Wrestling Forum banner

War of '09: Match #1 - DDMac vs. Super Delfin

660 views 2 replies 3 participants last post by  Super Delfin 
#1 ·
Every icon should pass the torch in the end.​

Deadline to hand in your debate will be Sunday March 8th. Failure to show will result in an automatic disqualification. As previously mentioned, your debates are to be posted in this thread only.

You have the option to choose your own side of the topic so you may debate the same side without consequence.

Good luck.
 
#2 ·
Every icon should pass the torch in the end.


Absolutely.

The only problem with the notion of the topic is "in the end". What's the end?

By the time the legend retires? Or would the supposed twilight of one's career seemingly warrant the passing of the torch?

If the topic suggests the latter, then I strongly disagree. Firstly, wrestling isn't like other sports (mainly because it's not a sport, but work with me) -- the 'prime' of top star doesn't span the 7-10 year range that it may in baseball, basketball or football. A top-flight superstar in professional wrestler could stay on top for damn near twenty years like a Hulk Hogan or could quickly burn and be done in five for whatever reason like The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin.

But, regardless of an icon's shelf life, by the end of their career, someone else's status should've been greatly elevated by something they did. I'd consider what Ric Flair did for Sting to be a passing of the torch in some respect. As was what Bret Hart did for Shawn Michaels... what The Undertaker and The Rock did for Brock Lesnar... what Mick Foley did for Triple H... what Triple H did for Batista, Cena and, possibly, Randy Orton in a month or two.

It's a natural process - things die. People die. Plants die. Animals die.

And so do careers and time periods.

Eventually, the old guard must be replaced by the next regime. It's not necessarily the job of the icons of old to help to facilitate the process along, but it certainly does make the job a hell of a lot easier if they're willing to do so.

***​

Not nearly my best -- it's rather all over the place -- but yeah...
 
#3 ·
Sorry it's late, I've been working my ass off and have been tired as hell. If you want to DQ me it's understandable.

Every icon should pass the torch in the end.

Wrestling is a sport with a long and honorable history. Well, perhaps scratch the honorable part, but it has been around for a while. And in this history you can continually see a decline in the hierarchical stature of so called iconic wrestlers as they reach the end. It is, however, difficult to define “the end” in a ‘sport’ where a wrestler announcing retirement may very well be back a few months later. Such considerations muddle the idea of the topic somewhat. Regardless, I think that morally and for business reasons an icon should in most cases pass the torch in the end.

But what are morals in the world of pro wrestling? Stories of wrestlers refusing to do the ‘job’ are not uncommon. Both in the present day as well as in years past. Indeed, comparisons can certainly be drawn to the territorial days in some ways. Lou Thesz didn’t job to Buddy Rodgers (and a lot of other people) you know. But that doesn’t make him a bad guy. And as I mentioned in the first paragraph, depending on what “the end” is to you, in his last match he lost to his pupil Masahiro Chono.

Other popular wrestlers were notorious for refusing to job. Although maybe ‘the end’ doesn’t apply this is simply to illustrate that it’s just business. Bruiser Brody for instance, a well liked guy but was said to be difficult to work with at times as a promoter. And who was going to blackball the man? You only got blackballed if you weren’t a draw, and this whole thing is about money. So is it any surprise then that many of the big time guys don’t want to job at their peak or perhaps even on their decline? Just to restate, exactly what is retirement in wrestling? Flair got retired by Hogan in a 1994 cage match, Warrior retired Savage at WM 7, Piper retired at WM 3, and Mickey Rourke retired in ‘The Wrestler’. What do these all have in common? Not retirement…

Just to give a totally ridiculous illustration of the point, this wouldn’t make, say, the Undertaker retiring undefeated at Wrestlemania in 2030 by defeating the entire WWE roster DX circa 2006 style in a no hold barred match ‘right’, but it would make it more understandable from a wrestler’s perspective. Once you get to that level, that’s your whole life.

But then you have to look at the business that made you what you are. Particularly in the current day, where if you’re a big name in the US, you’re only wrestling for one of two places. Well, pretty much just one, but there are some exceptions in this case. What do they get for making you? This is where morals come into play, and as I said wrestling isn’t always a moral business, so it’s basically a matter of personal opinion. And mine is that you should give a deserving wrestler (or wrestlers) a rub before you leave, but it’s certainly no obligation. Because as Dave Meltzer has stated: “In WCW and WWF, any top guy, or at least really top guy, can say no and the writers grumble but stars have more power in WWE than writers”.

There are of course some potential exceptions in which I’d actually agree with a wrestler refusing to job. I don’t need to see the Hogan’s of the world (who I don’t even like) jobbing to the Carlito’s, or the Flair’s jobbing to the Aldo Montoya’s (who I do really like). It has to be the right guy at the right time.

Yet in the end, it’s best for the company that made these ‘icons’ for them to be a large part in creating the men who will fill their shoes. But it is as such in the wrestling world that the stars do not always align correctly, and instead of the Wrestlemania 3 moments of Hogan and Andre we might get some retarded Russo style worked shoots from the pre-millennium WCW. That’s just the way it is.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top