiority of 'Michael'. You also showed that Jordan came up big in the playoffs and even though Lebron did too, he failed too many times for his successes to be highlighted. Good debate.
LUCK's opening wasn't as good as Notorious', but you closed much stronger. In addition I think you did a better job showing the specific success/failure between 'Michael' and Lebron in the playoffs by showing their playoff records and the numbers you put with it.
DARTH COCK's was ok. I think you bombed out early when you asked the question of "game on the line, who you got?". That doesn't help your argument of proving why the other person is better. You can ask that same question again between Ray Allen and Lebron and anyone with a basketball IQ would say Ray. That doesn't mean he's better than Lebron. The rest of the debate was ok. Somewhat similar to Notorious and LUCK. Just not as well written.
Winner-LUCK. (Good Debate though Notorious)
MrMister
Holy shit @ all these STATS:mark:
Ok, I gotta eliminate DARTH COCK right off the bat. You were all over the place and borderline incoherent. Sorry to be brutal, but I'm also assuming you might have rushed this and turned in a rough draft. You mentioned the MAVS, however, so I still love you. Really, the essay just lacked focus. Keep at it.
So now it's between nOTORIOUS AND luck. No one had the balls to defend :lelbron here. I can't blame you. Seems an impossible task. Both of these are pretty close. They touch on a lot of the same things and STATS. You guys got to the crux of the matter here with playoff success. I lean LUCK because he cited that Lebron has already lost more playoff series than Jordan in his career. It's impossible to improve on this. I reckon series winning percentage could roll Lebron's way, but we can't know this. Also, the point about Jordan's Bulls never being in an elimination game in the Finals. That's insane.
Notorious also played Devil's Advocate a bit too much. Now I love Advocacy for the Devil. It shows a good critical mind. You can see more than one side, and there's always more than one side. This is good for most everything but a debate. Because of this, and I do feel Debate B's was stronger, LUCK wins this.
Just to give Notorious some love, I liked your opening the most. LUCK closed better. Notorious seemed to compare Lebron to Lebron too much, instead of keeping the spotlight on comparing Lebron to Jordan. LUCK kept the focus on Lebron v Jordan.
LUCK wins.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - LUCK
*Backstage DwayneAustin is celebrating his debut win and has ordered himself a stripper. Dwayne is clearly still a newbie to TDL and hasn't yet worked out that we see EVERYTHING that happens during a TDL event. Sometimes to our own detriment. But not always. Such as this time. DA's stripper arrives and DA begins to make himself comfortable. As I type this I imagine Shepard getting the urge to hit the hidden forums up again so I'll paraphrase. *
*DA is enjoying his lapdance from the stripper he ordered very much. Some would say a little too much. I am not one those people who would say that though so I have not said that. The stripper pushes DA back in his seat and searches deep into his mind. DA comments on how small but sexy the stripper's eyes. In his own words - "reurn baby, reurn". "Dya like that mate" says the stripper. "REURN BABY, REURN" replies DA in delight. The stripper leans into towards DA and for the first time begins to get physical as the stripper brushes her hand down DA's chest. DA decides now is an apt time to do his Ric Flair impression and he leaps from under the stripper and lets his out his wildest Ric Flair esque WOOOOO and starts strutting around his room, taking off his cheap ass denim jacket, dropping the elbow and flopping around the room. DA - "That's the last flop in this room, it's all HARD now baby. REURN BABY, REURN." *
*In a shocking twist of events "the stripper" kicks DA in his crotch and begins to uncover themself from the makeup they were plastered in. DA stares up from his seat on the floor, riddled in pain. His pain soon turns to horror as he realises just who the stripper was. Let's just say, DA will be in no RUSH to hire another stripper during a TDL event anytime soon. The stripper leaves with DA's wallet and a educational whisper in DA's ear, "know your place on the card kid". Know your place indeed.*
AwShit vs Lane vs MoveMent vs The Ratman
What is the most historically influential type of gimmick match in the history of professional wrestling?
What is the most historically influential type of gimmick match in the history of professional wrestling?
*The Ratman no-shows*
MoveMent
We all love our gimmick matches. It’s something about them that always makes a feud more “Personal” depending on the match. However there are only few that has actually evolved with the times and only one that has done it the best and that is the Ladder Match.
On face value alone the Ladder match doesn’t instantly strike you as hard as a Hardcore or Hell in A Cell match does, but luckily face value isn’t what matters here it’s the match itself. The Ladder match is the perfect showcase of a brutal fight while also utilizing a weapon that’s more versatile than a chair or kendo stick to create new moves and create the perfect symmetry of style and gruesomeness. Ever since the ladder match in the WWE(F) took place at Wrestlemania 10 where Shawn and Razor Ramon not only did what I previously stated but the inclusion of the title hanging at the ceiling for one to grab made that match the classic it was by being able to pull of “flashy” moves during a time where “flash” really just started to become more and more prominent gave the match a “ahead of its time” feeling.
What really made me choose the Ladder match however was simply thinking about how it’s truly been used over the years? The one on one ladder matches were and are definitely great but when WWE(F) was able to translate the match in tag team environments creating a fast pace action that seems like it never stops thanks to the extra participators and with stars such as The Hardy’z, E&C, The Dudley’s etc it was the perfect ingredients to take the Ladder match to the next level.
Then once again, the ladder match evolves in further and at Wrestlemania no doubt when the Money in the Bank Ladder Match was created. Not only did it create a battle royal type of bout with the ladder in the mix but a contract that would change feuds in the WWE for years to come (Still today). A perfect example is the first MITB winner Edge cashing in on John Cena putting the motion for one of Cena’s most memorable feuds since becoming a main eventer. WWE knows the importance of the Ladder match, that’s why whenever it takes the next step of evolving it takes place at the most important PPV of all (WM X, WM 2000, WM 21). It’s simply illogic to ignore the Ladder matches importance to the Professional Wrestling Business when it’s everywhere.
Lane
The most historically influential gimmick match in the history of professional wrestling is the I quit match. Nothing else compares as to how an I quit match comes off. Two men fight each other with so much hatred between them. You have to hate the person you are facing off against so much that you will do anything to make them seem like a lesser man when they utter the words "I quit." It's a way of humiliating your most bitter enemy and a way of saying that they were a weaker man because they couldn't continue on through the punishment.
These matches have also lead to some of the most epic encounter between to men that absolutely despise one another. There's the one between the flashy, technical, and high class looking man Ric Flair against the rugged, brawler, blue collar worker Terry Funk. There is also the infamous Rock vs Mick Foley match where the Rock handcuffs Foley and continuously bashes him over the head with a steel chair offering no protection what so ever as Mick's hands were handcuffed behind his back. How low and sadistic must one man be to repeatedly cause a man possible long term brain damage just to make him say "I quit." I forgot to mention that Foley's family was at the show and after the match there is footage of Foley's family crying when he was being attended to by doctors on the documentary "Beyond The Mat." These two men are friends yet they quite possibly took years off of one another's lives in this match. Not Hell in a Cell, not a steel cage, not no holds barred, but in a I quit match where the whole point is not to pin your opponent but instead to rip his pride away from him and make him yell the words I quit in front of numerous people who will always remember it as well as all the people who will see the tape.
AwShit
We all love our gimmick matches. It’s something about them that always makes a feud more “Personal” depending on the match. However there are only few that has actually evolved with the times and only one that has done it the best and that is the Ladder Match.
On face value alone the Ladder match doesn’t instantly strike you as hard as a Hardcore or Hell in A Cell match does, but luckily face value isn’t what matters here it’s the match itself. The Ladder match is the perfect showcase of a brutal fight while also utilizing a weapon that’s more versatile than a chair or kendo stick to create new moves and create the perfect symmetry of style and gruesomeness. Ever since the ladder match in the WWE(F) took place at Wrestlemania 10 where Shawn and Razor Ramon not only did what I previously stated but the inclusion of the title hanging at the ceiling for one to grab made that match the classic it was by being able to pull of “flashy” moves during a time where “flash” really just started to become more and more prominent gave the match a “ahead of its time” feeling.
What really made me choose the Ladder match however was simply thinking about how it’s truly been used over the years? The one on one ladder matches were and are definitely great but when WWE(F) was able to translate the match in tag team environments creating a fast pace action that seems like it never stops thanks to the extra participators and with stars such as The Hardy’z, E&C, The Dudley’s etc it was the perfect ingredients to take the Ladder match to the next level.
Then once again, the ladder match evolves in further and at Wrestlemania no doubt when the Money in the Bank Ladder Match was created. Not only did it create a battle royal type of bout with the ladder in the mix but a contract that would change feuds in the WWE for years to come (Still today). A perfect example is the first MITB winner Edge cashing in on John Cena putting the motion for one of Cena’s most memorable feuds since becoming a main eventer. WWE knows the importance of the Ladder match, that’s why whenever it takes the next step of evolving it takes place at the most important PPV of all (WM X, WM 2000, WM 21). It’s simply illogic to ignore the Ladder matches importance to the Professional Wrestling Business when it’s everywhere.
Lane
The most historically influential gimmick match in the history of professional wrestling is the I quit match. Nothing else compares as to how an I quit match comes off. Two men fight each other with so much hatred between them. You have to hate the person you are facing off against so much that you will do anything to make them seem like a lesser man when they utter the words "I quit." It's a way of humiliating your most bitter enemy and a way of saying that they were a weaker man because they couldn't continue on through the punishment.
These matches have also lead to some of the most epic encounter between to men that absolutely despise one another. There's the one between the flashy, technical, and high class looking man Ric Flair against the rugged, brawler, blue collar worker Terry Funk. There is also the infamous Rock vs Mick Foley match where the Rock handcuffs Foley and continuously bashes him over the head with a steel chair offering no protection what so ever as Mick's hands were handcuffed behind his back. How low and sadistic must one man be to repeatedly cause a man possible long term brain damage just to make him say "I quit." I forgot to mention that Foley's family was at the show and after the match there is footage of Foley's family crying when he was being attended to by doctors on the documentary "Beyond The Mat." These two men are friends yet they quite possibly took years off of one another's lives in this match. Not Hell in a Cell, not a steel cage, not no holds barred, but in a I quit match where the whole point is not to pin your opponent but instead to rip his pride away from him and make him yell the words I quit in front of numerous people who will always remember it as well as all the people who will see the tape.
AwShit
Wrestling experiences changes in virtually every department from one generation to another. Throughout the course of these generations the fundamentals of the sport are rocked. These modifications can relate to changes in pop culture or simply numerous men (or women) revolutionising the sport. However, perhaps the greatest change wrestling has seen was the slow transition from the technical, mat-based wrestling style (1) to the faster paced action (2) we see today. This whole, massive advancement in wrestling can be highly correlated to one gimmick match. The most historically influential match type of all time: The Hardcore match.
It began a little too distasteful for most, because let’s face it, a man being smacked in the head by a steel chair isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. Not everyone wants to watch a poor bloke continue to get pounded by weapons, despite already being busted wide open. Somehow though, this generally outlawed match gimmick drew crowds and laid the foundations for various other great match types. Cage or Texas Deathmatches are two of the more notable types of matches that were introduced following the establishment of Hardcore matches.
Let’s have a look at some of the early top draws through history that generally fought under Hardcore rules. Jerry “The King” Lawler ring any bells? How about The Iron Sheik? There’s also Tery and Dory (both Jr. and Sr.) Funk plus “Classy” Freddie Blassie. All of them, legends of the sport. Why were they so great? They did whatever it took to win. Let’s progress through time a little. WWWF is now WWF, it’s at war with WCW and it’s the early nineties.
It took both of them an eternity to welcome the idea of Hardcore or No Disqualification Matches, but after witnessing the success these match types had in terms of drawing power in Japan, how could they not succumb to becoming a little more extreme? So, WWF and WCW finally decided to bring forth the match type, which would then go on to become match types.
This historical information doesn’t explain why the Hardcore match was so influential, however. The explanation is seen in the effect of the welcoming of the gimmick match and in doing so, the whole gimmick in general. I highly doubt that without the Hardcore Match we’d ever see the Hell in a Cell match introduced, or as stated before, the Cage match for that matter. Had we never seen tables or ladders used as weapons, who would have ever thought of creating Ladder, Table or TLC matches?
Here’s a list of gimmick matches that would have never been possible without Hardcore matches:
Cage match (of any form), Ladder match, Tables match, TLC match, I Quit match, Backstage Brawls
As you can see this list is immense and some of the matches contained have played a big part in making wrestling what it is today.
This means that without the Hardcore Match, we’d have never seen Mankind get thrown off the top of the Hell in a Cell structure at King of the Ring 1998. (3) Nor would we have seen Edge spear Jeff Hardy as he clenches on to the Tag Team titles at Wrestlemania X7 (4). These two moments have become infamous in WWE. It is moments or matches like these that have made the company the global phenomenon that it is today.
It’s a fact, that had WWF (now WWE) not welcomed the match, the only match variations that would be seen are regular, Iron Man, Submission and Falls Counts Anywhere matches. There will be some people out there that would think this would be great, as they may be into more classical wrestling. That’s preposterous. WWE would not even be close to reaching the fame it has now without these vital match types, there’s a large chance you’d have never watched it.
In closing, I think it’s highly unjustified and ludicrous to claim that any other match gimmick is more influential than the Hardcore Match. I mean, almost all of them stemmed from it! It certainly has played a substantial part in the history of professional wrestling.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcdWgjbTqgg&list=PL41415464DE36CA66
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CETX8LebXvc
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=569DaOPtHd4
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2NGCGwKAcs
It began a little too distasteful for most, because let’s face it, a man being smacked in the head by a steel chair isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. Not everyone wants to watch a poor bloke continue to get pounded by weapons, despite already being busted wide open. Somehow though, this generally outlawed match gimmick drew crowds and laid the foundations for various other great match types. Cage or Texas Deathmatches are two of the more notable types of matches that were introduced following the establishment of Hardcore matches.
Let’s have a look at some of the early top draws through history that generally fought under Hardcore rules. Jerry “The King” Lawler ring any bells? How about The Iron Sheik? There’s also Tery and Dory (both Jr. and Sr.) Funk plus “Classy” Freddie Blassie. All of them, legends of the sport. Why were they so great? They did whatever it took to win. Let’s progress through time a little. WWWF is now WWF, it’s at war with WCW and it’s the early nineties.
It took both of them an eternity to welcome the idea of Hardcore or No Disqualification Matches, but after witnessing the success these match types had in terms of drawing power in Japan, how could they not succumb to becoming a little more extreme? So, WWF and WCW finally decided to bring forth the match type, which would then go on to become match types.
This historical information doesn’t explain why the Hardcore match was so influential, however. The explanation is seen in the effect of the welcoming of the gimmick match and in doing so, the whole gimmick in general. I highly doubt that without the Hardcore Match we’d ever see the Hell in a Cell match introduced, or as stated before, the Cage match for that matter. Had we never seen tables or ladders used as weapons, who would have ever thought of creating Ladder, Table or TLC matches?
Here’s a list of gimmick matches that would have never been possible without Hardcore matches:
Cage match (of any form), Ladder match, Tables match, TLC match, I Quit match, Backstage Brawls
As you can see this list is immense and some of the matches contained have played a big part in making wrestling what it is today.
This means that without the Hardcore Match, we’d have never seen Mankind get thrown off the top of the Hell in a Cell structure at King of the Ring 1998. (3) Nor would we have seen Edge spear Jeff Hardy as he clenches on to the Tag Team titles at Wrestlemania X7 (4). These two moments have become infamous in WWE. It is moments or matches like these that have made the company the global phenomenon that it is today.
It’s a fact, that had WWF (now WWE) not welcomed the match, the only match variations that would be seen are regular, Iron Man, Submission and Falls Counts Anywhere matches. There will be some people out there that would think this would be great, as they may be into more classical wrestling. That’s preposterous. WWE would not even be close to reaching the fame it has now without these vital match types, there’s a large chance you’d have never watched it.
In closing, I think it’s highly unjustified and ludicrous to claim that any other match gimmick is more influential than the Hardcore Match. I mean, almost all of them stemmed from it! It certainly has played a substantial part in the history of professional wrestling.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcdWgjbTqgg&list=PL41415464DE36CA66
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CETX8LebXvc
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=569DaOPtHd4
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2NGCGwKAcs
The Lady Killer
I felt this was pretty easy to judge. There was a clear-cut winner imo.
I basically have the same criticisms of the first two debates.
MoveMent = Intro was fine for what it was. Be careful of using phrases like "always makes a feud personal depending on the match." It's nitpicking, but it's a bit counterintuitive. You're saying something is always a certain way, yet dependent on something else. I like the background paragraph on what makes the ladder match a nice balance between style and brutality.
You were borderline on the money with the next paragraph, where you brough up the Hardys and Dudleys and MITB. I REALLY wanted you to mention TLC matches, because, in reality, the ladder match influenced the TLC match, and that's essentially what the question is asking. Missed a big selling point, there. Because of this, I think you failed to really make a claim for what made the ladder match influential for other matches. MITB was a good shout, but I needed a bit more substance to go along with it. You focused on the people who won those matches (Edge, etc) rather the origin of MITB - the ladder match itself.
Lane = Basically falls under the same follies as MoveMent. I like how you drove home the brutal nature of the "I Quit" match evolving across generations, but I think this missed the fundamental question - what makes the "I Quit" match the most influential? What other matches/pro wrestling phenomena did the match influence? You didn't really touch on this. It was more of a summarization of the "I Quit" match with a few examples. I probably would've defined what "influential" meant in terms of what other matches your selection influenced, then proceeded from there.
AwShit = This debate basically answered the question, and for that it is the winner. Your intro set up your selection pretty well imo. You were smart in choosing a very generic match type - the hardcore match - and listed all of the other match types influenced by the basic hardcore match. The historical frame of reference was useful to set the stage for what present matches were generated from the roots of hardcore style wrestling. Very well done. The examples of Foley at KOTR and the TLC match at WM17 were great. I like how you listed all the matches that wouldn't have come about had it not been for the hardcore match.
Winner = AwShit
WOOLCOCK
MoveMent – I liked the bulk of this, but it was crying out imo for a bit more expansion given you’re acknowledging the evolution of the Ladder match throughout two decades. I really liked that you alluded to the Tag Team wars and eventual progression to MITB as proof of how the Ladder match continually reinvented its identity which has ensured its continual presence as a popular match type wrestling companies throughout the country will book. Had you been able to perhaps expand upon the gradual progression and explore why the ability to reinvent itself continually distinguished itself ahead of its competitors, then this might have stood a chance as the winner. On this occasion however, that’s not the case.
Lane – Likewise this is just too brief and unexplored to be a real candidate here. I’d also like to point out that given the length of this there really is no excuse for a handful of clear grammatical and spelling errors. It’s little touches like that which can indicate the level of care and effort put into a debate, and between the length and the errors I could spot quite noticeably I’m inclined to believe this wasn’t a carefully constructed debate. I liked the closing where you actually talked in depth about the intricacies of an I Quit match, but you really needed to expand on this instead of waffling on about Foley’s beating being found on Beyond the Mat. That portion served no purpose and was wasted words which felt entirely descriptive and lacking in actual analysis.
AwShit – This wasn’t perfect, because given the deliberate broad consideration you employed in this debate, I really would have appreciated you to use some figures or even just expand on someone like Lawler’s array of gimmick matches he had and the success Memphis as a promotion enjoyed from crafting a reputation for hardcore and violent wrestling. Still, you sufficiently broke down how the gradual acceptance of hardcore wrestling as a viable entity that could be profitable then led to some of the more creative gimmick matches (TLC, HIAC, Cage, Ladder Match, Street Fights) being explored in order to maximise viewer interest in gimmick matches, and that without the introduction of hardcore wrestling some of the most beloved match types might never have been developed if promoters didn’t believe they could be successful. The historical influence was certainly more prevalent here than in the other debates, which was appreciated because the question did deliberately encourage a historical consideration. For future reference though, an entry like this might have been easily bettered had someone applied the same choice as you but provided more examples such as the Lawler tidbit I discussed or even outlining the Funks and The Sheik and how they enjoyed immense domestic and international success with their brand of hardcore wrestling.
Winner – AwShit
Evolution
He'll edit his judging in later. Winner has already been decided anyway so it's not worth waiting just for this one judging when I'm in Uni all day tomorrow.
I felt this was pretty easy to judge. There was a clear-cut winner imo.
I basically have the same criticisms of the first two debates.
MoveMent = Intro was fine for what it was. Be careful of using phrases like "always makes a feud personal depending on the match." It's nitpicking, but it's a bit counterintuitive. You're saying something is always a certain way, yet dependent on something else. I like the background paragraph on what makes the ladder match a nice balance between style and brutality.
You were borderline on the money with the next paragraph, where you brough up the Hardys and Dudleys and MITB. I REALLY wanted you to mention TLC matches, because, in reality, the ladder match influenced the TLC match, and that's essentially what the question is asking. Missed a big selling point, there. Because of this, I think you failed to really make a claim for what made the ladder match influential for other matches. MITB was a good shout, but I needed a bit more substance to go along with it. You focused on the people who won those matches (Edge, etc) rather the origin of MITB - the ladder match itself.
Lane = Basically falls under the same follies as MoveMent. I like how you drove home the brutal nature of the "I Quit" match evolving across generations, but I think this missed the fundamental question - what makes the "I Quit" match the most influential? What other matches/pro wrestling phenomena did the match influence? You didn't really touch on this. It was more of a summarization of the "I Quit" match with a few examples. I probably would've defined what "influential" meant in terms of what other matches your selection influenced, then proceeded from there.
AwShit = This debate basically answered the question, and for that it is the winner. Your intro set up your selection pretty well imo. You were smart in choosing a very generic match type - the hardcore match - and listed all of the other match types influenced by the basic hardcore match. The historical frame of reference was useful to set the stage for what present matches were generated from the roots of hardcore style wrestling. Very well done. The examples of Foley at KOTR and the TLC match at WM17 were great. I like how you listed all the matches that wouldn't have come about had it not been for the hardcore match.
Winner = AwShit
WOOLCOCK
MoveMent – I liked the bulk of this, but it was crying out imo for a bit more expansion given you’re acknowledging the evolution of the Ladder match throughout two decades. I really liked that you alluded to the Tag Team wars and eventual progression to MITB as proof of how the Ladder match continually reinvented its identity which has ensured its continual presence as a popular match type wrestling companies throughout the country will book. Had you been able to perhaps expand upon the gradual progression and explore why the ability to reinvent itself continually distinguished itself ahead of its competitors, then this might have stood a chance as the winner. On this occasion however, that’s not the case.
Lane – Likewise this is just too brief and unexplored to be a real candidate here. I’d also like to point out that given the length of this there really is no excuse for a handful of clear grammatical and spelling errors. It’s little touches like that which can indicate the level of care and effort put into a debate, and between the length and the errors I could spot quite noticeably I’m inclined to believe this wasn’t a carefully constructed debate. I liked the closing where you actually talked in depth about the intricacies of an I Quit match, but you really needed to expand on this instead of waffling on about Foley’s beating being found on Beyond the Mat. That portion served no purpose and was wasted words which felt entirely descriptive and lacking in actual analysis.
AwShit – This wasn’t perfect, because given the deliberate broad consideration you employed in this debate, I really would have appreciated you to use some figures or even just expand on someone like Lawler’s array of gimmick matches he had and the success Memphis as a promotion enjoyed from crafting a reputation for hardcore and violent wrestling. Still, you sufficiently broke down how the gradual acceptance of hardcore wrestling as a viable entity that could be profitable then led to some of the more creative gimmick matches (TLC, HIAC, Cage, Ladder Match, Street Fights) being explored in order to maximise viewer interest in gimmick matches, and that without the introduction of hardcore wrestling some of the most beloved match types might never have been developed if promoters didn’t believe they could be successful. The historical influence was certainly more prevalent here than in the other debates, which was appreciated because the question did deliberately encourage a historical consideration. For future reference though, an entry like this might have been easily bettered had someone applied the same choice as you but provided more examples such as the Lawler tidbit I discussed or even outlining the Funks and The Sheik and how they enjoyed immense domestic and international success with their brand of hardcore wrestling.
Winner – AwShit
Evolution
He'll edit his judging in later. Winner has already been decided anyway so it's not worth waiting just for this one judging when I'm in Uni all day tomorrow.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - AwShit
*Shepard is standing backstage ready for another interview.*
Shepard: Right now I'm standing by with one of the many big attractions making a rare appearance on the card for TDL X. I say one of. What I should say really is THE biggest special attraction for TDL X. It's....
me. Shepard.
Shepard: Welcome Shepard. How are you doing?
Shepard: Great thanks Shepard. How are you doing Shepard.
Shepard: Surprisingly, I'm also doing well. Thanks for asking.
Shepard: You're welcome.
Shepard: Such a darling
Shepard: Awww shucks.
Shepard: So now we know you're making your debating debut at TDL X, who are you willing to face?
Shepard: Anyone.
Shepard: Anyone?
Shepard: Anyone!
Shepard: Wow. What a manly man. I bet he has a giant penis too.
Shepard: And I should point out that by anyone I mean anyone bar TLK, SI, Mac, Evo and Andre. Because they're pretty good and I wouldn't be confident of beating them in a debate. But I'll face anyone as long as it fits with my definition of anyone.
Shepard: Defining the question already. Showing signs of a great debater already there mate.
Shepard: Thanks mate. You're a great interviewer btw.
Shepard: You're a great guys to interview too.
Shepard:
ositivityShepard: Right back at ya!
ositivityShepard: You know, I think this might have been my best interview yet.
Shepard: Probably is.
Shepard: I know right. Definitely better than interviewing that disrespectful punk The Wrestling Junkie, or trying to have a conversation with that illiterate fuckwucksuckduckquack CGS.
Shepard: I love you man.
Shepard: Not as much as I love
Shepard & Shepard together: :saul
Wrestling Love vs Alim vs The Fourth Wall vs obby
Which would be the better way to represent The Authority storyline in the Survivor Series main event, a WWE Championship Match or a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match?
Which would be the better way to represent The Authority storyline in the Survivor Series main event, a WWE Championship Match or a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match?
*Wrestling Love no-shows*
The Fourth Wall
Which would be the better way to represent The Authority storyline in the Survivor Series main event, a WWE Championship Match or a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match?
Survivor Series main event.
Why?
We are soon to be arriving at another 'Big Four' event in WWE's PPV Calendar, Survivor Series and a Traditional Survivor Series Match has yet to be announced. I feel this is a good thing for WWE personally, it gives them time to build towards a much more meaningful match than rushing one out to fit in with the theme like recent years. Ever since The Authority storyline started, I was hoping and praying that there would be some form of a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match as I feel it is the perfect way to represent the storyline right now. I don't just want it to be stuck randomly on the the card like previous years. I want it to Main Event the whole show. There's a lot of attention surrounding the storyline and one of the major talking points has been the shocking unmasking of Kane and his new allegiance with The Authority.
The last time the PPV featured the Traditional Match as the Main Event was in 2005. 2013 is the year for WWE to return to form and finally live up to the PPV's name. They have the superbly built up The Authority and they have all the tools to create an entertaining and intriguing Survivor Series match. All the superstars that want to put an end to The Authority can band together and show they're better. Whilst the ones that are in agreement with The Authority can fight in their corner. Right now, WWE doesn't look to be going in the right direction and it doesn't convince me they will return back to form this year. They have the opportunity to strike whilst the iron is hot and create a very memorable Main Event.
Let's take a look back at one of the most successful Survivor Series matches in WWE History, the legendary match between Team WWF and the rebellious Team Alliance. This is regarded as many as one of the greatest Traditional Survivor Series matches in WWE History and is considered one of the most defining moments of the Attitude Era:
This was the Main Event of the show and it's clear how anticipated the match was. The crowd's participation throughout the match with their reactions proved how a storyline can seriously engross an audience and create a tense atmosphere and fear of what the future could contain. The same thing can happen with The Authority, if they were some consequences for The Authority should their team lose at Survivor Series. WWE could create a sense of uncertainty between the fans of what the future could contain and that The Authority could finally be put to an end.
Stipulations aren't needed of course, but it has you anticipating more what the result could be. With a match like this, you also get to feature more wrestlers on the card that deserve a real spot to shine. From the looks of things, WWE could be heading for a WWE Championship Main Event right now and whilst that is not a awful idea considering Orton is a major face of The Authority and the WWE Champion. However, I feel much more anticipation and thought could be put in to making a memorable Traditional Survivor Series match, rather than the recent thrown together matches that we've watched over the years.
obby
Unless this is TNA we’re talking about, major stable angles are a rare occurrence in modern day wrestling. Since these storylines are so far and few between, the WWE should be expected not to drop the ball with them like they did the Nexus and Corre angles from a few years back. One of the most important parts of building up an angle involving multiple workers is to make sure that they are all involved in the current events, which is exactly why the Authority storyline would be best represented by a traditional ten man Survivor Series match at the upcoming PPV.
Since the angle’s dawn at Summerslam, the Authority storyline has been represented primarily by a WWE title match at every pay per view after the fact. Now that we are three months removed from the events of Summerslam, it’d be best to mix things up a little and introduce some variety into the story until its probable climax at Wrestlemania. Unfortunately, a WWE title match between the Big Show and Randy Orton has already been scheduled for Survivor Series, which is a shame considering what could have been. On one side of the story, Big Show, the Rhodes brothers, The Miz, Dolph Ziggler, and Daniel Bryan have all gotten involved in some way shape or form on the Face side of the story. On the other hand, Randy Orton, The SHIELD, and the new Corporate Kane would make for an excellent five person team.
All great stable angles eventually involve multi man tag team matches, with each team representing a different side of the fray. The current story has yet to offer one of these, and I can’t help but think that it’s about time for something to change. Stables always help to give meaning to gigantic tag matches, and now is the perfect time. While a tag battle could always go down next month at TLC, it would’ve made more sense to hold a contest like this at Survivor Series, the more prestigious event that features a ten man tag match every year. It obviously can’t take place at the Royal Rumble, with another gigantic multi man match being scheduled every year, and it’s unlikely that it’ll feature at Elimination Chamber, what with 1-2 Chamber matches already taking the main event spots. The story is probably going to reach its climax at Wrestlemania and, considering the WWE title is involved, there’s no way a big tag match between the factions will take place. This leads me to believe Survivor Series, the only real chance for a PPV tag match to go down, is going to end up being a wasted opportunity.
The Survivor Series tag match itself could use a main event storyline match to gain back a little bit of the prestige that it’s lost. It hasn’t main evented a SS pay per view since 2005, and is no longer considered to be the absolute staple of the event by WWE in the same way that the Rumble match is to its respective pay per view event. A main event spot would help reinforce the idea that the Survivor Series match is essential to the PPV, and this would’ve been the perfect opportunity to do so considering the primary storyline of the company fits the match perfectly.
The actual Survivor Series match this year will most likely end up being another throw away match that won’t have any actual plot significance again, sadly. Considering what could have been, the announcement that a WWE title match would indeed take place comes as a disappointment, with the WWE having every reason to put on a tag contest. I can only hope that a big time stable angle like this one is eventually accompanied by a tag team match for the fans sake, but it’s looking more and more unlikely that it’ll ever happen. A stable angle is always a big opportunity for a wrestling company to put a more creative spin on a traditional angle, a fact that I hope the WWE takes advantage of in regards to this storyline. Whether it be a new match concept or some kind of twist on a traditional one, having endless WWE title matches will ultimately cause the angle to becoming repetitive, something that an unpredictable story featuring multiple talents never should be.
Alim
Triple H’s reign of terror on the WWE is currently the biggest thing going in the world of sports entertainment. It started towards the end of the summer at Summerslam and it’s been reported that it will carry through until Wrestlemania. Survivor Series is just around the corner and what was once seen as a prominent big four pay-per-view along with the likes of Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Royal Rumble, it has seemed like an afterthought in recent years.
WWE does not do themselves any favours when they decide to make the card at the very last minute. We are about a week away from the show and there have been only three matches announced; none of them being the traditional Survivor Series elimination matches. It makes no sense to me why a pay-per-view whose main focus is a multi-man tag team elimination match has yet to have that kind of match type announced with one week left to the show. With that being said, the best way to represent the current authority storyline at Survivor Series should be through a traditional 5 on 5 elimination tag team match.
