Wilfred’s Debate GRAND FINAL - @Nash Diesel vs @Rusty Shackleford
The following contest scheduled for one fall is for the Wilfred’s Debate Championship!
https://builder.crownawards.com/Stor...=378&trim=true
Introducing first from Des Moines, Iowa....Naaaaaaaah Dieeeeeeselllll!
https://youtu.be/-IZE7JSLJU0
And his opponent. Originally from Dunfermline but now residing in Edinburgh, Scotland.....Ruuuustyyyy Shaaaacklefoooord!!!!!
https://youtu.be/9udxbvHiqGw
Congratulations for making this far gentlemen! Now who will take home the ultimate prize?
https://youtu.be/eXvBjCO19QY
Over the last decade there have been many changes to the overall WWE product. Examples include changes in wrestling and non-wrestling talent, expansion in social media, changes in management, more options on how fans can view the product, extra television shows, women’s revolution, the debut of NXT, etc.
Your topic is to decide which of the many changes over the last decade (2010-19) has been the most important and had the biggest overall impact on the product. You must also argue why you feel your choice of change is more important and made more impact than your opponent’s selection.
RULES:
- You have 7 days and 3 posts each in this debate. A maximum word count of 700 words per post will be allowed. Please do not go over this limit.
- All posts must be done within the 7 day time limit so any posts made after the time limit will not count even if there is in an uneven number of posts at the end.
- All posts must be staggered. You can't make your next post until the other debater has had their turn.
- If there is a no-show from anyone after 120 hours, then their opponent who does turn up will automatically advance.
- No editing of posts allowed unless it is for something spelling, grammatical mistakes or accidentally going over your word count. However you must come and inform myself or Badger first where we will approve them.
- Pictures, gifs and videos can be used in literally unlimited amounts to support your point. Information should be self-contained within your post. For example, you can't post a link to an article and expect people to go read it. Quote it in your post.
- Quoting words from your articles does count towards your word count but quoting your opponent does not.
The order of posting will be determined by a coin toss. The coin toss has revealed that Rusty Shackleford will be going first!
Wow, so it's the final then. Our Wrestlemania.
First thing to say is that I'm a really positive person normally. Despite being a Fifer (the Brits on here will tell you they're a miserable bunch) I try and see the positives in life where I can. I think my previous rounds are evidence of this, where I tried to make positive choices and arguments. Braun Strowman's redemption arc. Vince McMahon's hall of fame-worthy contribution.
But this question has me conflicted.
You've asked what I believe has had the biggest impact on WWE in the decade. So, the first thing to do is to deconstruct the question and ask yourself; is the WWE in a better state than it was in January 2010? Fiscally maybe. But the product? On average, it's a resounding no from me.
Don't get me wrong, the wrestling itself is pretty good. The mean average levels of athleticism have never been higher. Match quality is often outstanding. WWE still puts on great events and matches. I loved the Royal Rumble for example, one of the best ever.
But WWE is fundamentally, or indeed should be, an episodic TV programme with multiple story arcs running at any given time, with the story conclusions (or the "pay offs") happening at the big PPV events, with post Wrestlemania acting as the season reset button.
That's the idea anyway.
But during the decade, WWE has taken a different approach. Which brings me onto my central argument;
That's a bit of a mouthful and it's certainly a more complex answer than "the Women's Revolution" or "NXT" but you asked what has had the biggest impact and my only conclusion is that the biggest impact has been negative.Quote:
The biggest change in WWE in the past decade has been to tell its audience that the people you see on your screens week in week out are significantly less important than part-time or special attraction stars.
Where better to illustrate this trend than the biggest show of the year; Wrestlemania.
26: largely gets a pass. Bret Hart v Vince as a special attraction midcard match
27: Dominated by full-timers with the Rock hosting
28: Here he is again though, headlining a "once in a lifetime" match with the WWE championship relegated to 2nd place
29: When is once in a lifetime not once in a lifetime? When you're used to pass the torch to someone who doesn't need it. Someone who is the fucking torch already. HHH Lesnar also takes second billing.
