User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Wilfred's Debate 2022 Semi Final 2 - mth vs Defrost

  1. #1
    Former Videoland Champion Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Always Filthy Until Proven Innocent
    Posts
    69,018
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2176033

    Wilfred's Debate 2022 Semi Final 2 - mth vs Defrost

    WILFRED'S DEBATE 2022 SEMI FINAL 2

    @mth vs @Defrost

    WORST STABLE IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING

    Well done gentlemen for making it to the semi-final stage! As a reward your topic is going to be more open so it is not restricted to WWE but you can choose your choice from any wrestling federation and argue it agains your opponent's. For the semi-finals, we are going to be focusing on wrestlng stables.

    Your topic is to choose who you think were the worst stable from any wrestling federation of your choice and argue why your choice is stronger than your opponent's. So this can be any wrestling fed not just WWE so you can use stables from others as well like WCW, ECW, ROH, NJPW, TNA, AEW etc.

    RULES

    Each participant will be allowed 3 posts each with a word cap of 500 words maximum per post. This must not be exceeded.
    No editing of posts is allowed. Once it is down it is down.
    Responses must be staggered. Each participant must wait until their opponent has gone until they can post again.
    No rebuttals are allowed for the person posting after their opponent original post. Once both opening posts are down then you may rebut your opponent's choice.
    Videos, gifs, pictures etc can be used and will not count towards the word count.
    If you quote your opponent, the quote will not count towards the word count. However if you choose to cite words from an article, outside source then those words will count.
    Ties will last exactly 10 days and will be timestamped. No extensions will be allowed unless there are mitigating circumstances like for example if your opponent posts their last response very late in which case I will consider extending the tie so it can be levelled up. If all 6 posts are not in then they will be judged on what has been put down.
    For all participants and anyone posting in the discussion thread, please do not comment on the ties while they are going on.
    Once the ties have been completed, it will be down to the 3 judges to judge on who they think did best and to PM their votes to me. They will know this already but please give reasoning for your votes.

    The coin toss has come up Tails so Defrost will be going first!

    Happy Debating! Any questions about your individual ties then please PM me.

  2. #2
    Champ is Gone
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    33,357
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    373470
    Ok first thing is first let's define what a wrestling stable is.

    Start with size. Obviously two guys is just a tag team so that's not a stable. So that rules out the Voodoo King Mafia.

    Every promotion outside the WWF/E has at least dabbled with the idea of a formal trios division. So again we're talking a team and not a stable for 3 guys.

    That makes at least a four man group to be considered a stable.

    Now it's not that simple. There needs to be a certain amount of interaction between the wrestlers in the group to be a stable. Slick coming out with Warlord, Power and Glory, and Rick Martel doesn't make them a stable of they never interact.

    Then we come to the worst. What makes something the worst. There has to be some longevity. Otherwise how bad could it really be?

    So with those parameters in mind I have to go with The Truth Commission.

    A South African Apartheid Era Militia group formed 2 years after Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa named for the Truth And Reconciliation Commission which was as far from a militant body as could possibly exist. Chaired by the Archbishop Desmond Tutu the idea of the commission was one of restorative not retaliatory justice. The Truth Commission in wrestling punched people. For reasons. Or like the USWA Belt.


    Here you can see The Commandant, leader of the Truth Commission, imply they've committed war crimes against the African National Congress and are will to do so again against Bill Dundee in a TV studio in Memphis Tennessee.



    Now jingoistic or xenophobic gimmicks are very commonplace in wrestling. But what the hell are a South African militia from a time warp of 10 years earlier fighting an Australian in Tennessee even have to do with that. I mean what's the heat here? Like The Truth Commission, which I guess was implied to be racist, is coming to beat up an Aryan Biker gang in the WWF which will somehow send Nelson Mandela back to prison?

    Then you have Cyrus take over the stable since the actor Bret Hart brought back from South Africa, your guess is as good as mine why, couldn't take bumps. So now a Canadian is in charge of the militia from Lethal Weapon 2 era South Africa. Make it make sense.