One reason that I think the focus of authority storyline should be represented in an elimination match because for the simple fact, it’s Survivor Series. In the past so many great rivalries were settled with this unique match style and some were even used as feud advancers - WWF/Alliance, Bischoff/Austin, Raw/Smackdown, just to name a few. All of these were awesome matches with huge implications and it would be very easy for WWE to incorporate some kind of added stipulation to spice things up. Once again, with a week left until the show and no traditional elimination tag match being announced is just shocking to me when they have the main storyline right there at the palm of their hands to turn into gold.
The WWE Championship really has not been the true focus of this storyline. At first it started as Triple H thinking that Bryan didn’t have what it took to be the face of the company. That aspect still remains to an extent, but the championship is a complete afterthought because at this point I don’t see Orton as the face of the company. All I see is Triple H’s lackey. Now even with Big Show involved the feud still remains to be seen as Show versus Triple H. It just so happens that Orton is holding the belt and in turn forces Show to challenge him to one up his rival HHH. If the title is not the focus of the storyline, what point is there in having the championship match be the focus of Survivor Series?
Having a traditional Survivor Series 5/6 on 5/6 would truly be best for business. Why? Because that should be the selling point of the show. You don’t see the “Hell in a Cell” PPV not be headlined by a Hell in a Cell match. The Royal Rumble match doesn’t always headline the PPV, but it is almost always the most heavily hyped match (2013 being one of the few exceptions because of Rock). Same can be said for Elimination Chamber, MITB, etc.
The elimination match type usually involves at least 10 guys, though the number can be higher or lower depending on the circumstance. Due to the fact that it gives the opportunity to fit so many people onto the card, why not use that as an advantage to build up some other superstars in the process? Ziggler, Kofi, Miz, Rhodes, and so many other middle of the pack stars have been involved in the storyline in some way or another. This would have been a great chance to give them all a little more screen time on a bigger stage and make them look credible for the future. You could have Daniel Bryan pick a team of guys who he thinks have what it takes to take down the authority and they could face a combination of The Shield, Orton, HHH, and a couple of other midcard heels and we would have ourselves a great, logical match. You could even have the best of both worlds and still have Show versus Orton as well as a traditional elimination match because the roster is filled with guys who are directionless right now and could use a bit of a boost.
Which would be the better way to represent The Authority storyline in the Survivor Series main event, a WWE Championship Match or a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match?
Survivor Series main event.
Why?
We are soon to be arriving at another 'Big Four' event in WWE's PPV Calendar, Survivor Series and a Traditional Survivor Series Match has yet to be announced. I feel this is a good thing for WWE personally, it gives them time to build towards a much more meaningful match than rushing one out to fit in with the theme like recent years. Ever since The Authority storyline started, I was hoping and praying that there would be some form of a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match as I feel it is the perfect way to represent the storyline right now. I don't just want it to be stuck randomly on the the card like previous years. I want it to Main Event the whole show. There's a lot of attention surrounding the storyline and one of the major talking points has been the shocking unmasking of Kane and his new allegiance with The Authority.
The last time the PPV featured the Traditional Match as the Main Event was in 2005. 2013 is the year for WWE to return to form and finally live up to the PPV's name. They have the superbly built up The Authority and they have all the tools to create an entertaining and intriguing Survivor Series match. All the superstars that want to put an end to The Authority can band together and show they're better. Whilst the ones that are in agreement with The Authority can fight in their corner. Right now, WWE doesn't look to be going in the right direction and it doesn't convince me they will return back to form this year. They have the opportunity to strike whilst the iron is hot and create a very memorable Main Event.
Let's take a look back at one of the most successful Survivor Series matches in WWE History, the legendary match between Team WWF and the rebellious Team Alliance. This is regarded as many as one of the greatest Traditional Survivor Series matches in WWE History and is considered one of the most defining moments of the Attitude Era:
This was the Main Event of the show and it's clear how anticipated the match was. The crowd's participation throughout the match with their reactions proved how a storyline can seriously engross an audience and create a tense atmosphere and fear of what the future could contain. The same thing can happen with The Authority, if they were some consequences for The Authority should their team lose at Survivor Series. WWE could create a sense of uncertainty between the fans of what the future could contain and that The Authority could finally be put to an end.
Stipulations aren't needed of course, but it has you anticipating more what the result could be. With a match like this, you also get to feature more wrestlers on the card that deserve a real spot to shine. From the looks of things, WWE could be heading for a WWE Championship Main Event right now and whilst that is not a awful idea considering Orton is a major face of The Authority and the WWE Champion. However, I feel much more anticipation and thought could be put in to making a memorable Traditional Survivor Series match, rather than the recent thrown together matches that we've watched over the years.
obby
Unless this is TNA we’re talking about, major stable angles are a rare occurrence in modern day wrestling. Since these storylines are so far and few between, the WWE should be expected not to drop the ball with them like they did the Nexus and Corre angles from a few years back. One of the most important parts of building up an angle involving multiple workers is to make sure that they are all involved in the current events, which is exactly why the Authority storyline would be best represented by a traditional ten man Survivor Series match at the upcoming PPV.
Since the angle’s dawn at Summerslam, the Authority storyline has been represented primarily by a WWE title match at every pay per view after the fact. Now that we are three months removed from the events of Summerslam, it’d be best to mix things up a little and introduce some variety into the story until its probable climax at Wrestlemania. Unfortunately, a WWE title match between the Big Show and Randy Orton has already been scheduled for Survivor Series, which is a shame considering what could have been. On one side of the story, Big Show, the Rhodes brothers, The Miz, Dolph Ziggler, and Daniel Bryan have all gotten involved in some way shape or form on the Face side of the story. On the other hand, Randy Orton, The SHIELD, and the new Corporate Kane would make for an excellent five person team.
All great stable angles eventually involve multi man tag team matches, with each team representing a different side of the fray. The current story has yet to offer one of these, and I can’t help but think that it’s about time for something to change. Stables always help to give meaning to gigantic tag matches, and now is the perfect time. While a tag battle could always go down next month at TLC, it would’ve made more sense to hold a contest like this at Survivor Series, the more prestigious event that features a ten man tag match every year. It obviously can’t take place at the Royal Rumble, with another gigantic multi man match being scheduled every year, and it’s unlikely that it’ll feature at Elimination Chamber, what with 1-2 Chamber matches already taking the main event spots. The story is probably going to reach its climax at Wrestlemania and, considering the WWE title is involved, there’s no way a big tag match between the factions will take place. This leads me to believe Survivor Series, the only real chance for a PPV tag match to go down, is going to end up being a wasted opportunity.
The Survivor Series tag match itself could use a main event storyline match to gain back a little bit of the prestige that it’s lost. It hasn’t main evented a SS pay per view since 2005, and is no longer considered to be the absolute staple of the event by WWE in the same way that the Rumble match is to its respective pay per view event. A main event spot would help reinforce the idea that the Survivor Series match is essential to the PPV, and this would’ve been the perfect opportunity to do so considering the primary storyline of the company fits the match perfectly.
The actual Survivor Series match this year will most likely end up being another throw away match that won’t have any actual plot significance again, sadly. Considering what could have been, the announcement that a WWE title match would indeed take place comes as a disappointment, with the WWE having every reason to put on a tag contest. I can only hope that a big time stable angle like this one is eventually accompanied by a tag team match for the fans sake, but it’s looking more and more unlikely that it’ll ever happen. A stable angle is always a big opportunity for a wrestling company to put a more creative spin on a traditional angle, a fact that I hope the WWE takes advantage of in regards to this storyline. Whether it be a new match concept or some kind of twist on a traditional one, having endless WWE title matches will ultimately cause the angle to becoming repetitive, something that an unpredictable story featuring multiple talents never should be.
Alim
Triple H’s reign of terror on the WWE is currently the biggest thing going in the world of sports entertainment. It started towards the end of the summer at Summerslam and it’s been reported that it will carry through until Wrestlemania. Survivor Series is just around the corner and what was once seen as a prominent big four pay-per-view along with the likes of Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Royal Rumble, it has seemed like an afterthought in recent years.
WWE does not do themselves any favours when they decide to make the card at the very last minute. We are about a week away from the show and there have been only three matches announced; none of them being the traditional Survivor Series elimination matches. It makes no sense to me why a pay-per-view whose main focus is a multi-man tag team elimination match has yet to have that kind of match type announced with one week left to the show. With that being said, the best way to represent the current authority storyline at Survivor Series should be through a traditional 5 on 5 elimination tag team match.
One reason that I think the focus of authority storyline should be represented in an elimination match because for the simple fact, it’s Survivor Series. In the past so many great rivalries were settled with this unique match style and some were even used as feud advancers - WWF/Alliance, Bischoff/Austin, Raw/Smackdown, just to name a few. All of these were awesome matches with huge implications and it would be very easy for WWE to incorporate some kind of added stipulation to spice things up. Once again, with a week left until the show and no traditional elimination tag match being announced is just shocking to me when they have the main storyline right there at the palm of their hands to turn into gold.
The WWE Championship really has not been the true focus of this storyline. At first it started as Triple H thinking that Bryan didn’t have what it took to be the face of the company. That aspect still remains to an extent, but the championship is a complete afterthought because at this point I don’t see Orton as the face of the company. All I see is Triple H’s lackey. Now even with Big Show involved the feud still remains to be seen as Show versus Triple H. It just so happens that Orton is holding the belt and in turn forces Show to challenge him to one up his rival HHH. If the title is not the focus of the storyline, what point is there in having the championship match be the focus of Survivor Series?
Having a traditional Survivor Series 5/6 on 5/6 would truly be best for business. Why? Because that should be the selling point of the show. You don’t see the “Hell in a Cell” PPV not be headlined by a Hell in a Cell match. The Royal Rumble match doesn’t always headline the PPV, but it is almost always the most heavily hyped match (2013 being one of the few exceptions because of Rock). Same can be said for Elimination Chamber, MITB, etc.
The elimination match type usually involves at least 10 guys, though the number can be higher or lower depending on the circumstance. Due to the fact that it gives the opportunity to fit so many people onto the card, why not use that as an advantage to build up some other superstars in the process? Ziggler, Kofi, Miz, Rhodes, and so many other middle of the pack stars have been involved in the storyline in some way or another. This would have been a great chance to give them all a little more screen time on a bigger stage and make them look credible for the future. You could have Daniel Bryan pick a team of guys who he thinks have what it takes to take down the authority and they could face a combination of The Shield, Orton, HHH, and a couple of other midcard heels and we would have ourselves a great, logical match. You could even have the best of both worlds and still have Show versus Orton as well as a traditional elimination match because the roster is filled with guys who are directionless right now and could use a bit of a boost.
Seabs
The Fourth Wall - Honestly, I didn't think this was very good and I'm struggling to see what your actual argument was. I've read it through three times and everytime it's read like your own personal opinion rather than saying WHY one would be BETTER than the other. Your opening paragraph is pretty much entirely opinion. Which is fine if you can validate your opinion as being the correct opinion but you didn't. 2nd paragraph is yet more opinions with no reasoning. You state how the match can easily be put together but don't say WHY it should be put together INSTEAD OF a Title match. Which is you know.... what you're debating. You say the 2001 main event is regarded as one of the greatest but you need to tell me WHY. Did it pop a huge buyrate? Do Survivor Series' main evented by elimination tags do better business than when main evented by Title matches? You talk about how great the build to the 2001 main event was but it doesn't mean anything to the actual question at hand here. This felt not only rushed but also pretty clueless. As in you didn't have a clue what to actually put in your debate so you just replaced the arguments that you'd usually put in with opinions.
obby - First half of this was good. 2nd half less so. That was a shame. After your first 3 paragraphs I was really looking forward to kick on into your big argument that won you the debate but you... didn't. You set it up nicely but didn't have the weapon to finish it off with. I liked your intro and especially the last line of it. Set your debate up well with a neat line about why. Your point about mixing the picture up was really good and you supported it by saying how feasible it was. Good but you had a great chance to expand on this by talking about how WWE Title matches are becoming saturated and how a 10 man will help give some other guys exposure in a main event, pick up a big fall to further establish themselves without going over the champion, keep Bryan fresh in the picture without challenging and losing again and create an easy transition into the next title match with a new challenger pinning Orton. Next paragraph was good too although you could have easily made that point much more concisely I think and left room to make one of them easy points I just mentioned. You had words left to use too so I'm assuming you just didn't think it about deep enough because they were pretty easy arguments to think up that would have really give you an edge in this match. The prestige point was flat for me. WHY does it need its prestige adding back? To help the event draw? Did it draw when the gimmick match had prestige? That argument had no substance. Last paragraph is pretty poor and falls into the opinion trap that killed The Fourth Wall's debate.
Alim - Lose the first paragraph. It added nothing to your debate. The 2nd is much of the same too but at least you finally state your stance. Make your intro as concise as possible. You've only got 800 words and you want to use the vast majority of them actually adding to your debate which means using them to construct arguments and points supporting your stance rather than using a third of your debate setting the scene telling me stuff I already know. 3rd paragraph again falls into the trap of voicing your own opinion too much rather than making a point and then saying WHY this is the correct way over the alternative. You tell me that it should be the elimination tag for traditional purposes which isn't really the strongest argument but you don't even tell me WHY upholding the tradition over the monthly tradition of having title matches in the main event is important. 4th paragraph is better and more like what actually convinces people in a debate. I don't think it's the strongest point but it's a point at least with reasoning added to it. Then you fall back into the trap of just voicing an opinion without arguing why this makes it the better choice. "Why? Because that should be the selling point of the show." - is not a very strong argument. WHY should it be the selling point of the show? Is it because it will draw in more buyrates? Your comparisons are pretty weak too because Elimination Chamber wasn't main evented by the gimmick match this year and MITB has only been main evented by the ladder twice 2 out of 4 times. So that was just sloppy. Your last paragraph is the peak. It could do with a proper conclusion though rather than just that sudden ending. Your point about a large number of wrestlers getting exposure in a main event was good though and you did a good job with that. The debate needed so much more of that.
Winner - obby
The Lady Killer
The Fourth Wall = Well, you're not off to a good start, because it appears you misread the question. The question states, "Which would be the better way to represent The Authority storyline in the Survivor Series main event, a WWE Championship Match or a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match?" Basically, you have to choose either a WWE title match or an elimination tag. Your choice? "Survivor Series main event." Hopefully you can recover.
The next paragraph was a little iffy. You state that WWE has yet to announce an elimination tag, but then go on to say it's a good thing because it gives them more time to build. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they announce a match well ahead of time if they want to be able to build it up? The longer they wait, the closer they are to the PPV, and the more rushed it will feel. You kinda bounce back by saying the Authority storyline is the main focal point in pro wrestling right now, and because of all the people involved, it would make the most sense for there to be an elimination tag main eventing Survivor Series. Okay, no we're onto something.
The fact that there hasn't been an elimination tag since 2005 is kind of irrelevant, as the question isn't asking what WWE will do, but what they should do. You do go on to say that everything is in place for an elimination tag, so that's good.
I thought the SS01 elimination tag was a pretty good example. Last paragraph was a little weak, as this is really the only time you mention anything about the other option - the WWE title match main eventing - and you are a bit wishy washy when you say that it's "not an awful idea" for Orton to main event in a WWE title match. This isn't very convincing, and leaves the door open for rebuttals.
obby = Sweet and simple intro, giving a bit of background on major stable storylines and stating your stance clearly. It seems you're already aware of the S. Series main event, and acknowledge it, but you state it in a way so that it's apparent WWE dropped the ball by not announcing an elimination tag instead. I like how you brought up the birth of the storyline at SummerSlam, and followed it up with the fact that the storyline has basically been represented by title matches for 3 straight PPVs, and now that there are enough people involved and S. Series is upon us, what better way to represent the storyline than with a classic elimination tag? I think I would've mentioned here the notion of "Why did WWE create these stables during the summer if they weren't planning on it culminating with a S. Series elimination tag?" Makes no sense imo.
Okay, so you kinda dance around that point in the next paragraph, so that's good. When you say that most FACTION WARS end with a multi-man tag, I think it'd have been a good idea to inlude a few examples. I do like how you state Survivor Series is the perfect time for this, since it is the theme of the PPV, and all successive PPVs have themes that aren't conducive to big tag matches.
Concluding paragraph wraps up your argument nicely, reiterating a few of the major points, but as with The Fourth Wall, I would've liked to have seen you shoot down the opposition a bit more. Still, a solid effort for sure.
Alim = First paragraph doesn't do much for me, as I'm still looking for what side you're taking. I typically look for this in the intro paragraph, but instead it's just some background on how SS is the weakest of the Big 4 PPVs. Next paragraph should've been your intro. This is exactly what I'm looking for. You make the point I referenced in my critique of obby when you say that the theme of S. Series is supposed to be traditional elimiation tags, so why the fuck haven't they announced one yet? You add the idea that the current storyline is tailor made for an elimination tag. Again, this should've been your intro.
Next paragraph further drives home this idea and provides the same example from The Fourth Wall.
A-HA! There we go. Next paragraph shoots down the opposition. BOOM. WE HAVE A WINNER~! Orton has been overshadowed by the storyline and as such, the storyline and all of its participants should be the main event, not the WWE title held by a "lackey." Brilliant. Well done here.
Winner = Alim
WOOLCOCK
The Fourth Wall – This was just a bit too generic for my tastes. The writer introduces some solid points but I just wasn’t captivated by any of them and not once when reading did I feel the writer was making his argument impossible to ignore. When you stick to shorter entries, you really need to maximise your word count and make your arguments as effective as you can. What I’ve noticed which I felt was apparent again here, is that people don’t try and compensate for a shorter with entry with a focused analysis, but rather submit a more basic entry which does little wrong but doesn’t stand out and develop into a debate of real quality that can beat its competition.
obby – Really enjoyable read here. I really liked how the writer continually relied on a contextual approach here, making a note of failed iterations of stables on WWE’s part in recent years and the need for them to not make this storyline a failed opportunity. Similarly I enjoyed the argument that the storyline has been dominated by title matches to date, and thus Survivor Series represented an opportunity to deviate from the norm, thus freshening the storyline up AND giving some of the overlooked wrestlers who’ve been featured in this angle a chance to be in a PPV main event and gain much needed exposure in a prominent position on the card. I also appreciated the writer breaking down the potential path of the angle heading into Wrestlemania to support their argument that Survivor Series really was the most apt timeframe to book a match of this calibre, not only because the gimmick nature of the PPVs preceding Wrestlemania means it’s unlikely the match could be booked but also because it could restore credibility and intrigue to Survivor Series by having the event revolve around a multi-man match which was the initial concept behind the event.
Alim – This debate was remarkably similar to that of obby in terms of content and the issues considered, but aside from delivering a very good argument regarding not having a title match main event the show (“If the title is not the focus of the storyline, what point is there in having the championship match be the focus of Survivor Series?” (Y)), I just felt obby was more convincing in their similar argument. As a word of advice, I do think the intro could have been cut significantly as it really didn’t say much prior to the concluding sentence. The rest was solid but I feel like you weren’t able to expand on and strengthen your arguments to the degree that obby did, thus I can’t award you the victory here.
Winner – obby
The Fourth Wall - Honestly, I didn't think this was very good and I'm struggling to see what your actual argument was. I've read it through three times and everytime it's read like your own personal opinion rather than saying WHY one would be BETTER than the other. Your opening paragraph is pretty much entirely opinion. Which is fine if you can validate your opinion as being the correct opinion but you didn't. 2nd paragraph is yet more opinions with no reasoning. You state how the match can easily be put together but don't say WHY it should be put together INSTEAD OF a Title match. Which is you know.... what you're debating. You say the 2001 main event is regarded as one of the greatest but you need to tell me WHY. Did it pop a huge buyrate? Do Survivor Series' main evented by elimination tags do better business than when main evented by Title matches? You talk about how great the build to the 2001 main event was but it doesn't mean anything to the actual question at hand here. This felt not only rushed but also pretty clueless. As in you didn't have a clue what to actually put in your debate so you just replaced the arguments that you'd usually put in with opinions.
obby - First half of this was good. 2nd half less so. That was a shame. After your first 3 paragraphs I was really looking forward to kick on into your big argument that won you the debate but you... didn't. You set it up nicely but didn't have the weapon to finish it off with. I liked your intro and especially the last line of it. Set your debate up well with a neat line about why. Your point about mixing the picture up was really good and you supported it by saying how feasible it was. Good but you had a great chance to expand on this by talking about how WWE Title matches are becoming saturated and how a 10 man will help give some other guys exposure in a main event, pick up a big fall to further establish themselves without going over the champion, keep Bryan fresh in the picture without challenging and losing again and create an easy transition into the next title match with a new challenger pinning Orton. Next paragraph was good too although you could have easily made that point much more concisely I think and left room to make one of them easy points I just mentioned. You had words left to use too so I'm assuming you just didn't think it about deep enough because they were pretty easy arguments to think up that would have really give you an edge in this match. The prestige point was flat for me. WHY does it need its prestige adding back? To help the event draw? Did it draw when the gimmick match had prestige? That argument had no substance. Last paragraph is pretty poor and falls into the opinion trap that killed The Fourth Wall's debate.
Alim - Lose the first paragraph. It added nothing to your debate. The 2nd is much of the same too but at least you finally state your stance. Make your intro as concise as possible. You've only got 800 words and you want to use the vast majority of them actually adding to your debate which means using them to construct arguments and points supporting your stance rather than using a third of your debate setting the scene telling me stuff I already know. 3rd paragraph again falls into the trap of voicing your own opinion too much rather than making a point and then saying WHY this is the correct way over the alternative. You tell me that it should be the elimination tag for traditional purposes which isn't really the strongest argument but you don't even tell me WHY upholding the tradition over the monthly tradition of having title matches in the main event is important. 4th paragraph is better and more like what actually convinces people in a debate. I don't think it's the strongest point but it's a point at least with reasoning added to it. Then you fall back into the trap of just voicing an opinion without arguing why this makes it the better choice. "Why? Because that should be the selling point of the show." - is not a very strong argument. WHY should it be the selling point of the show? Is it because it will draw in more buyrates? Your comparisons are pretty weak too because Elimination Chamber wasn't main evented by the gimmick match this year and MITB has only been main evented by the ladder twice 2 out of 4 times. So that was just sloppy. Your last paragraph is the peak. It could do with a proper conclusion though rather than just that sudden ending. Your point about a large number of wrestlers getting exposure in a main event was good though and you did a good job with that. The debate needed so much more of that.
Winner - obby
The Lady Killer
The Fourth Wall = Well, you're not off to a good start, because it appears you misread the question. The question states, "Which would be the better way to represent The Authority storyline in the Survivor Series main event, a WWE Championship Match or a Traditional Survivor Series Elimination Tag Match?" Basically, you have to choose either a WWE title match or an elimination tag. Your choice? "Survivor Series main event."
Hopefully you can recover.The next paragraph was a little iffy. You state that WWE has yet to announce an elimination tag, but then go on to say it's a good thing because it gives them more time to build. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they announce a match well ahead of time if they want to be able to build it up? The longer they wait, the closer they are to the PPV, and the more rushed it will feel. You kinda bounce back by saying the Authority storyline is the main focal point in pro wrestling right now, and because of all the people involved, it would make the most sense for there to be an elimination tag main eventing Survivor Series. Okay, no we're onto something.
The fact that there hasn't been an elimination tag since 2005 is kind of irrelevant, as the question isn't asking what WWE will do, but what they should do. You do go on to say that everything is in place for an elimination tag, so that's good.
I thought the SS01 elimination tag was a pretty good example. Last paragraph was a little weak, as this is really the only time you mention anything about the other option - the WWE title match main eventing - and you are a bit wishy washy when you say that it's "not an awful idea" for Orton to main event in a WWE title match. This isn't very convincing, and leaves the door open for rebuttals.
obby = Sweet and simple intro, giving a bit of background on major stable storylines and stating your stance clearly. It seems you're already aware of the S. Series main event, and acknowledge it, but you state it in a way so that it's apparent WWE dropped the ball by not announcing an elimination tag instead. I like how you brought up the birth of the storyline at SummerSlam, and followed it up with the fact that the storyline has basically been represented by title matches for 3 straight PPVs, and now that there are enough people involved and S. Series is upon us, what better way to represent the storyline than with a classic elimination tag? I think I would've mentioned here the notion of "Why did WWE create these stables during the summer if they weren't planning on it culminating with a S. Series elimination tag?" Makes no sense imo.
Okay, so you kinda dance around that point in the next paragraph, so that's good. When you say that most FACTION WARS end with a multi-man tag, I think it'd have been a good idea to inlude a few examples. I do like how you state Survivor Series is the perfect time for this, since it is the theme of the PPV, and all successive PPVs have themes that aren't conducive to big tag matches.
Concluding paragraph wraps up your argument nicely, reiterating a few of the major points, but as with The Fourth Wall, I would've liked to have seen you shoot down the opposition a bit more. Still, a solid effort for sure.
Alim = First paragraph doesn't do much for me, as I'm still looking for what side you're taking. I typically look for this in the intro paragraph, but instead it's just some background on how SS is the weakest of the Big 4 PPVs. Next paragraph should've been your intro. This is exactly what I'm looking for. You make the point I referenced in my critique of obby when you say that the theme of S. Series is supposed to be traditional elimiation tags, so why the fuck haven't they announced one yet? You add the idea that the current storyline is tailor made for an elimination tag. Again, this should've been your intro.
Next paragraph further drives home this idea and provides the same example from The Fourth Wall.
A-HA! There we go. Next paragraph shoots down the opposition. BOOM. WE HAVE A WINNER~! Orton has been overshadowed by the storyline and as such, the storyline and all of its participants should be the main event, not the WWE title held by a "lackey." Brilliant. Well done here.
Winner = Alim
WOOLCOCK
The Fourth Wall – This was just a bit too generic for my tastes. The writer introduces some solid points but I just wasn’t captivated by any of them and not once when reading did I feel the writer was making his argument impossible to ignore. When you stick to shorter entries, you really need to maximise your word count and make your arguments as effective as you can. What I’ve noticed which I felt was apparent again here, is that people don’t try and compensate for a shorter with entry with a focused analysis, but rather submit a more basic entry which does little wrong but doesn’t stand out and develop into a debate of real quality that can beat its competition.
obby – Really enjoyable read here. I really liked how the writer continually relied on a contextual approach here, making a note of failed iterations of stables on WWE’s part in recent years and the need for them to not make this storyline a failed opportunity. Similarly I enjoyed the argument that the storyline has been dominated by title matches to date, and thus Survivor Series represented an opportunity to deviate from the norm, thus freshening the storyline up AND giving some of the overlooked wrestlers who’ve been featured in this angle a chance to be in a PPV main event and gain much needed exposure in a prominent position on the card. I also appreciated the writer breaking down the potential path of the angle heading into Wrestlemania to support their argument that Survivor Series really was the most apt timeframe to book a match of this calibre, not only because the gimmick nature of the PPVs preceding Wrestlemania means it’s unlikely the match could be booked but also because it could restore credibility and intrigue to Survivor Series by having the event revolve around a multi-man match which was the initial concept behind the event.
Alim – This debate was remarkably similar to that of obby in terms of content and the issues considered, but aside from delivering a very good argument regarding not having a title match main event the show (“If the title is not the focus of the storyline, what point is there in having the championship match be the focus of Survivor Series?” (Y)), I just felt obby was more convincing in their similar argument. As a word of advice, I do think the intro could have been cut significantly as it really didn’t say much prior to the concluding sentence. The rest was solid but I feel like you weren’t able to expand on and strengthen your arguments to the degree that obby did, thus I can’t award you the victory here.
Winner – obby
Winner via Split Decision - obby
*During the intermission everyone collectively stands up and gives Rachel Riley a one minute applause.*
:clap
TDL Sports Division Championship
Mr. Lawls vs THE DARK ANDRE
Should Tottenham have let Hugo Lloris stay on the pitch after being knocked out vs Everton?
Mr. Lawls vs THE DARK ANDRE
Should Tottenham have let Hugo Lloris stay on the pitch after being knocked out vs Everton?
Mr. Lawls
Should Tottenham have let Hugo Lloris stay on the pitch after being knocked out vs Everton?
Hugo Lloris was knocked out when his head had smashed into Everton’s striker Romelu Lukaku. He was then treated on the playing field, but despite receiving medical advice and also not remembering the incident, Lloris was allowed to continue playing. He refused attempts by both his team mates and also medical staff to leave the playing field. However Tottenham manager Andre Villas-Boas saw the desire in Lloris to continue, it was enough to convince him to leave Lloris on the field. I believe that this decision was the wrong one, and that Lloris should have been removed from the game.
AVB was content to leave Lloris on the field after seeing his desire to continue on and him telling medical staff he was okay. That in itself is a stupid approach made by AVB listening to a man who had just been knocked out cold by Lukaku, who isn’t a small man by any mean, as well as hearing Lloris state that he could not remember the incident. AVB should have instructed the Tottenham medical staff to remove him from the field and assess him properly, as well as have him subbed off for the rest of the game as a precaution. Tottenham’s medical team wanted to remove Lloris from the game as stated in this quote made by AVB:
"The medical department was giving me signs that the player couldn't carry on, because he couldn't remember where he was.”
He then went on to say:
"But he was quite focused and determined to continue, so when you see this kind of assertiveness it means he is able to carry on, and that is why it was my call to delay the substitution.”
Tottenham have then been criticised by brain injury charity ‘Headway’, FIFA’s chief medical officer Jiri Dvorak, the Professional Footballers’ Association of the UK and Fifpro. The CEO of Headway stated:
“If somebody is knocked out we believe the FA should have a protocol that requires the player to leave the pitch and be properly assessed.”
Jiri Dvorak stated:
“The player should have been substituted, the fact the other player needed ice on his knee means it’s obvious the blow was extensive.”
Fifpro argued that AVB and the Tottenham staff had failed to protect Lloris and are against the decision that the health and safety of players are left to staff, or even the players themselves and that the decision made was unacceptable.
Tottenham didn’t even remove Lloris from the field to assess him and in doing so can’t have gathered a proper assessment of the level of damage caused, according to Headway’s spokesman Luke Griggs. Allowing Lloris to continue playing could have resulted in greater damage to the brain. This is due to symptoms being delayed. They should have taken precautionary measures to ensure the safety of Lloris, but failed to do so. He should have been removed from the game and taken to a hospital immediately to receive scans and be monitored. By allowing Lloris to stay on the field ensured he was at a higher risk of something much worse happening to himself. Being their number one goalkeeper they put the team’s best interest ahead of his own safety. Lloris has then gone on to miss the next two games for Tottenham not even being made as a substitution.
I believe that the Premier League should adapt a different approach to how head injuries are dealt with. Specifically how they do so in the NFL where the player is examined by an independent expert, with said expert making a decision whether or not to move the player from the field and have them examined in the dressing rooms. They are to undergo an X2 Bio concussion test which goes on for around 10 minutes for a specialist to decide whether or not the player is fit enough to return to the game. Said specialist has to be a neurologist, an emergency medical doctor or emergency medical technician, which has head-trauma expertise. In adapting this approach a third party won’t have a biased view whilst performing these tests, and there has been a proper assessment of the player, instead of a quick inspection on the field like the medical team at Tottenham provided.
Tottenham made the wrong choice in keeping their goalkeeper Hugo Lloris on the field for the rest of the game, instead of substituting him off and having him properly assessed. Leaving Lloris on the field put him at risk, which allowed further injuries or harm to occur to him, but fortunately this did not happen and Lloris made it through the rest of the game unscathed. The FA should implement a different approach in how knocked out players should be treated such as the one I highlighted. It would provide an effective and efficient way to ensure the player is looked after, and that their safety is the number one concern.
Sources:
http://www.news.com.au/national/tot...after-head-knock/story-e6frfkp9-1226753239717
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/hugo-lloris-horror-head-injury-2677013
http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/20...d-hugo-lloris-played-head-injury-everton.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/hugo-lloris-head-injury-tottenhams-2683069
THE DARK ANDRE
Spurs SHOULDN'T have let Hugo Lloris stay on the pitch after he was knocked out against Everton because the decision to do so was incredibly dangerous and even nonsensical from a tactical viewpoint.
Lloris was knocked unconscious for one minute which suggests that the damage inflicted upon him was severe. When interviewed about the situation Professor Jiri Dvorak stated “It's a 99 per cent probability that losing consciousness in such an event will result in concussion. We have a slogan: if there is any doubt, keep the player out. ” If there’s a probable chance of a collision like that leading to a concussion then it has to be an INCREDIBLY MORONIC DECISION to leave the injured player on the pitch, one that displays a complete and utter lack of professionalism as well as an inhumane disregard for the player’s wellbeing. What made the decision so dangerous was the possibility of ‘Second impact syndrome’, which is the term for someone who suffers another concussion without having recovered from a previous one. This can lead to death or permanent disability. Try arguing that it was okay to leave Lloris on now...