30: Undertaker loses the streak to a part-timer. Only thanks to the WWE Universe having a collective shitstorm does Batista not walk out champ.
31: Sting, Taker and Lesnar in marquee matches
32: Lesnar, Taker, Shane McMahon, The Rock and HHH dominate the billing
33: Lesnar, Goldberg, Shane, HHH and Taker dominate the billing
34: Kurt Angle, Ronda Rousey, Taker, Cena and Lesnar are the stars here
35: HHH and Batista plod along for six hours. Lesnar, Shane and Rousey take prominence.
WWE has routinely failed to create new stars and produce "must see" tv, sadly reflected in an ongoing ratings struggle. But it's no surprise as it has routinely coached it's audience into accepting that the people you see on your screens each week are the B team.
How better to illustrate this creative funk than the recent Goldberg debacle. Bray Wyatt, in his best run yet, with a fresh character, the most over character on the show, with a title run and gimmick that DEMANDED a Wrestlemania entrance and conclusion to the story arc. And where are we...unceremoniously buried by an old man who can barely work.
WWE needs to get out of this cycle and get out of it quickly. It needs it's biggest stars on TV every week. It needs to coach the audience that these are the people that matter. Because the nostalgia pops are going to run out. Taker is a borderline embarrassment. Sting is finished. Austin won't return. Shawn Michaels has tarnished his retirement. The Rock doesn't need it.
It's the biggest failing of the decade and, with regret, it's had the biggest impact by far on the product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikkbHojGNOM
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88...bXkVI3AdvECYJI
From corny reality tv wrestling game show to experimental developmental territory that has now transitioned into being the 3rd brand for WWE on television, the biggest impact on the WWE in the last 10 years has been the evolution of NXT.
Introduced to the world on February 23rd, 2010 NXT after the death of WWECW on SyFy, the original NXT brought us 8 wrestlers from FCW, the WWE’s post-OVW/DSW developmental territory lead by Skinner aka Steve Keirn. The idea was to pull off something similar to The Ultimate Fighter, where these wrestlers would compete against each other in different challenges as well as competing in the ring with a mentor from the main roster. All with hopes of the sole winner to join them on Raw or Smackdown. A failed concept and after a few “seasons” the idea was scrapped, FCW was shut down, and in June 2012 FCW officially became “NXT”.
Fast forward a few years and after airing the show on several other streaming sites, NXT delivered “ARRIVAL”, the first ever live event to air on the newly birthed WWE Network. This show would set the tone of what is one of the top reasons people even have the Network. NXT Takeover events are almost second to none, generally leading us into a main roster ppv and more often than not outshining that ppv the night before with a crop of fresh talent. A mixture of veterans, green boys and girls, and even sometimes main roster talent looking for a place to rejuvenate their careers or simply enjoy a little more creative freedom out of the micromanaged main roster shows like Raw and Smackdown.
And why is that freedom available? Triple H leads a stellar cast of talent that has paved the way for many wrestlers over the years. Aside from H, we have HBK, William Regal, Road Dogg, Matt Bloom (A-Train, Prince Albert), plus a revolving door that has seen legends like The Rock, Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, the list goes on of people coming in offering the advice and direction these talents, both young and seasoned, could use to further their careers.
Because ultimately NXT is still developmental, it’s just next level. It’s almost impossible to find time to pick the brain of a legend that’s stopping by to make a quick shot on Raw. In NXT, there is more time to pick the brain of a talented performer, whether that’s someone like Triple H or a current performer that has seen both sides such as Finn Balor.
Did I mention how amazing the 30+ Takeover events have been and how many fans, especially the core audience, have maintained a loyalty to the WWE in general based solely on the NXT product? Well I just did. And the talent that has come from NXT speaks for itself: Daniel Bryan, Becky Lynch, Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, Kevin Owens, Charlotte Flair, Bray Wyatt, Asuka, Big E, Sasha Banks, the list goes on. The current NXT roster is just as nice, if not better, than any other time in the brand’s history. The future is bright and the brand keeps on delivering.
