PDA

View Full Version : The 9th Annual Wilfred's Debates - Round 2 - The Law vs. StoneColdChris



Cewsh
May 13th, 2013, 3:39 PM
http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu132/CewshReviews/aa4d597e-f66a-471b-8109-10458ab2d7a5_zps1cb7e720.jpg


http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu132/CewshReviews/1_zps0d7cf78a.png
YOUNG LION CONFERENCE


The day is quickly approaching where Vince McMahon's 30 year reign over the wrestling industry will come to an end, simply due to old age. It seems clear that Stephanie McMahon and Triple H will be taking over once he is gone, and will attempt to fill the void left by the man who, for better or worse, utterly shape the wrestling industry over the course of our lifetimes. However, for all his accomplishments, Vince had many failures as well, leading me to ask the two of you the following question.


WILL WWE BE BETTER OFF WHEN VINCE MCMAHON IS GONE?

The Law: Yes
StoneColdChris: No






As a reminder, the rules are as follows. If you break a rule, there will be no excuses taken, so read them carefully. Each debate will have a 72 hour time limit, a 350 word word limit. Videos and pictures are not only allowed, they're downright encouraged.

Also, to finally address the issue of the first one to go or the second having the advantage, a coin will be flipped by me in advance to determine who goes first or second. Completely fair odds for everyone.

If you have any questions about the question you are given, or about how to proceed, please direct them to me BEFORE you post about them, to avoid troubles.

You must wait your turn to post, meaning that you can't rattle off all three right from the get go, you have to post in turns with your opponent and, this is very fucking important, IF YOU GET THE COIN TOSS TO GO SECOND, YOUR INTRODUCTION POST CAN NOT BE A RESPONSE TO THE OTHER GUY'S INTRODUCTION POST.

You must wait until your second post to begin debating what the other person has said. This is the only way to make this fair, it is not up for debate, and I will penalize your asses. So be fucking told.

Your judges are former Wilfred's champions Badger and the_man_diva.


The coin toss dictates that STONECOLDCHRIS will go first.

StoneColdChris
May 15th, 2013, 4:12 AM
Two things go hand and hand: The WWE and Vince McMahon. When you hear the phrase WWE, you think of Vince McMahon. Hell when you think of wrestling, you think of Vince McMahon. The WWE is always changing, and always evolving, but the one constant thing throughout it all has been Vince. No one has come close to doing what Vince has accomplished. Vince took his father’s company and turned into a global phenomenon. Granted Vince has had some failures, but when it comes to wrestling, he’s on his A game. Vince is a ruthless businessman and that’s what this company needs. Be it the steroid scandal or the Benoit controversy, McMahon has fought his way through it and managed to keep the WWE in great order. He’s has had some of his top talent leave him for other companies, and still he preserves through it. Vince McMahon is the fighter who keeps going, even if the odds are against him, he’ll still stick it through. That’s the kind of man this company needs. Honestly if Vince were to step down, or if god forbid he passed away, I’d seriously be worried about the state of the WWE. If Vince were gone, the inmates would be running the asylum.

Now Stephanie and especially Triple H have done some great work in the past couple of years, but once again remember everything they do goes through Vince. He’s the man who really takes their ideas and decides which ones are good, then acts on it. Just like when WCW thought Vince Russo was the brains behind the WWE’s success, they quickly realized that Russo needed McMahon as a filter to produce great television. Who knows what would really happen if Vince stepped down and every little decision came down to Steph and Trips.Can they really stand up to the pressures of having 100% control without Vince to look over every detail?

The Law
May 15th, 2013, 11:13 AM
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQpH3zJWbt8JesHG1KkeNDiQyW3o4up 4PICTRSJfiyW5xEKi6y

Vince McMahon has accomplished incredible things in his run as owner of WWE. But there comes a time in life where you have to move on. Basically, Vince now is what Al Davis was for the Raiders in the previous ten years before his death: a legend who has stayed around too long.