In football the role of a goalkeeper isn’t one where liberties should be taken. Lloris plays far off his line and sweeps up behind a high pressing defence by making tackles and blocks against onrushing strikers where he is susceptible to being SMASHED into on a regular occasion. He’s also a very proactive player when it comes to set pieces and crosses, coming as far as the edge of his area to collect high balls where he is often BATTERED by opposition bruisers. Leaving the extremely physical Lloris to battle on for the control of his box and even his own half after sustaining such a devastating blow is nonsensically dangerous when you consider how his aggressive style of keeping could potentially lead to ‘second impact syndrome’.
Coincidentally, in the week after his sickening collision with Lukaku, Lloris complained of nausea and dizziness, both of which are symptoms of concussion. Most minor concussions only last for twenty four hours, so Lloris’ symptoms that followed in the next week indicated that he had most likely endured MORE than just a minor concussion. The fact that Tottenham manager Andres Villas Boas rested Lloris for the following two games against Sheriff Trasbol and Newcastle suggests that the keeper SHOULD have been subbed off in the Everton game. Think about this logically; how does letting a player perform in the immediate aftermath of a bad injury make sense when you’re not willing to play him in the following games? It proves that the Cockerels cocked up big time by putting their player in a potentially life threatening situation.
He might be dead important, but he wouldn’t be much use dead…
Lloris is incredibly brave and that’s one of the qualities that makes him a world class keeper, but being brave by staying on in dangerous circumstances doesn’t equate to being sensible. Spurs should have hauled him off and protected his health, as well as their own long term investment in an exceptionally rare high standard keeper who would be nigh on impossible to replace as a full time number one.
By letting Lloris play on and denying him an immediate rest, which is the best cure for a concussion, Spurs might have even exacerbated the problem and prevented him from having a quicker recovery. Lloris failed ‘Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing’ before the Newcastle game which led to AVB suggesting “If the game was tomorrow he would have played”. So even in that sense, AVB could have made a rod for his own back by letting Lloris stay on.
Anyway, why would you want to leave a dizzy and confused goalkeeper on the pitch when he’s more likely to make goal costing errors? What makes AVB’s decision even more baffling is the fact that he had another substitute slot available and could have brought on Brad Friedel, another quality keeper and a more than suitable part time replacement.
Well, without wanting to ‘rabbit rabbit’ on, I certainly hope that Norwich wouldn’t do the same Ruddy thing…
Ironically enough Lukaku himself played on recently after being knocked out against West Ham. While an enforced substitution rule for knocked out players would benefit football players greatly it doesn’t mean that Spurs were justified in their actions without such a rule in place. Lukaku should have also been taken off as a precaution; it’s as simple as that.
Arsenal managed to display common sense when they took off Flamini after he was knocked out against Norwich. So, without rubbing further salt into Spurs’ fan’s wounds, if Arsenal can manage it without being forced to, then so can Spurs. By overruling his club doctors AVB also set a poor precedent for the football industry. If players and managers are allowed to think that they can overrule medical experts on critical issues like this then the Sport will soon become a farce.
We’re NOT living in the era of Manchester City’s Bert Trautmann and his FA Cup final winning performance with a “broken freakin’ neck”, there are FEWER justifications for taking big risks with much more medical knowledge available to us now. Meanwhile, health and safety standards in general sports are also much higher. Lloris should’ve been taken off for his own safety, but even when you view the incident from many other perspectives the answer remains the same. AVB and his fellow Spuds acted like complete and utter potatoes by not bringing Lloris off.
Professor Jiri Dvorak quote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/concussed-players-should-by-law-be-substituted-urges-pfa-after-tottenham-fail-to-take-off-hugo-lloris-8921570.html
How AVB overruled the Tottenham medical staff:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/mick-dennis/441174/Lloris-scare-is-a-head-changer-for-football
Symptoms of a concussion:
http://www.biav.net/sports-concussion.htm
The difference between major and minor concussions and why immediate rest is needed to help cure them:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/454403-can-you-exercise-after-a-concussion/
What second impact syndrome is:
http://www.healtheast.org/bethesda/outpatient-services/concussion-clinic/about-concussions.html
AVB quote concerning when Lloris would be fit again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24889967
How Lloris failed an 'Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing' (ImPACT) before the Newcastle game:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/impossible-to-predict-length-of-layoff-for-tottenham-goalkeeper-hugo-lloris-warns-expert-8933061.html
Should Tottenham have let Hugo Lloris stay on the pitch after being knocked out vs Everton?
Hugo Lloris was knocked out when his head had smashed into Everton’s striker Romelu Lukaku. He was then treated on the playing field, but despite receiving medical advice and also not remembering the incident, Lloris was allowed to continue playing. He refused attempts by both his team mates and also medical staff to leave the playing field. However Tottenham manager Andre Villas-Boas saw the desire in Lloris to continue, it was enough to convince him to leave Lloris on the field. I believe that this decision was the wrong one, and that Lloris should have been removed from the game.
AVB was content to leave Lloris on the field after seeing his desire to continue on and him telling medical staff he was okay. That in itself is a stupid approach made by AVB listening to a man who had just been knocked out cold by Lukaku, who isn’t a small man by any mean, as well as hearing Lloris state that he could not remember the incident. AVB should have instructed the Tottenham medical staff to remove him from the field and assess him properly, as well as have him subbed off for the rest of the game as a precaution. Tottenham’s medical team wanted to remove Lloris from the game as stated in this quote made by AVB:
"The medical department was giving me signs that the player couldn't carry on, because he couldn't remember where he was.”
He then went on to say:
"But he was quite focused and determined to continue, so when you see this kind of assertiveness it means he is able to carry on, and that is why it was my call to delay the substitution.”
Tottenham have then been criticised by brain injury charity ‘Headway’, FIFA’s chief medical officer Jiri Dvorak, the Professional Footballers’ Association of the UK and Fifpro. The CEO of Headway stated:
“If somebody is knocked out we believe the FA should have a protocol that requires the player to leave the pitch and be properly assessed.”
Jiri Dvorak stated:
“The player should have been substituted, the fact the other player needed ice on his knee means it’s obvious the blow was extensive.”
Fifpro argued that AVB and the Tottenham staff had failed to protect Lloris and are against the decision that the health and safety of players are left to staff, or even the players themselves and that the decision made was unacceptable.
Tottenham didn’t even remove Lloris from the field to assess him and in doing so can’t have gathered a proper assessment of the level of damage caused, according to Headway’s spokesman Luke Griggs. Allowing Lloris to continue playing could have resulted in greater damage to the brain. This is due to symptoms being delayed. They should have taken precautionary measures to ensure the safety of Lloris, but failed to do so. He should have been removed from the game and taken to a hospital immediately to receive scans and be monitored. By allowing Lloris to stay on the field ensured he was at a higher risk of something much worse happening to himself. Being their number one goalkeeper they put the team’s best interest ahead of his own safety. Lloris has then gone on to miss the next two games for Tottenham not even being made as a substitution.
I believe that the Premier League should adapt a different approach to how head injuries are dealt with. Specifically how they do so in the NFL where the player is examined by an independent expert, with said expert making a decision whether or not to move the player from the field and have them examined in the dressing rooms. They are to undergo an X2 Bio concussion test which goes on for around 10 minutes for a specialist to decide whether or not the player is fit enough to return to the game. Said specialist has to be a neurologist, an emergency medical doctor or emergency medical technician, which has head-trauma expertise. In adapting this approach a third party won’t have a biased view whilst performing these tests, and there has been a proper assessment of the player, instead of a quick inspection on the field like the medical team at Tottenham provided.
Tottenham made the wrong choice in keeping their goalkeeper Hugo Lloris on the field for the rest of the game, instead of substituting him off and having him properly assessed. Leaving Lloris on the field put him at risk, which allowed further injuries or harm to occur to him, but fortunately this did not happen and Lloris made it through the rest of the game unscathed. The FA should implement a different approach in how knocked out players should be treated such as the one I highlighted. It would provide an effective and efficient way to ensure the player is looked after, and that their safety is the number one concern.
Sources:
http://www.news.com.au/national/tot...after-head-knock/story-e6frfkp9-1226753239717
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/hugo-lloris-horror-head-injury-2677013
http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/20...d-hugo-lloris-played-head-injury-everton.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/hugo-lloris-head-injury-tottenhams-2683069
THE DARK ANDRE
Spurs SHOULDN'T have let Hugo Lloris stay on the pitch after he was knocked out against Everton because the decision to do so was incredibly dangerous and even nonsensical from a tactical viewpoint.
Lloris was knocked unconscious for one minute which suggests that the damage inflicted upon him was severe. When interviewed about the situation Professor Jiri Dvorak stated “It's a 99 per cent probability that losing consciousness in such an event will result in concussion. We have a slogan: if there is any doubt, keep the player out. ” If there’s a probable chance of a collision like that leading to a concussion then it has to be an INCREDIBLY MORONIC DECISION to leave the injured player on the pitch, one that displays a complete and utter lack of professionalism as well as an inhumane disregard for the player’s wellbeing. What made the decision so dangerous was the possibility of ‘Second impact syndrome’, which is the term for someone who suffers another concussion without having recovered from a previous one. This can lead to death or permanent disability. Try arguing that it was okay to leave Lloris on now...
In football the role of a goalkeeper isn’t one where liberties should be taken. Lloris plays far off his line and sweeps up behind a high pressing defence by making tackles and blocks against onrushing strikers where he is susceptible to being SMASHED into on a regular occasion. He’s also a very proactive player when it comes to set pieces and crosses, coming as far as the edge of his area to collect high balls where he is often BATTERED by opposition bruisers. Leaving the extremely physical Lloris to battle on for the control of his box and even his own half after sustaining such a devastating blow is nonsensically dangerous when you consider how his aggressive style of keeping could potentially lead to ‘second impact syndrome’.
Coincidentally, in the week after his sickening collision with Lukaku, Lloris complained of nausea and dizziness, both of which are symptoms of concussion. Most minor concussions only last for twenty four hours, so Lloris’ symptoms that followed in the next week indicated that he had most likely endured MORE than just a minor concussion. The fact that Tottenham manager Andres Villas Boas rested Lloris for the following two games against Sheriff Trasbol and Newcastle suggests that the keeper SHOULD have been subbed off in the Everton game. Think about this logically; how does letting a player perform in the immediate aftermath of a bad injury make sense when you’re not willing to play him in the following games? It proves that the Cockerels cocked up big time by putting their player in a potentially life threatening situation.
He might be dead important, but he wouldn’t be much use dead…
Lloris is incredibly brave and that’s one of the qualities that makes him a world class keeper, but being brave by staying on in dangerous circumstances doesn’t equate to being sensible. Spurs should have hauled him off and protected his health, as well as their own long term investment in an exceptionally rare high standard keeper who would be nigh on impossible to replace as a full time number one.
By letting Lloris play on and denying him an immediate rest, which is the best cure for a concussion, Spurs might have even exacerbated the problem and prevented him from having a quicker recovery. Lloris failed ‘Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing’ before the Newcastle game which led to AVB suggesting “If the game was tomorrow he would have played”. So even in that sense, AVB could have made a rod for his own back by letting Lloris stay on.
Anyway, why would you want to leave a dizzy and confused goalkeeper on the pitch when he’s more likely to make goal costing errors? What makes AVB’s decision even more baffling is the fact that he had another substitute slot available and could have brought on Brad Friedel, another quality keeper and a more than suitable part time replacement.
Well, without wanting to ‘rabbit rabbit’ on, I certainly hope that Norwich wouldn’t do the same Ruddy thing…
Ironically enough Lukaku himself played on recently after being knocked out against West Ham. While an enforced substitution rule for knocked out players would benefit football players greatly it doesn’t mean that Spurs were justified in their actions without such a rule in place. Lukaku should have also been taken off as a precaution; it’s as simple as that.
Arsenal managed to display common sense when they took off Flamini after he was knocked out against Norwich. So, without rubbing further salt into Spurs’ fan’s wounds, if Arsenal can manage it without being forced to, then so can Spurs. By overruling his club doctors AVB also set a poor precedent for the football industry. If players and managers are allowed to think that they can overrule medical experts on critical issues like this then the Sport will soon become a farce.
We’re NOT living in the era of Manchester City’s Bert Trautmann and his FA Cup final winning performance with a “broken freakin’ neck”, there are FEWER justifications for taking big risks with much more medical knowledge available to us now. Meanwhile, health and safety standards in general sports are also much higher. Lloris should’ve been taken off for his own safety, but even when you view the incident from many other perspectives the answer remains the same. AVB and his fellow Spuds acted like complete and utter potatoes by not bringing Lloris off.
Professor Jiri Dvorak quote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/concussed-players-should-by-law-be-substituted-urges-pfa-after-tottenham-fail-to-take-off-hugo-lloris-8921570.html
How AVB overruled the Tottenham medical staff:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/mick-dennis/441174/Lloris-scare-is-a-head-changer-for-football
Symptoms of a concussion:
http://www.biav.net/sports-concussion.htm
The difference between major and minor concussions and why immediate rest is needed to help cure them:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/454403-can-you-exercise-after-a-concussion/
What second impact syndrome is:
http://www.healtheast.org/bethesda/outpatient-services/concussion-clinic/about-concussions.html
AVB quote concerning when Lloris would be fit again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24889967
How Lloris failed an 'Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing' (ImPACT) before the Newcastle game:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/impossible-to-predict-length-of-layoff-for-tottenham-goalkeeper-hugo-lloris-warns-expert-8933061.html
Seabs
Mr. Lawls - Solid debate but not great. I thought you used too many quotes from other people that you could have phrased yourself to make it seem more like your own debate. Referring to quotes is great to back up your point but I thought you relied on them too heavily to make your point for you rather than using them to support your own arguments. Your arguments made are good even if nothing you said really opened my eyes and made me take notice. That's often how you can see the difference between a good and a great debate when they can make points that you wouldn't think of straight away. All your points here I thought were pretty by the books which is fine normally but less so in this match against a top tier opponent. The paragraph about a change in approach to concussions I thought would have been neat as a 2 sentence supporting point but it used too much of your word count for something that wasn't really directly answering the question. Good debate but I wanted something with a bit more of a WOW factor for a Title match.
THE DARK ANDRE - Love your intro. Not a fan of long intros that waste word count personally so this was perfect for me. Made your point both effectively and efficiently. Also a big fan of Cookie Monster references. You're on a roll and I'm only two sentences in. I loved all of this. Seriously brilliant debate. I thought you maybe overdid the formatting slightly. I loved the quotes (more on that in a sec) and capitalising words like SMASHED and even the formatting for your intro and conclusion. I thought you could have toned down the bolding key phrases though. Lawls, this is what I mean by making points that make you take notice and what you wouldn't find in a off the top of your head discussion. The second impact syndrome argument was brilliant and something that showed either superior knowledge or research. The quotes I thought were genius. Don't recall seeing anyone use them like that in a debate yet but they worked a treat even without the humour. This was probably the best Sports Division match yet and up there with one of the top tier debates from any division for me. I actually think it might have been the best if it was 800 words rather than 1000. Not that the extra 200 weakened the debate but I thought your last 2 points weren't as strong as the ones before them.
Winner - THE DARK ANDRE
Evolution
Mr. Lawls: You used too many words in your introduction explaining the context of the topic when you should be establishing your position early on and then why you are taking that side or vice versa (or however you spell it). Intro is to tell us what you’re going to say and why you’re going to say it. It would have also helped you out with the structure of your debate in the following paragraphs.
To me reading the debate it was more of a retelling of the incident. You explained what happened in great detail, then explained what the medical and coaching staff should have done instead but you never really went into much depth and explained WHY they should have done that and what the benefit of doing those things was. You also could have elaborated on why it was a poor decision in the context of the game itself. Something that Debate B touched on in their entry and I was pretty surprised you didn’t mention it because it’s a big disadvantage to have such an important decision making position affected by a concussion of all injuries.
I think your lack of direction in your entry stems directly from your weak introduction. If you use your intro as a story board of sorts you can go back and reference it to give the rest of your debate a direction. If you say “they should have taken him of because of x, y and z” you can go and make a paragraph argument for x, y and z respectively and you’ll create a better all-round debate and find yourself story-telling less.
THE DARK ANDRE: Your debate flowed quite well for the most part, I liked your intro but I wasn’t a massive fan of the excessive bolding and random quotes breaking everything up. As someone who doesn’t get the obscure inside jokes it felt disjointed and really interrupted the momentum of an otherwise fine entry. I wouldn’t recommend doing that again to be honest. Then again someone else might say it was brilliant so whatever.
I felt you could have gone a little more in-depth with the discussion about the effects of the concussion. From both a short-term and a long-term perspective it seemed like something worth pressing on. I liked that you touched on the impact it would have had on his ability to do his job on the pitch and questioning them from that perspective. Brought another layer to your argument that complimented the rest of the debate nicely. A very sound effort.
Result: I’d have to give the win pretty comfortably to THE DARK ANDRE. Despite some questionable formatting and some odd quotes that messed with the flow of everything, it was a tidy debate that was structured well and made good points.
WOOLCOCK
Mr. Lawls – I felt like this debate was just too descriptive and focused on relaying the scenario without really expanding on just why it was the wrong decision to leave him to continue. I think anyone with a degree of sense and given the medical advances relating to concussions could conclude Lloris really should have been subbed, but from reading this I don’t think you sufficiently touched on why it was fundamentally necessary past the obvious health concerns. Maybe I’m being a bit too critical, but it just felt like you were describing the injury and what people were saying in relation to criticising Spurs, but you never used this information to support your stance or expand on their feelings to strengthen your argument. It was almost as if people were supposed to read the arguments of others and consider that justification enough. I also think the paragraph about proposing measures to address future issues of this ilk was entirely unnecessary as it wasn’t prevalent to the question and just stood out as something completely separate to what the question was asking.
THE DARK ANDRE – Now this on the other hand excelled at taking a rather straightforward answer and relaying strong supporting evidence to really critique Spurs’ decision not to substitute Lloris. I absolutely adored your breakdown of Lloris’ style of goalkeeping and how it put him in a position whereby he could encounter some physical contact, something that becomes even more concerning in this situation where he was obviously still affected by the incident and thus could have incurred more long term damage. It’s stuff like this that I’d use to aspiring debaters as to what separates very good debates from a truly great debate. The answer to me is very simplistic here but you’ve strengthened a rudimentary answer immediately by applying a level of thinking not many would have immediately thought of, something that distinguishes your debate from its competition and only serves to impress me as a reader. Everything else raised perfectly valid supporting arguments, namely that playing Lloris risked long term detriment to the team in conjuncture to Lloris’ personal health given he’s been a revelation and Spurs’ ambitions of Champions League football would be severely hindered were Lloris to have suffered a long term injury. You attacked their mindset from a personal and professional point of view which was such a smart approach, and again the point about Friedel being a very able deputy AVB could have called on just further ridicules the mindset of Spurs to not immediately protect one of their best players. I also loved the little precluding quotes to setup the next stage of your debate, just a nice demonstration of your personality and humour that can really make a debate enjoyable to read from an entertainment standpoint.
Winner – THE DARK ANDRE
Mr. Lawls - Solid debate but not great. I thought you used too many quotes from other people that you could have phrased yourself to make it seem more like your own debate. Referring to quotes is great to back up your point but I thought you relied on them too heavily to make your point for you rather than using them to support your own arguments. Your arguments made are good even if nothing you said really opened my eyes and made me take notice. That's often how you can see the difference between a good and a great debate when they can make points that you wouldn't think of straight away. All your points here I thought were pretty by the books which is fine normally but less so in this match against a top tier opponent. The paragraph about a change in approach to concussions I thought would have been neat as a 2 sentence supporting point but it used too much of your word count for something that wasn't really directly answering the question. Good debate but I wanted something with a bit more of a WOW factor for a Title match.
THE DARK ANDRE - Love your intro. Not a fan of long intros that waste word count personally so this was perfect for me. Made your point both effectively and efficiently. Also a big fan of Cookie Monster references. You're on a roll and I'm only two sentences in. I loved all of this. Seriously brilliant debate. I thought you maybe overdid the formatting slightly. I loved the quotes (more on that in a sec) and capitalising words like SMASHED and even the formatting for your intro and conclusion. I thought you could have toned down the bolding key phrases though. Lawls, this is what I mean by making points that make you take notice and what you wouldn't find in a off the top of your head discussion. The second impact syndrome argument was brilliant and something that showed either superior knowledge or research. The quotes I thought were genius. Don't recall seeing anyone use them like that in a debate yet but they worked a treat even without the humour. This was probably the best Sports Division match yet and up there with one of the top tier debates from any division for me. I actually think it might have been the best if it was 800 words rather than 1000. Not that the extra 200 weakened the debate but I thought your last 2 points weren't as strong as the ones before them.
Winner - THE DARK ANDRE
Evolution
Mr. Lawls: You used too many words in your introduction explaining the context of the topic when you should be establishing your position early on and then why you are taking that side or vice versa (or however you spell it). Intro is to tell us what you’re going to say and why you’re going to say it. It would have also helped you out with the structure of your debate in the following paragraphs.
To me reading the debate it was more of a retelling of the incident. You explained what happened in great detail, then explained what the medical and coaching staff should have done instead but you never really went into much depth and explained WHY they should have done that and what the benefit of doing those things was. You also could have elaborated on why it was a poor decision in the context of the game itself. Something that Debate B touched on in their entry and I was pretty surprised you didn’t mention it because it’s a big disadvantage to have such an important decision making position affected by a concussion of all injuries.
I think your lack of direction in your entry stems directly from your weak introduction. If you use your intro as a story board of sorts you can go back and reference it to give the rest of your debate a direction. If you say “they should have taken him of because of x, y and z” you can go and make a paragraph argument for x, y and z respectively and you’ll create a better all-round debate and find yourself story-telling less.
THE DARK ANDRE: Your debate flowed quite well for the most part, I liked your intro but I wasn’t a massive fan of the excessive bolding and random quotes breaking everything up. As someone who doesn’t get the obscure inside jokes it felt disjointed and really interrupted the momentum of an otherwise fine entry. I wouldn’t recommend doing that again to be honest. Then again someone else might say it was brilliant so whatever.
I felt you could have gone a little more in-depth with the discussion about the effects of the concussion. From both a short-term and a long-term perspective it seemed like something worth pressing on. I liked that you touched on the impact it would have had on his ability to do his job on the pitch and questioning them from that perspective. Brought another layer to your argument that complimented the rest of the debate nicely. A very sound effort.
Result: I’d have to give the win pretty comfortably to THE DARK ANDRE. Despite some questionable formatting and some odd quotes that messed with the flow of everything, it was a tidy debate that was structured well and made good points.
WOOLCOCK
Mr. Lawls – I felt like this debate was just too descriptive and focused on relaying the scenario without really expanding on just why it was the wrong decision to leave him to continue. I think anyone with a degree of sense and given the medical advances relating to concussions could conclude Lloris really should have been subbed, but from reading this I don’t think you sufficiently touched on why it was fundamentally necessary past the obvious health concerns. Maybe I’m being a bit too critical, but it just felt like you were describing the injury and what people were saying in relation to criticising Spurs, but you never used this information to support your stance or expand on their feelings to strengthen your argument. It was almost as if people were supposed to read the arguments of others and consider that justification enough. I also think the paragraph about proposing measures to address future issues of this ilk was entirely unnecessary as it wasn’t prevalent to the question and just stood out as something completely separate to what the question was asking.
THE DARK ANDRE – Now this on the other hand excelled at taking a rather straightforward answer and relaying strong supporting evidence to really critique Spurs’ decision not to substitute Lloris. I absolutely adored your breakdown of Lloris’ style of goalkeeping and how it put him in a position whereby he could encounter some physical contact, something that becomes even more concerning in this situation where he was obviously still affected by the incident and thus could have incurred more long term damage. It’s stuff like this that I’d use to aspiring debaters as to what separates very good debates from a truly great debate. The answer to me is very simplistic here but you’ve strengthened a rudimentary answer immediately by applying a level of thinking not many would have immediately thought of, something that distinguishes your debate from its competition and only serves to impress me as a reader. Everything else raised perfectly valid supporting arguments, namely that playing Lloris risked long term detriment to the team in conjuncture to Lloris’ personal health given he’s been a revelation and Spurs’ ambitions of Champions League football would be severely hindered were Lloris to have suffered a long term injury. You attacked their mindset from a personal and professional point of view which was such a smart approach, and again the point about Friedel being a very able deputy AVB could have called on just further ridicules the mindset of Spurs to not immediately protect one of their best players. I also loved the little precluding quotes to setup the next stage of your debate, just a nice demonstration of your personality and humour that can really make a debate enjoyable to read from an entertainment standpoint.
Winner – THE DARK ANDRE
Winner via Unanimous Decision - THE DARK ANDRE
*Post-match Aid180 comes out and has a very boring stand off with the new Sports Champ who he'll challenge at TDL X. Yes you were right that Aid180 was supposed to have a debate on this show. Basically The 'Jake' withdrew late and we couldn't be bothered messing around with a replacement after it took Jake time to respond to any PM's about an extension and such. Aid, your debate won't go to waste because I'll make sure you have that debate topic again in hopefully your next debate after Andre so you can reuse it then if you wish. Sorry about that. You get a cheap title shot and haven't wasted a debate at least.*
Crusade [Team TLK] vs TONY MONTANA [Team SI]
Which current NXT superstar has the most potential to become a WWE main eventer?
Which current NXT superstar has the most potential to become a WWE main eventer?
Crusade
NXT has a multitude of talented wrestlers who have the potential to have great careers within the WWE main roster. However, one wrestler from NXT stands out with the opportunity to become a main event player in the future. That man is none other than Sami Zayn.
Sami has come into the WWE with a wealth of experience wrestling across the globe as El Generico. With experience comes notoriety and it's allowed Zayn to come into WWE with already a big hardcore fan base. This can be a negative as WWE prides itself on making homegrown stars however with the rise of CM Punk and Daniel Bryan this can only put Sami at a huge advantage over most. Sami has a big platform to get over with the casual wrestling audience as it is easier to expand and get more over already having a hardcore fanbase than it is start from scratch.
Sami's experience also means he is a polished product. So there isn't much work that is needed with him unlike for example Bo Dallas who started from scratch at WWE and still hangs more of a question mark over whether he can develop towards his potential. Examples of this come straight from the main event matches he's had at NXT which also show Sami is extremely capable of pulling out main event calibre performances. The biggest example being his 2 out of 3 falls match with Cesaro which Michael Cole claimed was "the best match he had seen in years".[1]
This suggests three things: 1) He is ready for the main roster when the right storyline comes. 2) He undoubtedly shows main event potential not only fans but WWE is looking for and 3) Sami has made a huge impression on co-workers and management alike. These three points are strengthened even more from the talent he has worked with: High profile feud with Cesaro, an NXT title feud with Bo Dallas which was the biggest storyline in NXT and now potentially a storyline with JBL. Most importantly this shows the level of faith and trust they have in Sami. It suggests he's going places because the likes of the Shield and the Wyatt Family having started in developmental are both now in high profile positions in the company with four wrestlers all touted as potential future main event players and all of whom were treated much in the same calibre as Sami Zayn. In a more negative context, Kassius Ohno who many said was a future star for WWE failed to make that same impression when he had all the tools at his disposable and was eventually released.[2]
But that is not all, Sami's biggest strengths are his connection with the audience and the fact he has the most natural babyface character in WWE today. Just watch from 34:37 onwards where he faces Bo Dallas for the NXT title:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x161wsv_wwe-nxt-2013-10-16_sport
The reactions the fans give him throughout show that they are heavily invested in Sami as the level of emotion shown was off the charts. Crowd connection is a big reason for wrestlers getting successful main event pushes and as of right now Sami has the biggest connection with the audience in NXT.
There are notable reasons why this is. First of all Sami shares a lot of characteristics from current main event level talent such as Cena and Punk who got over based on amped versions of their own personalities. This is why he is a natural babyface because he comes across as a genuinely good guy which is something you can't fake. Finally Sami has a certain level of charisma which he has shown since his El Generico days where he didn't speak. His lack of promo time as El Generico has caused concern about how Sami would cope in WWE however that concern and the other points raised can be addressed with this one example:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13xk8v_2013-08-28-nxt-fs-hd_music
This clip shows us why and how Sami has gotten over with the fans. He comes across incredibly natural both on the mic and as a character; nothing about him is fake or phony. It also suggests how versatile he is as a performer to go from a character with no spoken word to one which is very articulate and natural at getting his points and emotions across. Being able to change your character over time and reinvent yourself is how the likes of The Undertaker and The Rock remained in the main event scene for years. It is not a skill everybody can master and Sami has proven himself capable at something only the very best can do.
What about other high profile NXT talent? As already said Kassius Ohno who a lot of fans saw as a potential big star was released recently. Bo Dallas as touched on is still inexperienced and it's too early to tell how he is going to develop. Leo Kruger's gimmick is likely to hold him back as a hunter character in the past has not been main event level like Skinner from the 90's. Adrian Neville may be a great worker but he's had rely on being in tag teams with Oliver Grey and Corey Graves to really show his best strengths. Xavier Woods whilst having charisma, is a fun babyface character like Santino Marella. Is he the sort of talent WWE are going to push before someone they've positioned in main event storylines in their developmental system? Highly unlikely. Finally there are big potential stars waiting to debut like Sami Callihan and Samuray Del Sol however until they actually appear on NXT programming we cannot say how they will adapt. The WWE is worlds different from the Indys so we cannot tell how well they will both do; with Zayn we already know that he has more than adapted to the WWE stage.
Overall Sami Zayn definitely has the biggest potential out of the talent currently on NXT. After evaluating all his attributes it's clear he has everything it takes to main event WWE events in future.
1) https://twitter.com/iLikeSamiZayn/status/360239645117788160 Sami's reaction to Cole's comments about the 2/3 falls match on his podcast.
2) http://www.examiner.com/article/wwe-news-kassius-ohno-released-from-nxt
TONY MONTANA
After the merger of FCW with NXT, the deal with Full Sail, and the opening of the Performance Center, NXT has come a long way, from being an hour of cringeworthy reality show styled television to being an actually entertaining wrestling program. And anyone who follows NXT knows that the future of the WWE is in safe hands, as the roster is filled with some exceptional talent, and CJ Parker. With the likes of Zayn, Neville, Graves, Breeze, Amore, Woods, English, Rusev, Paige, Emma, Bayley, and many others in there, from an actual women's division, to entertaining characters, to some really good wrestlers, NXT has it all. But the question is, amongst the talented lot, which one has the most potential to make in huge in WWE? In my opinion, it would be Sami Zayn. So before I go any further,
Why not anyone else?
Neville, with his arsenal of high flying moves and tremendous agility is a superstar to look out for. However, he isn't the best talker, and neither does he have a whole lot of charisma, which are probably the only setbacks. While guys like English, Breeze and Amore are quite decent in the ring and on the mic and more importantly, have some interesting characters, they're fairly young and they've still got a long way to go. Another man who has a chance make it on the main roster is Graves. In addition to his unique look which makes him stand out from the rest, the guy is quite good both in the ring and on the stick. Woods has come a long way too, and he might make an entertaining character once he's on the main roster as well. Kruger to me, comes off like he's playing a character instead of being one, it just doesn't come off naturally with him. Rusev's another guy who has real potential to be a monster heel once he gets on the main roster. All of these guys I mentioned above certainly have potential to be successful on the main roster, but they also have room to grow. But we're talking a guy with the most potential, and like the question says, a guy who would potentially become a main-eventer down the line.
So, why Sami Zayn?
Why not? Rami was stripped off of his gimmick of El Generico once he was signed by WWE, and was made to wrestle as a totally different character under the name of Sami Zayn. Although questioned by many, it was actually a wise decision, as it let Rami explore more options than just being a colorful character. And within no time, Zayn made it to the top of the roster, and rightfully so. I mean, why wouldn't have he? First off, he is an amazing in-ring performer. Not only can he leave your jaw dropped with his amazing moveset, but at the same time, he can tell you a story in the ring and have you invested into what you're watching. Mic skills? Check. His little skits with Renee are good examples of his acting skills and of how good he can fare with the right person in segments. And he has that charisma, that presence, that he can speak just as much with his facial expressions and his body as he can with a mic. And as far as his personality goes, he's like a natural babyface, someone who you just can't help but like, just like Bryan. And maybe a part of it has got to do with his work ethic too, like when you see him in the ring, you can see that he wants to be there, he wants to be the one. Sami Zayn pretty much has all the tools to be successful on the main roster, and out of the talented lot down there in the developmental, he's someone who I'd bet my money on for a bright future.