  3. #3
    F this & JC that mth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    YXE
    Posts
    61,346
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1966770
    There have been countless bad stables in wrestling thanks to illogical partnerships, stupid gimmicks, lackluster feuds, bad booking, and so forth. But how do we really clear away the almost unlimited BAD and winnow out THE WORST?
    That's a label that's gotta carry some real weight.
    The worst stable in wrestling history has to have some real significance.
    Let me paint the scene:
    Wrestling was the hottest thing in the world.
    The Monday Night Wars.
    WWE vs. WCW.
    And on the side, ECW was the punk alternative.
    Then, holy shit, Vince buys WCW!
    Then, holy shit, we're going to get WWE vs. WCW, like, for realz!
    Mind blowing things are about to go down.


    ..oh wait...
    ...no, hang on, where's Sting, Flair, Hogan?
    Wait, the midcarders are invading?
    Booker T and DDP are getting their asses beat?
    WCW is made out to be WWE's bitch?
    Well, I guess this is the Invasion angle...
    ...hold on a minute, ECW is getting in the mix...
    ...and in a swerve, they aligned with WCW!
    Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is:
    THE ALLIANCE!



    And what exactly was The Alliance?
    In two words: the worst.
    All the goddamn potential in the world for the biggest “holy shit, it's actually happening!” angle and what did we get?
    A handful of tops names not in the mix.
    No sense of threat from the get-go thanks to the WCW's guys being buried from the start so you quick merge the ECW guys in with them even though ECW guys chumming it up with WCW guys doesn't make sense given the history of the promotions.
    How do you try to salvage this dead in the water faction?
    Defect WWE guys into it!
    Nothing like finally having that WWE vs. WCW fantasy come true...by having it be WWE guys versus other WWE guys!
    Oh, and don't forget, at the top of the feud, it was really just McMahons feuding with McMahons!

    My friends, this was a time that could have been money.
    This was a time that could have been a golden era.
    A dream era.
    The Alliance should have been a fearsome army threatening to tear down WWE in a thrilling Invasion story.
    But no, instead we got a pack of losers from the start, puppets in McMahon family drama, who only really mattered when already established WWE stars like Steve Austin and Kurt Angle joined them.
    Remember that key word “significance”?
    This was arguably the most significant storyline in wrestling history.
    Therefore, The Alliance was arguably the most significant stable in wrestling history.

    So, what's the real kicker?
    Well, they literally, non-kayfabe, did what they were supposed to do:
    WWE's business went significantly DOWN thanks to them.
    Wrestling's popularity took a hit.
    Money went down the drain.
    No golden era.
    What should have been the biggest, best thing in the business was anything but.
    Because the Invasion angle was botched.
    And at the heart of it was The Alliance: the worst wrestling stable in history.

  4. #4
    Champ is Gone
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    33,357
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    373470
    Here is where I have to cry foul. As I laid out in my first post I gave much thought as to what qualifies as a stable in professional wrestling. I contend that your choice does not meet the criteria.

    Make no mistake about it WCW was treated as its own entity outside of the WWF. Execution does not matter in this respect intent does. The intent was to give WCW their own show. WCW titles were used during the entire run of the promotion feud and make no mistake it was a promotion feud not a rivalry involving a stable. There was no such thing as the Four Horsemen Heavyweight Championship. No Hart Foundation United States Title. No Dangerous Alliance Tag Team Belts. Vince McMahon's inability to book this in any way that could be considered competently does not negate this fundamental fact.

    WCW and then what was called the Alliance, the only reason for that name being that ECW's assets were still held up in bankruptcy, was a promotion in a promotion vs promotion war not a stable. Therefore, I must contend that your selection for this topic is invalid.

    Now you may claim I am being technical here, but as we all know technically correct is the best kind of correct.


    I've already laid out the criteria for The Truth Commission being a stable. A terrible stable. One where a Canadian Born Frenchman named after the bad guy from Highlander, a South African actor who got hired because Bret like him, Bull Buchanan, a Jabronie, Mantaur, and Cyrus the Virus, could advocate for the systematic racial segregation of an African Nation by the Dutch.

