Jump to content

UKFF Argumental Challenge


A Screen Up

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Bloody hell, Fox Piss, it looks like whichever one of us wins has a good chance of facing Ian in the next round. May the best man win and all that.

 

EDIT: A Screen Up - do the 'away' competitors have to wait for the 'home' competitors to post before we do? Or can either one go first?

 

Fire away as soon as you're ready. Just put forth the best argument you can and hopefully yours will be better than your opponent's effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Awards Moderator

Hooray for lunch hours.

 

 

[bRACKET F]

 

Fox Piss - HarmonicGenerator

Edge had a greater decade than Kurt Angle between 2000 and 2010.

 

I am arguing that Kurt Angle had a greater decade.

 

 

"The first decade of this century was the decade of Kurt Angle. He made an impact, reached the pinnacle, and he both found and sustained a comfort zone within those ten years. True, the same could be said of Edge, but Angle just plain did it better.

 

Both were World Champions, but which one won the big one less than a year after his debut? Kurt Angle. Both of them were in the Invasion, but which one was the focus and heart of Team WWF? Kurt Angle. Both of them had great matches, but who had the better ones? Kurt freakin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

So is it first come first served in terms of who gets to argue for or against? I've drawn Gladders, the fucking people's champ. Hopefully he's been spending to much time watching porn and hanging round off-topic to be well versed on his wrestling knowledge these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, who decides who wins? Will there be a poll or something, because couldn't it get a bit biased? The person doing the voting might vote for "Poster A" to win the round because of their feelings towards "Poster B" or because they prefer Edge over Kurt Angle or something like that, regardless of who had the better argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it first come first served in terms of who gets to argue for or against? I've drawn Gladders, the fucking people's champ. Hopefully he's been spending to much time watching porn and hanging round off-topic to be well versed on his wrestling knowledge these days.

 

The person who's name appears first in the fixture argues FOR the statement. The person who would be the 'away' team in the fixture argues AGAINST the statement.

 

 

Just to clarify, who decides who wins? Will there be a poll or something, because couldn't it get a bit biased? The person doing the voting might vote for "Poster A" to win the round because of their feelings towards "Poster B" or because they prefer Edge over Kurt Angle or something like that, regardless of who had the better argument.

 

Up until the semi-finals, I'm deciding, along with four friends who watch wrestling but don't post on here, the winners of each round. I've PM'd a couple of posters on here who aren't part of this challenge but they're yet to get back to me.

 

I think that this is the best way to keep it unbiased as they aren't familiar with any of the posters and we've agreed completely that we won't be swayed by our opinions on each matter. It will purely be down to the quality of the argument.

 

If anybody feels that we have made a huge error in our decisions, then I'm sure that people will make their voices heard and we can have a rethink.

 

The final will go to a poll whereby posters on here will chose their winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I've drawn Gladders, the fucking people's champ. Hopefully he's been spending to much time watching porn and hanging round off-topic to be well versed on his wrestling knowledge these days.

 

Pretty much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until the semi-finals, I'm deciding, along with four friends who watch wrestling but don't post on here, the winners of each round. I've PM'd a couple of posters on here who aren't part of this challenge but they're yet to get back to me.

Oh right that sounds great, cheers for organizing it all. I'll get thinking now then, and plan my argument :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

A Screen Up - why not edit your opening post with the brackets so people can find what they are talking about more easily and edit your subtitle to alert them to the fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

There has been a greater WM match than either of the Michaels vs Undi matches

 

I had actually seen both of these matches at the time (DDD watches WWF shocker), but I went back and watched them again prior to this challenge. Opinions remained the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

[bRACKET E]

tom - Chris Brooker

There is no place for managers in wrestling today

 

I am arguing in favour of this :

 

I feel that I should start by saying that in the 80's before worked shoots, don't try this at home and before kayfabe died a death managers played a vital role in almost every American wrestling promotion and they were completely relevant and in-tune with that day and age. But that was 30 years ago and things have changed majorly; managers just aren't needed or relevant any more.