Why does Zayn stand more of a chance?
Like I said, there are many others in NXT who have a bright future, but why does Zayn stand more of a chance compared to them, despite them being good as well? Well, Zayn has been in this business for over eleven years now and he knows his craft better. With his matches against Swagger and Cesaro on NXT, its quite apparent that he can work the WWE style quite comfortably too. He isn't known for a bad attitude, doesn't have any issues with drugs, and neither is he injury prone, so he can be an employee that Vince can rely on. He's already an internet darling, and once he debuts on the main roster, he will attract all the other demographics - the adults would find him relatable because of the underdog factor, the women would fall for his looks, and the kids would get behind him because of his exciting style, hence also potentially filling the void of a high-flyer that the kids can root for that Mysterio would leave once he retires. And the 'OLE!' chants aren't going to go away so easily, once the smarks start with the chant, the rest of them will eventually catch up and the WWE won't be stupid enough to not capitalize on it (they won't even need to acknowledge his past for it as the Matadores already use those chants, and the people who aren't aware of Sami's past would assume that its just another chant from the WWE machine, like how the Show and ADR use the 'YES!' chants and get away with it, despite them being Bryan's) And all that just means one thing - MONEY. From comic acts to bloody brawls, from working as a cowardly heel to a sympathetic underdog babyface, from working in the midcard to rightfully main-eventing - with the versatile performer that he is, the possibilities with him are countless. So, why Sami Zayn? Because he is SAMI FUCKING ZAYN.
NXT has a multitude of talented wrestlers who have the potential to have great careers within the WWE main roster. However, one wrestler from NXT stands out with the opportunity to become a main event player in the future. That man is none other than Sami Zayn.
Sami has come into the WWE with a wealth of experience wrestling across the globe as El Generico. With experience comes notoriety and it's allowed Zayn to come into WWE with already a big hardcore fan base. This can be a negative as WWE prides itself on making homegrown stars however with the rise of CM Punk and Daniel Bryan this can only put Sami at a huge advantage over most. Sami has a big platform to get over with the casual wrestling audience as it is easier to expand and get more over already having a hardcore fanbase than it is start from scratch.
Sami's experience also means he is a polished product. So there isn't much work that is needed with him unlike for example Bo Dallas who started from scratch at WWE and still hangs more of a question mark over whether he can develop towards his potential. Examples of this come straight from the main event matches he's had at NXT which also show Sami is extremely capable of pulling out main event calibre performances. The biggest example being his 2 out of 3 falls match with Cesaro which Michael Cole claimed was "the best match he had seen in years".[1]
This suggests three things: 1) He is ready for the main roster when the right storyline comes. 2) He undoubtedly shows main event potential not only fans but WWE is looking for and 3) Sami has made a huge impression on co-workers and management alike. These three points are strengthened even more from the talent he has worked with: High profile feud with Cesaro, an NXT title feud with Bo Dallas which was the biggest storyline in NXT and now potentially a storyline with JBL. Most importantly this shows the level of faith and trust they have in Sami. It suggests he's going places because the likes of the Shield and the Wyatt Family having started in developmental are both now in high profile positions in the company with four wrestlers all touted as potential future main event players and all of whom were treated much in the same calibre as Sami Zayn. In a more negative context, Kassius Ohno who many said was a future star for WWE failed to make that same impression when he had all the tools at his disposable and was eventually released.[2]
But that is not all, Sami's biggest strengths are his connection with the audience and the fact he has the most natural babyface character in WWE today. Just watch from 34:37 onwards where he faces Bo Dallas for the NXT title:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x161wsv_wwe-nxt-2013-10-16_sport
The reactions the fans give him throughout show that they are heavily invested in Sami as the level of emotion shown was off the charts. Crowd connection is a big reason for wrestlers getting successful main event pushes and as of right now Sami has the biggest connection with the audience in NXT.
There are notable reasons why this is. First of all Sami shares a lot of characteristics from current main event level talent such as Cena and Punk who got over based on amped versions of their own personalities. This is why he is a natural babyface because he comes across as a genuinely good guy which is something you can't fake. Finally Sami has a certain level of charisma which he has shown since his El Generico days where he didn't speak. His lack of promo time as El Generico has caused concern about how Sami would cope in WWE however that concern and the other points raised can be addressed with this one example:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13xk8v_2013-08-28-nxt-fs-hd_music
This clip shows us why and how Sami has gotten over with the fans. He comes across incredibly natural both on the mic and as a character; nothing about him is fake or phony. It also suggests how versatile he is as a performer to go from a character with no spoken word to one which is very articulate and natural at getting his points and emotions across. Being able to change your character over time and reinvent yourself is how the likes of The Undertaker and The Rock remained in the main event scene for years. It is not a skill everybody can master and Sami has proven himself capable at something only the very best can do.
What about other high profile NXT talent? As already said Kassius Ohno who a lot of fans saw as a potential big star was released recently. Bo Dallas as touched on is still inexperienced and it's too early to tell how he is going to develop. Leo Kruger's gimmick is likely to hold him back as a hunter character in the past has not been main event level like Skinner from the 90's. Adrian Neville may be a great worker but he's had rely on being in tag teams with Oliver Grey and Corey Graves to really show his best strengths. Xavier Woods whilst having charisma, is a fun babyface character like Santino Marella. Is he the sort of talent WWE are going to push before someone they've positioned in main event storylines in their developmental system? Highly unlikely. Finally there are big potential stars waiting to debut like Sami Callihan and Samuray Del Sol however until they actually appear on NXT programming we cannot say how they will adapt. The WWE is worlds different from the Indys so we cannot tell how well they will both do; with Zayn we already know that he has more than adapted to the WWE stage.
Overall Sami Zayn definitely has the biggest potential out of the talent currently on NXT. After evaluating all his attributes it's clear he has everything it takes to main event WWE events in future.
1) https://twitter.com/iLikeSamiZayn/status/360239645117788160 Sami's reaction to Cole's comments about the 2/3 falls match on his podcast.
2) http://www.examiner.com/article/wwe-news-kassius-ohno-released-from-nxt
TONY MONTANA
After the merger of FCW with NXT, the deal with Full Sail, and the opening of the Performance Center, NXT has come a long way, from being an hour of cringeworthy reality show styled television to being an actually entertaining wrestling program. And anyone who follows NXT knows that the future of the WWE is in safe hands, as the roster is filled with some exceptional talent, and CJ Parker. With the likes of Zayn, Neville, Graves, Breeze, Amore, Woods, English, Rusev, Paige, Emma, Bayley, and many others in there, from an actual women's division, to entertaining characters, to some really good wrestlers, NXT has it all. But the question is, amongst the talented lot, which one has the most potential to make in huge in WWE? In my opinion, it would be Sami Zayn. So before I go any further,
Why not anyone else?
Neville, with his arsenal of high flying moves and tremendous agility is a superstar to look out for. However, he isn't the best talker, and neither does he have a whole lot of charisma, which are probably the only setbacks. While guys like English, Breeze and Amore are quite decent in the ring and on the mic and more importantly, have some interesting characters, they're fairly young and they've still got a long way to go. Another man who has a chance make it on the main roster is Graves. In addition to his unique look which makes him stand out from the rest, the guy is quite good both in the ring and on the stick. Woods has come a long way too, and he might make an entertaining character once he's on the main roster as well. Kruger to me, comes off like he's playing a character instead of being one, it just doesn't come off naturally with him. Rusev's another guy who has real potential to be a monster heel once he gets on the main roster. All of these guys I mentioned above certainly have potential to be successful on the main roster, but they also have room to grow. But we're talking a guy with the most potential, and like the question says, a guy who would potentially become a main-eventer down the line.
So, why Sami Zayn?
Why not? Rami was stripped off of his gimmick of El Generico once he was signed by WWE, and was made to wrestle as a totally different character under the name of Sami Zayn. Although questioned by many, it was actually a wise decision, as it let Rami explore more options than just being a colorful character. And within no time, Zayn made it to the top of the roster, and rightfully so. I mean, why wouldn't have he? First off, he is an amazing in-ring performer. Not only can he leave your jaw dropped with his amazing moveset, but at the same time, he can tell you a story in the ring and have you invested into what you're watching. Mic skills? Check. His little skits with Renee are good examples of his acting skills and of how good he can fare with the right person in segments. And he has that charisma, that presence, that he can speak just as much with his facial expressions and his body as he can with a mic. And as far as his personality goes, he's like a natural babyface, someone who you just can't help but like, just like Bryan. And maybe a part of it has got to do with his work ethic too, like when you see him in the ring, you can see that he wants to be there, he wants to be the one. Sami Zayn pretty much has all the tools to be successful on the main roster, and out of the talented lot down there in the developmental, he's someone who I'd bet my money on for a bright future.
Why does Zayn stand more of a chance?
Like I said, there are many others in NXT who have a bright future, but why does Zayn stand more of a chance compared to them, despite them being good as well? Well, Zayn has been in this business for over eleven years now and he knows his craft better. With his matches against Swagger and Cesaro on NXT, its quite apparent that he can work the WWE style quite comfortably too. He isn't known for a bad attitude, doesn't have any issues with drugs, and neither is he injury prone, so he can be an employee that Vince can rely on. He's already an internet darling, and once he debuts on the main roster, he will attract all the other demographics - the adults would find him relatable because of the underdog factor, the women would fall for his looks, and the kids would get behind him because of his exciting style, hence also potentially filling the void of a high-flyer that the kids can root for that Mysterio would leave once he retires. And the 'OLE!' chants aren't going to go away so easily, once the smarks start with the chant, the rest of them will eventually catch up and the WWE won't be stupid enough to not capitalize on it (they won't even need to acknowledge his past for it as the Matadores already use those chants, and the people who aren't aware of Sami's past would assume that its just another chant from the WWE machine, like how the Show and ADR use the 'YES!' chants and get away with it, despite them being Bryan's) And all that just means one thing - MONEY. From comic acts to bloody brawls, from working as a cowardly heel to a sympathetic underdog babyface, from working in the midcard to rightfully main-eventing - with the versatile performer that he is, the possibilities with him are countless. So, why Sami Zayn? Because he is SAMI FUCKING ZAYN.
Seabs
Crusade - Nothing fancy about the intro but I actually liked how concise you made it to leave you as much word count available for the more important part of the debate. Overall I definitely thought it was a really good piece detailing why Zayn is so great and why he should excel on the main roster. I thought you missed a big trick by not defining what a WWE main eventer is for the purpose of your question and then what it takes to become a WWE main eventer. You did good job covering it indirectly by talking about his natural personality, promo skills and adapting to the in ring style but it would have pushed your debate even higher up if you had defined a WWE main eventer and then linked your debate into that. Something to remember for next time. I have no idea why you brought Ohno's release into your debate. It was just randomly there with no explanation to how it supported your argument. Your point about his ability to reinvent his character over time was great. You could have cited his character's cycle in PWG too going from a high flying nobody to the veteran role he filled at the end to make it even stronger. Ruling out other contenders in NXT was a good move too. Implementation of it I didn't think was as strong as other areas of your debate though. Your Bo counter wasn't that convincing which was a shame because I figured him as a big alternative to shoot down. Remember the question wasn't about the NEXT main eventer so your counter fell a bit flat for me. Your conclusion I'd try to make a bit more memorable. Short is fine but something more memorable that ends the debate on a higher note would benefit the debate greater. Overall I thought this was really good though.
TONY MONTANA - I didn't think either intro was brilliant but at least Crusade wasted less words. You could achieve the same purpose you achieved with that intro in at least half the amount of words. Word count is so valuable in these debates, use it where it's needed most. Parts of your process of elimination were really good but others less so. Your Neville and Kruger counters I really liked for example. I think you fell into the same trap as Crusade though with the inexperience counter thinking that is a restriction for them. It's not the NEXT main eventer but A main eventer. Graves and Rusev you didn't really counter at all and that looked really bad in your debate. Either counter them or just leave them out if you can't counter them. I almost stopped reading and handed the win to Crusade when you said Graves was good in the ring. He is not. Disagree with dropping the Generico gimmick being a wise decision but you explained why with a valid reason so you get away with that one. I haven't forgot about what you said about Graves though. Your last paragraph up to the OLE part is awesome. It would have been AWESOME if you'd defined what a main eventer should be though and then tied it back into that. Your explanation of the OLE chants was sketchy for me. Fans need a reason to associate the chant with Zayn and WWE hasn't given them one yet. The profile of the NXT audience is different to the WWE audience too so just because a lot of the audience at NXT chant it doesn't mean it'll translate to the main roster. You didn't really convince me here why that would be a positive for helping make Zayn a main eventer. You could also argue that Vince is likely to get pissed that Zayn got over somewhere else more than he is in WWE if the OLE chants take over and we all know how Vince reacts to that. The "working as a cowardly heel line" I didn't get either. Can you give an example of when he's worked that role?
This was really tight. Same approach, similar strengths, similar weaknesses and both missing out on the chance to edge ahead by defining what a WWE main eventer traditionally is. By the tiniest of hairs because I thought their argument for Zayn was slightly stronger....
Winner - Crusade
DDMac
Crusade: The actual argument was fine, though it definitely ran long. Grammar was off, as was the placement of certain things. Zayn's potential because he's homegrown is brought up at one minute... then brought up a little later... making the entire section of the debate clunky. Bringing up Chris Hero, which is a self-known negative was just a bad idea. Grammar and punctuation was off throughout as well.
TONY MONTANA: While I wasn't a fan of the paragraph running down the NXT roster (you should've just BURIED~ them, making your case stronger), everything else was very good. It was clear. It was concise. It ran smoothly, and didn't drag even a little bit.
TONY MONTANA wins.
Evolution
Crusade: Short and sweet intro, nothing flashy but it gets your point across without wasting words so why not? Could have postured where you were going to go with the rest of the debate by listing a few things after the intro you wrote but it’s not too bad.
Established context well in the follow up. It would have been nice to see you use a bit more connection to your point though, maybe saying that his wealth of experience has given him the ability to work matches in multiple crowd demographics, look at Jericho or Bryan as examples and how they can tailor their ring style to the crowd they are wrestling in front of. Would have been a nice touch and really driven that statement home.
Another example of where you could have strengthened your argument is when discussing his involvement in high-profile matches/angles etc. You mentioned the Shield and Bray being used/treated in a similar way, it would have been better had you elaborated on that and explained that said treatment is the last hurdle before being called up. As if they are proving themselves to management or something similar to that rather than putting in a pretty random sentence about Chris Hero and wasting some of your word count.
His ring-work and connection to the crowd is perhaps his biggest asset. Again you could have tied this in with the statement about being an 11 year veteran and used an example of someone similar who could connect with the crowd in such a way (like Mysterio or Jeff Hardy). Re-arrange your debate to consider the flow of your arguments and you’ll see the standard improve massively.
Really liked the reinventing himself paragraph. Probably something you should have put earlier as one of your main points. Every big name superstar in the history of the business at some point had to reinvent themselves and their characters completely and he has already proven he can do that with his transition to the WWE.
With your comparison paragraph, reduce the amount of people you are comparing and increase the depth of your explanation as to why Sami is a better choice than them. Simple but effective. You don’t have to rule everyone out, just the ones who are in the conversation.
Plus it left you a bit short on words for your conclusion. A good debate that I felt just missed on some key aspects of writing technique to take it to the next level is all.
TONY MONTANA: Loved your introduction. Explained the context of the position and strength of the current NXT show and roster, but then distinguishing SZ as your choice. It makes it seem a better position than choosing an alternative. Although Crusade also chose the same wrestler as you, had they chosen someone else it really would have distinguished your decision.
Similarly to Crusade had you reduced the amount of superstars you compared with while increasing the amount of detail as to why SZ is a better choice than them it would have strengthened that argument substantially. Just something to keep in mind in the future especially with word limits being so strict. You have to allocate your words efficiently.
Explaining how important it is to the WWE to have an asset that is easily able to so vastly change their character as demonstrated by his change from El Generico to his current incarnation is something that would have smashed that argument out of the park. Just remember there has to be a benefit for the WWE as well as the fans in everything that happens so just keep that in mind in the future.
I liked your conclusion, a pretty strong finish to everything that you’ve mentioned previously. Your debate flowed well and your arguments were sound and backed up pretty well. Just a few things to touch on like I mentioned but for the most part a very impressive entry and I enjoyed reading it.
Result: While both debates were really solid in their core presentation of their arguments I felt like TONY MONTANA had slightly more polish on their points that were presented which at the end of the day is really the only way I could separate the debates. Crusade just lacked that refinement in their entry. Whether it’s through lack of experience I’m not sure. But I’m sure if these two debaters had a rematch in the future it would be a lot closer.
TONY MONTANA was the winner for me.
Crusade - Nothing fancy about the intro but I actually liked how concise you made it to leave you as much word count available for the more important part of the debate. Overall I definitely thought it was a really good piece detailing why Zayn is so great and why he should excel on the main roster. I thought you missed a big trick by not defining what a WWE main eventer is for the purpose of your question and then what it takes to become a WWE main eventer. You did good job covering it indirectly by talking about his natural personality, promo skills and adapting to the in ring style but it would have pushed your debate even higher up if you had defined a WWE main eventer and then linked your debate into that. Something to remember for next time. I have no idea why you brought Ohno's release into your debate. It was just randomly there with no explanation to how it supported your argument. Your point about his ability to reinvent his character over time was great. You could have cited his character's cycle in PWG too going from a high flying nobody to the veteran role he filled at the end to make it even stronger. Ruling out other contenders in NXT was a good move too. Implementation of it I didn't think was as strong as other areas of your debate though. Your Bo counter wasn't that convincing which was a shame because I figured him as a big alternative to shoot down. Remember the question wasn't about the NEXT main eventer so your counter fell a bit flat for me. Your conclusion I'd try to make a bit more memorable. Short is fine but something more memorable that ends the debate on a higher note would benefit the debate greater. Overall I thought this was really good though.
TONY MONTANA - I didn't think either intro was brilliant but at least Crusade wasted less words. You could achieve the same purpose you achieved with that intro in at least half the amount of words. Word count is so valuable in these debates, use it where it's needed most. Parts of your process of elimination were really good but others less so. Your Neville and Kruger counters I really liked for example. I think you fell into the same trap as Crusade though with the inexperience counter thinking that is a restriction for them. It's not the NEXT main eventer but A main eventer. Graves and Rusev you didn't really counter at all and that looked really bad in your debate. Either counter them or just leave them out if you can't counter them. I almost stopped reading and handed the win to Crusade when you said Graves was good in the ring. He is not. Disagree with dropping the Generico gimmick being a wise decision but you explained why with a valid reason so you get away with that one. I haven't forgot about what you said about Graves though. Your last paragraph up to the OLE part is awesome. It would have been AWESOME if you'd defined what a main eventer should be though and then tied it back into that. Your explanation of the OLE chants was sketchy for me. Fans need a reason to associate the chant with Zayn and WWE hasn't given them one yet. The profile of the NXT audience is different to the WWE audience too so just because a lot of the audience at NXT chant it doesn't mean it'll translate to the main roster. You didn't really convince me here why that would be a positive for helping make Zayn a main eventer. You could also argue that Vince is likely to get pissed that Zayn got over somewhere else more than he is in WWE if the OLE chants take over and we all know how Vince reacts to that. The "working as a cowardly heel line" I didn't get either. Can you give an example of when he's worked that role?
This was really tight. Same approach, similar strengths, similar weaknesses and both missing out on the chance to edge ahead by defining what a WWE main eventer traditionally is. By the tiniest of hairs because I thought their argument for Zayn was slightly stronger....
Winner - Crusade
DDMac
Crusade: The actual argument was fine, though it definitely ran long. Grammar was off, as was the placement of certain things. Zayn's potential because he's homegrown is brought up at one minute... then brought up a little later... making the entire section of the debate clunky. Bringing up Chris Hero, which is a self-known negative was just a bad idea. Grammar and punctuation was off throughout as well.
TONY MONTANA: While I wasn't a fan of the paragraph running down the NXT roster (you should've just BURIED~ them, making your case stronger), everything else was very good. It was clear. It was concise. It ran smoothly, and didn't drag even a little bit.
TONY MONTANA wins.
Evolution
Crusade: Short and sweet intro, nothing flashy but it gets your point across without wasting words so why not? Could have postured where you were going to go with the rest of the debate by listing a few things after the intro you wrote but it’s not too bad.
Established context well in the follow up. It would have been nice to see you use a bit more connection to your point though, maybe saying that his wealth of experience has given him the ability to work matches in multiple crowd demographics, look at Jericho or Bryan as examples and how they can tailor their ring style to the crowd they are wrestling in front of. Would have been a nice touch and really driven that statement home.
Another example of where you could have strengthened your argument is when discussing his involvement in high-profile matches/angles etc. You mentioned the Shield and Bray being used/treated in a similar way, it would have been better had you elaborated on that and explained that said treatment is the last hurdle before being called up. As if they are proving themselves to management or something similar to that rather than putting in a pretty random sentence about Chris Hero and wasting some of your word count.
His ring-work and connection to the crowd is perhaps his biggest asset. Again you could have tied this in with the statement about being an 11 year veteran and used an example of someone similar who could connect with the crowd in such a way (like Mysterio or Jeff Hardy). Re-arrange your debate to consider the flow of your arguments and you’ll see the standard improve massively.
Really liked the reinventing himself paragraph. Probably something you should have put earlier as one of your main points. Every big name superstar in the history of the business at some point had to reinvent themselves and their characters completely and he has already proven he can do that with his transition to the WWE.
With your comparison paragraph, reduce the amount of people you are comparing and increase the depth of your explanation as to why Sami is a better choice than them. Simple but effective. You don’t have to rule everyone out, just the ones who are in the conversation.
Plus it left you a bit short on words for your conclusion. A good debate that I felt just missed on some key aspects of writing technique to take it to the next level is all.
TONY MONTANA: Loved your introduction. Explained the context of the position and strength of the current NXT show and roster, but then distinguishing SZ as your choice. It makes it seem a better position than choosing an alternative. Although Crusade also chose the same wrestler as you, had they chosen someone else it really would have distinguished your decision.
Similarly to Crusade had you reduced the amount of superstars you compared with while increasing the amount of detail as to why SZ is a better choice than them it would have strengthened that argument substantially. Just something to keep in mind in the future especially with word limits being so strict. You have to allocate your words efficiently.
Explaining how important it is to the WWE to have an asset that is easily able to so vastly change their character as demonstrated by his change from El Generico to his current incarnation is something that would have smashed that argument out of the park. Just remember there has to be a benefit for the WWE as well as the fans in everything that happens so just keep that in mind in the future.
I liked your conclusion, a pretty strong finish to everything that you’ve mentioned previously. Your debate flowed well and your arguments were sound and backed up pretty well. Just a few things to touch on like I mentioned but for the most part a very impressive entry and I enjoyed reading it.
Result: While both debates were really solid in their core presentation of their arguments I felt like TONY MONTANA had slightly more polish on their points that were presented which at the end of the day is really the only way I could separate the debates. Crusade just lacked that refinement in their entry. Whether it’s through lack of experience I’m not sure. But I’m sure if these two debaters had a rematch in the future it would be a lot closer.
TONY MONTANA was the winner for me.
Winner via Split Decision - TONY MONTANA
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 0-1 TEAM WOOLCOCK
samizayn [Team TLK] vs ZOMBO [Team SI]
Which is more important to creating a great wrestling match: Live crowd reaction to the match or build to the match?
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 0-1 TEAM WOOLCOCK
samizayn [Team TLK] vs ZOMBO [Team SI]
Which is more important to creating a great wrestling match: Live crowd reaction to the match or build to the match?
ZOMBO
Although a great match is typically a by-product of BOTH a great crowd and a steady, compelling build, a great match is determined and remembered most decisively by the crowd response throughout. Sorry, SmackDown writing staff, as much as the 10 minute MizTV segments further a feud, if the audience doesn’t respond to the end result of a feud – that is, the match itself – then none of the build-up matters.
First things first, it’s important to define what makes a “great wrestling match”. Great matches are memorable or classic when the performers have the audience in the palms of their hands, when the crowd is active throughout, drawing the live and television audience deeper into the match through the sheer visceral feel of it. A “great match” in this debate has nothing to do with the technical abilities of the wrestlers involved. By this definition, Rock / Hogan at Wrestlemania was a great match, whereas a Tyson Kidd / Daniel Bryan match on Superstars is not. A quality build up to a match certainly doesn’t hurt any given match, but the build serves two essential purposes: raising awareness (and buys) for the match, and getting the crowd hyped to see the match. The build is merely one mean to reach the end of a hot crowd that comes across well on TV. Since the build is just a means to the end result of excitement, it must be subservient to what makes a great match.
When thinking about some of the most memorable matches or moments of all time, isn’t it wonderful to revisit the contract signings or the promo segments leading up to th..
...
Oh sorry, fell asleep there when I began to drift away from the fun stuff. We remember the matches, the final moments of Shawn Michaels achieving his “boyhood dream”, we remember Benoit and Eddie finally becoming world champs. Do we remember the promo Benoit cut on HHH and HBK two weeks before their Wrestlemania match, on Raw? Serious question: DID Benoit even cut a promo on HHH and HBK two weeks before their match, on Raw? I have no idea, and let’s be honest, neither do you. But do you remember the crowd popping when Benoit ducked HBK’s superkick? The OH SHIT gasp when HHH grabbed Benoit and set him up for the pedigree? The POP when Benoit reversed it and made HHH tap? THOSE moments are etched in the minds of fans.
The crux of the argument is this: great matches CAN happen without major build up, but great matches CAN’T happen without a hot crowd. An example of this dichotomy can be found when looking at two massive matches. How big was the hype train heading into the Goldberg / Lesnar Wrestlemania match? On paper, you couldn’t put two more unstoppable beasts on a collision course. The build was there, the weeks leading up to the show focusing on this clash of titans, and what do we remember from the match? The crowd shitting all over each competitor in a matchup that I’m sure both guys, and the WWE brass, would like to forget. All the build and hype went for naught come showtime.
Juxtapose the reaction of that match to when Goldberg defeated Hulk Hogan for the WCW title on Nitro. The match was announced the week before, In spite of the lack of build and confusing storylines (Goldberg had to beat Scott Hall first, Karl Malone diamond-cut Curt Hennig mid-match, because ???), the match created one of the most memorable moments in wrestling history. I mean, giving it away for free was a terrible BUSINESS move for WCW, but this debate revolves around what makes a great match. Making 40,000+ fans blow the roof off the place created a memorable moment and a memorable match. We remember Jericho beating HHH for the “title” on Raw after goading him into putting the belt on the line minutes beforehand for the same reason - reaction.
Perhaps the biggest argument for why crowd reaction is valued more than builds for matches can be summed in two words: John Cena. How has a guy remained a cheesy, one-dimensional Superman face for this many years, OVERCOMING THE ODDS in feud after feud after feud while remaining in the main event of damn near any show he’s on? The crowd, love him or hate him, are emotionally and vocally engaged throughout all of his matches. Even a below-average build, like the childish insults he and Rock threw at each other before their Wrestlemania clashes led to two massive buys even by Mania standards, and matches that the live fans went wild for. Accordingly, that crowd intensity translated on-screen, and we have two more memorable matches. How many wrestling builds are utter rubbish, but are forgiven because of the payoff of a great match?
The wrestlers themselves readily admit it whether “in character” during promos or at least semi-shooting during interviews that crowd-reaction is everything. HHH talked in circles to Punk about how the only thing that mattered was getting over in front of the WWE Universe (a WWE universe that was unambiguously supporting Punk, as it were. But Trips had his lines and dammit if he was going to change up what was BEST FOR BUSINESS).(1) Other wrestlers admit that crowd reaction is the most important thing, and it’s what keeps Cena on top.(2) The most important thing in the WWE is getting over with the crowd. Accordingly, the logic follows that it must be very damn important to have the crowd invested in any match you put on.
Most great matches have a combination of a steady build and an awesome crowd response. It’s impossible to consider a match “great” without an enthusiastic crowd behind it; it IS possible to create memorable matches without any special build, and only the live fan reaction to the in-ring stuff can make that happen, creating special memories for fans in the building or at home watching.
(1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcKjU2Y3YI From 8:30-10:00, HHH emphasizes that getting over before the crowd is what's most important for business.
(2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgGeW94ouvY 3:45-onwards, various wrestlers talk about the importance of Cena receiving and maintaining crowd reactions
samizayn
Whether in person or through a screen, it’s safe to say all of us have experienced a great wrestling match at some point in our lives. Sometimes it’s the athleticism, sometimes it’s the pace, sometimes it’s just the sheer brutality – whatever it may be, there is always a tangible, gut feeling that accompanies it, letting you know that what you’re watching is special. That gut feeling comes about due to a host of factors, but of the two presented here, crowd reaction is clearly more important.
Buildups to a match can provide a great backdrop for the creation of a wrestling masterpiece. In ring actions come to life because of this all-important context – who can forget, for example, John Cena at this year’s Wrestlemania, swinging his arms across himself in a move that directly mirrored the actions that sealed his fate at the same event last year? To a casual observer it was a meaningless play, but to the wrestling fan, it was something loaded with significance, giving the end stretch of the match a gravitas that one thousand flashier moves on their own could never accomplish. Buildups to wrestling matches add meaning, meaning allows us to understand the motives, and wrestling matches mean nothing without understanding what motivates each individual.
That being said, weeks and weeks of buildup are not at all paramount to the provision of a great match. WWE have spoiled us with that, in a sense, because while epic rivalries are all that enjoyable in the knowledge that they have those great matches as blowoffs, it makes us forget that we can just as easily have a great match from a ‘rivalry’ started when Dan the Man thought Joe Nobody was looking at him the wrong way. And what’s more, those aforementioned buildups, as much as it can hurt to admit it, can be easily condensed to sentence packages if necessary. What do you tell someone who’s never watched wrestling the setup for CM Punk vs John Cena at MITB 2011? “Punk is upset at how the company has treated him; he wants to make a point by taking their from the golden boy and leaving.” They’re all very grand and elaborate efforts set forth with the sole aim of establishing a ‘why’. The ‘why’ exists to validate what those wrestlers do in the ring, but can just as easily be provided by a sprawling, epic rivalry, as a single exchange of words during an offhand backstage segment. Modern WWE writing has, by and large, allowed us the luxury of forgetting that.
As was mentioned, the difference between the good and the great is that emotional gut feeling. Without it, you don’t get a great match -- or, you may, because the moves were technically in the right order and Meltzer’s ~reytings said so, but you don’t get the real connection that tells you what you’ve witnessed is truly extraordinary. In other words, you don’t get emotional validation. To look for what this ‘emotional validation’ is, and where we get it from, look past the ring into the audience of fans that for some reason paid good money to watch grown men fake fighting in spandex.
Those fans are of utmost importance – arguably the most important ingredient of all in this strange thing called pro wrestling – because they provide the emotion. It’s a given that people enjoy their matches in different ways, but watching a wrestling match with the sound off is always a surreal experience. You can watch the motion of wrestlers during a match and perhaps enjoy it enough to even consider it great, but it’s a sterile, detached, different sort of great – a far cry from the greatness of wrestling as it was made to be enjoyed.
In an ideal world, we’d all be in the crowd as we watched our wrestling matches. But since we settle for a screen the majority of the time, the people in the venue become a vessel -- representatives of sorts – for us. This audience’s sounds and actions affect us in a way we mostly don’t notice, but they are hugely instrumental for getting ‘into’ a match. The crowd counts along to a pinfall, and even though it wasn’t close, or too early in the match for it to be finishing, that collective ‘oooh’ from the audience makes our hearts tighten that little bit more than we realise or care to admit. This is the same crowd that could have you believe that Santino could be a WHC contender at the 2012 Elimination Chamber – solely by the noise they were making for him. The crowd has a powerful, almost hypnotic effect on the viewer, which is why it has the ability to support and validate their emotions from completely remote locations. Crowd validates emotion, and emotion validates wrestling.
Saying that the build to a match is more important than a crowd reaction is saying a match can’t be great without significant buildup, which is demonstrably false. If a match you consider great doesn’t hold up without the external factors – i.e., the segments and exchanges that allow the feud to culminate – then, it is not a great match, but a successful promo payoff.