    Like for instance this promo in which the Commandant has come the World Wrestling Federation to prove that black people in South African being allowed to vote will destroy the country



    Now does this make any sense? No. Would this ever in any possible way be entertaining? No. Would this ever draw money for a wrestling promotion? No. But, Jesus Christ you can't say he doesn't go hard there. It's like John Goodman in The Big Lebowski said, "Say What You Will About The Tenets Of National Socialism, Dude, At Least It’s An Ethos ."

    And having an ethos makes you a stable. A very very shitty stable.

  5. #5
    F this & JC that mth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    YXE
    Posts
    61,346
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1966770
    -checks notes-

    I see nothing here that says you got to define the qualifications of a stable. You set your own personal criteria for making your choice, not for this debate overall. If there were specific parameters defining a stable for this debate, Badger would have laid them out in the initial post. We could argue about the validity of Wikipedia but it's generally sourced, reviewed, and pretty reliable nowadays and according to their article the definition of a stable is, “A team of three or more wrestlers . . . who generally share common motives, allies and adversaries within a storyline . . . a stable consists of wrestlers who share a common leader . . . who directs the wrestlers and speaks for them.”
    The Alliance ticks all those boxes. The Alliance is also listed on multiple Worst Wrestling Stables lists that I came across in my research (even listed as number one on some!). I suspect you're arguing semantics because you know my choice is better.

    Yes, WCW was treated as its own entity, until it failed. Supposedly WCW were meant to be babyfaces and have their own show but all that had was scrapped because the audience rejected them...which is exactly why they had to become a stable instead! You're providing all the behind the scenes info that I already read while researching my pick, and it's all very interesting...but again, it only gives explanation for why The Alliance stable happened.

    But even checking your own criteria, The Alliance still fits the bill: a group of at least four wrestlers who interact with each other is literally all you asked for!

    Meanwhile, you've picked a dime a dozen stable with a gimmick that is pretty offensive due to political/racial issues?
    Dude, there are soooo many of those. Mexicools, League of Nations, N.O.D., The UnAmericans, I could go on and on. You admitted they're commonplace yourself. All the points you've made in favor of your pick could be applied to countless other factions. I guess you tried to set them apart saying they were out of place and a decade too late but Vince McMahon is well known for being out of touch and far behind on the issues of the day.

    You've picked a terrible stable that had a cup of coffee in a major promotion where people can probably only name three members, Kurrgan, Buchanan, and Jackyl, and probably remember them more for The Oddities, partnering with Bossman/Cena, and...I dunno, managing The Acolytes for five minutes?...respectively than for anything they did in The Truth Commission.
    They made no impact.
    They had no significance.
    The only noteworthy thing they did was implode.
    They are at best a footnote to the better things some of their members did later and at worst, a tasteless forgettable stable that can be lumped in with so many others.
    Bad stable? Absolutely. Worst stable? Not by a long shot.
    'Worst' needs weight and your choice is weightless.

  6. #6
    Champ is Gone
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    33,357
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    373470
    Let me ask you this then: was the World Wrestling Federation a stable? This was promotion, and eventually promotion vs promotion. So by your logic the WWF had to be a stable too. But how does that make sense when you have WWF guys fighting each other? When guys in stables fight it's because someone has turned on the stable or been turned on by the stable. Maybe you get something like the Blackpool Combat club where you have to fight your way in. Still that's a one shot. So if by your logic the WWF has to be a stable for WCW and ECW to be a stable then how do you explain the months long feud between The Rock and Chris Jericho? When Lex Luger and Ric Flair started feuding Lex didn't stay a Horseman for 6 months. That's not how that works. Stablemates don't feud. So the WWF is not a stable, but a promotion. And in this context of a promotion vs promotion feud then WCW and ECW cannot be a stable.

    You can say The Truth Commission was flash in the pan, but it evolved in its time in the WWF. Speaking of Evolution, a stable in anyone's eyes, when it was time for HHH to fight them Randy Orton got kicked out and Batista turned on Hunter and Flair. They didn't stick around and feud with them anyway. Anyway I digress.