 

In an age where the WWE is roundly and routinely highlighted to be the multi-million dollar worldwide corporate business, the idea that a wrestler would need to rely on a manager to help him with renting cars and booking accommodation as opposed to letting the WWE do all of that is a pretty old fashioned and laughable thing. Let's face it, the wrestling industry is completely different to in the glory days for managers and not only that, but the way most people view it is also completely different.

 

And it's not only that the idea of a manager who books all that is not relevant anymore, but it's the fact that the importance and relevance of managers has been down played and downgraded for years and years now on WWE programming itself. That's not to say that they bury old managers but any real features on managers focus on people from the 80's who are either long since retired or possibly even dead. When WWE itself portrays managers as being something that was done best in the 80's then you are struggling to make a manager important, and if they aren't perceived as important then they've got no place.

 

Now, you might point towards modern incarnations such as Armado Estrada, Natalya (with Tyson and DH Smith), Michael Hayes (for his brief time with Tyson Kidd) and Paul Bearer's brief return as proof that managers are still relevant but most of them weren't even really portrayed as managers. Estrada was simply Umaga's handler whose role was more that of a zoo keeper for the big man, Natalya was already an established wrestler who happened to tag along at ringside, Michael Hayes wasn't even around long enough to be established as anything important enough to matter and Paul Bearer was simply used as a plot device.

 

There is of course Vickie Guerrero but even she isn't really portrayed as a manager in the traditional sense; she never seems to play much of a role in getting matches for Zig-Swag, we've never seen her book transport or hotels. By standard definitions she could be called a manager but she did the same things when she was the GM and dating Edge so it's not pushed as a manager-specific thing that she does. She is often given positions of power and as such it's just wrestlers having an influential woman go to bat for them. She's just a fat widow of a dead wrestler with an annoying screechy voice who happens to follow two wrestlers around because she's supposedly a cougar. Yuck!

 

 

497 Words

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

[bRACKET G]

There has never been a greater Wrestlemania match than either of the HBK/Undertaker matches.

 

To judge a pro-wrestling match from bell to bell is to miss the point. If what happened bell to bell was all important, then pro-wrestling would be a genuine competitive sport. Build and fall out are key ingredients in judging a pro-wrestling match. The anticipation for Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker at WrestleMania started long before any build started. Whether it was designed to or not, the last 10 minutes of the 2007 Royal Rumble left everyone craving another Shawn Michaels/Undertaker match. Those last few minutes of the Rumble match were some of the finest pro-wrestling exchanges you will ever see and from that moment, Micheals vs. Taker became a must see event. The teasing continued a year later as the two started out the Royal Rumble in MSG. By the time the actual build for the match started on television, with Michaels beating his "former employer" JBL, it was irrelevant. Fans had been craving the match for over two years, it didn't need a build.

 

The match itself was brilliant. Over the past 20 years, these two have had more blinders then I can event count, so it's really no surprise. Even the obvious flaw in the match, the fact that no-one believe the Undertaker's unbeaten streak will ever end, didn't work against it for the simple reason that these two were so brilliant on the night that people believed. I believed. You believed. Micheals kicked out of 'Takers biggest and best moves. And when Michaels hit his finisher, we saw the greatest near fall there's ever been at WrestleMania. The undertaker eventually won but these two made sure it was far from the foregone conclusion it had seemed. The match was critically acclaimed, received good feedback from wrestling fans and performed well in the year end awards. But how do you judge this the best WrestleMania match ever? It's simple. Wrestling fans clamour to see a match, the promoter serves up the match, people pay their money and (hopefully) they enjoy what they paid for. What makes this one uber-special is that fans were absolutely desperate to see it again. And a year later, despite this being the 4th high profile match between the two on PPV, despite the rumours of HBK's impending retirement and despite the same scenario having played out a year before, these two delivered again. And people believed again.

 

And, having seen it twice already, people were so desperate to see it again that during the teaser vignettes for Triple H vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania 27, fans concocted scenarios for Michaels coming out of retirement for a third match. Wrestling matches are subjective, we all have favourites and we all have dislikes. But when a match ends concusively and is so good that people are desperate to pay to see it again and again, it moves beyond subjective. These are the greatest WrestleMania match-ups of all time. When's number three?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...