Wrestlers need a ‘why’ to have a great match, but the why is incredibly easy to establish, and lack of time or effort at that end does not hinder the ability of then producing a great match (see Punk/Cena, Cesaro/Zayn from this year alone.) It is infinitely more difficult to overcome a dead crowd, because they make it unlikely for someone watching at home to invest and care about the match at all. Feeling excited while watching becomes an invalid state of being, (that's a given if even the people in front of them couldn’t care less!) and if you don’t feel excited about a match, you won’t consider it great. Both build and crowd are very important to a match, but a great wrestling match simply cannot exist with poor live audience reactions.
Although a great match is typically a by-product of BOTH a great crowd and a steady, compelling build, a great match is determined and remembered most decisively by the crowd response throughout. Sorry, SmackDown writing staff, as much as the 10 minute MizTV segments further a feud, if the audience doesn’t respond to the end result of a feud – that is, the match itself – then none of the build-up matters.
First things first, it’s important to define what makes a “great wrestling match”. Great matches are memorable or classic when the performers have the audience in the palms of their hands, when the crowd is active throughout, drawing the live and television audience deeper into the match through the sheer visceral feel of it. A “great match” in this debate has nothing to do with the technical abilities of the wrestlers involved. By this definition, Rock / Hogan at Wrestlemania was a great match, whereas a Tyson Kidd / Daniel Bryan match on Superstars is not. A quality build up to a match certainly doesn’t hurt any given match, but the build serves two essential purposes: raising awareness (and buys) for the match, and getting the crowd hyped to see the match. The build is merely one mean to reach the end of a hot crowd that comes across well on TV. Since the build is just a means to the end result of excitement, it must be subservient to what makes a great match.
When thinking about some of the most memorable matches or moments of all time, isn’t it wonderful to revisit the contract signings or the promo segments leading up to th..
...
Oh sorry, fell asleep there when I began to drift away from the fun stuff. We remember the matches, the final moments of Shawn Michaels achieving his “boyhood dream”, we remember Benoit and Eddie finally becoming world champs. Do we remember the promo Benoit cut on HHH and HBK two weeks before their Wrestlemania match, on Raw? Serious question: DID Benoit even cut a promo on HHH and HBK two weeks before their match, on Raw? I have no idea, and let’s be honest, neither do you. But do you remember the crowd popping when Benoit ducked HBK’s superkick? The OH SHIT gasp when HHH grabbed Benoit and set him up for the pedigree? The POP when Benoit reversed it and made HHH tap? THOSE moments are etched in the minds of fans.
The crux of the argument is this: great matches CAN happen without major build up, but great matches CAN’T happen without a hot crowd. An example of this dichotomy can be found when looking at two massive matches. How big was the hype train heading into the Goldberg / Lesnar Wrestlemania match? On paper, you couldn’t put two more unstoppable beasts on a collision course. The build was there, the weeks leading up to the show focusing on this clash of titans, and what do we remember from the match? The crowd shitting all over each competitor in a matchup that I’m sure both guys, and the WWE brass, would like to forget. All the build and hype went for naught come showtime.
Juxtapose the reaction of that match to when Goldberg defeated Hulk Hogan for the WCW title on Nitro. The match was announced the week before, In spite of the lack of build and confusing storylines (Goldberg had to beat Scott Hall first, Karl Malone diamond-cut Curt Hennig mid-match, because ???), the match created one of the most memorable moments in wrestling history. I mean, giving it away for free was a terrible BUSINESS move for WCW, but this debate revolves around what makes a great match. Making 40,000+ fans blow the roof off the place created a memorable moment and a memorable match. We remember Jericho beating HHH for the “title” on Raw after goading him into putting the belt on the line minutes beforehand for the same reason - reaction.
Perhaps the biggest argument for why crowd reaction is valued more than builds for matches can be summed in two words: John Cena. How has a guy remained a cheesy, one-dimensional Superman face for this many years, OVERCOMING THE ODDS in feud after feud after feud while remaining in the main event of damn near any show he’s on? The crowd, love him or hate him, are emotionally and vocally engaged throughout all of his matches. Even a below-average build, like the childish insults he and Rock threw at each other before their Wrestlemania clashes led to two massive buys even by Mania standards, and matches that the live fans went wild for. Accordingly, that crowd intensity translated on-screen, and we have two more memorable matches. How many wrestling builds are utter rubbish, but are forgiven because of the payoff of a great match?
The wrestlers themselves readily admit it whether “in character” during promos or at least semi-shooting during interviews that crowd-reaction is everything. HHH talked in circles to Punk about how the only thing that mattered was getting over in front of the WWE Universe (a WWE universe that was unambiguously supporting Punk, as it were. But Trips had his lines and dammit if he was going to change up what was BEST FOR BUSINESS).(1) Other wrestlers admit that crowd reaction is the most important thing, and it’s what keeps Cena on top.(2) The most important thing in the WWE is getting over with the crowd. Accordingly, the logic follows that it must be very damn important to have the crowd invested in any match you put on.
Most great matches have a combination of a steady build and an awesome crowd response. It’s impossible to consider a match “great” without an enthusiastic crowd behind it; it IS possible to create memorable matches without any special build, and only the live fan reaction to the in-ring stuff can make that happen, creating special memories for fans in the building or at home watching.
(1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcKjU2Y3YI From 8:30-10:00, HHH emphasizes that getting over before the crowd is what's most important for business.
(2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgGeW94ouvY 3:45-onwards, various wrestlers talk about the importance of Cena receiving and maintaining crowd reactions
samizayn
Whether in person or through a screen, it’s safe to say all of us have experienced a great wrestling match at some point in our lives. Sometimes it’s the athleticism, sometimes it’s the pace, sometimes it’s just the sheer brutality – whatever it may be, there is always a tangible, gut feeling that accompanies it, letting you know that what you’re watching is special. That gut feeling comes about due to a host of factors, but of the two presented here, crowd reaction is clearly more important.
Buildups to a match can provide a great backdrop for the creation of a wrestling masterpiece. In ring actions come to life because of this all-important context – who can forget, for example, John Cena at this year’s Wrestlemania, swinging his arms across himself in a move that directly mirrored the actions that sealed his fate at the same event last year? To a casual observer it was a meaningless play, but to the wrestling fan, it was something loaded with significance, giving the end stretch of the match a gravitas that one thousand flashier moves on their own could never accomplish. Buildups to wrestling matches add meaning, meaning allows us to understand the motives, and wrestling matches mean nothing without understanding what motivates each individual.
That being said, weeks and weeks of buildup are not at all paramount to the provision of a great match. WWE have spoiled us with that, in a sense, because while epic rivalries are all that enjoyable in the knowledge that they have those great matches as blowoffs, it makes us forget that we can just as easily have a great match from a ‘rivalry’ started when Dan the Man thought Joe Nobody was looking at him the wrong way. And what’s more, those aforementioned buildups, as much as it can hurt to admit it, can be easily condensed to sentence packages if necessary. What do you tell someone who’s never watched wrestling the setup for CM Punk vs John Cena at MITB 2011? “Punk is upset at how the company has treated him; he wants to make a point by taking their from the golden boy and leaving.” They’re all very grand and elaborate efforts set forth with the sole aim of establishing a ‘why’. The ‘why’ exists to validate what those wrestlers do in the ring, but can just as easily be provided by a sprawling, epic rivalry, as a single exchange of words during an offhand backstage segment. Modern WWE writing has, by and large, allowed us the luxury of forgetting that.
As was mentioned, the difference between the good and the great is that emotional gut feeling. Without it, you don’t get a great match -- or, you may, because the moves were technically in the right order and Meltzer’s ~reytings said so, but you don’t get the real connection that tells you what you’ve witnessed is truly extraordinary. In other words, you don’t get emotional validation. To look for what this ‘emotional validation’ is, and where we get it from, look past the ring into the audience of fans that for some reason paid good money to watch grown men fake fighting in spandex.
Those fans are of utmost importance – arguably the most important ingredient of all in this strange thing called pro wrestling – because they provide the emotion. It’s a given that people enjoy their matches in different ways, but watching a wrestling match with the sound off is always a surreal experience. You can watch the motion of wrestlers during a match and perhaps enjoy it enough to even consider it great, but it’s a sterile, detached, different sort of great – a far cry from the greatness of wrestling as it was made to be enjoyed.
In an ideal world, we’d all be in the crowd as we watched our wrestling matches. But since we settle for a screen the majority of the time, the people in the venue become a vessel -- representatives of sorts – for us. This audience’s sounds and actions affect us in a way we mostly don’t notice, but they are hugely instrumental for getting ‘into’ a match. The crowd counts along to a pinfall, and even though it wasn’t close, or too early in the match for it to be finishing, that collective ‘oooh’ from the audience makes our hearts tighten that little bit more than we realise or care to admit. This is the same crowd that could have you believe that Santino could be a WHC contender at the 2012 Elimination Chamber – solely by the noise they were making for him. The crowd has a powerful, almost hypnotic effect on the viewer, which is why it has the ability to support and validate their emotions from completely remote locations. Crowd validates emotion, and emotion validates wrestling.
Saying that the build to a match is more important than a crowd reaction is saying a match can’t be great without significant buildup, which is demonstrably false. If a match you consider great doesn’t hold up without the external factors – i.e., the segments and exchanges that allow the feud to culminate – then, it is not a great match, but a successful promo payoff.
Wrestlers need a ‘why’ to have a great match, but the why is incredibly easy to establish, and lack of time or effort at that end does not hinder the ability of then producing a great match (see Punk/Cena, Cesaro/Zayn from this year alone.) It is infinitely more difficult to overcome a dead crowd, because they make it unlikely for someone watching at home to invest and care about the match at all. Feeling excited while watching becomes an invalid state of being, (that's a given if even the people in front of them couldn’t care less!) and if you don’t feel excited about a match, you won’t consider it great. Both build and crowd are very important to a match, but a great wrestling match simply cannot exist with poor live audience reactions.
Seabs
ZOMBO - Awesome job stating your definition of a great wrestling match for the debate and then working your debate around that. That's the move of a champion. I don't necessarily agree that a match can't be great without a hot crowd and I could cite loads of examples but it doesn't matter because this is your criteria and you made it your own for this debate. If Bryan and Kidd had a match it'd be so great btw. "Since the build is just a means to the end result of excitement, it must be subservient to what makes a great match." - Awesome. Busting out some examples to back up your point as FACT was another champion move. Loving the character that you're getting across in your debate too. Another champion move. Mania 20 paragraph just oozed debating class. So great. I don't remember this Benoit guy who keep referencing to though. Was he good? 3 examples after that were brilliant too and I liked how you used the other side of the coin to add to your argument too with Goldberg/Lesnar. 7th and 8th paragraphs I didn't think was as strong as anything before it but I don't have any criticisms of them either. It's just that what you had before was so great and honestly championship material. That was the sort of level that Greg, Evo and SI have been producing so keep that the fuck up now pls.
samizayn - Your 2nd paragraph was odd to me. It came off like you were arguing for build being more important but you were arguing the other side. It's a great paragraph if you're arguing for the other side though. I think you were going for presenting that both are important but I don't think it worked because you made too compelling of an argument for the other side without actually shutting it down or using it to strengthen your own side of the argument sufficiently. This is a good debate that would actually probably beat 80-90% of the roster. You got faced with a debate from the 10-20% though that was quite possibly for me a top 5 wrestling debate over the first 9 shows. So that was tough competition to best and ultimately I didn't think you competed well enough with the tactics they busted out. You actually busted them out yourself such as the Santino example which I really liked and the character you displayed in your debate but ZOMBO did it too and did it better for me. The Santino example was good but the Mania 20 example was better and supported his argument better. He also pulled ahead with his Goldberg/Lesnar example that I didn't really think you matched on the same level. Your penultimate paragraph I really liked though btw. This is a debate to be proud of for sure but ZOMBO's debate was the type you hang on your wall or bookmark and email to your parents to show that even though you're a college dropout and doing unpaid community service you still accomplished something.
Winner - ZOMBO
THE DARK ANDRE
ZOMBO:
Your opening was good. I appreciated your use of the word “typically” when saying that great matches rely on BOTH build ups and crowd reaction before stating that crowd reaction is more important. The careful placement of that word alone gave you an advantage over debater B who was adamant that build up is always essential, despite arguing the same side as you. Then you broke down the question with supreme excellence, defining what a “great match” would entail within the context of the topic.
You made sense when explaining how a brilliant pop to a moment in a match or the general atmosphere of it was more likely to be remembered long term than a pre match promo. However, I think that you could have implemented a far stronger example than Chris Benoit, who was far from stellar on the mic and far from integral to any of the angles he took part in getting over. A better example would have been something like Hogan vs Andre from Mania III, which had a phenomenal amount of long term build and heat going into it, yet what does everybody remember? The awe of the crowd as Hogan picked up Andre and slammed him down in the Pontiac silverdome and the immense pop as Hogan nailed the leg drop and claimed the three count. See what I mean? Your point remains valid regardless of this, but I think against a stronger opponent it could have hurt you.
However, the next two paragraphs were phenomenal. Using Goldberg as a narrative arc by defining how a great match can survive without build up via a red hot crowd, and how a great build can be undermined by a terrible crowd reaction was a moment of inspiration. Through that you also added a whole extra dimension to the importance of crowd reaction while also giving a perfect example of how build TO A MATCH isn't needed. It could be argued that Goldberg’s huge push was something of a build to a future title match, but not a specific one vs Hogan, and as you already pointed out Goldberg’s title match was hot shotted and occurred long before fans were anticipating it to happen anyway. That argument was incredibly well negotiated. The Jericho/HHH example was also bang on the money.
I think you went a little bit off target with the Cena angle. While I agree that the crowd reactions towards him are often what make his matches memorable and seemingly inspire him to step out of his lazy auto pilot mode for big match occasions, I’m not sure what relevancy your point about buys had to the debate’s context, because buys have nothing to do with crowd reactions.
I also disagree that his two cumbersome matches with the Rock were “great” or even that the crowds during those matches were hot enough to put over two ordinary at best matches. Your example of Rock/Hogan was much better, that was a “good” basic match with a semblance of storytelling that was made into something of a classic due to the crowd reactions, whereas those two Rock/Cena matches were bog standard finisher fests (certainly the second) which were supported by good yet modest crowds. Again, this is a part where I think you could have used a better example, possibly Cena/Brock which was another match with an abrupt build up that was ultimately overshadowed by an intense crowd reaction, one which put a basic story (Brock pummels the living shite out of Cena, toys around with him, gets cocky, then SUPER CENA COMEBACK) completely over the top, with the smarky Chicago fans being won over by the otherwise usually much loathed Cena. There are plenty of other examples, obviously.
Thankfully you managed to get back on track with some supporting evidence from credible sources which are obviously always going to strengthen your debate to a certain extent. Your outro was okay but would have been improved by swapping “impossible” with “incredibly difficult”. I’ve seen quite a few great matches (IMO) that have had flat crowds, so to say that “It’s impossible to consider a match “great” without an enthusiastic crowd behind it” is a bit contentious.
That was an exciting debate to read that brought up some very interesting points, most of which worked well, although a couple fell by the way side. Despite being open to potential counters, this was a good effort.
samizayn:
Your intro was precise and to the point, clearly outlining your intentions with this debate without being eye catching or likely to raise the pulses of those reading.
Your next paragraph was a huge own goal, spending far too much time putting over the merits of pre match build ups while also declaring that they’re essential in making matches great alongside crowd reactions. The John Cena part was a fantastic piece of writing and would have been a fantastic counter argument, but within your debate it seemed quite damaging, especially when the counter argument you were building to failed in comparison.
I felt that your differentiation between short build ups and long build ups was fairly irrelevant when considering that the time frame of build ups didn’t pertain to the topic’s question, especially after you already admitted that pre match build ups are necessary for any “great” match to occur. With “Dan the Man” and “Joe Nobody” you continued to establish the concept that pre match build ups do matter, just that they don’t have to be long and complicated. All I’m getting from this is that you would be fantastic in a debate concerning “are long match build ups important?”.
At this stage I haven’t seen any really strong arguments for why crowd reactions are more important, which is the crux of that matter. On that subject, I also think that you missed a trick by not elaborating on the quick breakdown of the Cena/punk MITB feud by arguing how the Chicago crowd could have potentially overshadowed the build up to the match. Without that, you’ve just used an example of a feud for which most people Punk’s “pipe bomb” easily out shadows the reactions of the Chicago crowd. Again, you’ve undermined your own efforts.
Your next argument was utter nonsense: “you don’t get the real connection that tells you what you’ve witnessed is truly extraordinary. In other words, you don’t get emotional validation”. By generalising so greatly you leave yourself open to so many counter arguments. Japanese wrestling matches are generally viewed in silence, as is the culture there. Are you telling me that it’s impossible to vicariously connect to the performers in those matches? What one person enjoys or is emotionally invested in might be different for another. Are you telling me that it was impossible for fans of Antonio Cesaro to enjoy his matches during his initial United States’ title push just because live audiences were generally indifferent to him due to the way his on screen persona was being developed at the time? Are you telling me that when a great match occurs in some back water American State such as Iowa that a great match can’t be great for those watching on TV because the crowd members are dunces who can barely manage to breathe while sitting on their hands? Nonsense!
“look past the ring into the audience of fans that for some reason paid good money to watch grown men fake fighting in spandex” simply implies that wrestling fans can only behave like sheep by enjoying what others do and that the in ring action is fairly irrelevant, an argument that suggests that great story telling and selling is only possible when the live audience laps it up with more thirst than Noyk displays on wrestlingforum.com. Yep, let’s ignore the fact that a lot of audience members are only so engrossed by these “great” matches due to the out of ring character work that is presented by often limited in ring workers. Oh…With every argument you make you just seem to contradict your original stance.
“This audience’s sounds and actions affect us in a way we mostly don’t notice, but they are hugely instrumental for getting ‘into’ a match” is a far better argument because it doesn’t dictate the absurd opinion that a match can only be “great” with a red hot crowd. Instead it suggests that it can in fact heighten average to good, good to great, great to classic, etc. The example of the pin fall counts raising tension through crowd participation was good, as was your Santino example which was a perfect indication of how a crowd can heighten an experience by making you believe in the unbelievable. The tone of this entire paragraph was much more appropriate than the one that I previously savaged. If you had used the style of wording throughout your debate and used more caution instead of generalising by making the argument from one type of fan’s perspective then I think your debate would have been improved substantially.
You made a good point by saying “it is not a great match, but a successful promo payoff”, but without an example your argument paled in comparison next to ZOMBO’s Goldberg angle which jack hammered the point home with authority.
“It is infinitely more difficult to overcome a dead crowd, because they make it unlikely for someone watching at home to invest and care about the match at all” is far closer to how you should have worded your earlier argument which I tore apart. The end to your debate in general was decent, but you should have avoided reaffirming “a great wrestling match simply cannot exist with poor live audience reactions”. You made some good points, but they were ultimately outweighed by contradictions, generalisations, a lack of detailed examples (the Santino one was fantastic, but you needed a couple more on that level to accompany other points) and the outpouring of respect towards the side you were supposed to be arguing against.
Results:
While this was far from a perfect match (although maybe the “crowd reactions” in this thread will make it “great” :side: ) there was plenty to delve into. ZOMBO went for a far more exciting hyperbolic style of writing while samizayn was far more verbose. ZOMBO absolutely nailed the argument with the Goldberg examples and while that debate had flaws ZOMBO did more then enough to defeat samizayn’s inconsistent and ultimately self-defeating effort.
ZOMBO: *** 1/2
samizayn: **
:101
ZOMBO won the vote :brodgers
Evolution
I’ll just start by saying completely honestly that it was hard to find any faults at all with either of these debates. A truly outstanding effort from both of you.
ZOMBO: Loved the sense of humour throughout the debate. Things like this really add that next layer of character to what you present and it makes the entry a thousand times more readable and relatable even.
I liked the way you defined your question but it felt a wee bit narrow, I think you could have expanded to say that a great match is where the crowd eats it up and thus creates great wrestling moments (as you refer to “moments” a fair bit later on even in your conclusion). I think if you had tweaked the definition to include the WWE or at least acknowledged the independent demographic a little more it might have been tighter. Something like “Great matches (in mainstream professional wrestling like WWE, WCW or even TNA)” or something like that. Seeing as you left it open the way you did you could have mentioned that it doesn’t require a 40,000 fan audience to pop off to create the crowd reaction you’re talking about but it could also come from say a high school gym (or Impact Zone lulz) with 40 people in it reacting the same way to create the same wonder etc. in a match.
Look, you smashed it with the Benoit example, same with Hart/Michaels. You could have even used Hart/Austin as an example for a great match/crowd creating the catalyst for the biggest star in wrestling history. Your examples referred a bit to great moments and unfortunately that’s not how you defined your question. While the arguments you made were still valid, I felt it could have been stronger overall with just that little bit added to it.
The home stretch on your entry was great. The two sources you provided were good because it’s always good to see what the experts say vs. what us as a bunch of IWC geeks have to offer on the topic.
A great entry.
samizayn: An absolutely beautiful entry. Something that flowed perfectly from start to finish, while it lacked some of the humour of Debate A it still had an element of it in there while remaining clinical and just eviscerating the other side of the topic.
The feels I got reading your debate especially when you were talking about the way the crowd almost represents us as an audience and that the emotion involved is what gives wrestling it’s soul. Wow. One of the flat out best paragraphs of writing I’ve ever seen on this forum period. Left me to THINK about what makes wrestling so great.
You nailed the other side of the debate to a post when you used the one sentence summary for Punk/Cena. Another thing you can consider too is those flashy 4 minute video packages the WWE always makes before each PPV pretty much compresses 4 weeks of promos and build into a fancy filtered explanation of why we’re here. No matter how shitty or good the build is, they always seem to make the feud look great regardless. You also smashed it with the watching on mute argument as well.
Decision: ZOMBO's was an outstanding effort that I honestly feel has just been pipped by a near perfect entry by samizayn. I really would hate to have debated against that entry and I’m interested in seeing who matches up with what one. Great work by both of you and ZOMBO shouldn’t be discouraged by my choice, that entry would be good enough to beat most of the competition in the league.
samizayn is the winner for me.
ZOMBO - Awesome job stating your definition of a great wrestling match for the debate and then working your debate around that. That's the move of a champion. I don't necessarily agree that a match can't be great without a hot crowd and I could cite loads of examples but it doesn't matter because this is your criteria and you made it your own for this debate. If Bryan and Kidd had a match it'd be so great btw. "Since the build is just a means to the end result of excitement, it must be subservient to what makes a great match." - Awesome. Busting out some examples to back up your point as FACT was another champion move. Loving the character that you're getting across in your debate too. Another champion move. Mania 20 paragraph just oozed debating class. So great. I don't remember this Benoit guy who keep referencing to though. Was he good? 3 examples after that were brilliant too and I liked how you used the other side of the coin to add to your argument too with Goldberg/Lesnar. 7th and 8th paragraphs I didn't think was as strong as anything before it but I don't have any criticisms of them either. It's just that what you had before was so great and honestly championship material. That was the sort of level that Greg, Evo and SI have been producing so keep that the fuck up now pls.
samizayn - Your 2nd paragraph was odd to me. It came off like you were arguing for build being more important but you were arguing the other side. It's a great paragraph if you're arguing for the other side though. I think you were going for presenting that both are important but I don't think it worked because you made too compelling of an argument for the other side without actually shutting it down or using it to strengthen your own side of the argument sufficiently. This is a good debate that would actually probably beat 80-90% of the roster. You got faced with a debate from the 10-20% though that was quite possibly for me a top 5 wrestling debate over the first 9 shows. So that was tough competition to best and ultimately I didn't think you competed well enough with the tactics they busted out. You actually busted them out yourself such as the Santino example which I really liked and the character you displayed in your debate but ZOMBO did it too and did it better for me. The Santino example was good but the Mania 20 example was better and supported his argument better. He also pulled ahead with his Goldberg/Lesnar example that I didn't really think you matched on the same level. Your penultimate paragraph I really liked though btw. This is a debate to be proud of for sure but ZOMBO's debate was the type you hang on your wall or bookmark and email to your parents to show that even though you're a college dropout and doing unpaid community service you still accomplished something.
Winner - ZOMBO
THE DARK ANDRE
ZOMBO:
Your opening was good. I appreciated your use of the word “typically” when saying that great matches rely on BOTH build ups and crowd reaction before stating that crowd reaction is more important. The careful placement of that word alone gave you an advantage over debater B who was adamant that build up is always essential, despite arguing the same side as you. Then you broke down the question with supreme excellence, defining what a “great match” would entail within the context of the topic.
You made sense when explaining how a brilliant pop to a moment in a match or the general atmosphere of it was more likely to be remembered long term than a pre match promo. However, I think that you could have implemented a far stronger example than Chris Benoit, who was far from stellar on the mic and far from integral to any of the angles he took part in getting over. A better example would have been something like Hogan vs Andre from Mania III, which had a phenomenal amount of long term build and heat going into it, yet what does everybody remember? The awe of the crowd as Hogan picked up Andre and slammed him down in the Pontiac silverdome and the immense pop as Hogan nailed the leg drop and claimed the three count. See what I mean? Your point remains valid regardless of this, but I think against a stronger opponent it could have hurt you.
However, the next two paragraphs were phenomenal. Using Goldberg as a narrative arc by defining how a great match can survive without build up via a red hot crowd, and how a great build can be undermined by a terrible crowd reaction was a moment of inspiration. Through that you also added a whole extra dimension to the importance of crowd reaction while also giving a perfect example of how build TO A MATCH isn't needed. It could be argued that Goldberg’s huge push was something of a build to a future title match, but not a specific one vs Hogan, and as you already pointed out Goldberg’s title match was hot shotted and occurred long before fans were anticipating it to happen anyway. That argument was incredibly well negotiated. The Jericho/HHH example was also bang on the money.
I think you went a little bit off target with the Cena angle. While I agree that the crowd reactions towards him are often what make his matches memorable and seemingly inspire him to step out of his lazy auto pilot mode for big match occasions, I’m not sure what relevancy your point about buys had to the debate’s context, because buys have nothing to do with crowd reactions.
I also disagree that his two cumbersome matches with the Rock were “great” or even that the crowds during those matches were hot enough to put over two ordinary at best matches. Your example of Rock/Hogan was much better, that was a “good” basic match with a semblance of storytelling that was made into something of a classic due to the crowd reactions, whereas those two Rock/Cena matches were bog standard finisher fests (certainly the second) which were supported by good yet modest crowds. Again, this is a part where I think you could have used a better example, possibly Cena/Brock which was another match with an abrupt build up that was ultimately overshadowed by an intense crowd reaction, one which put a basic story (Brock pummels the living shite out of Cena, toys around with him, gets cocky, then SUPER CENA COMEBACK) completely over the top, with the smarky Chicago fans being won over by the otherwise usually much loathed Cena. There are plenty of other examples, obviously.
Thankfully you managed to get back on track with some supporting evidence from credible sources which are obviously always going to strengthen your debate to a certain extent. Your outro was okay but would have been improved by swapping “impossible” with “incredibly difficult”. I’ve seen quite a few great matches (IMO) that have had flat crowds, so to say that “It’s impossible to consider a match “great” without an enthusiastic crowd behind it” is a bit contentious.
That was an exciting debate to read that brought up some very interesting points, most of which worked well, although a couple fell by the way side. Despite being open to potential counters, this was a good effort.
samizayn:
Your intro was precise and to the point, clearly outlining your intentions with this debate without being eye catching or likely to raise the pulses of those reading.
Your next paragraph was a huge own goal, spending far too much time putting over the merits of pre match build ups while also declaring that they’re essential in making matches great alongside crowd reactions. The John Cena part was a fantastic piece of writing and would have been a fantastic counter argument, but within your debate it seemed quite damaging, especially when the counter argument you were building to failed in comparison.
I felt that your differentiation between short build ups and long build ups was fairly irrelevant when considering that the time frame of build ups didn’t pertain to the topic’s question, especially after you already admitted that pre match build ups are necessary for any “great” match to occur. With “Dan the Man” and “Joe Nobody” you continued to establish the concept that pre match build ups do matter, just that they don’t have to be long and complicated. All I’m getting from this is that you would be fantastic in a debate concerning “are long match build ups important?”.
At this stage I haven’t seen any really strong arguments for why crowd reactions are more important, which is the crux of that matter. On that subject, I also think that you missed a trick by not elaborating on the quick breakdown of the Cena/punk MITB feud by arguing how the Chicago crowd could have potentially overshadowed the build up to the match. Without that, you’ve just used an example of a feud for which most people Punk’s “pipe bomb” easily out shadows the reactions of the Chicago crowd. Again, you’ve undermined your own efforts.
Your next argument was utter nonsense: “you don’t get the real connection that tells you what you’ve witnessed is truly extraordinary. In other words, you don’t get emotional validation”. By generalising so greatly you leave yourself open to so many counter arguments. Japanese wrestling matches are generally viewed in silence, as is the culture there. Are you telling me that it’s impossible to vicariously connect to the performers in those matches? What one person enjoys or is emotionally invested in might be different for another. Are you telling me that it was impossible for fans of Antonio Cesaro to enjoy his matches during his initial United States’ title push just because live audiences were generally indifferent to him due to the way his on screen persona was being developed at the time? Are you telling me that when a great match occurs in some back water American State such as Iowa that a great match can’t be great for those watching on TV because the crowd members are dunces who can barely manage to breathe while sitting on their hands? Nonsense!
“look past the ring into the audience of fans that for some reason paid good money to watch grown men fake fighting in spandex” simply implies that wrestling fans can only behave like sheep by enjoying what others do and that the in ring action is fairly irrelevant, an argument that suggests that great story telling and selling is only possible when the live audience laps it up with more thirst than Noyk displays on wrestlingforum.com. Yep, let’s ignore the fact that a lot of audience members are only so engrossed by these “great” matches due to the out of ring character work that is presented by often limited in ring workers. Oh…With every argument you make you just seem to contradict your original stance.
“This audience’s sounds and actions affect us in a way we mostly don’t notice, but they are hugely instrumental for getting ‘into’ a match” is a far better argument because it doesn’t dictate the absurd opinion that a match can only be “great” with a red hot crowd. Instead it suggests that it can in fact heighten average to good, good to great, great to classic, etc. The example of the pin fall counts raising tension through crowd participation was good, as was your Santino example which was a perfect indication of how a crowd can heighten an experience by making you believe in the unbelievable. The tone of this entire paragraph was much more appropriate than the one that I previously savaged. If you had used the style of wording throughout your debate and used more caution instead of generalising by making the argument from one type of fan’s perspective then I think your debate would have been improved substantially.
You made a good point by saying “it is not a great match, but a successful promo payoff”, but without an example your argument paled in comparison next to ZOMBO’s Goldberg angle which jack hammered the point home with authority.
“It is infinitely more difficult to overcome a dead crowd, because they make it unlikely for someone watching at home to invest and care about the match at all” is far closer to how you should have worded your earlier argument which I tore apart. The end to your debate in general was decent, but you should have avoided reaffirming “a great wrestling match simply cannot exist with poor live audience reactions”. You made some good points, but they were ultimately outweighed by contradictions, generalisations, a lack of detailed examples (the Santino one was fantastic, but you needed a couple more on that level to accompany other points) and the outpouring of respect towards the side you were supposed to be arguing against.
Results:
While this was far from a perfect match (although maybe the “crowd reactions” in this thread will make it “great” :side: ) there was plenty to delve into. ZOMBO went for a far more exciting hyperbolic style of writing while samizayn was far more verbose. ZOMBO absolutely nailed the argument with the Goldberg examples and while that debate had flaws ZOMBO did more then enough to defeat samizayn’s inconsistent and ultimately self-defeating effort.
ZOMBO: *** 1/2
samizayn: **
:101
ZOMBO won the vote :brodgers
Evolution
I’ll just start by saying completely honestly that it was hard to find any faults at all with either of these debates. A truly outstanding effort from both of you.
ZOMBO: Loved the sense of humour throughout the debate. Things like this really add that next layer of character to what you present and it makes the entry a thousand times more readable and relatable even.
I liked the way you defined your question but it felt a wee bit narrow, I think you could have expanded to say that a great match is where the crowd eats it up and thus creates great wrestling moments (as you refer to “moments” a fair bit later on even in your conclusion). I think if you had tweaked the definition to include the WWE or at least acknowledged the independent demographic a little more it might have been tighter. Something like “Great matches (in mainstream professional wrestling like WWE, WCW or even TNA)” or something like that. Seeing as you left it open the way you did you could have mentioned that it doesn’t require a 40,000 fan audience to pop off to create the crowd reaction you’re talking about but it could also come from say a high school gym (or Impact Zone lulz) with 40 people in it reacting the same way to create the same wonder etc. in a match.