    I've posted two videos showing the Commandant to illustrate the point that The Truth Commission's goal was to come to the local Memphis, TN television studio and fight Superstar Bill Dundee as a springboard to the World Wrestling Federation where they would beat up an Aryan Biker Gang, the dollar store version of the Nation of Islam, and a bunch of Puerto Ricans until Apartheid was reinstituted in South Africa. You'd assume the Aryan Biker Gang would be on their side, but hey anything can happen in the WWF.

    Eventually the Commandant was replaced by The Jackyl aka Cyrus the Virus. Let's take a look at what that was like.



    Yeah.

    Did you get all that?

    Cause I sure as hell didn't. I mean for as asinine as it was at least I understood the Commandant. The stuff with Cyrus is just word salad. That said look at the effort being put forth to get this crew over. First hiring an actor at the recommendation of Bret Hart to go out there and not so subtly talk about his crew of wrestlers willingness to do War Crimes in the benefit of Apartheid then having Cyrus do whatever that was atop his floating pulpit.

    You cannot say the WWF didn't put time and effort into this. You also cannot say it was ever any good. Or really made any sense. But hey at least it was a stable.

  7. #7
    F this & JC that mth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    YXE
    Posts
    61,346
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1966770
    Ok, we're still doing this?
    WWE was the setting, the home turf, the default. Some WWE guys banded together to defend the company, some still feuded, it doesn't matter. I am not here to debate whether WWE was a stable during the Invasion storyline because that has no bearing on whether The Alliance was a stable, which, as I already explained, they were.
    But it seems I need to reiterate/elaborate, so:
    Yes, WCW was a promotion, as was ECW.
    However, they were no longer in operation and were folded into the WWE umbrella.
    But we aren't really talking about WCW or ECW...we are talking about the fact that these two former promotions merged and took a collective name, The Alliance.
    It would be like if, a few months back, NXT and NXT UK's shows were canceled and the two brands appeared on RAW/SD as a singular entity calling itself The Infection.
    That's a stable.
    Just like The Alliance.

    You've spent so much time trying to explain why my pick isn't a stable, you've haven't done much to explain why they are a better stable than yours. All your eggs seem pretty packed in that one basket. You've done well in making it clear you've got a pack of jabronis with an offensive gimmick doing a bunch of dumb stuff that ultimately didn't pan out into success. As we've both said, those are pretty run of the mill. Hell, the most damning thing against your guys, the racial angle, was scrapped in favor of whatever the fuck The Jackyl was babbling about there. I also want to point out that weird, edgy nonsense like your pick abounded at that time in WWE. Your boys were just another leaf in the Attitude Era salad.

    Meanwhile, I've got WWE's biggest rivals, who already looked weak, merging into a supergroup that only continued to look weak, lacked top names like Steiner, Goldberg, or the nWo, who only won their big match at the Invasion PPV because Stone Cold (Big WCW guy! Such logic!) joined them and then went on to lose the ultimate blow-off match at Survivor Series where the majority of their what-was-supposed-to-be-WCW-and-ECW team was WWE guys.
    I should also mention there were in-ring promo segments where stable leader Stone Cold verbally buried members like Tazz and Hugh Morrus.
    The Alliance should have been one of the best stables in history, WWE's rivals finally coming together as a powerful and dangerous threat that caused viewers to flock to see their dream war play out in dramatic fashion while the dollars rolled in for WWE (your pick didn't have that kind of potential).
    Instead, they were an impotent and inferior punching bag often overshadowed by McMahon family feuding who only really looked credible when top WWE guys switched sides to help them out and will probably be better remembered for singing “Wind Beneath Our Ring” to Stephanie than in-ring success (unless that success was thanks to WWE guys). And again, business went DOWN.

  8. #8
    Former Videoland Champion Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Always Filthy Until Proven Innocent
    Posts
    69,018
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2176033
    ROUND OVER
    @3puppies @Mazer @Psycho666Soldier please PM your votes to me.