Vince McMahon is 67 years old. Success in wrestling depends on being able to know what is cool in the modern age. Vince McMahon is completely out of touch with pop culture and thus WWE continues to push squeaky clean babyface John Cena as the center of their company as if nothing has changed since 1985. Vince still thinks that a white guy smiling and waving the American flag is cool, and that hasn't been the case for thirty years now. I can guarantee Vince isn't DVRing "The Walking Dead" or spending much of any time interacting with his target audience.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8G2jncXp4PM/Ti2nfsW861I/AAAAAAAAA3Y/F8KX7cvUhuc/s640/vince-mcmahon.jpg


I think the lack of success from the past ten years speaks largely for itself. WWE has overwhelmingly produced a mediocre product since 2001, both creatively and business-wise. There have been dozens of writers, agents, and bookers that have come and gone in that time span. The only constant has been Vince himself, and he has to take the blame for that. A new direction is needed for the company, and that's not going to happen with Vince in charge. At his age, he's set in his ways and content with the money he's made. New leadership is the only thing that's going to bring a new direction to WWE.

Thus far, Triple H's run as head of talent has been excellent. He's been responsible for signing international talent and Indy wrestlers, emphasizing longer title reigns, making creative come up with longterm plans for talent before they are called up, rebuilding the tag team division, pushing the Shield and telling NXT to stop scripting promos. You can claim Vince was responsible for those things, but HHH has spoken publicly about all of them and those changes occurred after he took on a management role.

http://www.filmjunk.com/images/weblog/weirdwebmcmahonrickroll.jpg

StoneColdChris
May 15th, 2013, 8:42 PM
You’re right, there is a point where someone should move on, but that’s not what we’re discussing here. Eventually Vince will have to step down, no matter how much of a machine he thinks he is, he can’t go on forever. The real question is with Vince gone, how badly will it affect the WWE? Once again, everything HHH related news we have heard is doing the work under the Vince McMahon order.


New leadership is the only thing that's going to bring a new direction to WWE.

You know the folks over at WCW thought new leadership would fix all of their problems. Look what happened, chaos and anarchy ran through. I’m saying that with Vince gone, the WWE will end up like WCW, but a change in leadership doesn’t always equal success.

You think Vince is content with all the money’s he made? I disagree; he’s been constantly trying to expand his company like for instance trying to create the WWE network. He’s constantly looking for ways to make each Wrestlemania, bigger and better than the last. For example, he saw the disappointing buyrate for Wrestlemania 26 and the effect that the UFC PPV(it happened in the same weekend) had on it and what did he do? He contacts Rock to come back and starts to make a play for Lesnar. Hell, according to Dana White, he even tried to get him to show at a Wrestlemania. That doesn’t sound like someone who’s just happy with the money he’s made.

Granted, not every decision Vince makes is a great one, but he’s still willing to take great risks to help his company and please the fans. Would Triple H have brought back Bret, spent the money to bring in Brock and convince Rock to come back? Who knows, seeing as he doesn’t have the best relationship with either Bret or Rock, but I honestly doubt it.

Another thing to consider, many people thought Shane would be next in line to take over, but then he broke away from the company. If his own son burnt out, who’s to say his daughter and son-in-law won’t do the same?

The Law
May 15th, 2013, 10:10 PM
We've all heard the stories about Vince. He didn't know what "Pirates of the Caribbean" was, so he dumped Burchill's pirate gimmick. He didn't know what "The Blair Witch Project" was. Didn't know Metallica, or System of a Down. Thought Scott Hall's Tony Montana impersonation was his own thing. To do wrestling well, you have to connect with your audience. WWE's audience is young males. Does Vince McMahon know what they want to see? It doesn't seem like it. He thinks they want to see John Cena smiling and being a squeaky clean babyface. It's not working.There's a reason UFC is kicking their ass on pay-per-view. Seriously, when it gets to the point where even Cena had to call him out back in November, you know things have gotten bad.

Here's the thing: instead of bringing back Bret, and Brock, and Rock, and everyone else from the past, they need to be able to make some new stars. They didn't need to bring back Hogan and Savage during the Attitude Era, they made Rock and Stone Cold. They didn't bring back Backlund and Billy Graham in the 80s, they made Hogan and Savage. Vince clings to the past rather than moving forward.

You can try to dismiss Triple H's ideas and philosophy because Vince is in charge, but in the end, they're still his ideas and they'll be carried out when he's the guy in charge. Making wrestlers write their own promos? Longer title reigns, clean finishes? Long-term storylines? More logical, consistent booking? Sign me up. Better than Hollywood writers scripting promos, hot shotting the title, and calling guys up without any idea of what to do with them.

People retire in their late 60s for a reason. Being the head of a major pop culture company in in your late 60s is laughable. It's the same as Lorne Michaels trying run "Saturday Night Live" today: it's not really surprising that an old guy can't figure out what young people think is funny.