And now that they’re getting exposure through being on the USA Network, it can only keep that fire burning and growing brighter.
Thanks for your post Nash. Let it be said that while the world is burning around us, two guys with 8 kids between them still managed to knock out a good debate.
I was hoping you wouldn’t pick NXT in all honesty because it immediately puts me on the back foot. There’s a real danger that this debate gets sidetracked into a “guy moaning about booking” versus “guy bigging up the thing we all like”
It’s worth refocusing the debate back to the original question. It isn’tInstead, it’s…Quote:
What’s been the best thing about WWE in the decade
It’s a simple, but important, distinction.Quote:
What has had the biggest impact on the product in the decade
Now, normally the correct thing to do from a debating perspective would be to take a few of your central arguments and try and dismantle them, but the tricky thing is that there’s not really all that much to disagree with you on the subject of NXT. I love the show, it’s been a great addition to the WWE landscape, particularly for us diehard WWE fans. But it’s difficult to find any evidence that it’s made an impact on a key WWE metric; either ratings, finances or attendances. Maybe you can correct me on that one.
While your post is a great summary of NXT and its history, it is largely free from any kind of structured argument as to why you feel NXT – above anything else – has moved the dial for the product? Remember, that’s the debate here.
Let’s look at the one phrase that I do want to pick you up on
So if it’s the case that NXT has had the biggest impact on the product then where are the scores of talent who have been nurtured, developed and then graduated to the main roster and made a huge impact? I’d argue that there have been just as many misses as there have been hits. Especially on the men’s side of the roster where the glass ceiling is more prevalent.Quote:
ultimately NXT is still developmental
I have a few questions for you Nash:
- Do you think the WWE product is in a better condition now than it was ten years ago?
- Do you look at the Wrestlemania card – empty arena weirdness aside – and think “Yep, I can’t wait for that”.
- And do you in fact look at NXT and think – I much prefer this as it’s a well-structured, well-written, logical, story-driven show with great wrestling?
I suspect we’re edging closer to the truth here insomuch as NXT thrives as a function – an antidote even – to how dysfunctionally the main roster has been structured for the past few years. It has pivoted away from being purely developmental and into a sub-brand in its own right. One where feuds are logical, given time to breathe and are paid-off at the brand’s biggest events. The opposite of WWE.
I’m mindful that I’m fighting my corner with a pretty negative line argument here but I want to turn that on its head. Rather than focusing on the negatives I want to end my post with a thought experiment. I want us to imagine an alternate reality where WWE treats its full-time roster as the stars of the show and cuts its dependency on the ever-diminishing returns from its part-timers. In my reality:
- Bray Wyatt and the Wyatt family don’t get jobbed out 3 Wrestlemanias in a row, instead they are allowed to be the dominating faction they should have been
- Rusev beats Cena clean at WM 30 and a new main event heel is born
- WWE lets CM Punk close the show and he remains at the company
- WWE doesn’t lose Dean Ambrose to AEW and they let him go full Moxley
In my timeline, this creates an environment where new stars who are clearly getting over are allowed to be the focal point of the show, thus in turn preserving the future of the company.
And guess what, it opens up the natural channels for NXT graduates to join the main roster and flourish. Then, and only then, could you argue that NXT has made the biggest impact on the overall product.
This is a strange debate because we’re somewhat on the same page in terms of “out with the old, in with the new” but it’s a very broad agreement. While I do agree that there is a heavy reliance on part time talent, I don’t agree that it’s been a major negative to the overall product. When you look at the numbers for WM 28 and 29 for example, or the ratings boost when talent like Goldberg, John Cena, and Brock Lesnar are on WWE tv. And then you hear about Kevin Owens having the lowest ratings of any champion in the history of the company, it makes you wonder what is the real negative.
The real negative is the booking of Raw and Smackdown. With NXT now a real 3rd brand and not JUST developmental like OVW or FCW were in the past, we now have another option and one that doesn’t have the stink of Vince McMahon all over it.
Do I think the WWE product is in a better place than it was 10 years ago? Yes. Why? Because 10 years ago they didn’t have NXT. Are ratings down? Sure. But we all know how viewing habits have changed over the last 5 years let alone the last 10. 10 years ago we didn’t have the WWE Network. 10 years ago WWE weren’t making as much money as they are today. 10 years ago the WWE’s annual revenue was $478 million. In 2019 it was damn near $1 billion with $960 million.
In a perfect world I would be extremely excited for this year’s Mania card. And yeah if we had Barry Allen and Sisqo to take us to your alternate reality all of that sounds pretty cool. Maybe. I don’t see the negative in having John Cena in his prime going over Bray Wyatt the same way I didn’t see any issue with Bret Hart beating Steve Austin at WM 13. Let’s not forget that the 2 Mania’s prior that Cena headlined were the 2 biggest Mania’s of all time. And Bray Wyatt being a young talent being able to rub shoulders with guys like Cena, Lesnar, and The Rock only made him seem even more special.
NXT isn’t exactly green up and down. Over the years we’ve had veterans like Samoa Joe, Bobby Roode, Finn Balor, Nakamura, Kevin Owens, Neville, all have delivered in a way that has kept people tuning in to when they wind up on Raw or Smackdown to see them throw down with people like Cena, Lesnar, etc. And while we can talk about who should have did what, the object of the game is to get people to watch. And I can say without a shadow of a doubt one of the reasons people STILL watch and the proof is in the ratings and the clicks most sites get when the “part timers” come around.
NXT is the vessel to keep the balance. It reminds us of a time where wrestling seemed less Hollywood, as Finn Balor put it “NXT is Broadway, there’s no hiding in NXT” And you can have the best of both worlds. You can enjoy WM with Rhea Ripley v. Charlotte Flair as well as John Cena v. The Fiend. Edge v. Randy Orton is arguably the best feud going in the WWE across all 3 shows. If people are going to tune in to see their old favorites, it can only help put eyes on the talent they’re not familiar with. Wrestlers like Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, this is how they made a name for themselves in wrestling. The masses didn’t know who the fuck they were until they saw Hulkamania and Macho Man on Nitro. Then it was “Who are these guys???!?!?”
Let’s not forget…NXT IS WWE. No different than Raw and Smackdown now. NXT is the glue keeping the core audience in check and the part timers keep the casuals coming in to put some shine on the talent they are unfamiliar with. If Bray Wyatt is working with John Cena, that’s a big deal. Austin v. Bret WM 13. Rock v. Cena WM 28. That’s all you need to know.
So, here we are. My final post in Wilfred’s Debate 2020. Can I just say that it’s been a blast and thanks for having me. I’ve lurked on this forum for years and it’s been really cool taking part.
And Nash Diesel, thank you for being such a tough opponent in the final. How fitting that in Wrestlemania season you have the American giant against a Scottish underdog. If your second post was an F5, I guess it’s time for a Claymore to the face.
WWE is firmly hooked on a drug right now and it’s a dependency that increased as we moved through the last decade. And that drug is the short-term pop-the-ratings part-time nostalgia run at the cost of coherent, long term booking and some faith in their full-time roster.
KICKING OUT OF THE F5
I was delighted to see your opening paragraph mention this…
…as it neatly sums up the chief issue I’m arguing. The biggest issue with WWE’s weekly programming where the ‘stars’ you see week in week out on national, network television are routinely treated like chumps, in 50:50 booking purgatory with a hierarchy now embedded within the audience. These people don’t matter because when the big boys show up, you’re in the mid-card at best, or in battle royale hell at worst. Which you appear to agree with because in your post, the same Kevin Owens you make the disparaging remark about above, you then go on to big up in your 5th paragraph. Which is it? More clearly, you also then go on to agree with meQuote:
or the ratings boost when talent like Goldberg, John Cena, and Brock Lesnar are on WWE tv. And then you hear about Kevin Owens having the lowest ratings of any champion in the history of the company, it makes you wonder what is the real negative.
Correct. That’s a direct function of the point I’m arguing.Quote:
The real negative is the booking of Raw and Smackdown.