Look, you smashed it with the Benoit example, same with Hart/Michaels. You could have even used Hart/Austin as an example for a great match/crowd creating the catalyst for the biggest star in wrestling history. Your examples referred a bit to great moments and unfortunately that’s not how you defined your question. While the arguments you made were still valid, I felt it could have been stronger overall with just that little bit added to it.
The home stretch on your entry was great. The two sources you provided were good because it’s always good to see what the experts say vs. what us as a bunch of IWC geeks have to offer on the topic.
A great entry.
samizayn: An absolutely beautiful entry. Something that flowed perfectly from start to finish, while it lacked some of the humour of Debate A it still had an element of it in there while remaining clinical and just eviscerating the other side of the topic.
The feels I got reading your debate especially when you were talking about the way the crowd almost represents us as an audience and that the emotion involved is what gives wrestling it’s soul. Wow. One of the flat out best paragraphs of writing I’ve ever seen on this forum period. Left me to THINK about what makes wrestling so great.
You nailed the other side of the debate to a post when you used the one sentence summary for Punk/Cena. Another thing you can consider too is those flashy 4 minute video packages the WWE always makes before each PPV pretty much compresses 4 weeks of promos and build into a fancy filtered explanation of why we’re here. No matter how shitty or good the build is, they always seem to make the feud look great regardless. You also smashed it with the watching on mute argument as well.
Decision: ZOMBO's was an outstanding effort that I honestly feel has just been pipped by a near perfect entry by samizayn. I really would hate to have debated against that entry and I’m interested in seeing who matches up with what one. Great work by both of you and ZOMBO shouldn’t be discouraged by my choice, that entry would be good enough to beat most of the competition in the league.
samizayn is the winner for me.
Winner via Split Decision - ZOMBO
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 0-2 TEAM WOOLCOCK
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 0-2 TEAM WOOLCOCK
*The competitors in the first ever TDL Eliminator at TDL X are announced. They are:
ZOMBO
TONY MONTANA
L-DOPA
samizayn
The rules are simple. Don't get eliminated. At TDL X these 4 debaters will face off in a 4 way debate. The object: Don't get eliminated. The judges will not only vote for which they debate they think was the best but ALSO which debate they thought was the worst. The debater that the judges deemed to have entered the worst debate will be eliminated from the eliminator. Hence the name you see. The other 3 advance to TDL XI where the process repeats until two are left to compete for the #1 Contenders spot.*
DestrosSecret [Team TLK] vs BloodNinja [Team SI]
Would WCW have competed with WWF to the extent that they did if Hall & Nash never jumped ship?
Would WCW have competed with WWF to the extent that they did if Hall & Nash never jumped ship?
BloodNinja
Would WCW have competed with the WWF without Hall and Nash? I would have to say no. I'll start with a some background on both both promotions circa 95/96, then I'll detail how Hall and Nash were in a prime position to make the angle work better than anyone in that time period.
It' s no secret that the WCW was stuck in a rut following a lack of vision and guidance in the early 90's. The promotion of Bischoff brought a much needed sense of television production savy, and a desire to embellish the image of an antiquated product. He made significant leaps by bringing in heavy hitters like Hogan and Savage, but these brands ultimately diminished in value as they weren't presented with any sense of long-term growth. WCW floundered as they attempted to recapture the essence of what made Hulkamania great in the 80s, thus making several perfunctory attempts to create Heels for Hogan to run the gamut (the Dungeon of Doom being a prominent example amungst it's cookie cutter contemporaries). This direction signalled the dire need for a change on the creative side.
The WWF treaded along similar lines. Albeit featuring a fresh crop of young, fully developed characters at the top of their cards, they weren't pushing the creative envelope ether. Instead, they put just enough care in the production of their shows and marketing of their talent to keep their fans from tuning out. Perception goes a long way, and while WCW was typically respected within the wrestling bubble for their emphasis on the in-ring product, the WWF was too deeply ingrained in the fabric of pop culture which made them the quintessential wrestling promotion on the planet. The kids that wavëd their Hulkamania Foam Fingers now made up the adolecence of the MTV-esque counter-culture movement of the late 90's, and most grew out of wrestling due to it's stagnation. It's not that the WWF needed to produce a raunchier product to regain fan interest, but they had to offer them something different to reach greater heights. They were safe sailing on cruise control because they had no looming threat forcing them to take these kind of chances. Their comfort zone ultimately became their "Achilles' heel".
Enter WCW's opportunity. For WCW to change the general concensus, they had to somehow reinvent their brand to reflect culture with intricately layered storyarcs that sustained the attention of the average split-second attention span viewer. The signing of Hall and Nash opened this window of possibilities. Here were two guys that left WCW in the early 90's after being treated unfairly by management, they defected to the WWF and made themselves into household names. It was clear that they exhumed an attitude with their mannerisms on camera (Diesel was the first to flip the bird on WWF television), and their idiosyncrasies provided a much needed appeal that the WWF failed to capitalise on at the time.
The nucleus of the NWO concept revolved around three primary goals, goals that would not have been met to the same extent without Hall and Nash.
WCW needed to introduce an outside threat that wasn't presented as a rudimentary storyline, one that made the audience genuinely question it's legitimacy. Hall and Nash were the perfect catalysts to bring about this perception , and there was instant motivation for their actions given their mistreatment from WCW in the past. At a time when people weren't exposed to online dirtsheets, these two made it seem like they were sent from the WWF as proverbial Trojan horses. WCW was smart enough to maximise their appearances and make the invasion feel organic ; The coming through the crowd to the announcer's bewilderment all made for a tense atmosphere and unpredictable predicament that built beautifully toward it's big reveal. Hall and Nash were recognisable figures in the prime of their career rather than entering their twilight (i.e. Hogan, Savage), while being part of a story that accentuated their rebellious nature .
WCW then needed to climax with the biggest swerve humanly possible, in this case being the Hogan heel turn. Whether this was in their immediate plans or not, WCW knew that a Hogan turn would get the wrestling world buzzing, and potentially broaden their core fanbase by re-inventing the most recognisable wrestler on the planet. Does this mean that this was destined to work? Of course not. They easily could've turned Hogan into a one-dimentional heel without rhyme or reason, but the Hall and Nash angle provided the right plateau to legitimise Hogan to the crowds that wrote him off years ago . Now Hogan was co-opted by the two "invaders" from the WWF, two young and brash recognisable faces that was tapping into the tail ended Gen-X demo which gave Hogan that instant "cool" factor. If Hogan is historically credited as the biggest reason for the NWO's success, then Hall and Nash were the guys that set the wheels in motion for that success to flourish.
Finally, the key was to sustain this momentum long enough to hinder WWF's fortunes. Thankfully, Hall and Nash represented a stark counter-culture to the traditionalist WCW lockerroom, and the NWO brand became more of an attraction than the actual feuds being thrown together during it's hottest period. Hogan was ingrained in the fabric of WCW's archaic tradition, but fans perceived him as something fresh through association with The Outsiders. It's evident that Hall and Nash were at the forefront of this change once the angle started to lose it's lust as more guys joined the group. There were few guys in the business that were as credible as Hall and Nash, and even fewer that were in touch with the crowd while being in a position to make a significant paradigm shift on the product. People were getting sick of the Modus operandi that was making professional Wrestling irrelevant , so this change and relatability couldn't have come at a more necessary time with Hall and Nash as it's flag bearers.
DestrosSecret
Would WCW have competed with WWF to the extent they did if Hall & Nash never jumped ship?
This is question is awkwardly phrased to say the least. It positively reinforces the sentiment that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were the reason WCW were able to compete and that it would have died regardless of any changes it made to its product, which I don't believe. My argument is that without Hall and Nash, WCW could have maintained its short term success with the nWo and possibly remained competitive longer. This is because it isn't simply a case of whether Hall and Nash gave WCW momentum, its a question of changing attitudes to wrestling, whether its stars or stories which attract viewers, and flexibility in product. Hall and Nash's jump was not required for the short term gains the company made during the Monday night wars, but maybe holds responsibility for the following collapse.
Historically, all wrestling promotions fought tooth and nail with one another, generally through the matching of PPV's, the of stealing stars, the buying out of territories and the one-upping of one another over who could deliver the biggest slap to the face of the NWA. Neither the WCW or WWF were any different. If a promotion could steal a big name star, it meant, supposedly, that they were the better organisation and attract both viewers and other wrestlers. Hall and Nash were products of this, Luger, Hogan and Savage had jumped ship before them and had added a certain 'glamour' to WCW's product. Also The Outsiders had long standing friendships with many of the bigger WCW stars, then, as the nWo became more formidable, those stars wanted to become a part of it, giving the angle a lot of momentum.
Its therefore easy to consider Hall and Nash successes with WCW. The WCW embarked on 84 weeks of dominance in the ratings thanks to the rise of the Outsiders and the nWo. But we have to separate the stars from the story. Neither Hall or Nash brought the nWo with them to WCW, it was the brainchild of Eric Bischoff who figured an invasion from another promotion would bring in the viewing figures. This argument is backed up by viewing ratings from before to the nWo angle. The 31 weeks prior to the nWo in which Nitro was on a Monday night, (of which ratings data is available) Nitro won 15 weeks, Raw, 16 with two draws. Hall and Nash hadn't given WWF any sort of advantage, both products were, essentially, competitively equal (http://prowrestling.wikia.com). This argument isn't to detract them as wrestlers but as stated, wrestlers jumping companies was the name of the game, if it hadn't of been them, Bischoff would have found some others to take their place. The nWo could have ran with Hart and the British Bulldog or 1-2-3 kid and Farooq, as long as the wrestler could portray the correct persona. This is lent weight by the fact that Scott Hall wasn't a heavyweight champion, but a midcarder, the shock of seeing someone from another promotion was enough to kick start the angle, it didn't need to be one of the bigger names.
Also, the angle wasn't about 2 wrestlers, the nWo was a big outfit of people. Aside from Halls original appearance it could be argued the biggest moments were Bischoff joining, Hogan turning and Goldberg beating Hogan. All of which could have been done with out Hall or Nash. As a company, however, nWo did put WCW far ahead. But there is a reason you don't turn on the TV and still see the nWo or Hogan leg dropping anyone, and though the turning point certainly didn't come straight away, (only after 84 weeks of teabagging the WWF) when it did come, it ended WCW.
You see, Brian Pillman pulled a gun on Steve Austin and the Attitude Era arrived.
Backed up by the ratings alone, WCW was the best product on TV. Yet this meant locking themselves in with people who wanted control over how their characters developed (or, more importantly, didn't develop), meaning it was hard for the WCW product to evolve past the era of Rock 'n' Wrestling. Hall and Nash attracted Hogan and other big names to the screen again because they were all friends and these people had power within the company as they were household names and brought in the money, but the cost to WCW was creative control.
As Paul Heyman said about the NWA, WCW were old school when it wasn't hip to be old school, and worse of all, the stars they had pinched from WWF, had no intention of changing things up. With the top card refusing to be taken out the lime-light, the WCW was left forced to provide a show based on ageing stars and outdated stories. Nash was made a booker and in order to prove that this was the worst case of conflict of interest since anything Hulk Hogan suggested he star in, Goldberg immediately dropped the belt to him. WCW was never going to be able to compete with WWF or even ECW when it was constricted in its flexibility. Bischoff openly complained about the limitations put on him through this situation, and though it does not mean WCW would have survived, it does indicate that there was an 'executive awareness' that the product needed adapting in the face of the attitude era, adaptation in which Hall and Nash's jump had a hand in halting.
To end? Remember the question.
Did Hall and Nash have a drastic effect on the future of WCW? Undoubtedly. Their jumping of ship was the beginning of the end. But the question is of whether or not Hall and Nash had a positive effect on the company that pushed it to the highest possible extent, and the answer is no, they didn't. WCW could have competed to a greater extent than they did had they not hired Kevin Nash and Scott Hall.
Would WCW have competed with the WWF without Hall and Nash? I would have to say no. I'll start with a some background on both both promotions circa 95/96, then I'll detail how Hall and Nash were in a prime position to make the angle work better than anyone in that time period.
It' s no secret that the WCW was stuck in a rut following a lack of vision and guidance in the early 90's. The promotion of Bischoff brought a much needed sense of television production savy, and a desire to embellish the image of an antiquated product. He made significant leaps by bringing in heavy hitters like Hogan and Savage, but these brands ultimately diminished in value as they weren't presented with any sense of long-term growth. WCW floundered as they attempted to recapture the essence of what made Hulkamania great in the 80s, thus making several perfunctory attempts to create Heels for Hogan to run the gamut (the Dungeon of Doom being a prominent example amungst it's cookie cutter contemporaries). This direction signalled the dire need for a change on the creative side.
The WWF treaded along similar lines. Albeit featuring a fresh crop of young, fully developed characters at the top of their cards, they weren't pushing the creative envelope ether. Instead, they put just enough care in the production of their shows and marketing of their talent to keep their fans from tuning out. Perception goes a long way, and while WCW was typically respected within the wrestling bubble for their emphasis on the in-ring product, the WWF was too deeply ingrained in the fabric of pop culture which made them the quintessential wrestling promotion on the planet. The kids that wavëd their Hulkamania Foam Fingers now made up the adolecence of the MTV-esque counter-culture movement of the late 90's, and most grew out of wrestling due to it's stagnation. It's not that the WWF needed to produce a raunchier product to regain fan interest, but they had to offer them something different to reach greater heights. They were safe sailing on cruise control because they had no looming threat forcing them to take these kind of chances. Their comfort zone ultimately became their "Achilles' heel".
Enter WCW's opportunity. For WCW to change the general concensus, they had to somehow reinvent their brand to reflect culture with intricately layered storyarcs that sustained the attention of the average split-second attention span viewer. The signing of Hall and Nash opened this window of possibilities. Here were two guys that left WCW in the early 90's after being treated unfairly by management, they defected to the WWF and made themselves into household names. It was clear that they exhumed an attitude with their mannerisms on camera (Diesel was the first to flip the bird on WWF television), and their idiosyncrasies provided a much needed appeal that the WWF failed to capitalise on at the time.
The nucleus of the NWO concept revolved around three primary goals, goals that would not have been met to the same extent without Hall and Nash.
WCW needed to introduce an outside threat that wasn't presented as a rudimentary storyline, one that made the audience genuinely question it's legitimacy. Hall and Nash were the perfect catalysts to bring about this perception , and there was instant motivation for their actions given their mistreatment from WCW in the past. At a time when people weren't exposed to online dirtsheets, these two made it seem like they were sent from the WWF as proverbial Trojan horses. WCW was smart enough to maximise their appearances and make the invasion feel organic ; The coming through the crowd to the announcer's bewilderment all made for a tense atmosphere and unpredictable predicament that built beautifully toward it's big reveal. Hall and Nash were recognisable figures in the prime of their career rather than entering their twilight (i.e. Hogan, Savage), while being part of a story that accentuated their rebellious nature .
WCW then needed to climax with the biggest swerve humanly possible, in this case being the Hogan heel turn. Whether this was in their immediate plans or not, WCW knew that a Hogan turn would get the wrestling world buzzing, and potentially broaden their core fanbase by re-inventing the most recognisable wrestler on the planet. Does this mean that this was destined to work? Of course not. They easily could've turned Hogan into a one-dimentional heel without rhyme or reason, but the Hall and Nash angle provided the right plateau to legitimise Hogan to the crowds that wrote him off years ago . Now Hogan was co-opted by the two "invaders" from the WWF, two young and brash recognisable faces that was tapping into the tail ended Gen-X demo which gave Hogan that instant "cool" factor. If Hogan is historically credited as the biggest reason for the NWO's success, then Hall and Nash were the guys that set the wheels in motion for that success to flourish.
Finally, the key was to sustain this momentum long enough to hinder WWF's fortunes. Thankfully, Hall and Nash represented a stark counter-culture to the traditionalist WCW lockerroom, and the NWO brand became more of an attraction than the actual feuds being thrown together during it's hottest period. Hogan was ingrained in the fabric of WCW's archaic tradition, but fans perceived him as something fresh through association with The Outsiders. It's evident that Hall and Nash were at the forefront of this change once the angle started to lose it's lust as more guys joined the group. There were few guys in the business that were as credible as Hall and Nash, and even fewer that were in touch with the crowd while being in a position to make a significant paradigm shift on the product. People were getting sick of the Modus operandi that was making professional Wrestling irrelevant , so this change and relatability couldn't have come at a more necessary time with Hall and Nash as it's flag bearers.
DestrosSecret
Would WCW have competed with WWF to the extent they did if Hall & Nash never jumped ship?
This is question is awkwardly phrased to say the least. It positively reinforces the sentiment that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were the reason WCW were able to compete and that it would have died regardless of any changes it made to its product, which I don't believe. My argument is that without Hall and Nash, WCW could have maintained its short term success with the nWo and possibly remained competitive longer. This is because it isn't simply a case of whether Hall and Nash gave WCW momentum, its a question of changing attitudes to wrestling, whether its stars or stories which attract viewers, and flexibility in product. Hall and Nash's jump was not required for the short term gains the company made during the Monday night wars, but maybe holds responsibility for the following collapse.
Historically, all wrestling promotions fought tooth and nail with one another, generally through the matching of PPV's, the of stealing stars, the buying out of territories and the one-upping of one another over who could deliver the biggest slap to the face of the NWA. Neither the WCW or WWF were any different. If a promotion could steal a big name star, it meant, supposedly, that they were the better organisation and attract both viewers and other wrestlers. Hall and Nash were products of this, Luger, Hogan and Savage had jumped ship before them and had added a certain 'glamour' to WCW's product. Also The Outsiders had long standing friendships with many of the bigger WCW stars, then, as the nWo became more formidable, those stars wanted to become a part of it, giving the angle a lot of momentum.
Its therefore easy to consider Hall and Nash successes with WCW. The WCW embarked on 84 weeks of dominance in the ratings thanks to the rise of the Outsiders and the nWo. But we have to separate the stars from the story. Neither Hall or Nash brought the nWo with them to WCW, it was the brainchild of Eric Bischoff who figured an invasion from another promotion would bring in the viewing figures. This argument is backed up by viewing ratings from before to the nWo angle. The 31 weeks prior to the nWo in which Nitro was on a Monday night, (of which ratings data is available) Nitro won 15 weeks, Raw, 16 with two draws. Hall and Nash hadn't given WWF any sort of advantage, both products were, essentially, competitively equal (http://prowrestling.wikia.com). This argument isn't to detract them as wrestlers but as stated, wrestlers jumping companies was the name of the game, if it hadn't of been them, Bischoff would have found some others to take their place. The nWo could have ran with Hart and the British Bulldog or 1-2-3 kid and Farooq, as long as the wrestler could portray the correct persona. This is lent weight by the fact that Scott Hall wasn't a heavyweight champion, but a midcarder, the shock of seeing someone from another promotion was enough to kick start the angle, it didn't need to be one of the bigger names.
Also, the angle wasn't about 2 wrestlers, the nWo was a big outfit of people. Aside from Halls original appearance it could be argued the biggest moments were Bischoff joining, Hogan turning and Goldberg beating Hogan. All of which could have been done with out Hall or Nash. As a company, however, nWo did put WCW far ahead. But there is a reason you don't turn on the TV and still see the nWo or Hogan leg dropping anyone, and though the turning point certainly didn't come straight away, (only after 84 weeks of teabagging the WWF) when it did come, it ended WCW.
You see, Brian Pillman pulled a gun on Steve Austin and the Attitude Era arrived.
Backed up by the ratings alone, WCW was the best product on TV. Yet this meant locking themselves in with people who wanted control over how their characters developed (or, more importantly, didn't develop), meaning it was hard for the WCW product to evolve past the era of Rock 'n' Wrestling. Hall and Nash attracted Hogan and other big names to the screen again because they were all friends and these people had power within the company as they were household names and brought in the money, but the cost to WCW was creative control.
As Paul Heyman said about the NWA, WCW were old school when it wasn't hip to be old school, and worse of all, the stars they had pinched from WWF, had no intention of changing things up. With the top card refusing to be taken out the lime-light, the WCW was left forced to provide a show based on ageing stars and outdated stories. Nash was made a booker and in order to prove that this was the worst case of conflict of interest since anything Hulk Hogan suggested he star in, Goldberg immediately dropped the belt to him. WCW was never going to be able to compete with WWF or even ECW when it was constricted in its flexibility. Bischoff openly complained about the limitations put on him through this situation, and though it does not mean WCW would have survived, it does indicate that there was an 'executive awareness' that the product needed adapting in the face of the attitude era, adaptation in which Hall and Nash's jump had a hand in halting.
To end? Remember the question.
Did Hall and Nash have a drastic effect on the future of WCW? Undoubtedly. Their jumping of ship was the beginning of the end. But the question is of whether or not Hall and Nash had a positive effect on the company that pushed it to the highest possible extent, and the answer is no, they didn't. WCW could have competed to a greater extent than they did had they not hired Kevin Nash and Scott Hall.
Seabs
BloodNinja - This is a great example of how much a debate can benefit from defining your structure at the beginning and then sticking to a structure throughout the rest of your debate. Content wise I thought it was maybe lacking a little at times but you made up for with a clearly structured debate that was easy follow and thus easy to understand your arguments. I thought your assessment of where both promotions were prior to the move was good and set the scene for your debate nicely. Could maybe have cut it a little to leave more room for the more important aspects of your debate but I didn't strongly feel that you need much more explanation from that part of your debate so it worked. A brief conclusion wouldn't have hurt though. Thought your point about Hall & Nash's history in WCW was a great complimentary point to support your argument that it worked better being them 2 in that position. "The nucleus of the NWO concept revolved around three primary goals, goals that would not have been met to the same extent without Hall and Nash." - Again I thought defining your structure really helped. Your first two points the legitimacy and the swerve I really liked, the third one less so. I thought it was considerably weaker than the rest of your debate and didn't really convince me that of Hall & Nash's significance like the first 2 points did.
DestrosSecret - It took me a couple of reads to fully get where your debate was coming from and going to but I got there in the end so it's fine. It does however suggest that you could have improved the clarity of your debate's direction and structure perhaps. I would have used your final sentence at the start actually because I thought that clarified your stance better than anything at the start and when your stance isn't straight forward like yours was it's vital to ensure that clarity as early as possible. That way readers aren't reading your debate unsure of what your purpose is that you're arguing for. That's how I felt at times during certain points when I first read it. It felt like there were too many points when you were crediting Hall & Nash too much for the stance you had. It felt a bit too much like you were not quite sitting on the fence but looking to get up on it rather running away from the fence to your own land. For example talking about Hall & Nash's influence "giving the angle a lot of momentum.". Your 3rd paragraph I didn't think was very good to be blunt. You credit Bischoff for the NWO but it was Hall & Nash who were the selling point and represented the angle on TV from Day 1. Bischoff booked it but THEY were the NWO not Bischoff and for good booking to work you need the right people to portray it in action. So I thought you sold Hall & Nash way short there. Your ratings argument I didn't get. You state the they were basically tied before the NWO angle but then WCW gained the momentum right? Also, the way you worded that to me read like 15+16+2 which doesn't equal 31 weeks. Your linked source doesn't take to me a page where I can see the data you used either. Your point about Hall & Nash being replaceable in that role should have been a big part of your debate but it wasn't close to it. Saying Pac & Simmons could have replaced them in that role is something that I think most people are gonna need a lot of convincing on and you didn't really attempt to convince them. Also, BloodNinja' whole debate focused on why Hall & Nash were the right people and did a great job countering that point. My point about you crediting the NWO for any success but not Hall & Nash applies to the next paragraph too. Your final third is good though at least and I liked your take on how Hall & Nash heavily contributed to WCW's demise. The question asked would they have competed to the extent they did though and you failed to really take into account Hall & Nash's work getting WCW on top of WWF prior to their downfall which they did play a hand in. I get your point that WCW might have survived longer without them but that wasn't really the focus of the topic and I felt you didn't tackle the core focus of the topic well enough.
Winner - BloodNinja
Headliner
BloodNinja-Nice well rounded debate. I really liked how you provided a background of WCW and WWF's product prior to the nWo to show that change was needed. You also did a good job showing that Hall & Nash had the perfect attitude that would allow them to fit the personality of the nWo. Also, showing how they made Hogan cool, and is somewhat responsible for being fresh again was a nice touch. The debate didn't seem to have a proper ending, but it didn't hurt your debate too much.
DestrosSecret-This debate wasn't able to convince me at all. Instead, the more I read your debate, the more I seen room for counter argument. By the end of the debate, I felt like your whole debate could be counter argued in a very convincing way. Wasn't feeling this at all. Sorry.
Winner-BloodNinja
Evolution
BloodNinja: A bit of a soft introduction in my opinion “I would have to say no” didn’t inspire me with “shit they really believe this!” sort of feels. I liked your follow up paragraph however, a perfect explanation of context for the period. I felt like your debate might have flowed better had you switched around your third and fourth paragraphs respectively. However it didn’t affect the overall product THAT much it just felt like that to me.
I loved how you made multiple points of the goals of the original NWO and how nobody other than Hall and Nash could have created and sustained such goals. Perfectly tied in with the introduction of your debate and the stagnancy that faced the pro wrestling culture at the time. The second half of your debate flowed beautifully albeit with a bit of an abrupt end but with a strict word count I think you managed to disguise it pretty well.
Just a note for next time, try to really go over your spelling and punctuation before submitting, I can just notice a few minor errors throughout and it could potentially cost you a tight debate.
DestrosSecret: Cool interpretation of the question, it’s always nice to see someone taking the challenge and going against the grain of a question when it’s executed well. I really liked your opening paragraph as it oozed conviction and paraphrased the topic well.
Your third paragraph felt a bit muddled to me. It didn’t link back to the stance you took in the introduction either. For example you stated that the WCW dominated WWF in the ratings war for 84 weeks yet later in the paragraph state that it had been fairly evenly matched before that. You could have made that link and stated that there is an argument to be made that they could have sustained THAT level of competitiveness without changing their product, but to say that they would have seen the same gains in the arm wrestler with WWF through wrestlers such as Farooq or the 1-2-3 kid in the same position is a bit of a stretch. Especially given that BloodNinja actually addressed WHY Hall and Nash made the initial introduction of the NWO so successful with their presence and the changing pro-wrestling market at the time.
I feel like had you elaborated on the Brian Pillman section, say, stating that it was the NWO and their increase in controversy etc. that drove the WWE to do such a thing as the Pillman/Austin debacle that you could have actually linked that to the subsequent downfall of WCW. But you didn’t unfortunately. You gave me a taste of an outstanding point of view and then just kind of left it there for me to think about.
I liked your conclusion but felt it lacked connection to the remainder of the debate. The last line specifically is something you should have elaborated on more throughout the debate. Had you linked that back in subtly throughout while giving reasoning I think it would have strengthened the overall feel of the entry.
Result: This is by far the closest debate I’ve ever judged, in terms of angles on the topic, I love that you both took different sides and I loved that DestrosSecret went against what you would first assume or jump to. BloodNinja provided strong points that actually countered some of the ideas that DestrosSecret presented and to do that in a debate where you don’t even get to see what your opponent is writing makes things all the more impressive. I felt like BloodNinja seemed to cover most of what DestrosSecret had stated and what it didn’t cover wasn’t strong enough to convince me to sway from my decision.
I have to give it to BloodNinja by the margin of a bees dick.
BloodNinja - This is a great example of how much a debate can benefit from defining your structure at the beginning and then sticking to a structure throughout the rest of your debate. Content wise I thought it was maybe lacking a little at times but you made up for with a clearly structured debate that was easy follow and thus easy to understand your arguments. I thought your assessment of where both promotions were prior to the move was good and set the scene for your debate nicely. Could maybe have cut it a little to leave more room for the more important aspects of your debate but I didn't strongly feel that you need much more explanation from that part of your debate so it worked. A brief conclusion wouldn't have hurt though. Thought your point about Hall & Nash's history in WCW was a great complimentary point to support your argument that it worked better being them 2 in that position. "The nucleus of the NWO concept revolved around three primary goals, goals that would not have been met to the same extent without Hall and Nash." - Again I thought defining your structure really helped. Your first two points the legitimacy and the swerve I really liked, the third one less so. I thought it was considerably weaker than the rest of your debate and didn't really convince me that of Hall & Nash's significance like the first 2 points did.
DestrosSecret - It took me a couple of reads to fully get where your debate was coming from and going to but I got there in the end so it's fine. It does however suggest that you could have improved the clarity of your debate's direction and structure perhaps. I would have used your final sentence at the start actually because I thought that clarified your stance better than anything at the start and when your stance isn't straight forward like yours was it's vital to ensure that clarity as early as possible. That way readers aren't reading your debate unsure of what your purpose is that you're arguing for. That's how I felt at times during certain points when I first read it. It felt like there were too many points when you were crediting Hall & Nash too much for the stance you had. It felt a bit too much like you were not quite sitting on the fence but looking to get up on it rather running away from the fence to your own land. For example talking about Hall & Nash's influence "giving the angle a lot of momentum.". Your 3rd paragraph I didn't think was very good to be blunt. You credit Bischoff for the NWO but it was Hall & Nash who were the selling point and represented the angle on TV from Day 1. Bischoff booked it but THEY were the NWO not Bischoff and for good booking to work you need the right people to portray it in action. So I thought you sold Hall & Nash way short there. Your ratings argument I didn't get. You state the they were basically tied before the NWO angle but then WCW gained the momentum right? Also, the way you worded that to me read like 15+16+2 which doesn't equal 31 weeks. Your linked source doesn't take to me a page where I can see the data you used either. Your point about Hall & Nash being replaceable in that role should have been a big part of your debate but it wasn't close to it. Saying Pac & Simmons could have replaced them in that role is something that I think most people are gonna need a lot of convincing on and you didn't really attempt to convince them. Also, BloodNinja' whole debate focused on why Hall & Nash were the right people and did a great job countering that point. My point about you crediting the NWO for any success but not Hall & Nash applies to the next paragraph too. Your final third is good though at least and I liked your take on how Hall & Nash heavily contributed to WCW's demise. The question asked would they have competed to the extent they did though and you failed to really take into account Hall & Nash's work getting WCW on top of WWF prior to their downfall which they did play a hand in. I get your point that WCW might have survived longer without them but that wasn't really the focus of the topic and I felt you didn't tackle the core focus of the topic well enough.
Winner - BloodNinja
Headliner
BloodNinja-Nice well rounded debate. I really liked how you provided a background of WCW and WWF's product prior to the nWo to show that change was needed. You also did a good job showing that Hall & Nash had the perfect attitude that would allow them to fit the personality of the nWo. Also, showing how they made Hogan cool, and is somewhat responsible for being fresh again was a nice touch. The debate didn't seem to have a proper ending, but it didn't hurt your debate too much.
DestrosSecret-This debate wasn't able to convince me at all. Instead, the more I read your debate, the more I seen room for counter argument. By the end of the debate, I felt like your whole debate could be counter argued in a very convincing way. Wasn't feeling this at all. Sorry.
Winner-BloodNinja
Evolution
BloodNinja: A bit of a soft introduction in my opinion “I would have to say no” didn’t inspire me with “shit they really believe this!” sort of feels. I liked your follow up paragraph however, a perfect explanation of context for the period. I felt like your debate might have flowed better had you switched around your third and fourth paragraphs respectively. However it didn’t affect the overall product THAT much it just felt like that to me.
I loved how you made multiple points of the goals of the original NWO and how nobody other than Hall and Nash could have created and sustained such goals. Perfectly tied in with the introduction of your debate and the stagnancy that faced the pro wrestling culture at the time. The second half of your debate flowed beautifully albeit with a bit of an abrupt end but with a strict word count I think you managed to disguise it pretty well.
Just a note for next time, try to really go over your spelling and punctuation before submitting, I can just notice a few minor errors throughout and it could potentially cost you a tight debate.
DestrosSecret: Cool interpretation of the question, it’s always nice to see someone taking the challenge and going against the grain of a question when it’s executed well. I really liked your opening paragraph as it oozed conviction and paraphrased the topic well.