  9. #9
    Former Videoland Champion Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Always Filthy Until Proven Innocent
    Posts
    69,018
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2176033
    RESULTS

    JUDGE 3PUPPIES




    Quote Originally Posted by 3puppies
    Worst stable in wrestling. I was glad I was not participating, because I didn't want to be reminded of how bad things can get.

    My initial thought was that someone would pick the JOB squad (Al Snow, Bob Holly, Blue Meanie and Gillberg), or the 3MB (Heath Slater, Jinder Mahal, and that Scottish guy - the Chosen One) based on jobber status. But those groups had entertainment value.

    Defrost comes out strong with his pick of a group I had heard about, only because I spend too much time looking at wrestling stuff. And he's right, this is a terrible idea, with terrible execution.

    Mth came out stronger with his first post, because he defined worst as not just bad, but it had to have fallen so far short from what it might have been, to the point that there's everlasting disappointment.

    Defrost's first rebuttal was executed much better than his initial post. His argument basically was that mth should be disqualified by picking what wasn't a stable. And he provided more to support how bad the Truth Commission was.

    The remaining posts were back and forth on the same theme, and I was a little disappointed in Defrost for not pointing out that the Alliance - diluted as it was - was still something fans were eager to watch. Defrost stuck to his point that the Alliance was more of a promotion instead of a stable.

    Where I thought the argument turned the most was the excellent point made by mth that Defrost never showed how the Alliance was better than the Truth Commission. Mth had argued well that the reason they were assigned "worst" was because of the ultimate disappointment over what might have been.

    Winner - mth
    @3puppies while your vote is counted as you otherwise backed it up, bolded part is what I objected to. If you question validity, either keep it out of the vote or PM me for clarification. Don’t just air it out without my say-so.

    JUDGE PSYCHO666SOLDIER



    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho666Soldier
    kdestiny has a solid start with an admirable position. He's pairing the longevity and success of The New Day with the fact that all three have proven to be successful and vital on their own. The opening post feels like it's just getting warmed up. Not a wallop, but everything he says is true and qualifying, which I'm expecting will be expanded in later posts.

    I think Nash comes out with a good opening post that acts as a counter in choice in general, as on the field of impact and individual contributions, I don't know if there are many other great choices outside of The Shield and The New Day. I also think focusing the impact they have throughout the whole industry, from individual companies to the fans, sets up a potentially monster argument. It's a bit of a waste to not utilize more of the word count, but I think kdestiny's used the full count while saying about the same amount of meaninfgul arguments.

    Nash trying to boil New Day down to something that exists to give Xavier something of worth seems a bit near-sighted(probably change this word). That said, he makes some home-run points when highlighting that The New Day struggle to grow out of the tag team scene. Like he said, The Shield really redefined the tag scene and made WWE 6-man matches a spectacle. And hammering this argument with saying they've had more legendary moments as a full stable than New Day ever has was clutch. Even going as far to say that without The Shield, The New Day wouldn't have existed, and this is a pretty compelling point when he lists off all the trio stables that cropped up after The Shield's debut. For me, this is something kdestiny has to come back strong against.

    I think kdestiny has something worth latching on to when he talks about the crowd reaction to New Day, effectively shutting down the "stale" argument as a matter of opinion of one person. And I think there's merit in the idea that New Day have longevity and have accomplished great things as a stable, whereas much of The Shield's greatest accomplishments came after the fact. But to be honest, I don't think his other counters really hit. I wasn't really convinced that them breaking up after the match with Evolution was somehow a bad thing about their inspiring future trios. I also barely remember the Mania 32 moment, so on the battlefield of "Better WrestleMania moments," at best, I'd consider it a tie. I think not focusing on Kofi and Big E's accomplishments AS a part of a group was a missed opportunity here, as Kofi's win is one of the biggest WrestleMania moments of all time, and it counts as a WrestleMania moment. On top of that, I didn't really find the other moments he painted as memorable to be that memorable. He says New Day had arguably more memorable matches and moments, but it doesn't feel like he has many concrete examples that back it up.