THE CLAYMORE
To win an argument as close as this, you need evidence. Let’s take a quick look at mine. In no particular order:
- Ratings are down significantly
- Attendances at Raw, Smackdown & house shows have struggled, even in traditionally strong territories
- The crowds that do go are more often than not, dead
- Fan satisfaction is down – look at the Rajah RAW and Smackdown threads as a barometer of how entertaining those shows are
- The loss of stars such as CM Punk, Dean Ambrose, Chris Jericho, Cody Rhodes et al
- No new stars coming even remotely close to mainstream culture
- Stalling the careers of the likes of Nakamura, Owens, Strowman, Zayn, Balor, Wyatt
- Several atrocities, such as; Michaels coming out of retirement, appalling Undertaker matches, the Wyatt/Goldberg travesty, Shane McMahon ‘best in the world’ etc.
Let’s not focus exclusively on the negatives though, as there have been a couple of direct positives come out of WWE’s ridiculous fixation with part-timers:
- The emergence of AEW as a challenger brand
- The biggest feel-good moment of the decade, Daniel Bryan and the Yes movement at WM 30 was a direct result of WWE defaulting to Batista for the short-term pop
Both have their origins in flawed WWE strategy. You see, it’s not all about the negatives. It’s about impact.
THE PINFALL
Listen, when all is said and done, I reckon we can deduce the following from our debate so far:
- We both think the booking of flagship WWE programming sucks
- We both love NXT
- You think WWE programming is saved by the mere existence of NXT
- I think the overall programming could be so much better, whilst still retaining everything that is wonderful about NXT
- That will then allow NXT to function better as a conveyer belt of talent up to the main roster
But above all else, remember that this argument is about the biggest impact, not the thing you like the most. I’ve demonstrated that my choice has had huge impact. Things that affect the biggest shows of the year. The things that will go down in history. You’re arguing for something that, whilst extremely entertaining, hasn’t moved the dial on any key metric whatsoever. It simply keeps us all going while we wait for the overall product to be fixed.
NXT has grown so much in the last 10 years, hell the last year we’ve seen the brand become such a force that USA decided to give them 2 hours of live tv every week. USA sees the value, the WWE sees it, and more importantly the fans see it. A place that at the start was considered a horrible joke has now emerged as the premier wrestling brand of the WWE. To the point where talent are wanting to sign with the WWE just to be on NXT and not even worry about going to Raw and SD as evident by comments made by top players Ciampa and Gargano. Finn Balor, a former Universal and IC champion chose to return to NXT.
What you’re failing to see is that while you think based on personal taste that part-timers are a negative impact, have you seen the buyrates for certain ppvs over the last decade? A great example is the WM 29 ppv, a rematch between John Cena v. The Rock, became the highest grossing live event in WWE history. WM 28 was the highest grossing ppv event at the time, it took a non-wrestling event to knock the WWE off the throne. Ratings are down but domestic tv ratings are not as important as they were 20 years ago. And if you’re trying to say that part-timers are this huge negative, why are they the ones helping bring those numbers up? And it only helps the other talent get exposure. Again, how do you think talent like Jericho in the 90’s became popular? It wasn’t due to tape trading his matches in FMW.
Speaking of Le Champion…..The emergence of AEW…Ah yes, lead by 50 year old Chris Jericho who has been the most entertaining aspect of the entire show. Another part-timer who while in WWE was one of the most entertaining characters you stupid idiot ;)
You say that when these people show up, you’re bumped to the midcard or a battle royal. Right off the bat you’re talking about Drew v. Lesnar. Is that really considered a midcard position for Drew? While the Raw/Smackdown booking is a major problem that has nothing to do with part-timers, at the very least they have done a great job at mingling the older talent with newer talent. WM 30 is a great example. We could have had Batista v. Orton with Batista going over as champion, it was literally promised to him. Instead they shifted gears realizing you know what, DANIEL BRYAN deserves this spot and we’re going to make him a fucking beast.