Your third paragraph felt a bit muddled to me. It didn’t link back to the stance you took in the introduction either. For example you stated that the WCW dominated WWF in the ratings war for 84 weeks yet later in the paragraph state that it had been fairly evenly matched before that. You could have made that link and stated that there is an argument to be made that they could have sustained THAT level of competitiveness without changing their product, but to say that they would have seen the same gains in the arm wrestler with WWF through wrestlers such as Farooq or the 1-2-3 kid in the same position is a bit of a stretch. Especially given that BloodNinja actually addressed WHY Hall and Nash made the initial introduction of the NWO so successful with their presence and the changing pro-wrestling market at the time.
I feel like had you elaborated on the Brian Pillman section, say, stating that it was the NWO and their increase in controversy etc. that drove the WWE to do such a thing as the Pillman/Austin debacle that you could have actually linked that to the subsequent downfall of WCW. But you didn’t unfortunately. You gave me a taste of an outstanding point of view and then just kind of left it there for me to think about.
I liked your conclusion but felt it lacked connection to the remainder of the debate. The last line specifically is something you should have elaborated on more throughout the debate. Had you linked that back in subtly throughout while giving reasoning I think it would have strengthened the overall feel of the entry.
Result: This is by far the closest debate I’ve ever judged, in terms of angles on the topic, I love that you both took different sides and I loved that DestrosSecret went against what you would first assume or jump to. BloodNinja provided strong points that actually countered some of the ideas that DestrosSecret presented and to do that in a debate where you don’t even get to see what your opponent is writing makes things all the more impressive. I felt like BloodNinja seemed to cover most of what DestrosSecret had stated and what it didn’t cover wasn’t strong enough to convince me to sway from my decision.
I have to give it to BloodNinja by the margin of a bees dick.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - BloodNinja
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 0-3 TEAM WOOLCOCK
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 0-3 TEAM WOOLCOCK
*The Lady Killer crumbles to the ground. He must be so fucking embarassed. What an embarASSment. TURNCOAT ZOMBO approaches TLK to offer his hand for the fallen champion but pulls it away in rejection at the last second. TLK's misery mounts further and ZOMBO motions that he's coming for TLK's belt himself in the near future. Seeing this swag move that ZOMBO just pulled off, TONY MONTANA decides to copy it. ZOMBO's taunt was met with a loud pop. MONTANA's - silence.*
*Just as TLK begins to get his bearings back GARFUNKEL THE SHEEP is brought out. WOOLCOCK licks his lips. As you do when a sheep is brought onto a stage. You know. TLK can barely take it anymore and breaks down into a flood of tears. Almost as if he's trying to cry enough tears to drown poor Garfunkel to death. But these are only tears Greg and nobody has ever drowned in tears. Not even sheep.*
*WOOLCOCK approaches Garfunkel and BAM.*
*The move is executed. One swift hard pointed object right through Garfunkel. The crowd gasp in unison. Then they all turn their heads to the direction where the final climax came from. And DarkStark puts down her MFI-90210 shotgun and signal for the debates to continue. RIP Garfunkel. Died too soon. I imagine.*
Evolution [Team TLK] vs Seabs [Team SI]
Who should be Undertaker's opponent at WrestleMania 30?
Who should be Undertaker's opponent at WrestleMania 30?
Evolution
Who faces the Undertaker and his illustrious, totally legitimate and not-at-all fake undefeated streak at Wrestlemania is one of the hottest topics for IWC neck-beards every year and it’s something that requires careful consideration by the WWE. “The streak” is no longer just a match on the card, it’s an entity unto itself. The potential opponents that face him need to be a big enough star to suspend the disbelief of the fans, provide an entertaining angle to draw ratings and PPV buys, be able to handle the inevitable defeat without it hurting their momentum, and perhaps most importantly put on a good match while working safely with Taker so he doesn’t break his hip in old ag-err I mean “experience”.
When you look present Undertakers status on the roster also taking into consideration the importance of an event such as Wrestlemania 30 AND the criteria I listed, you can’t have Undertaker wrestling just any guy. As much as I enjoyed the technical wrestling clinic that was Undertaker vs. Big Show and A-Train circa Wrestlemania 19, there is only one man fit to face the Deadman on that stage. It’s not Triple H or CM Punk again, it’s not a young-gun like Dean Ambrose and it’s not even Brock Lesnar. It’s John Cena.
The last time John Cena and Undertaker faced each other one-on-one on PPV was at Vengeance in 2003 when Undertaker was the American badass biker and Cena was the fluffy, white bucket-hat wearing Vanilla Ice wannabe. For the WWE, presenting this match at Wrestlemania would be a great way to supplement the rest of the card AND their ratings leading into ‘Mania by booking a match the crowd really hasn’t seen before. Given their last PPV encounter was over 10 years ago, you have to keep in mind that we haven’t seen the two go face to face at the current points in their respective careers either. You compare this to the idea of Taker facing someone like Triple H for a third time (groan) and comparatively the idea of a completely fresh and unique feud is something that’s exciting. You only have to look to last years feud between CM Punk and Taker to see what bringing a new angle to an old idea can do to create interesting television.
Another key strength of Cena’s is his ability to effectively move on from any defeat or wrongdoing without having it affect his momentum or his position with the fans. Now in a perfect world I’d love to see a young up and comer like Dean Ambrose push Undertaker to the limit, but I just can’t justify it in the current climate of the WWE as he is too new to the fans, and despite his charisma and mic skills he just doesn’t have the positioning on the roster nor the backstage influence to continue to be booked effectively after the loss. As much as the lead up and the actual match might be great, what happens when Taker leaves again? Where does Ambrose go from there? Back to the midcard defending his US title? It is much more sustainable for the balance of the roster for Cena to face Taker at Wrestlemania 30.
“FUCK JOHN CENA I WANNA SEE BROCK VS TAKER!” yells someone at their computer right now as they are holding shift and typing angrily. Sure, that would generate interest absolutely, it could equally blur the lines of reality and kayfabe (in a different way of course) but the reason I ruled out Bork was the way he has been working his matches since returning to the WWE. If you watch every one of Brock’s matches you’ll see a pattern. A brutal, repetitive encounter of throws and stiff shots with the other guy doing everything to put on an actual match. That’s all well and good and Taker IS one of the toughest guys in WWE history but at his age it’s not right to subject him to that sort of risk. John is one of the safest workers in the WWE and has the ability to put on great matches under the big lights as he has proven year after year while doing it safely which is so important with a commodity like Taker. Another downfall of the Brock concept is his lack of literal presence on the show on a regular basis. Yes Heyman can speak for him but it has more impact if the words come straight from the horses mouth and not via satellite/teleprompter.
There is so much potential for this feud to blur the lines of reality and kayfabe (especially given the recent direction of Triple H and Stephanie’s involvement with the show) that I can see this perfect angle evolving with a man that might be driven to do unspeakable things and turn on his fan base, side with the regime and do whatever it takes to make sure what’s best for business (and his “ego”) happens at Wrestlemania. Factor that in with Triple H’s recent history with Taker at recent ‘Mania’s and you’ve got an angle that is convincing enough to fool even the most hardcore of fans into thinking the impossible could happen and the streak could be broken.
Look. I could keep going on longer than it takes for Undertaker to make it to the ring. But the fact of the matter is that given the key criteria required to make a match as entertaining for the fans, profitable for the WWE and safe for The Undertaker as possible, John Cena is the only option for “The Streak” match at Wrestlemania 30. The angle is something new and in turn more profitable than a rehash of Triple H or CM Punk’s attempts, it’s more sustainable for Cena to lose than someone young like Ambrose and it’s safer for Undertaker to work in opposed to someone like Brock Lesnar. It combines all the potential ingredients needed for a memorable match AND feud.
BOOK IT VINCE!
Seabs
I'm gonna let you into a secret of mine. I'm actually a mind reader. Watch.
Who has the best chance of creating one of the biggest matches in wrestling history with Undertaker at Wrestlemania 30?
Your answer:
Now for another secret. I'm not a mind reader after all. It's just that the answer to the question is insanely obvious because the opponent SHOULD be the one who will draw the most money in this position and possesses the greatest threat to the streak.
The idea of WWE passing up the opportunity to execute potentially the biggest match in wrestling history is ludicrous.
First of all lets silence them weird people who think Undertaker should face anyone other than Cena at WrestleMania 30.
Brock Lesnar
Would fans really buy into a part-timer with no loyalty to the company ending the most prestigious asset they have left? Of course not.
So you're left with fans basically paying to see this match for match quality. Don't forget that a lot of what makes Undertaker's streak matches great is the suspense during the finishing stretch. People will still pop for the near falls but not with the same genuine believability that they would with Cena opposing and that's what would make the Cena match a "better" match from a snowflakes perspective.
And this very realistic chance that the streak actually ends is what will sky-rocket the buyrate.
What person who has ever had any emotional investment in wrestling will pass up the chance of seeing one of wrestling's most historical moments ever? Either the streak ends or it receives its final validation as the greatest streak in wrestling history. Either way it's a major part of wrestling history.
So Cena is more likely to produce a better match, atmosphere and buyrate and possesses a greater threat to the streak. How is Brock the better option then?
The Shield
The question assumes that Undertaker will be healthy enough to work a singles match at Wrestlemania, a valid assumption as he most likely won't have wrestled for the 11 months prior. Therefore, there's no reason to protect his health by putting him in a tag match.
Yes, Undertaker's last appearance was being taken out by The Shield. However, Undertaker not following up on Nexus' attack never hurt business and neither will this.
The only benefit produced by this pairing would be giving The Shield a rub from the increased exposure of going against a marquee attraction. Does anyone buy that The Shield will even be together come Wrestlemania 31?
Additionally, fans have come to expect a certain threshold from the streak match. Who's the odd one out here?
Exactly.
John Cena
At the end of the day, the only viable threat left to the streak is the poster boy of the current era, John Cena. A part-time outsider is never ending WWE's most sacred streak and there's no young hot-shot on the roster worthy of being given such an accolade.
Fans don't need convincing that Cena could end the streak. They all know that if anyone is then it's him. And that's when business in wrestling always booms. When the best face the best with high stakes on the line.
And the hardcore audience that Wrestlemania attracts know this better than anyone.
If you can draw the type of atmosphere Punk got going against the streak, then imagine the atmosphere that Cena challenging it will create. Imagine how hateful his haters will be at the idea of him ending the streak and the reaction that will draw from the Cenation.
It'd be an unmatched atmosphere.
Undertaker has had his health problems and it's clear that he's approaching the end of his run now. Therefore it's essential that you pull the trigger on the biggest streak match they have left now before the possibility of it not only happening fades, but so does the possibility of it being able to live up to the hefty heights that Undertaker has set for streak matches.
If they pass it by in 2014 then Undertaker's body may be broken beyond working epics and Cena may not even be healthy for Wrestlemania 31. To miss out on this match because WWE kept waiting another year would be a travesty.
Time on Undertaker's career is visibly winding down so not only does the match need to be done, it needs to be done now.
Additionally, the match is fresh in any context, let alone on the biggest stage of them all. By Wrestlemania it will have been almost a decade since the two wrestled and over 4 years since they even interacted together.
Keeping two of your biggest stars this far apart for so long will undoubtedly create money-drawing interest when they do finally mix it up and that's not even taking into account that it would be for wrestling's most prized asset.
Setting up the match is the easiest thing ever too and would require minimal road travel for Undertaker in the build which is an added bonus. All you need is for one of them to challenge the other saying the one thing that will cement their legacy is beating the other at Wrestlemania with the streak on the line.
Drafting Cena out of other Wrestlemania plans won't hurt the card either. Not like doing Cena vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania could possibly ever hurt a card. With this, a Brock match, a Hunter match and also a WWE Title match you have 4 marquee matches with big stars like Bryan, Punk, Orton and Sheamus to fill in the gaps. Brock, Hunter or the Title aren't worthless at Wrestlemania without Cena.
The streak is a drawing card in itself, but against the true face of the company, it's a pot of gold.
When the company's biggest draw is also the streak's biggest threat, the idea of anyone else facing Undertaker at Wrestlemania 30 is laughable.
Who faces the Undertaker and his illustrious, totally legitimate and not-at-all fake undefeated streak at Wrestlemania is one of the hottest topics for IWC neck-beards every year and it’s something that requires careful consideration by the WWE. “The streak” is no longer just a match on the card, it’s an entity unto itself. The potential opponents that face him need to be a big enough star to suspend the disbelief of the fans, provide an entertaining angle to draw ratings and PPV buys, be able to handle the inevitable defeat without it hurting their momentum, and perhaps most importantly put on a good match while working safely with Taker so he doesn’t break his hip in old ag-err I mean “experience”.
When you look present Undertakers status on the roster also taking into consideration the importance of an event such as Wrestlemania 30 AND the criteria I listed, you can’t have Undertaker wrestling just any guy. As much as I enjoyed the technical wrestling clinic that was Undertaker vs. Big Show and A-Train circa Wrestlemania 19, there is only one man fit to face the Deadman on that stage. It’s not Triple H or CM Punk again, it’s not a young-gun like Dean Ambrose and it’s not even Brock Lesnar. It’s John Cena.
The last time John Cena and Undertaker faced each other one-on-one on PPV was at Vengeance in 2003 when Undertaker was the American badass biker and Cena was the fluffy, white bucket-hat wearing Vanilla Ice wannabe. For the WWE, presenting this match at Wrestlemania would be a great way to supplement the rest of the card AND their ratings leading into ‘Mania by booking a match the crowd really hasn’t seen before. Given their last PPV encounter was over 10 years ago, you have to keep in mind that we haven’t seen the two go face to face at the current points in their respective careers either. You compare this to the idea of Taker facing someone like Triple H for a third time (groan) and comparatively the idea of a completely fresh and unique feud is something that’s exciting. You only have to look to last years feud between CM Punk and Taker to see what bringing a new angle to an old idea can do to create interesting television.
Another key strength of Cena’s is his ability to effectively move on from any defeat or wrongdoing without having it affect his momentum or his position with the fans. Now in a perfect world I’d love to see a young up and comer like Dean Ambrose push Undertaker to the limit, but I just can’t justify it in the current climate of the WWE as he is too new to the fans, and despite his charisma and mic skills he just doesn’t have the positioning on the roster nor the backstage influence to continue to be booked effectively after the loss. As much as the lead up and the actual match might be great, what happens when Taker leaves again? Where does Ambrose go from there? Back to the midcard defending his US title? It is much more sustainable for the balance of the roster for Cena to face Taker at Wrestlemania 30.
“FUCK JOHN CENA I WANNA SEE BROCK VS TAKER!” yells someone at their computer right now as they are holding shift and typing angrily. Sure, that would generate interest absolutely, it could equally blur the lines of reality and kayfabe (in a different way of course) but the reason I ruled out Bork was the way he has been working his matches since returning to the WWE. If you watch every one of Brock’s matches you’ll see a pattern. A brutal, repetitive encounter of throws and stiff shots with the other guy doing everything to put on an actual match. That’s all well and good and Taker IS one of the toughest guys in WWE history but at his age it’s not right to subject him to that sort of risk. John is one of the safest workers in the WWE and has the ability to put on great matches under the big lights as he has proven year after year while doing it safely which is so important with a commodity like Taker. Another downfall of the Brock concept is his lack of literal presence on the show on a regular basis. Yes Heyman can speak for him but it has more impact if the words come straight from the horses mouth and not via satellite/teleprompter.
There is so much potential for this feud to blur the lines of reality and kayfabe (especially given the recent direction of Triple H and Stephanie’s involvement with the show) that I can see this perfect angle evolving with a man that might be driven to do unspeakable things and turn on his fan base, side with the regime and do whatever it takes to make sure what’s best for business (and his “ego”) happens at Wrestlemania. Factor that in with Triple H’s recent history with Taker at recent ‘Mania’s and you’ve got an angle that is convincing enough to fool even the most hardcore of fans into thinking the impossible could happen and the streak could be broken.
Look. I could keep going on longer than it takes for Undertaker to make it to the ring. But the fact of the matter is that given the key criteria required to make a match as entertaining for the fans, profitable for the WWE and safe for The Undertaker as possible, John Cena is the only option for “The Streak” match at Wrestlemania 30. The angle is something new and in turn more profitable than a rehash of Triple H or CM Punk’s attempts, it’s more sustainable for Cena to lose than someone young like Ambrose and it’s safer for Undertaker to work in opposed to someone like Brock Lesnar. It combines all the potential ingredients needed for a memorable match AND feud.
BOOK IT VINCE!
Seabs
Who should be Undertaker's opponent at WrestleMania 30?
I'm gonna let you into a secret of mine. I'm actually a mind reader. Watch.
Who has the best chance of creating one of the biggest matches in wrestling history with Undertaker at Wrestlemania 30?
Your answer:
John Cena
Now for another secret. I'm not a mind reader after all. It's just that the answer to the question is insanely obvious because the opponent SHOULD be the one who will draw the most money in this position and possesses the greatest threat to the streak.
The idea of WWE passing up the opportunity to execute potentially the biggest match in wrestling history is ludicrous.
First of all lets silence them weird people who think Undertaker should face anyone other than Cena at WrestleMania 30.
Brock Lesnar
Would fans really buy into a part-timer with no loyalty to the company ending the most prestigious asset they have left? Of course not.
So you're left with fans basically paying to see this match for match quality. Don't forget that a lot of what makes Undertaker's streak matches great is the suspense during the finishing stretch. People will still pop for the near falls but not with the same genuine believability that they would with Cena opposing and that's what would make the Cena match a "better" match from a snowflakes perspective.
And this very realistic chance that the streak actually ends is what will sky-rocket the buyrate.
What person who has ever had any emotional investment in wrestling will pass up the chance of seeing one of wrestling's most historical moments ever? Either the streak ends or it receives its final validation as the greatest streak in wrestling history. Either way it's a major part of wrestling history.
So Cena is more likely to produce a better match, atmosphere and buyrate and possesses a greater threat to the streak. How is Brock the better option then?
The Shield
The question assumes that Undertaker will be healthy enough to work a singles match at Wrestlemania, a valid assumption as he most likely won't have wrestled for the 11 months prior. Therefore, there's no reason to protect his health by putting him in a tag match.
Yes, Undertaker's last appearance was being taken out by The Shield. However, Undertaker not following up on Nexus' attack never hurt business and neither will this.
The only benefit produced by this pairing would be giving The Shield a rub from the increased exposure of going against a marquee attraction. Does anyone buy that The Shield will even be together come Wrestlemania 31?
Additionally, fans have come to expect a certain threshold from the streak match. Who's the odd one out here?
- Batista
- Edge
- HBK
- HHH
- Punk
- Shield
Exactly.
John Cena
At the end of the day, the only viable threat left to the streak is the poster boy of the current era, John Cena. A part-time outsider is never ending WWE's most sacred streak and there's no young hot-shot on the roster worthy of being given such an accolade.
Fans don't need convincing that Cena could end the streak. They all know that if anyone is then it's him. And that's when business in wrestling always booms. When the best face the best with high stakes on the line.
And the hardcore audience that Wrestlemania attracts know this better than anyone.
If you can draw the type of atmosphere Punk got going against the streak, then imagine the atmosphere that Cena challenging it will create. Imagine how hateful his haters will be at the idea of him ending the streak and the reaction that will draw from the Cenation.
It'd be an unmatched atmosphere.
Undertaker has had his health problems and it's clear that he's approaching the end of his run now. Therefore it's essential that you pull the trigger on the biggest streak match they have left now before the possibility of it not only happening fades, but so does the possibility of it being able to live up to the hefty heights that Undertaker has set for streak matches.
If they pass it by in 2014 then Undertaker's body may be broken beyond working epics and Cena may not even be healthy for Wrestlemania 31. To miss out on this match because WWE kept waiting another year would be a travesty.
Time on Undertaker's career is visibly winding down so not only does the match need to be done, it needs to be done now.
Additionally, the match is fresh in any context, let alone on the biggest stage of them all. By Wrestlemania it will have been almost a decade since the two wrestled and over 4 years since they even interacted together.
Keeping two of your biggest stars this far apart for so long will undoubtedly create money-drawing interest when they do finally mix it up and that's not even taking into account that it would be for wrestling's most prized asset.
Setting up the match is the easiest thing ever too and would require minimal road travel for Undertaker in the build which is an added bonus. All you need is for one of them to challenge the other saying the one thing that will cement their legacy is beating the other at Wrestlemania with the streak on the line.
Drafting Cena out of other Wrestlemania plans won't hurt the card either. Not like doing Cena vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania could possibly ever hurt a card. With this, a Brock match, a Hunter match and also a WWE Title match you have 4 marquee matches with big stars like Bryan, Punk, Orton and Sheamus to fill in the gaps. Brock, Hunter or the Title aren't worthless at Wrestlemania without Cena.
The streak is a drawing card in itself, but against the true face of the company, it's a pot of gold.
When the company's biggest draw is also the streak's biggest threat, the idea of anyone else facing Undertaker at Wrestlemania 30 is laughable.
DDMac[/B]
Evolution's was well-written, logical and made a good, solid case as to why John Cena is the ONLY man that's able to face The Undertaker at WrestleMania and be considered a legitimate threat. The only problem I had with the debate, however, was the Triple H/Stephanie paragraph. I'm not sure if it was talking about John Cena or Triple H. Considering it' tone, I'd have to imagine Cena, but considering his name wasn't dropped once during the paragraph, I can't be sure. Other than that, it was a good debate that didn't overstay it's welcome looking to fill in words.
FUCK!!! I was praying that Seabs also didn't have John Cena and make a good argument. This just proved God doesn't exist. Another well-written, solid debate, but this one seemed to focus more on The Undertaker's health, and the need to hit this match quick fast and in a hurry. While the debate started really fast, I do think it tended to drag toward the end. And while it was still solid...
I have to go with Evolution.
Clique
As a longtime fan of The Undertaker I must say every year when this discussion comes up for who is the next to challenge The Streak at WrestleMania I get excited. There are only a few things left in current wrestling that have maintained that larger-than-life aura and I believe Seabs and Evolution sold the importance of this special attraction sufficiently.
Both men excellently pointed out why certain opponents would be not be the most formidable star for a story and epic on a stage as grand as WrestleMania XXX. Both men in their very own way told the story of why John Cena is the best selection to challenge 21-0 in NOLA. Evolution's sarcasm was smart and made the read that much more engaging to the reader. The way Debate A told connected the storytelling implications of this big time match made complete sense and I was convinced Undertaker vs. John Cena would be a strong sell for the PPV if his build were placed on TV. Seabs did a fantastic job expanding on the multitude of benefits to booking Cena in this match from the fans reaction at the box office to the match quality in the ring to the atmosphere such a moment would create.
There was little room for error with these two arguments but we must have a winner. I declare Evolution the winner. Not only for his explanation on the expectations of The Streak match his built over the years (Seabs did a fabulous job too with this) and how it is pertinent the momentum continues and delivers in even bigger fashion at WrestleMania XXX; but also how this massive storyline potentially affects Cena, Undertaker, the business, the fans, and the legacy of the Streak. I felt Evolution sold the importance stronger of the the story arc from the beginning of Cena's career to the end of Undertaker's career, and it is a fitting showdown for WrestleMania XXX.
THE DARK ANDRE
Wow, wow, wow. Let me just preface this by saying that this was an absolutely wonderful match up, by far the best that I’ve judged thus far. It’s well known that I’m a very harsh judge and I often show disdain for many of the “debates” in TDL, but neither competitor should feel disappointed with their efforts in this one.
Evolution:
The first four paragraphs are pure gold; insightful, aggressive, articulate and humorous, “As much as I enjoyed the technical wrestling clinic that was Undertaker vs. Big Show and A-Train circa Wrestlemania 19” in particular had me guffawing like a mad man. The arguments for why Cena should be chosen were all bang on and at least as good as Seabs' reasoning’s, but with just a little more style and panache. The arguments against Dean Ambrose also made perfect sense.
I thought that your arguments against Brock Lesnar were fairly weak, certainly far weaker than Seabs’ points, anyway. Suggesting that Cena would be a far “safer” opponent seems to gloss over Cena’s at times reckless in ring technique, two key examples being vs Miz at WrestleMania 27, as well as the more recent incident versus Daniel Bryan at summerslam where he reversed the hurricanrana off the turnbuckles. Brock certainly doesn’t have a reputation for taking more liberties in the ring than Cena does, outside of worked shoot strikes.
Anyway, worked shoot strikes don’t necessarily HAVE to be a prerequisite to one of Brock's matches (you think Taker would be intimidated into letting Brock do what he wants? Doubtful), nor are they something that would likely damage Taker to the point that he couldn't compete again. Taker generally wrestles just once or twice a year in this modern era, so I doubt that anything Brock could do to him would be any more of a problem than what Taker has endured from his opponents and even himself in recent years at Mania. However, you made a reasonable point that it would be unlikely that Brock would be present enough to build the match up sufficiently.
Your next paragraph got your debate back on track, although I was momentarily confused in regards to who you were talking about with “There is so much potential for this feud to blur the lines of reality and kayfabe” because it followed straight after your analysis of Brock. Try to implement superior links in situations like that to prevent this in future, although that’s a very minor criticism. Your outro was snappy and conveyed your passion well.
This was a terrific debate with very few faults, although the Brock counter arguments certainly weakened it.
Seabs:
Your intro was a moment of pure genius. With very few words you managed to convey exactly how sought after a Cena versus Undertaker streak match is.
Your counter arguments against Brock were very strong and far superior to Evolution’s. The idea that fans would find it difficult to buy into Brock winning because he’s not a permanent member of the roster or someone who WWE can invest their time and resources into long term was bang on. Conversely, by explaining how Cena could heighten the tension of a streak match and why it would be “best for business” you put that argument over the top.
Your argument for why giving a rub to The Shield would be a waste of time because it’s unlikely that they will be together long term was good. The point about singles streak matches garnering far more interest than multi man streak matches also made sense.
The continuing arguments for Cena were elaborate and convincing, leaving absolutely no doubt as to who should face Undertaker at WrestleMania. Explaining how having Cena coupled with Taker wouldn’t limit the potential of the rest of Mania XXX also gave you a minor advantage over Evolution.
While not as flashy as Evolution's, that was a brilliant read and an overwhelmingly convincing argument. Bravo!
Result:
I feel like a bastard (not that I don’t feel like one all of the time, anyway) for having to choose a winner in this one. I’ve judged so many matches where I’ve been left thinking, “neither of these fuckers deserve to win”. Why can’t those debates just have losers, while the “victory” from those matches can be sent over to ones like this where no one deserves to lose? Fuckern warz!
Okay, time to man up now and separate two very similar standard debates that both put over Cena’s credentials extremely well. Evolution had a better delivery that gave it a consistent edge over Seabs, but Seabs had a more presentable format and was flawless in regards to analysis and counter points, whereas Evolution made a mess of the Brock Lesnar counter argument. While Evolution had more potential to become a pure “classic” than Seabs, it unfortunately didn’t quite fulfil that potential. Tough choice :hmm:
Evolution: ****1/4
Seabs: ****1/2
Seabs wins the vote :brodgers
Evolution's was well-written, logical and made a good, solid case as to why John Cena is the ONLY man that's able to face The Undertaker at WrestleMania and be considered a legitimate threat. The only problem I had with the debate, however, was the Triple H/Stephanie paragraph. I'm not sure if it was talking about John Cena or Triple H. Considering it' tone, I'd have to imagine Cena, but considering his name wasn't dropped once during the paragraph, I can't be sure. Other than that, it was a good debate that didn't overstay it's welcome looking to fill in words.
FUCK!!! I was praying that Seabs also didn't have John Cena and make a good argument. This just proved God doesn't exist. Another well-written, solid debate, but this one seemed to focus more on The Undertaker's health, and the need to hit this match quick fast and in a hurry. While the debate started really fast, I do think it tended to drag toward the end. And while it was still solid...
I have to go with Evolution.
Clique
As a longtime fan of The Undertaker I must say every year when this discussion comes up for who is the next to challenge The Streak at WrestleMania I get excited. There are only a few things left in current wrestling that have maintained that larger-than-life aura and I believe Seabs and Evolution sold the importance of this special attraction sufficiently.
Both men excellently pointed out why certain opponents would be not be the most formidable star for a story and epic on a stage as grand as WrestleMania XXX. Both men in their very own way told the story of why John Cena is the best selection to challenge 21-0 in NOLA. Evolution's sarcasm was smart and made the read that much more engaging to the reader. The way Debate A told connected the storytelling implications of this big time match made complete sense and I was convinced Undertaker vs. John Cena would be a strong sell for the PPV if his build were placed on TV. Seabs did a fantastic job expanding on the multitude of benefits to booking Cena in this match from the fans reaction at the box office to the match quality in the ring to the atmosphere such a moment would create.
There was little room for error with these two arguments but we must have a winner. I declare Evolution the winner. Not only for his explanation on the expectations of The Streak match his built over the years (Seabs did a fabulous job too with this) and how it is pertinent the momentum continues and delivers in even bigger fashion at WrestleMania XXX; but also how this massive storyline potentially affects Cena, Undertaker, the business, the fans, and the legacy of the Streak. I felt Evolution sold the importance stronger of the the story arc from the beginning of Cena's career to the end of Undertaker's career, and it is a fitting showdown for WrestleMania XXX.
THE DARK ANDRE
Wow, wow, wow. Let me just preface this by saying that this was an absolutely wonderful match up, by far the best that I’ve judged thus far. It’s well known that I’m a very harsh judge and I often show disdain for many of the “debates” in TDL, but neither competitor should feel disappointed with their efforts in this one.
Evolution:
The first four paragraphs are pure gold; insightful, aggressive, articulate and humorous, “As much as I enjoyed the technical wrestling clinic that was Undertaker vs. Big Show and A-Train circa Wrestlemania 19” in particular had me guffawing like a mad man. The arguments for why Cena should be chosen were all bang on and at least as good as Seabs' reasoning’s, but with just a little more style and panache. The arguments against Dean Ambrose also made perfect sense.
I thought that your arguments against Brock Lesnar were fairly weak, certainly far weaker than Seabs’ points, anyway. Suggesting that Cena would be a far “safer” opponent seems to gloss over Cena’s at times reckless in ring technique, two key examples being vs Miz at WrestleMania 27, as well as the more recent incident versus Daniel Bryan at summerslam where he reversed the hurricanrana off the turnbuckles. Brock certainly doesn’t have a reputation for taking more liberties in the ring than Cena does, outside of worked shoot strikes.
Anyway, worked shoot strikes don’t necessarily HAVE to be a prerequisite to one of Brock's matches (you think Taker would be intimidated into letting Brock do what he wants? Doubtful), nor are they something that would likely damage Taker to the point that he couldn't compete again. Taker generally wrestles just once or twice a year in this modern era, so I doubt that anything Brock could do to him would be any more of a problem than what Taker has endured from his opponents and even himself in recent years at Mania. However, you made a reasonable point that it would be unlikely that Brock would be present enough to build the match up sufficiently.
Your next paragraph got your debate back on track, although I was momentarily confused in regards to who you were talking about with “There is so much potential for this feud to blur the lines of reality and kayfabe” because it followed straight after your analysis of Brock. Try to implement superior links in situations like that to prevent this in future, although that’s a very minor criticism. Your outro was snappy and conveyed your passion well.
This was a terrific debate with very few faults, although the Brock counter arguments certainly weakened it.
Seabs:
Your intro was a moment of pure genius. With very few words you managed to convey exactly how sought after a Cena versus Undertaker streak match is.
Your counter arguments against Brock were very strong and far superior to Evolution’s. The idea that fans would find it difficult to buy into Brock winning because he’s not a permanent member of the roster or someone who WWE can invest their time and resources into long term was bang on. Conversely, by explaining how Cena could heighten the tension of a streak match and why it would be “best for business” you put that argument over the top.
Your argument for why giving a rub to The Shield would be a waste of time because it’s unlikely that they will be together long term was good. The point about singles streak matches garnering far more interest than multi man streak matches also made sense.
The continuing arguments for Cena were elaborate and convincing, leaving absolutely no doubt as to who should face Undertaker at WrestleMania. Explaining how having Cena coupled with Taker wouldn’t limit the potential of the rest of Mania XXX also gave you a minor advantage over Evolution.
While not as flashy as Evolution's, that was a brilliant read and an overwhelmingly convincing argument. Bravo!
Result:
I feel like a bastard (not that I don’t feel like one all of the time, anyway) for having to choose a winner in this one. I’ve judged so many matches where I’ve been left thinking, “neither of these fuckers deserve to win”. Why can’t those debates just have losers, while the “victory” from those matches can be sent over to ones like this where no one deserves to lose? Fuckern warz!