    In comparison, Nash really nails his final post. kdestiny never countered the point about great matches that involved all three New Day, which Nash immediately brings back up. And then talking about how much influence The Shield have in a much smaller amount of time just really resonated, because even if you ignore their post-Shield accomplishments, they did a lot as a stable, all things Nash has trotted out. Whereas kdestiny mostly had promo segments/moments for things they did as a group. And then running down the comparison of what New Day were doing at WrestleMania in comparison to what Shield members were doing really honed in on the lack of great moments New Day had at WrestleMania, especially in comparison. I do think he's a bit dismissive of what The New Day have accomplished in the last few years by saying they've had a bunch of forgettable title reigns and feuds, but to his credit, kdestiny didn't do much to disprove this, with the main strong pont in New Day's favor being the feud with the Usos - which was great, but I felt like destiny could have honed in on more than just that. Also, as small as it is, better entrance and better music is true.

    Yeah, I think this ultimately comes down to a matter of consistency. I get what kdestiny was getting at by arguing that The Shield's biggest accomplishments came after the fact, but I think he focused too much on this and didn't really do much after the first two posts to trump up what The New Day did accomplish as a stable, whereas Nash kept hitting homeruns in both boosting his choice and shutting down kdestiny's

    Nash Diesel
    JUDGE MAZER



    Quote Originally Posted by Mazer
    This was an interesting debate and a contrast of styles. There were so many different ways that it could go and be defined. And we definitely saw a contrast of styles here.

    Defrost starts out with a wise strategy of defining a stable. Also a solid choice, and by the end of his post you do sit there thinking about how non-sensical it was, and he establishes it does contrast with the standard level low-brow trope.

    Mth starts out immediately by focusing on differentiating the worst from just bad, which was key for him to continue to build on. The tone of the opening was enjoyable and conversational. Although by the end of the post, I thought the one sentence at a time structure with little spacing carrying through made it feel a little choppy in reading.

    Defrost takes an interesting tact in the first challenge post. While it was an interesting, I did not find it to rise to the level of a technical knockout, which seemed to be what Defrost was playing for. There was a little more about the Truth commission, but little new offense was taken. The main points are now qualification, and the previously stated problems with the Truth commission.

    Mth effectively counters all the points in half a post. He started right on the counter by pointing that defrost didn’t get to set the terms, and then provided a general consensus. His second half then puts the onus back on Defrost to show that this is considerably worse than similar stables

    In Defrost’s first part of the 3rd, he spends time on establishing that the WWE was not a stable, which he uses to assert that the Alliance is not properly a stable. To go this route, I think the need for a Stable vs. Stable criteria needed to be better established. There was some additional conversation about interpersonal battles (and fighting in-stable), that seemed to lose a bit of focus without truly developing into a strong shot.

    The final post was the nail in the coffin. Mth again did what he needed to counter Defrost’s assertions that this was not a stable. He succinctly made his argument, which made it clear that Defrost had not scored a tko. Which, as mth then pivots to, you’re left with which is worse. Which had never been truly countered in defrost's earlier work. As a result Mth’s points stand.

    This was a fun debate to read. Defrost is one of my favorite posters to read talk about wrestling. Mth had a fun style. While both were enjoyable, mth landed the strongest shots successfully and had the more effective counters.

    mth gets my vote
    @3puppies the bolded part in case you were wondering was what I took issue with. Nothing to do with Defrost at all but if you have any questions about validity about choices, keep it out of your vote or PM me if you’re not sure.

    Anyway @mth is victorious and goes onto face @Nash Diesel in what will no doubt be a grand entertaining finale!

    @Defrost faces @kdestiny in a 3rd place play-off at the agreement of them both.

    Will aim to get both these sorted tomorrow night. If not then, definitely Tuesday as been out and been socialising this weekend so need some recovery time.

  10. #10
    Former Videoland Champion Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Always Filthy Until Proven Innocent
    Posts
    69,018
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2176033
    Phone sucks.

    Will re-do.
    Last edited by Badger; October 9th, 2022 at 7:51 PM.