Kevin Owens, while still NXT champ where he was delivering incredible matches with Finn Balor and Sami Zayn, debuts on the main roster against John Cena, who at the time was not working a full time schedule and elevated Owens tremendously. He beat Cena CLEAN! That’s so fucking rare you would have to send it back to the chef. Fast forward and KO is Universal Champion and main events a ppv against one of the biggest names in history, Bill Goldberg.
Shield v. Evolution. Shield DOMINATED that feud, literally pitched a shut out in an elimination match while going 2-0 back to back on ppv victories. So they bring back Batista, and he’s 2-3 in ppv matches, with all 3 losses major victories for upcoming talent from NXT. Look at Roman Reigns, the first guy since CM Punk to dethrone John Cena as a top merch mover. If the guy was that terrible, why are people buying his stuff?
I love you Rusty but you and I definitely have different opinions on what the word “evidence” means. You mentioned quite a few names that were apparently affected by part timers but when you say “Nakamura” and I’m looking at him jobbing to Jinder Mahal several times in a row I don’t see how the blame is on Edge or Goldberg or Lesnar when Jinder was a full timer. Where is the evidence that Ambrose left because of part timers? He spent 2 hours talking about creative issues. And if Vince is a part timer then we need to re-evaluate that term asap.
Well it's been a long tough debating road, but finally.....
ROUND OVER!
Voting commences now, here's how it works:
- The winner of each tie will be chosen equally from 4 sources. 3 selected judges and a public vote.
- The 3 selected judges who will PM their votes to Mazer and myself. The judges are @Jarrod1983, @Psycho666Soldier and @virmicious so please send us your votes. Each judge's vote will be worth one point each to the total overall score.
- The 4th source is a public vote where readers can post in this thread who they felt had the better argument. The combined public vote will count as one point towards the overall score.
- If there is a 2-2 score in the total score of a tie after all the judging and public voting, then special guest judge Mazer shall break the tie.
- All votes must be backed up with solid reasoning. Anyone who just says stuff in their votes like "I voted for Mikey just because his argument was better or I agree with him" will be asked to elaborate on their vote further before it can be counted.
Voting will be open for 7 days max, same length as the tie.
VOTE NOW! CHAMPIONSHIP IS AT STAKE!
Rusty Shackleford, with plenty to spare. Kept totally focused on what the question was rather than appealing to popularity, and his last post was so forensic as to completely neutralise the last post advantage. Nicely done.
Here is one from Rip who I asked to vote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip
Both guys gave great arguments. And they both basically agreed with each other. Rusty nailed it early with his second post. Knowing that this would be close, and that we'd mostly go back and re-read all of the entries was smart, as he negated much of Nash's argument when he said
"There’s a real danger that this debate gets sidetracked into a “guy moaning about booking” versus “guy bigging [sic] up the thing we all like”"
Despite that, this was really close, and a pleasure to read. Kudos to both, but Rusty takes it.
Rusty.
I believe he used the wording of the question brilliantly and was able to turn that somewhat against ND. While I love his answer, I don't think he was able to show without a shadow of a doubt that NXT has had a bigger impact than part timers while Rusty hit with some mostly good to great examples to support his argument.
Well done gentlemen.
Rusty gets my vote. Real good go by Nash, though, but Rusty came at this with tactical precision, with structure and focus, and the real clincher was underlining a few points where he and ND were not only in agreement but where ND was actually supporting Rusty's won argument.
RESULTS INCOMING!
WILFRED'S DEBATE 2020 GRAND FINAL RESULTS
PUBLIC VOTE - Rusty takes this 5-0 so 1 point to Rusty.
JUDGE PSYCHO666SOLDIER
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20191126140041
1 point to Rusty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho666Soldier
JUDGE JARROD1983
https://cdn3.whatculture.com/images/...31-600x338.gif
1 point to Rusty,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarrod1983
JUDGE VIRMICIOUS
https://images.complex.com/complex/i...iqdxhizmw2.jpg
Final point to Rusty.Quote:
Originally Posted by virmicious
With a perfect score of 4-0, your winner and neeeeew Wilfred's Debate 2020 Champion! Ruuuustyyyy Shaaaacklefoooord!
https://youtu.be/9udxbvHiqGw