Okay, time to man up now and separate two very similar standard debates that both put over Cena’s credentials extremely well. Evolution had a better delivery that gave it a consistent edge over Seabs, but Seabs had a more presentable format and was flawless in regards to analysis and counter points, whereas Evolution made a mess of the Brock Lesnar counter argument. While Evolution had more potential to become a pure “classic” than Seabs, it unfortunately didn’t quite fulfil that potential. Tough choice :hmm:
Evolution: ****1/4
Seabs: ****1/2
Seabs wins the vote :brodgers
Winner via SCREWJOB - Evolution
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 1-3 TEAM WOOLCOCK
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 1-3 TEAM WOOLCOCK
DDMac [Team TLK] vs THE DARK ANDRE [Team SI]
Was Triple H's promo during the contract signing for Hell In A Cell a good heel promo or beyond the boundaries of what is "best for business"?
Was Triple H's promo during the contract signing for Hell In A Cell a good heel promo or beyond the boundaries of what is "best for business"?
DDMac
Was Triple H's promo during the contract signing for Hell In A Cell a good heel promo or beyond the boundaries of what is "best for business"?
Um… Triple H’s promo was… a lot of things.
It was clearly inciting, judging by the tremendous reaction (mainly negative) it received on this forum and on the internet as a whole. It was delivered well. It was slightly misleading. It was somewhat unnecessary. And it was marginally effective.
But to answer your question directly, as far as being a good heel promo or beyond the boundaries… it was neither of those two things, however.
Do I think H’s promo was particularly a good one? No.
As with most of Triple H’s promos the last twenty years (and particularly the last ten), I felt he ran overly long and took ten minutes to say what he could in five. It also didn’t sell me on the main event for Hell in a Cell, which was Orton vs. HBK… I mean Orton vs. Big Show… I mean Triple H vs. Show… argh, fuck! I mean Orton vs. Daniel Bryan.
But, if I may delve in on the promo a bit, while it is debatable as to whether or not it was a good heel promo, it was most certainly not beyond the boundaries of what is “best for business.”
I’m not sure who’s aware of this, but Triple H is the actual real life husband of Stephanie McMahon.
No, it’s true, and he actually has a major hand – if not, the major hand in deciding what main event stories the WWE runs with.
Obviously, this is common knowledge.
And that’s the problem.
Triple H has found himself at the top or near the top of the WWE for the better part of a decade and a half. Combine that with his position in WWE’s corporate structure and his relationship with the McMahon family, and Triple H’s matches (and match results), words, angles, choice of opponents and mannerisms are dissected, analyzed and criticized more than any other wrestler in WWE history.
As was his promo on the October 21st edition of RAW.
The problem with analyzing anything that Triple H is does is trying not to look at it through the prism of knowing that this is the man that is essentially running the show – and most certainly the angle he’s in. The lack of objectivity regarding Triple H clouds everyone’s judgment.
So, with that in mind, let’s pretend that the man delivering the promo during the contract signing wasn’t Triple H. Let’s pretend it was… “Some Fucking Guy.”
So Some Fucking Guy, or SFG for short, claims that he’s a star – a big star, and the only way that he’d get into the ring again is if he was to wrestle another big star like Brock Lesnar, or The Rock, or John Cena.
Holy crap. Did SFG just put John Cena into the same breath as those other two megastars? I mean Cena’s BIG, certainly the biggest WWE created star in the last eight or so years, but he’s most certainly no Lesnar or Rock when it comes to drawing power. Brock and Dwayne are the biggest pay per views draws not named Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao. Nice job putting over your company’s big star.
Besides, SFG’s dismissive attitude toward Daniel Bryan makes me think he’s kind of a dick. It’s almost as if I’m not supposed to like him. Continue, asshole.
SFG says that Daniel Bryan isn’t a star and doesn’t deserve to be in a ring with him.
The crowd boos. Boos mean they don’t agree with SFG, right? Or am I thinking of something else? Or do they really like Daniel Bryan? Is any of this bad? Never mind. Continue, SFG.
SFG believes that Daniel Bryan is a great wrestler, but not THE MAN, and belongs in the same vein as a Chris Jericho, or a Rob Van Dam, or Edge. SFG believes that these guys never fully had to carry the ball. And thank God for that, otherwise, SFG believes that the WWE would have lost the Monday Night Wars and everyone would be working for Ted Turner’s WCW.
Now, at this point, we may have crossed the line. I agree completely with anyone who is critical of SFG’s intentions here. SFG was completely out of line to criticize and BURRY three of the biggest stars working today.
It’s okay to poke Bryan, but to dump all over those three guys sitting at the top of the card? That’s unnecessary. No, who’s going to watch them on TV? Nobody. And they’re most certainly not going to pay to see them on pay per view? Okay, maybe they still will, but he definitely hurt their credibility, and I hope they get a chance to respond on the next edition of RAW.
What?
They don’t wrestle there anymore, you say?
Then FUCK ‘EM.
Who gives a shit if their feelings get hurt?SFG’s Triple H’s loyalty and intent should be to sell the audience on the current product and if he feels he needs to completely disregard WWE’s past (and even rewrite history a little) then so be it.
I can’t go to “beyond the boundaries,” because it wasn’t. It didn’t break kayfabe. He belittled Bryan, but Hunter’s a heel, and that’s what he’s supposed to do when Bryan is playing a underdog babyface.
So, big picture, Hunter’s promo was… what it was. He said some words. He tried to do some things. But in the end, it ended up being something for us all to talk about, though made none of us want to pay for it.
It wasn’t good.
It definitely wasn’t beyond the boundaries.
It was… there.
THE DARK ANDRE
That promo wasn’t JUST beyond the boundaries of “what’s best for business”, it took Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton and the rest of the full time WWE main event scene, shoved them into a space pod and hit them out of the park into the deepest darkest stratosphere using the much loathed shovel as a baseball bat. Usually when you hit a home run it’s something to be celebrated, but HHH’s promo during the Hell in a Cell go home Raw was more like a funeral service for WWE’s autumn and winter main event scene.
We’ve got this red hot rising talent, Daniel Bryan, who’s super over and just needs validation from world class protagonists in the form of begrudged compliments and sweaty half naked men cuddling victories. What to do now, you say? Oh, MAYBE we should lower the glass ceiling and establish the concept that Bryan is NOT a legitimate star and ISN’T worth becoming emotionally invested in…
By using those three comparisons HHH set doubts by suggesting that Bryan is akin to three workers who WWE would never allow its viewers to become fully invested in as genuine top level guys due to stop start booking and reliability issues. This especially applies for those WWE fans that are firmly sat on the fence in regards to Daniel Bryan’s main event suitability due to his appearance that strongly goes against the typical style of Vince McMahon audience conditioning via bodybuilders.
Speaking of Vince, when Steve Austin was in his pomp the rattlesnake was declared as being not fit for purpose as the face of the old WWF, but the difference with that angle was that Austin had the benefit of over a years’ worth of a colossal push before the McMahon versus Austin feud began. Austin was placed into a position where he was damn near bullet proof. Daniel Bryan HASN'T been afforded that luxury just quite yet.
Okay, so we’ve just come off the back of three pay per views where the longest that Daniel Bryan could manage to hold the WWE title was TWENTY FOUR HOURS. In each situation Bryan came across odds that he just couldn’t surmount; a corporate cash in screw job, a fast count that voided his Night of (being a) Champion and Big Show going absolutely bat shit mental at Battleground. It was at this point that the viewer needed Bryan to regain some credibility in order to believe that he could be their hero at Hell in a Cell, but HHH just re-established the notion that Bryan would most likely fall short at the final hurdle.
So, were there many people who felt like ordering Hell in a Cell, with its main event of Orton vs Bryan, at that point? Yeah, I thought not. It was obvious that Bryan was going to lose, why would you present your main event babyface as such an incredulous chump, otherwise? On a go home show the rising underdog should go out shining like the proverbial star that he’s supposed to be to give his fans the belief that he will be triumphant in the upcoming pay per view main event, thus justifying the expenditure of their hard earned cash. At worst both Bryan and Orton should have been looking like equals to create unpredictability, but instead HHH foreshadowed Bryan’s demise and killed the feuds' heat and limited Hell in a Cell's potential in terms of buys.
…and then HHH went and buried his entire full time main event roster…The two key phrases from that are “I fight A+ players” and “They wouldn’t waste their time with you”. Okay, so who has fought Bryan recently? Cena and Orton. Who did Bryan have a summer feud with last year? CM Punk. Wait a minute, but “A+ players” “wouldn’t waste their time with” Daniel Bryan. Oh…
With those comments HHH told the viewing audience that the current main event scene isn’t good enough, that Hell in a Cell with the main event of Bryan vs Orton wasn’t worth ordering and that the only time that they should really care or become invested in the WWE product is during WrestleMania season when the “real stars” return, those part timers including Taker and Rock.
On reflection, HHH’s comments certainly weren’t “what’s best for business.”
Reference for HHH's promo:
http://faltuclips.info/dm.php?id=k4URbx03FCdzvo4Owid
Was Triple H's promo during the contract signing for Hell In A Cell a good heel promo or beyond the boundaries of what is "best for business"?
Um… Triple H’s promo was… a lot of things.
It was clearly inciting, judging by the tremendous reaction (mainly negative) it received on this forum and on the internet as a whole. It was delivered well. It was slightly misleading. It was somewhat unnecessary. And it was marginally effective.
But to answer your question directly, as far as being a good heel promo or beyond the boundaries… it was neither of those two things, however.
Do I think H’s promo was particularly a good one? No.
As with most of Triple H’s promos the last twenty years (and particularly the last ten), I felt he ran overly long and took ten minutes to say what he could in five. It also didn’t sell me on the main event for Hell in a Cell, which was Orton vs. HBK… I mean Orton vs. Big Show… I mean Triple H vs. Show… argh, fuck! I mean Orton vs. Daniel Bryan.
But, if I may delve in on the promo a bit, while it is debatable as to whether or not it was a good heel promo, it was most certainly not beyond the boundaries of what is “best for business.”
I’m not sure who’s aware of this, but Triple H is the actual real life husband of Stephanie McMahon.
No, it’s true, and he actually has a major hand – if not, the major hand in deciding what main event stories the WWE runs with.
Obviously, this is common knowledge.
And that’s the problem.
Triple H has found himself at the top or near the top of the WWE for the better part of a decade and a half. Combine that with his position in WWE’s corporate structure and his relationship with the McMahon family, and Triple H’s matches (and match results), words, angles, choice of opponents and mannerisms are dissected, analyzed and criticized more than any other wrestler in WWE history.
As was his promo on the October 21st edition of RAW.
The problem with analyzing anything that Triple H is does is trying not to look at it through the prism of knowing that this is the man that is essentially running the show – and most certainly the angle he’s in. The lack of objectivity regarding Triple H clouds everyone’s judgment.
So, with that in mind, let’s pretend that the man delivering the promo during the contract signing wasn’t Triple H. Let’s pretend it was… “Some Fucking Guy.”
So Some Fucking Guy, or SFG for short, claims that he’s a star – a big star, and the only way that he’d get into the ring again is if he was to wrestle another big star like Brock Lesnar, or The Rock, or John Cena.
Holy crap. Did SFG just put John Cena into the same breath as those other two megastars? I mean Cena’s BIG, certainly the biggest WWE created star in the last eight or so years, but he’s most certainly no Lesnar or Rock when it comes to drawing power. Brock and Dwayne are the biggest pay per views draws not named Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao. Nice job putting over your company’s big star.
Besides, SFG’s dismissive attitude toward Daniel Bryan makes me think he’s kind of a dick. It’s almost as if I’m not supposed to like him. Continue, asshole.
SFG says that Daniel Bryan isn’t a star and doesn’t deserve to be in a ring with him.
The crowd boos. Boos mean they don’t agree with SFG, right? Or am I thinking of something else? Or do they really like Daniel Bryan? Is any of this bad? Never mind. Continue, SFG.
SFG believes that Daniel Bryan is a great wrestler, but not THE MAN, and belongs in the same vein as a Chris Jericho, or a Rob Van Dam, or Edge. SFG believes that these guys never fully had to carry the ball. And thank God for that, otherwise, SFG believes that the WWE would have lost the Monday Night Wars and everyone would be working for Ted Turner’s WCW.
Now, at this point, we may have crossed the line. I agree completely with anyone who is critical of SFG’s intentions here. SFG was completely out of line to criticize and BURRY three of the biggest stars working today.
It’s okay to poke Bryan, but to dump all over those three guys sitting at the top of the card? That’s unnecessary. No, who’s going to watch them on TV? Nobody. And they’re most certainly not going to pay to see them on pay per view? Okay, maybe they still will, but he definitely hurt their credibility, and I hope they get a chance to respond on the next edition of RAW.
What?
They don’t wrestle there anymore, you say?
Then FUCK ‘EM.
Who gives a shit if their feelings get hurt?
I can’t go to “beyond the boundaries,” because it wasn’t. It didn’t break kayfabe. He belittled Bryan, but Hunter’s a heel, and that’s what he’s supposed to do when Bryan is playing a underdog babyface.
So, big picture, Hunter’s promo was… what it was. He said some words. He tried to do some things. But in the end, it ended up being something for us all to talk about, though made none of us want to pay for it.
It wasn’t good.
It definitely wasn’t beyond the boundaries.
It was… there.
THE DARK ANDRE
- Killing your hottest rising star’s credibility? CHECK!
- Defecating all over your current main event scene? TICK IT AGAIN!
- Taking away the best reason for the WWE audience to purchase the upcoming pay per view? IT’S A HOME RUN!
- Was that HHH at his shovel wielding, grave digging “best”? Take that pen and strike it through that box once again. STICK IT RIGHT IN THERE!
That promo wasn’t JUST beyond the boundaries of “what’s best for business”, it took Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton and the rest of the full time WWE main event scene, shoved them into a space pod and hit them out of the park into the deepest darkest stratosphere using the much loathed shovel as a baseball bat. Usually when you hit a home run it’s something to be celebrated, but HHH’s promo during the Hell in a Cell go home Raw was more like a funeral service for WWE’s autumn and winter main event scene.
We’ve got this red hot rising talent, Daniel Bryan, who’s super over and just needs validation from world class protagonists in the form of begrudged compliments and sweaty half naked men cuddling victories. What to do now, you say? Oh, MAYBE we should lower the glass ceiling and establish the concept that Bryan is NOT a legitimate star and ISN’T worth becoming emotionally invested in…
By using those three comparisons HHH set doubts by suggesting that Bryan is akin to three workers who WWE would never allow its viewers to become fully invested in as genuine top level guys due to stop start booking and reliability issues. This especially applies for those WWE fans that are firmly sat on the fence in regards to Daniel Bryan’s main event suitability due to his appearance that strongly goes against the typical style of Vince McMahon audience conditioning via bodybuilders.
Speaking of Vince, when Steve Austin was in his pomp the rattlesnake was declared as being not fit for purpose as the face of the old WWF, but the difference with that angle was that Austin had the benefit of over a years’ worth of a colossal push before the McMahon versus Austin feud began. Austin was placed into a position where he was damn near bullet proof. Daniel Bryan HASN'T been afforded that luxury just quite yet.
Okay, so we’ve just come off the back of three pay per views where the longest that Daniel Bryan could manage to hold the WWE title was TWENTY FOUR HOURS. In each situation Bryan came across odds that he just couldn’t surmount; a corporate cash in screw job, a fast count that voided his Night of (being a) Champion and Big Show going absolutely bat shit mental at Battleground. It was at this point that the viewer needed Bryan to regain some credibility in order to believe that he could be their hero at Hell in a Cell, but HHH just re-established the notion that Bryan would most likely fall short at the final hurdle.
So, were there many people who felt like ordering Hell in a Cell, with its main event of Orton vs Bryan, at that point? Yeah, I thought not. It was obvious that Bryan was going to lose, why would you present your main event babyface as such an incredulous chump, otherwise? On a go home show the rising underdog should go out shining like the proverbial star that he’s supposed to be to give his fans the belief that he will be triumphant in the upcoming pay per view main event, thus justifying the expenditure of their hard earned cash. At worst both Bryan and Orton should have been looking like equals to create unpredictability, but instead HHH foreshadowed Bryan’s demise and killed the feuds' heat and limited Hell in a Cell's potential in terms of buys.
…and then HHH went and buried his entire full time main event roster…The two key phrases from that are “I fight A+ players” and “They wouldn’t waste their time with you”. Okay, so who has fought Bryan recently? Cena and Orton. Who did Bryan have a summer feud with last year? CM Punk. Wait a minute, but “A+ players” “wouldn’t waste their time with” Daniel Bryan. Oh…
With those comments HHH told the viewing audience that the current main event scene isn’t good enough, that Hell in a Cell with the main event of Bryan vs Orton wasn’t worth ordering and that the only time that they should really care or become invested in the WWE product is during WrestleMania season when the “real stars” return, those part timers including Taker and Rock.
On reflection, HHH’s comments certainly weren’t “what’s best for business.”
Reference for HHH's promo:
http://faltuclips.info/dm.php?id=k4URbx03FCdzvo4Owid
Headliner
I hate both of you so much. I had to read each debate four times each before judging was even an option.
DDMac
Good opening. While not apart of the topic, I did like how you indirectly mentioned that this entire feud has been about everyone else but Bryan. SOME FUCKING GUY in place of the almighty Triple H was a genius idea because it allowed us to view what Triple H said without any bias attached to it because it's SOME FUCKING GUY and not Triple H, in theory. A perfect representation to show that Triple H's words are often over analyzed since he is married into the family, which you alluded too.
The part about H burying Edge, RVD and Jericho was mindblowing brilliant. At first I thought, how can you say FUCK EM to guys who are suppose to be presented as stars in history, especially when you consider this is most likely Triple H's real feelings......but then I thought, Edge is retired, Jericho's established, and off being Bon Jovi somewhere, RVD's established, and probably in Iran somewhere (that means he's high kids) so you're talking about three established guys who are not active on TV right now. Which means they're credibility can't possibly be hurt because there's no audience invested in them right now, plus when they do return, their level of credibility doesn't drop because of they're already established, Which also means, HHH was simply being a heel regardless of whether they are his feelings or not. FUCKING BRILLIANT. I never thought anyone would be able to convince me otherwise.
Another thing that stood out in this debate was the side you took. You took neither side, which was a very challenging stance, but you came out smelling like roses. A sweet combination of passion, FLAIR, and persuasion.
THE DARK ANDRE
The opening was awesome. A passionate, immediate opening detailing all of the things Triple H did in his promo in your opinion.
The comparison between Bryan and Austin was unique. While Austin wasn't put down at all compared to Bryan, it at least showed that Austin had an actual year long push leading to his altercation where Bryan just recently caught fire and still needed to get over that extra hump.
The entire debate was good. I really liked how you dissected the promo by bits and pieces to examine exactly what HHH did to Bryan's character each time. You ending was amazingly strong by showing that HHH buried the entire roster because nobody that's a real star would want to waste their time with Bryan, yet he's been involved in feuds with Punk and HHH's own guy, Orton; meaning Orton isn't a real star either so if these guys aren't stars, then there's no reason to order PPV until the stars come out for Mania. Great interpretation.
The only part of the debate I can critique is:
Isn't that what HHH is suppose to do as a heel? He's not suppose to cheer him on.
Besides that, I think this was a strong debate.
Winner-Very tough call but DDMac convinced me in a way I never thought was imaginable.
Evolution
I’m starting by saying fuck you guys. Fuck both of you for making these debates so good and fuck Seabs for making me judge them. I’ve read both entries at least 10 times (no exaggeration) and I’m still sitting on the fence with who to choose as a winner. I hate you all for making me do this, but here we go I guess. Maybe throughout the course of making my comments I’ll actually decide on who wins this thing.
DDMac: I greatly admire the direction you took with the question. A refreshing take that I wasn’t expecting. It helps that you absolutely killed it by supporting your argument beautifully but I couldn’t help but shake the feeling that it was unclear what you were actually arguing for. At first I thought you were stating that it may not have been a great promo but it wasn’t bad for business, then further through the entry you mentioned the part where he said Bryan didn’t deserve to be in the ring with him which seems completely terrible for business given the context and time of the promo. Then later you side again with SFG-I mean Triple H (lol’d at that by the way and a great way to remove bias from the topic) saying it’s his job to sell PPV’s and THEN you said we didn’t buy it (well nobody bought it).
I just am a little unclear as to what side you’re actually taking. If you ARE taking one. It seems like you’re almost taking a third side to the debate especially when I read your conclusion but I just don’t think it really sold me on the topic. Perhaps if the question was “What was Triple H’s promo blah blah blah was it what was best for business? Or something else?” then maybe I could vibe with your entry a little more.
Like I said though, the way you argued your… position? Was a thing of beauty and a real pleasure to read.
THE DARK ANDRE: Now this is what I like to see at the beginning of a debate; lots of bold statements and a shit-load of conviction. Great work on establishing your side of the topic while also pointing out the topics you’re going to argue while making it entertaining for someone like me who has the attention span of a goldfish with Parkinson’s disease.
The quote-by-quote break down of the promo was a great idea as watching the promo is one thing but actually seeing the words that he was saying helps you bury both his conscious and sub-conscious intentions in the promo.
Look someone could have made an argument that there was room there for a follow-up promo or some sort of pay-off for Bryan to rebut with but we all know what happened at HIAC and we all know Triple H. There wasn’t and there won’t be. It would have been good to maybe get that in there and use past examples of him doing this and seeing what it does for business (*cough* Punk).
Results: Look like I said this was too close for me to really distinguish a winner in terms of the quality of the writing, however when relating it to the actual topic, I felt Andre related more to the question at hand and took a hardline stance on the debate whereas I felt a little bewildered at the stance of DDMac a couple of times throughout. Whether this is because of my inferior intellect or because it wasn’t structured perfectly is up to you to decide. But my decision has to go to THE DARK ANDRE. An absolutely stunning entry.
Seabs
DDMac - I'll admit I was worried a tad when I saw your stance because that angle on a question usually reduces the quality of a debate. The difference here though is that this isn't just a B+ debate so to speak and you made it work. Before reading I was feeling pretty strong that the promo was beyond what was best for business and nothing since the promo had really convinced me to budge the slightest on that. This did. Not entirely but it made me open to understanding people could see it differently without being a complete moron for seeing it that way. That was the beauty of this debate. That and it's effortless communication to the reader. I did have a couple of nitpicks though. I think you DO have to take into consideration who did the promo. Hunter doing that promo is very different to Orton doing that promo because of Hunter's role in the company. I thought you covered that counter really well by the way but not without completely shutting that hole. The manipulation of the lines about only wanting to face the names mentioned was great. But then I watched it again and he doesn't say Cena. He just says Undertaker, Lesnar and Rock. So that was a shame because what you did with it was great. But you did it with something that wasn't said. He didn't include anyone wrestling on the full time roster so he really just buried the entire roster and especially Orton who was facing Bryan. I'd agree with you if he had said Cena though. Andre rebutted this point really well too. Your rebuttal of the Edge/Jericho/RVD line was brilliance though.
THE DARK ANDRE - This was amazing. Love your intro. Concise, sets the tone of your debate, raises valid points and does it all with character. Your first point is good but I also thought Mac had a pretty strong counter to that part of the promo in the sense of leaning closer towards a strong heel line on its own but your own point is still valid also. The Austin comparison was wonderful though in illustrating how much more damage it was doing in this context compared to when it's been a good heel line before. So I thought you both raised really good contrasting points for that part of the promo and both defended their side well despite a strong attack from your opponents. Your next point is good and valid too but likewise I also felt that Mac had it defended nicely with it being a line any heel would likely use. I don't think your reasoning was as strong here as in other parts of your debate. I thought it left room open to counter it by saying that it can help fans get behind Bryan by presenting him as more of an underdog. You could argue that Big Show ending the show on top rather than Bryan would hurt the drawing potential of the PPV but that wasn't to do with Hunter's promo. So I think you're pretty equal at this point. Both presented good arguments that were pretty well defended. Then your final point leapfrogged you in front and resulted in a much easier victor for my liking. I thought Mac flubbed his rebuttal of this point a little and you pounced on that by arguing that the line also buried Cena by not including him in his list of A+ players. Your last 2 paragraphs were beautiful and I don't think there was any way of arguing that that part of the promo was in no way good for business and crossed the line of things heels should say for heat. I thought your use of formatting was near perfect here too btw. You maybe didn't need to quote all of them lines that you did as they used up a fair bit of your word count. You probably could have paraphrased them to free some more words up for you to use to maybe add one more supporting your argument. Not that it really mattered though because you had this won anyway with the brilliance of your final argument that Mac couldn't match or defend.
Winner - THE DARK ANDRE
I hate both of you so much. I had to read each debate four times each before judging was even an option.
DDMac
Good opening. While not apart of the topic, I did like how you indirectly mentioned that this entire feud has been about everyone else but Bryan. SOME FUCKING GUY in place of the almighty Triple H was a genius idea because it allowed us to view what Triple H said without any bias attached to it because it's SOME FUCKING GUY and not Triple H, in theory. A perfect representation to show that Triple H's words are often over analyzed since he is married into the family, which you alluded too.
The part about H burying Edge, RVD and Jericho was mindblowing brilliant. At first I thought, how can you say FUCK EM to guys who are suppose to be presented as stars in history, especially when you consider this is most likely Triple H's real feelings......but then I thought, Edge is retired, Jericho's established, and off being Bon Jovi somewhere, RVD's established, and probably in Iran somewhere (that means he's high kids) so you're talking about three established guys who are not active on TV right now. Which means they're credibility can't possibly be hurt because there's no audience invested in them right now, plus when they do return, their level of credibility doesn't drop because of they're already established, Which also means, HHH was simply being a heel regardless of whether they are his feelings or not. FUCKING BRILLIANT. I never thought anyone would be able to convince me otherwise.
Another thing that stood out in this debate was the side you took. You took neither side, which was a very challenging stance, but you came out smelling like roses. A sweet combination of passion, FLAIR, and persuasion.
THE DARK ANDRE
The opening was awesome. A passionate, immediate opening detailing all of the things Triple H did in his promo in your opinion.
The comparison between Bryan and Austin was unique. While Austin wasn't put down at all compared to Bryan, it at least showed that Austin had an actual year long push leading to his altercation where Bryan just recently caught fire and still needed to get over that extra hump.
The entire debate was good. I really liked how you dissected the promo by bits and pieces to examine exactly what HHH did to Bryan's character each time. You ending was amazingly strong by showing that HHH buried the entire roster because nobody that's a real star would want to waste their time with Bryan, yet he's been involved in feuds with Punk and HHH's own guy, Orton; meaning Orton isn't a real star either so if these guys aren't stars, then there's no reason to order PPV until the stars come out for Mania. Great interpretation.
The only part of the debate I can critique is:
(in response to H telling him he would just prove he's a B+ player.)
Isn't that what HHH is suppose to do as a heel? He's not suppose to cheer him on.
Besides that, I think this was a strong debate.
Winner-Very tough call but DDMac convinced me in a way I never thought was imaginable.
Evolution
I’m starting by saying fuck you guys. Fuck both of you for making these debates so good and fuck Seabs for making me judge them. I’ve read both entries at least 10 times (no exaggeration) and I’m still sitting on the fence with who to choose as a winner. I hate you all for making me do this, but here we go I guess. Maybe throughout the course of making my comments I’ll actually decide on who wins this thing.
DDMac: I greatly admire the direction you took with the question. A refreshing take that I wasn’t expecting. It helps that you absolutely killed it by supporting your argument beautifully but I couldn’t help but shake the feeling that it was unclear what you were actually arguing for. At first I thought you were stating that it may not have been a great promo but it wasn’t bad for business, then further through the entry you mentioned the part where he said Bryan didn’t deserve to be in the ring with him which seems completely terrible for business given the context and time of the promo. Then later you side again with SFG-I mean Triple H (lol’d at that by the way and a great way to remove bias from the topic) saying it’s his job to sell PPV’s and THEN you said we didn’t buy it (well nobody bought it).
I just am a little unclear as to what side you’re actually taking. If you ARE taking one. It seems like you’re almost taking a third side to the debate especially when I read your conclusion but I just don’t think it really sold me on the topic. Perhaps if the question was “What was Triple H’s promo blah blah blah was it what was best for business? Or something else?” then maybe I could vibe with your entry a little more.
Like I said though, the way you argued your… position? Was a thing of beauty and a real pleasure to read.
THE DARK ANDRE: Now this is what I like to see at the beginning of a debate; lots of bold statements and a shit-load of conviction. Great work on establishing your side of the topic while also pointing out the topics you’re going to argue while making it entertaining for someone like me who has the attention span of a goldfish with Parkinson’s disease.
The quote-by-quote break down of the promo was a great idea as watching the promo is one thing but actually seeing the words that he was saying helps you bury both his conscious and sub-conscious intentions in the promo.
Look someone could have made an argument that there was room there for a follow-up promo or some sort of pay-off for Bryan to rebut with but we all know what happened at HIAC and we all know Triple H. There wasn’t and there won’t be. It would have been good to maybe get that in there and use past examples of him doing this and seeing what it does for business (*cough* Punk).
Results: Look like I said this was too close for me to really distinguish a winner in terms of the quality of the writing, however when relating it to the actual topic, I felt Andre related more to the question at hand and took a hardline stance on the debate whereas I felt a little bewildered at the stance of DDMac a couple of times throughout. Whether this is because of my inferior intellect or because it wasn’t structured perfectly is up to you to decide. But my decision has to go to THE DARK ANDRE. An absolutely stunning entry.
Seabs
DDMac - I'll admit I was worried a tad when I saw your stance because that angle on a question usually reduces the quality of a debate. The difference here though is that this isn't just a B+ debate so to speak and you made it work. Before reading I was feeling pretty strong that the promo was beyond what was best for business and nothing since the promo had really convinced me to budge the slightest on that. This did. Not entirely but it made me open to understanding people could see it differently without being a complete moron for seeing it that way. That was the beauty of this debate. That and it's effortless communication to the reader. I did have a couple of nitpicks though. I think you DO have to take into consideration who did the promo. Hunter doing that promo is very different to Orton doing that promo because of Hunter's role in the company. I thought you covered that counter really well by the way but not without completely shutting that hole. The manipulation of the lines about only wanting to face the names mentioned was great. But then I watched it again and he doesn't say Cena. He just says Undertaker, Lesnar and Rock. So that was a shame because what you did with it was great. But you did it with something that wasn't said. He didn't include anyone wrestling on the full time roster so he really just buried the entire roster and especially Orton who was facing Bryan. I'd agree with you if he had said Cena though. Andre rebutted this point really well too. Your rebuttal of the Edge/Jericho/RVD line was brilliance though.
THE DARK ANDRE - This was amazing. Love your intro. Concise, sets the tone of your debate, raises valid points and does it all with character. Your first point is good but I also thought Mac had a pretty strong counter to that part of the promo in the sense of leaning closer towards a strong heel line on its own but your own point is still valid also. The Austin comparison was wonderful though in illustrating how much more damage it was doing in this context compared to when it's been a good heel line before. So I thought you both raised really good contrasting points for that part of the promo and both defended their side well despite a strong attack from your opponents. Your next point is good and valid too but likewise I also felt that Mac had it defended nicely with it being a line any heel would likely use. I don't think your reasoning was as strong here as in other parts of your debate. I thought it left room open to counter it by saying that it can help fans get behind Bryan by presenting him as more of an underdog. You could argue that Big Show ending the show on top rather than Bryan would hurt the drawing potential of the PPV but that wasn't to do with Hunter's promo. So I think you're pretty equal at this point. Both presented good arguments that were pretty well defended. Then your final point leapfrogged you in front and resulted in a much easier victor for my liking. I thought Mac flubbed his rebuttal of this point a little and you pounced on that by arguing that the line also buried Cena by not including him in his list of A+ players. Your last 2 paragraphs were beautiful and I don't think there was any way of arguing that that part of the promo was in no way good for business and crossed the line of things heels should say for heat. I thought your use of formatting was near perfect here too btw. You maybe didn't need to quote all of them lines that you did as they used up a fair bit of your word count. You probably could have paraphrased them to free some more words up for you to use to maybe add one more supporting your argument. Not that it really mattered though because you had this won anyway with the brilliance of your final argument that Mac couldn't match or defend.
Winner - THE DARK ANDRE
Winner via Split Decision - THE DARK ANDRE
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 1-4 TEAM WOOLCOCK
TEAM THE LADY KILLER 1-4 TEAM WOOLCOCK