  11. #11
    Former Videoland Champion Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Always Filthy Until Proven Innocent
    Posts
    69,018
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2176033
    To be re-done.

  12. #12
    Former Videoland Champion Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Always Filthy Until Proven Innocent
    Posts
    69,018
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2176033
    RESULTS

    JUDGE 3PUPPIES






    Quote Originally Posted by 3puppies
    Worst stable in wrestling. I was glad I was not participating, because I didn't want to be reminded of how bad things can get.

    My initial thought was that someone would pick the JOB squad (Al Snow, Bob Holly, Blue Meanie and Gillberg), or the 3MB (Heath Slater, Jinder Mahal, and that Scottish guy - the Chosen One) based on jobber status. But those groups had entertainment value.

    Defrost comes out strong with his pick of a group I had heard about, only because I spend too much time looking at wrestling stuff. And he's right, this is a terrible idea, with terrible execution.

    Mth came out stronger with his first post, because he defined worst as not just bad, but it had to have fallen so far short from what it might have been, to the point that there's everlasting disappointment.

    Defrost's first rebuttal was executed much better than his initial post. His argument basically was that mth should be disqualified by picking what wasn't a stable. And he provided more to support how bad the Truth Commission was.

    The remaining posts were back and forth on the same theme, and I was a little disappointed in Defrost for not pointing out that the Alliance - diluted as it was - was still something fans were eager to watch. Defrost stuck to his point that the Alliance was more of a promotion instead of a stable.

    Where I thought the argument turned the most was the excellent point made by mth that Defrost never showed how the Alliance was better than the Truth Commission. Mth had argued well that the reason they were assigned "worst" was because of the ultimate disappointment over what might have been.

    Winner - mth
    @3puppies bolded part was what I took issue with. Covered your vote otherwise but rather than air out any concerns about validity, please PM me in future. mth’s choice was fine.

    JUDGE PSYCHO666SOLDIER




    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho666Soldier
    Defrost's first post honestly leaves me a bit confused as to the core argument of why The Truth Commission is the worst stable. He starts talking about insensitivity, and then goes on to argue about whether the logic behind the stable makes sense. I think the opening point establishing what makes it a stable worth calling the worst is strong, and I'm definitely convinced by it being incredibly insensitive and for very little gain, but I feel the post loses its structure by the end of it.

    mth, in comparison, has a very strong first post with a clear thesis and structure that lands with impact. He latches on to an offshoot of Defrost's argument about longevity - mth focusing on the worst stable needing to be one of significance. And he hits the nail on the head that The Alliance was one of the most significant stables to ever exist as far as what they should have been, as well as how they affected the business. Pointing out it was a disaster from the start that did nothing to highlight the WWE vs. WCW/ECW in a way that didn't involve WWE guys helps, and even more powerful are the remarks of how much the business tanked after this angle.

    Unfortunately, Defrost really loses me with his second post. His only counter to mth's choice is trying to disqualify The Alliance as a stable. I think most of us know the stories of the intention of WCW becoming a part of WWE programming. But that doesn't stop the execution, and while it's up to mth to argue against this, on its own, I wasn't at all convinced. If nothing else, I could maybe buy that they weren't properly a stable until ECW joined WCW and they became The Alliance. But he doubles down saying this wasn't a stable, and while the optics might have been "Two promotions vs. another promotion," I'm still not really convinced that it wasn't a stable. Now, again, I think Defrost makes strong points when he's arguing for The Truth Commission being racist, and I'm starting to see more of what he's talking about with the stable being nonsensical, but ending this with "Having an ethos makes a shitty stable" doesn't really land for me.

    And mth does counter the above by both shutting down the idea that Defrost can dictate the terms of a stable and also that by most other metrics, they are considered a stable. Specifically one of the worst stables. And then using Defrost's argument to explain WHY they became a stable only strengthens mth's argument. The danger of not really countering any of mth's arguments is that mth had a lot of word count left to shoot down Defrost's choice, and he does so promptly. I think he missed the mark a bit by not pointing out groups like N.O.D. had more impact and therefore could be considered worse by his own metric. But this is small compared to him pointing out that The Truth Commission were "weightless" and had no impact whatsoever, and if anything, their impact came from being a gateway for guys in The Oddities, another arguably bad, but relatively over stable.