WWE is supposed to be hip. Vince McMahon just had a hip replacement.

Cewsh
May 17th, 2013, 9:25 AM
DEBATE IS CLOSED.

VOTING IS NOW OPEN AND WILL CONTINUE UNTIL SUNDAY, MAY 19th.

WizoOzz
May 17th, 2013, 10:26 AM
StoneColdChris, you gave it one helluva try. But I think in the end, The Law got you.

I would have liked to have seen a bit more of an emphasis on the fact that Vince lives in some sort of denial that WWE's core focus should be Wrestling, considering that's what the middle "W" stands for, and he emphasizes the "E" thinking that it's moreso an entertainment company. But neither guy really got a chance to expand on that.

The fact that Vince is old, rich, and quite frankly out of touch, and Chris' statement that not every decision makes "is a great one" really summed it up for me. Vince was necessary at a point, but at his age it's time to put the reins on another lead horse. And it appears Trips is the guy to do it. Helps that he was a prominent wrestler in his own right, and knows how to do things successfully (even if I never really liked him as a performer, there's no denying whatever he's doing backstage is working).

My vote goes to The Law.

Matty C
May 17th, 2013, 12:12 PM
I wish this one went another post because I didnít feel like it got fully hashed out and that didnít help me decide on a winner.

In what I would consider an upset, I think I have to go with SCC here. I feel like he just out-volumed The Law regarding points for his argument.

Vince being the constant, the filter that ideas have always run through, Russo failing without him. The various chances Vince continues to take to counter-act The Lawís idea that Vince was too comfortable. The point about Shane burning out.

In contrast The Law had one, albeit very strong, point about Vince being out of touch.

:\ I really wish there was one more post each here. The discussion seemed incomplete.

takerson
May 18th, 2013, 1:28 AM
StoneColdChris, you gave it one helluva try. But I think in the end, The Law got you.

I would have liked to have seen a bit more of an emphasis on the fact that Vince lives in some sort of denial that WWE's core focus should be Wrestling, considering that's what the middle "W" stands for, and he emphasizes the "E" thinking that it's moreso an entertainment company. But neither guy really got a chance to expand on that.

The fact that Vince is old, rich, and quite frankly out of touch, and Chris' statement that not every decision makes "is a great one" really summed it up for me. Vince was necessary at a point, but at his age it's time to put the reins on another lead horse. And it appears Trips is the guy to do it. Helps that he was a prominent wrestler in his own right, and knows how to do things successfully (even if I never really liked him as a performer, there's no denying whatever he's doing backstage is working).

My vote goes to The Law.


^^^
All of that, except not liking HHH the performer. He wasn't bad. :lol:

Good job both of you guys.

My vote: The Law.

Cewsh
May 20th, 2013, 11:34 AM
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED.

Popular Vote: The Law (2-1)

Judge Badger: StoneColdChris


Again, this one wasn't easy as this debate lacked some depth and could have used another post. What did ultimately decide the winner for me though was this point that the Law made:


Here's the thing: instead of bringing back Bret, and Brock, and Rock, and everyone else from the past, they need to be able to make some new stars. They didn't need to bring back Hogan and Savage during the Attitude Era, they made Rock and Stone Cold. They didn't bring back Backlund and Billy Graham in the 80s, they made Hogan and Savage. Vince clings to the past rather than moving forward.

I feel the Law majorly shot himself in the foot here as while he's trying to make the point that past stars shouldn't be brough back, he's actually giving examples of great stars that were made under Vince's leadership, thereby damaging his argument and playing into SCC's argument that Vince is willing to take risks.

Therefore, my vote in this one goes to StoneColdChris

Judge Cewsh: The Law


Vote: The Law

The debate here focused main on two things. Chris focused his attention on putting Vince over as an irreplaceable figure, and The Law focused mainly on explaining why Vince is something WWE didn't need anymore. When it came to those arguments, I think Chris and Law were completely deadlocked, as both made good points and neither really pulled ahead. But what decided this matchup for me, was the fact that The Law managed did a great sell job on why Triple H should be in charge, while Chris never got a chance to really refute it. So since this was only a 4 post debate, The Law essentially wins for doing the most with the posts that he had, and effectively arguing both of his points together.


THE LAW DEFEATS CHRIS! (2-1)