    Again, I'm not convinced by Defrost arguing that The Alliance wasn't a stable, and I don't think arguing that the WWF isn't a stable has any bearing.

    What was convincing is how fucking bad The Truth Commission became from a sheer execution standpoint. The Jackal's inclusion really wasn't great and this video is exactly an example why. Defrost hits the nail on the head that it's word salad, while also showing effort was being put into the act.

    mth comes back again shutting down the "Alliance isn't a stable" argument, and I like that he turned it around to say the stable was actually worse when the racially-charged Commandent was leading. Bringing up that The Alliance only came close to success with WWE guys like Stone Cold leading the helm and having them mock the WCW/ECW "originals" shows how much WWE undercut this stable. And the biggest thing for me is mth downplaying how significant the Truth Commission was in comparison, rendering them forgettable and a dime a dozen whereas The Alliance left a lasting stink and impact that was not good for the business.

    Again, if I look at the arguments for their picks, it kind of boils down to whose metric is stronger and supported better. For Defrost, it's longevity(and arguably effort in the final post). For mth, it's significance/weight. On their own, I think they're kind of the same thing, but I believe mth's is more like a grander scale. And argument against argument, I think mth did a better job convincing me that The Alliance had a greater negative impact than The Truth Commission's longevity of terribleness.

    I think Defrost mostly loses here for not effectively countering mth's choice. He borders on semantics that don't land for me, and are promptly undone by mth. Couple this with mth having consistently clear structure and thesis to his posts I have to give the victory to him.

    mth
    JUDGE MAZER



    Quote Originally Posted by Mazer
    This was an interesting debate and a contrast of styles. There were so many different ways that it could go and be defined. And we definitely saw a contrast of styles here.

    Defrost starts out with a wise strategy of defining a stable. Also a solid choice, and by the end of his post you do sit there thinking about how non-sensical it was, and he establishes it does contrast with the standard level low-brow trope.

    Mth starts out immediately by focusing on differentiating the worst from just bad, which was key for him to continue to build on. The tone of the opening was enjoyable and conversational. Although by the end of the post, I thought the one sentence at a time structure with little spacing carrying through made it feel a little choppy in reading.

    Defrost takes an interesting tact in the first challenge post. While it was an interesting, I did not find it to rise to the level of a technical knockout, which seemed to be what Defrost was playing for. There was a little more about the Truth commission, but little new offense was taken. The main points are now qualification, and the previously stated problems with the Truth commission.

    Mth effectively counters all the points in half a post. He started right on the counter by pointing that defrost didn’t get to set the terms, and then provided a general consensus. His second half then puts the onus back on Defrost to show that this is considerably worse than similar stables

    In Defrost’s first part of the 3rd, he spends time on establishing that the WWE was not a stable, which he uses to assert that the Alliance is not properly a stable. To go this route, I think the need for a Stable vs. Stable criteria needed to be better established. There was some additional conversation about interpersonal battles (and fighting in-stable), that seemed to lose a bit of focus without truly developing into a strong shot.

    The final post was the nail in the coffin. Mth again did what he needed to counter Defrost’s assertions that this was not a stable. He succinctly made his argument, which made it clear that Defrost had not scored a tko. Which, as mth then pivots to, you’re left with which is worse. Which had never been truly countered in defrost's earlier work. As a result Mth’s points stand.

    This was a fun debate to read. Defrost is one of my favorite posters to read talk about wrestling. Mth had a fun style. While both were enjoyable, mth landed the strongest shots successfully and had the more effective counters.

    mth gets my vote
    Apologies for the technical difficulties but yeah congratulations @mth who moves onto face @Nash Diesel in the grand finale!

    Unlucky @Defrost but he does have a chance battling @kdestiny in the 3rd/4th place play off!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •