Round 1: fromthesouth -versus- Phoenix

[Mr. TM]

Is 'drawing ability' what it takes to be the best in the world of professional wrestling?

Phoenix is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 1:00 pm Pacific​

 

[Phoenix]

I will be debating that 'drawing ability' is NOT what it takes to be the best in the world of professional wrestling. I will go first on this one.

 

[Phoenix]

In the World of Wrestling, Sports Entertainment and PG Eras, the main question about a man's rise to becoming the best takes multiple elements. The question of this debate asks whether the ability to draw (not with a pencil) is what it takes to be the best. While I have said no it does not, my reason is simply put, it's not what it takes to be the best, but plays a part as numerous reasons are needed to be the best. Lets break it down:

Drawing Ability
As this was asked first, I'll cover it first. Drawing Ability is about being bookable that people will sell-out arenas to watch you compete, it's like having Robert De Niro's name on top of a billboard for a new film to sell tickets as people will want to see him. This is the same for wrestling, people will pay for Mysterio in Mexico, people will pay for the British Bulldog in the UK, Bret in Canada. But it's not just locations, it's the audiences, the reason why we kept seeing Orton against Cena or Triple H often was because those names would sell pay per view buys. But then if you're a new superstar, how do you get drawing ability? It's not a skill you have, it's a status you earn when you reach the Main Event. So to automatically give an answer, the ability to draw is not what it takes to be the best, it's what the best end having from getting into the Main Event.

Technical Ability/Ring Skill
If there's anything that the best need to be measured by, it's their ring work. Now it's a mix really of where it breaks down, is your ring work going to be technical based, entertaining, crowd pandering or a combination of all three? As there is no right answer because it's a case of being each to their own. Hogan got over from being entertaining and a crowd panderer, his ring work was based around his charisma to get the crowd electrified and excited when he hulked up or gave the big boot leading to his finishing leg drop. While it's not marks for technical ability, it got him over because the crowd wanted to see him do that much like people watch to see Cena give a five knuckle shuffle and an Attitude Adjustment each week.

Guys like Bret Hart and Kurt Angle drew crowds from their technical ability, being the best at what they do. While it doesn't give a full blown excitement factor like Hulking Up, People's Elbows, Lou Thez Presses or You Can't See Me, its going the old school route of being recognised for being skilled at trying to beat another man throw the array of moves they have to give and would rather see their opponents get beat from submitting their defeat than go for a cheese ball move and cover for the 1,2,3.

Charisma/Mic Work
Despite mentioning ring charisma, you need to have a great mix of it in the ring on the microphone to gain that Main Event Status and draw crowds in. Reason being is because without being a great guy on the mic, you can't sell your match to the crowd, you can't put yourself and your opponent as the match people want to watch. Here's some examples of how to promote your match and yourself with some use of words:

[YOUTUBE]/v/kpZggF847mA&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]/v/ywQ2EnGWvAs&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]/v/8aUIXpk3XM8&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]/v/LGM1o8CDLs8&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]/v/32MbBIKqVIY&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

Now if these guys didn't give the promos they did week in and week out, people wouldn't watch them or buy tickets to view them. You need to be able to get everyone's attention because as a wrestler, you serve as an advertiser, much like you have to make your own success in the business, you have to put every factor over so people can see why you are the best.

Last but not least

Chemistry

Quite the overlooked feature since you need to work with your colleagues and the crowd to be the best. If you have the best ring chemistry then it means your matches will flow without any potential botches and features skill, excitement and spots to savour the moment so people will know you can be watched anywhere you go and against anyone you face. Much like you can give a promo that people will listen to and cheer when appropriate and boo when given the chance to (instead of "What?" in disrespect).

Guys on the current roster like Christian is recognised for being the best on ECW and whenever he's facing Jack Swagger, Yoshi Tatsu or Tommy Dreamer, you get a match that is going to be enjoyed because you know Christian can work with these guys, there's a reason he is the ECW Champion and why many want to see him as World Champion because he has that total package to be the best with his drawing ability, ring skill, mic work and chemistry. It's the reason why Triple H, Jericho, Edge, HBK, Undertaker, John Cena, Randy Orton, to name a few, are Main Eventing the PPVs every month, because they are the best at what they do on all fronts and they get recognised for it.

I'll go into more detail about certain superstars on the WWE and TNA Roster but to open up the debate, this is the example why being able to draw is not the main reason to be the best in the world of wrestling, it plays a role, but you need to have the other elements I named in order to be the best.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Good Luck Phoenix. I am going to combine my opening statement with my rebuttal. It will be very easy to follow along.

Drawing power has been used in countless debates as a way to explain a competitor's greatness. Truly, if one combines all of the talents necessary to be a professional wrestler, he will be a draw. From Lou Thesz to Hulk Hogan to Steve Austin, the conversation of who the best wrestler is has always had mentions of the biggest draw.

Let me make a couple of observations.

First of all, no where in the topic does is expressly state that my side has to defend that the biggest draw is the best. Secondly, it does not say that I must limit the discussion to the drawing power of a wrestler. These will become apparent as we move through the debate.

I first contend that if a wrestler combines all of the skills necessary to be a top professional wrestler, he will be a draw. There are two skills that are more important than any other.

1. In ring skill

A professional wrestler can build a following based on how her performs in the ring. RVD and Jeff Hardy could never be accused of giving the best promos, but they created exciting matches. In those matches, they put their bodies on the line, and the crowd responded with thunderous applause. People became fans of these men based on the visual product they offered. Chris Benoit was a technical machine. His following was based on his intensity, his skill set, and his realism.

All three of these men have one thing in common. Their matches were the best thing they had to offer. Their performances built them a following that few have ever been able to match. Why?

Fans appreciate those that work the hardest for them. Whether it be death defying stunts or a sense of realism that draws the fan in, the fan will always reward the performer who draws his interest into a match and makes him care about who wins or loses.

Of course, an amazing match is not the only way one can make a fan care about him.

2. Promo Skills

Creating and maintaining an interesting character is another trait that the best wrestler have. Professional wrestling is a television show, and like any other TV show, the character make or break the show.

People like Edge, Hogan, Cena, and Austin have always delivered great promos. These promos have built these men quite a following and allowed them to be considered the upper echelon of pros. No one will ever accuse Hogan of being the best in-ring performer, however, the man amassed an unmatched following, and is credited with all the past and future success of the business.

How Hogan did is no secret. His promos were geared towards the lowest common denominator. He spoke to kids, but he did so without patronizing adults. Everyone appreciates the concept of the battle between good and evil and the struglle between morals and temptation. Hogan hammered into kids that being good was how one succeeds, and his constant championships were proof of his message.

Stone Cold Steve Austin built his following based on his wars with Vince McMahon. People loved his battles against his boss and watched wishing that they could pull what he did. His promos and segments were every bit as, if not moreso, than his matches.

I secondly contend a wrestler who combines the package well enough, will become a draw.

Now, if there were a wrestler who was the best on the mic and in the ring, this would be case closed. However, there is a certain way that the two of them can combine to equal greatness. Jeff Hardy is just good enough on the mic to be the most over guy in the company and Stone Cold was good enough in the ring to be the most over guy of the 90's. Hogan's compelling characters covered up enough of his in-ring deficiencies to make him the biggest star ever. All three of these men spent time as champion, and as one of, if not the, top draws in the company. They did so because they had enough of each of the skills necessary to create a following. Now, are these men the best ever? That's debatable, but there is no doubting that they are draws and effective.

In conclusion, no one can be considered the best unless they are a draw. Drawing power is what separates the good from the elite. As I have stated, professional wrestling is not a sport. There are no stats to measure the great's performances against each other. All we have to go by is drawing power. I'm not claiming that the top draw is the best, but drawing power is what separates Hulk Hogan from Rick Rude. Both were good on the mic and good enough in the ring. The difference was that Hogan drew the crowds that booed Rick Rude.

And now onto Phoenix's opening statements...

In the World of Wrestling, Sports Entertainment and PG Eras, the main question about a man's rise to becoming the best takes multiple elements. The question of this debate asks whether the ability to draw (not with a pencil) is what it takes to be the best. While I have said no it does not, my reason is simply put, it's not what it takes to be the best, but plays a part as numerous reasons are needed to be the best. Lets break it down:

You have the right train of thought, but it stopped at the wrong depot. Sure, there are many factors that determine where a wrestler is on the ladder of success, but there is only factor that determines who the elite are, and that's their ability to draw. Drawing power isn't all that makes a wrestler good, but it's what takes them to the next level.

Drawing Ability
As this was asked first, I'll cover it first. Drawing Ability is about being bookable that people will sell-out arenas to watch you compete, it's like having Robert De Niro's name on top of a billboard for a new film to sell tickets as people will want to see him. This is the same for wrestling, people will pay for Mysterio in Mexico, people will pay for the British Bulldog in the UK, Bret in Canada. But it's not just locations, it's the audiences, the reason why we kept seeing Orton against Cena or Triple H often was because those names would sell pay per view buys. But then if you're a new superstar, how do you get drawing ability? It's not a skill you have, it's a status you earn when you reach the Main Event. So to automatically give an answer, the ability to draw is not what it takes to be the best, it's what the best end having from getting into the Main Event.

Then you are claiming that everyone in the main event has drawing power? That's not true at all. Drawing power is not something you get simply from being in the main event. DDP was never a good draw, and he spent plenty of time in the main event. DDP is not considered elite because no matter what he did in the ring or on the mic, the general public didn't spend money on him. The job of a professional wrestler is to get people to care and spend money. Not all main eventers do this, and the ones who do are the ones who garner "elite" status.

Technical Ability/Ring Skill
If there's anything that the best need to be measured by, it's their ring work.

This would be true is wrestling weren't scripted. The winners and losers are predetermined. Being good in the ring is important, very important, but it makes you good, and then your ability to draw takes you up a step. Drawing ability is what makes the good great.

Now it's a mix really of where it breaks down, is your ring work going to be technical based, entertaining, crowd pandering or a combination of all three? As there is no right answer because it's a case of being each to their own. Hogan got over from being entertaining and a crowd panderer, his ring work was based around his charisma to get the crowd electrified and excited when he hulked up or gave the big boot leading to his finishing leg drop. While it's not marks for technical ability, it got him over because the crowd wanted to see him do that much like people watch to see Cena give a five knuckle shuffle and an Attitude Adjustment each week.

The most important remark there is that people want to see the leg drop and five knuckle shuffle. People react to MVP's "Ballin" in much the same way, by chanting the way they chant "You can't see me." The difference is that people want to see the leg drop and five knuckle shuffle, they pay to see it. "Ballin" is just a side benefit.

Guys like Bret Hart and Kurt Angle drew crowds from their technical ability, being the best at what they do. While it doesn't give a full blown excitement factor like Hulking Up, People's Elbows, Lou Thez Presses or You Can't See Me, its going the old school route of being recognised for being skilled at trying to beat another man throw the array of moves they have to give and would rather see their opponents get beat from submitting their defeat than go for a cheese ball move and cover for the 1,2,3.

Does this make these guys better than Dean Milenko? Of course not. Dean didn't have enough charisma to get over and get a following, so while he was good, he is not elite. He's not a draw.

Charisma/Mic Work
Despite mentioning ring charisma, you need to have a great mix of it in the ring on the microphone to gain that Main Event Status and draw crowds in. Reason being is because without being a great guy on the mic, you can't sell your match to the crowd, you can't put yourself and your opponent as the match people want to watch. Here's some examples of how to promote your match and yourself with some use of words:



Now if these guys didn't give the promos they did week in and week out, people wouldn't watch them or buy tickets to view them. You need to be able to get everyone's attention because as a wrestler, you serve as an advertiser, much like you have to make your own success in the business, you have to put every factor over so people can see why you are the best.

This whole paragraph is about selling, which is another word for drawing. If I were going to summarize it, I would say that your main assertion is that everything a wrestler does is an attempt to draw, and those who are the best at it are the best wrestler. The videos that were here are of guys who are universally regarded as the elite, the best of all time, and Edge. Did they become draws because they were elite? No. They became draws, and that is what made them elite. The best wrestler cannot be a no-drawing midcarder, because a wrestler's job is to draw.

Last but not least

Chemistry

Quite the overlooked feature since you need to work with your colleagues and the crowd to be the best. If you have the best ring chemistry then it means your matches will flow without any potential botches and features skill, excitement and spots to savour the moment so people will know you can be watched anywhere you go and against anyone you face. Much like you can give a promo that people will listen to and cheer when appropriate and boo when given the chance to (instead of "What?" in disrespect).

Guys on the current roster like Christian is recognised for being the best on ECW and whenever he's facing Jack Swagger, Yoshi Tatsu or Tommy Dreamer, you get a match that is going to be enjoyed because you know Christian can work with these guys, there's a reason he is the ECW Champion and why many want to see him as World Champion because he has that total package to be the best with his drawing ability, ring skill, mic work and chemistry. It's the reason why Triple H, Jericho, Edge, HBK, Undertaker, John Cena, Randy Orton, to name a few, are Main Eventing the PPVs every month, because they are the best at what they do on all fronts and they get recognised for it.

I'll go into more detail about certain superstars on the WWE and TNA Roster but to open up the debate, this is the example why being able to draw is not the main reason to be the best in the world of wrestling, it plays a role, but you need to have the other elements I named in order to be the best.

So, what you're saying here is that a wrestler with bad chemistry can't be the best because no one wants to see him? The word draw was first used to mean ticket sales, and then TV ratings, then buy rates, then merchandise sales. The best in the business succeed at all four. People vote for the best with their dollars.

No one can decide who the best wrestler is through a vote, or through a committee. The only objective way to decide who the greats are is to ensure that they draw. This is in no way saying the best draw is the best wrestler. The claim I am making is that without drawing power, none of the elements you matter can make someone one the best. Drawing power is what makes good wrestlers in the all time greats.

 

[Phoenix]

Good Luck Phoenix.

Same to you too

First of all, no where in the topic does is expressly state that my side has to defend that the biggest draw is the best. Secondly, it does not say that I must limit the discussion to the drawing power of a wrestler. These will become apparent as we move through the debate.

I first contend that if a wrestler combines all of the skills necessary to be a top professional wrestler, he will be a draw. There are two skills that are more important than any other.

Naturally, it doesn't say you have to defend that the biggest draw is the best but it's trying to prove why 'drawing ability' is what it takes to be the best wrestler. But you're automatically agreeing that to be the best wrestler, he needs the skills necessary to become a draw, not to rely on the drawing ability solely. So we'll call in the tea and biscuits now then? Because I think you have lost track of the debate already by agreeing that what I have said is correct and this would make the debate null and void?

1. In ring skill

A professional wrestler can build a following based on how her performs in the ring. RVD and Jeff Hardy could never be accused of giving the best promos, but they created exciting matches. In those matches, they put their bodies on the line, and the crowd responded with thunderous applause. People became fans of these men based on the visual product they offered. Chris Benoit was a technical machine. His following was based on his intensity, his skill set, and his realism.

All three of these men have one thing in common. Their matches were the best thing they had to offer. Their performances built them a following that few have ever been able to match. Why?

Fans appreciate those that work the hardest for them. Whether it be death defying stunts or a sense of realism that draws the fan in, the fan will always reward the performer who draws his interest into a match and makes him care about who wins or loses.

Of course, an amazing match is not the only way one can make a fan care about him.

I'm pretty certain this is the exact same thing I just wrote prior to you but using Hogan, Bret and Angle amongst my list instead of Hardy, RVD and Benoit. This is again agreeing you need ring skills to be the best. Naturally out of those three, Benoit is most likely going to be credited for being one of the best wrestlers (outside of the tragedy) in history. While no doubt Hardy and RVD are outstanding, you have correctly pointed out that they will only have their charisma in the ring to carry them to the top of a company, but to be the best of the best? They lack mic skills and the ability to be popular without a gimmick match being near them.

Despite only finally getting into the Main Event this year, Jeff Hardy spent most of his matches with a gimmick attached, so is he a top star because he could put in exciting matches? Naturally his appeal will be him in a Ladder/TLC match which will gain interest no doubt, but without it, is Jeff Hardy a draw because he has the skill to carry a match or even Main Event Wrestlemania? Simply no because he hasn't got thorough ring skill or mic work to give him the ability to be a draw.

2. Promo Skills

Creating and maintaining an interesting character is another trait that the best wrestler have. Professional wrestling is a television show, and like any other TV show, the character make or break the show.

People like Edge, Hogan, Cena, and Austin have always delivered great promos. These promos have built these men quite a following and allowed them to be considered the upper echelon of pros. No one will ever accuse Hogan of being the best in-ring performer, however, the man amassed an unmatched following, and is credited with all the past and future success of the business.

How Hogan did is no secret. His promos were geared towards the lowest common denominator. He spoke to kids, but he did so without patronizing adults. Everyone appreciates the concept of the battle between good and evil and the struglle between morals and temptation. Hogan hammered into kids that being good was how one succeeds, and his constant championships were proof of his message.

Stone Cold Steve Austin built his following based on his wars with Vince McMahon. People loved his battles against his boss and watched wishing that they could pull what he did. His promos and segments were every bit as, if not moreso, than his matches.

I secondly contend a wrestler who combines the package well enough, will become a draw.

Once again, you're furthering my cause to say that you need skill in the ring and on the mic in order to be the best and to draw the crowds in as opposed to being the one who will draw the tickets in. Hulkamania, for example, was born out of a saying by Gorilla Monsoon, he gave Hogan his it factor that added to his promo work, had Monsoon not said the iconic phrase "Hulkamania is here!" Hogan would have not had his IT factor.

While it's no secret the company was built around him from 1983, had Monsoon not given Hogan his IT factor, he may have been an other guy who was over, from it he got his iconic moveset and ripping of the shirt, but what did immortalise Hulk Hogan? Slamming André the Giant at Wrestlemania III. Had that moment not occured, Hogan would have not been the draw he is and Wrestlemania would not be known as the Showcase of the Immortal had that event not occured. Those were two main elements that got him to be the draw, while he had the charisma in and out of the ring, he needed a moment to make himself a draw, it took all these multiple elements to turn him into a draw and look what happens from then on? Headlining another 6 more Wrestlemanias, getting signed to WCW, returning the to WWE and now getting signed to TNA, all this came from Hogan's Charisma, Monsoon's phrase and Wrestlemania III, without those three moments, Hulkamania would never exist and Hogan would just be another guy!

As for Austin, his war with Vince McMahon actually added to what existed. What made Austin become the best? Three moments that were a combination of his skill, charisma and badass attitude, first:

[YOUTUBE]/v/Cj-2G-9y0bI&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

Second:

Third:
[YOUTUBE]/v/LGM1o8CDLs8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/YOUTUBE]

His shoot promo on ECW got people interested in him, he got the backing and interest to come to the WWE. Until Wrestlemania 13, he was slowly picking up the pace, but that moment gave him the iconic moment that showed him to be the guy that people support, the heel of the match got made into a face, he had a "will not die" approach and it got him over, but it still missing one thing. Then it came, AUSTIN 3:16, after that moment, he was IT! Austin became the man that people wanted to see because he could give a match that would entertain, he would give promos people love to hear. What was the solution to add the fuel to the fire? Vince McMahon. Austin had reached his over status, the McMahon feud just solidified his place so he would remain there and it worked. But again his attitude, mic work, ring skill and charisma in the ring MADE him a draw, it made him a legend, it made him the man everyone wanted to see. Again, had it not been for these multiple factors, Austin would have not been the man we know and love today.

In conclusion, no one can be considered the best unless they are a draw. Drawing power is what separates the good from the elite. As I have stated, professional wrestling is not a sport. There are no stats to measure the great's performances against each other. All we have to go by is drawing power. I'm not claiming that the top draw is the best, but drawing power is what separates Hulk Hogan from Rick Rude. Both were good on the mic and good enough in the ring. The difference was that Hogan drew the crowds that booed Rick Rude.

Bit of a hard statement given Rick Rude played a heel, yet he drew the crowds in because he was playing the villain and people watched him because they wanted to see him get beat. Much like Jericho, Edge or Orton these days, because their skill and mic work get you to hate them. They draw people in because they want to hear what they plan to do next to John Cena, Triple H or the Undertaker. The combination skill of men who are faces and men who are heels make the draw, just because one man is in a match doesn't make them a draw, you need the combination work of both to make each other a draw from their skills, it's why Cena/Edge was the feud of 2006, it's why Cena/Orton is the feud of 2007-09.

Hogan is seperate from Rude because his status was solidified from his skills and iconic moments, Rude never had those yet people still remember him. It wasn't because Hogan was a draw that made him above Rude, it's what he did to make himself into a draw, he had to do the work to obtain his status and it didn't rely on drawing ability to get him there, it was what he did first and the rest follow. The Hogan we see today relies on drawing ability, which we loathe nowadays, the Hogan that slammed Andre at WM3 was the guy who relied on his skills and abilities to get him to become the draw.

You have the right train of thought, but it stopped at the wrong depot. Sure, there are many factors that determine where a wrestler is on the ladder of success, but there is only factor that determines who the elite are, and that's their ability to draw. Drawing power isn't all that makes a wrestler good, but it's what takes them to the next level.

Then you are claiming that everyone in the main event has drawing power? That's not true at all. Drawing power is not something you get simply from being in the main event. DDP was never a good draw, and he spent plenty of time in the main event. DDP is not considered elite because no matter what he did in the ring or on the mic, the general public didn't spend money on him. The job of a professional wrestler is to get people to care and spend money. Not all main eventers do this, and the ones who do are the ones who garner "elite" status.

That's not what I said at all. I already said that it takes multiple abilities to make the wrestler the best, drawing is what comes from being the best. If you are in the Main Event, you do have an ability to draw otherwise you'd be stuck on ECW, or even TNA these days. As I said, you have to earn the draw power from your skills, being in the Main Event is the first step, but it's keeping yourself there and solidifying your position that makes you a draw.

As for DDP, if he's not a good draw, then how come Main Evented WCW for 5 years between 96 and 01? Wasn't he the original branded "People's Champion"? Didn't he feud with Savage, Hogan, Perfect, Luger and Goldberg (to name a few)? He has been recognised as an underrated wrestler because of what his run in the WWE did to him, if he wasn't a big draw, Vince wouldn't have signed him, yes he pissed over what DDP had done because he was a WCW original, but DDP was a proven draw in WCW because he had the charisma and one of the best finishers that was hit out of nowhere. I'm sorry FTS but your logic on DDP is flawed!

This would be true is wrestling weren't scripted. The winners and losers are predetermined. Being good in the ring is important, very important, but it makes you good, and then your ability to draw takes you up a step. Drawing ability is what makes the good great.

What the hell? I know that wrestling is scripted, but where it is scripted and predetermined, you have to do the part that makes the match important beyond winning and losing. You need to be good in the ring to even be seen on TV let alone Main Event Wrestlemania. It's like how Savage/Steamboat is named the greatest match of all time, it's not because about who won or lost, it's because they made the match special by giving their all, it wasn't about the scripts it was about entertaining with the moves they had. In fact because of that match, it pushed Savage into the Main Event and teamed and feuded with Hogan, on top of microphone work, those made him a draw which is why he was booked with Hogan, his skills took him to the promised land.

This whole paragraph is about selling, which is another word for drawing. If I were going to summarize it, I would say that your main assertion is that everything a wrestler does is an attempt to draw, and those who are the best at it are the best wrestler. The videos that were here are of guys who are universally regarded as the elite, the best of all time, and Edge. Did they become draws because they were elite? No. They became draws, and that is what made them elite. The best wrestler cannot be a no-drawing midcarder, because a wrestler's job is to draw.

Again this is flawed because you can't be a draw if you have nothing to make you into a draw. You have to be the best with ring and on the mic to firstly be considered for the Main Event and then to be considered the best. Edge is a different case because despite being on the midcard between 2001 to 2005, he was drawing from his promos and ringwork. People saw what he did and wanted him in the Main Event, but he worked to soldify his place and the moment he got his IT factor of being the Rated R Superstar, he became an elite member of the roster to make him good enough to feud against John Cena for the title and he hasn't gone back since.

While you say and claim I'm trying to say selling is a draw factor and people are trying to draw, in a matter, they are the selling and drawing the ppv and shows that their company produces, but it's about what makes THEM a draw that makes them the best, key phrase, what makes them, not they are a draw, what makes them a draw. They have to have the skills to be made a draw and as demonstrated earlier, these members here are the elite because they have the mix of skill in and out of the ring and got themselves over through certain ways of presenting themselves, which lead to them being a draw.

The claim I am making is that without drawing power, none of the elements you matter can make someone one the best. Drawing power is what makes good wrestlers in the all time greats.

But you need the elements to make you a draw, that's the point here. You need to be great in the ring, you need to work the promos to be the best. Drawing comes from being the best, not the other way around, if you didn't have the skills, you wouldn't have a job to start with. Simple as, with charisma and his iconic moments in the ring, Hogan wouldn't be a draw, the same as Austin, The Rock, Savage. Without their ring abilities and technical knowledge, Bret, Angle, Benoit, Jericho, Michaels wouldn't be the draws they are. In the end, you need the skills to be the best, becoming a draw is a sign of recognition of being the best as recognised by the audience.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Naturally, it doesn't say you have to defend that the biggest draw is the best but it's trying to prove why 'drawing ability' is what it takes to be the best wrestler. But you're automatically agreeing that to be the best wrestler, he needs the skills necessary to become a draw, not to rely on the drawing ability solely. So we'll call in the tea and biscuits now then? Because I think you have lost track of the debate already by agreeing that what I have said is correct and this would make the debate null and void?

Well no. You've actually completely missed the point. My claim is that drawing ability is what makes someone who is already good, one of the best. Obviously someone with no charisma who puts on shit matches is not the best wrestler in the world. You're attempting to negate that. I agree with your claim that you need those things to be considered good. My argument is that once you've reached the point where the fans consider you good, all that can make you one of the best is to draw.

I'm pretty certain this is the exact same thing I just wrote prior to you but using Hogan, Bret and Angle amongst my list instead of Hardy, RVD and Benoit. This is again agreeing you need ring skills to be the best. Naturally out of those three, Benoit is most likely going to be credited for being one of the best wrestlers (outside of the tragedy) in history. While no doubt Hardy and RVD are outstanding, you have correctly pointed out that they will only have their charisma in the ring to carry them to the top of a company, but to be the best of the best? They lack mic skills and the ability to be popular without a gimmick match being near them.

You're trying to narrow this debate down to skills. I am expanding upon that. We are not looking for the most skilled wrestler. You don't have to be a draw to be skilled. But, to move past being skilled, you have to draw. For one, a wrestler's job is to sell tickets. If you don't do your job, you're not one of the best. Secondly, if you don't draw, you don't get the exposure necessary to make an impact, as all the best do.

Despite only finally getting into the Main Event this year, Jeff Hardy spent most of his matches with a gimmick attached, so is he a top star because he could put in exciting matches? Naturally his appeal will be him in a Ladder/TLC match which will gain interest no doubt, but without it, is Jeff Hardy a draw because he has the skill to carry a match or even Main Event Wrestlemania? Simply no because he hasn't got thorough ring skill or mic work to give him the ability to be a draw.

Really? You're going to consider Jeff as not one of the best becuase he was in gimmick matches? Jeff consistently puts on good matches, and is over with the crowd. People buy his stuff, so he is doing his job. Of course he's not the best, but he's on of the best of his era. He made people care about him. So, while Dean Milenko is a more skilled wrestler, Jeff Hardy is one of the best, because Dean couldn't get over on his own.

Once again, you're furthering my cause

Once again, you've completely misunderstood the topic. We're not trying to determine who the most skilled grappler is. Wrestling is scripted. There is not way to determine who the best grappler is. They can't compete in the ring. Professional wrestlers are entertainers whose job it is to put buts in the seats. Yes, you have to be skilled, both in the ring and on the mic, but, only the best draw reach that elite status.

to say that you need skill in the ring and on the mic in order to be the best and to draw the crowds in as opposed to being the one who will draw the tickets in. Hulkamania, for example, was born out of a saying by Gorilla Monsoon, he gave Hogan his it factor that added to his promo work, had Monsoon not said the iconic phrase "Hulkamania is here!" Hogan would have not had his IT factor.

Right, because it was that once sentence that the live crowd couldn't hear that made that roof come off of that building. Hogan is considered one of the best because his performances made people care about him. He is performer, not an athlete.

While it's no secret the company was built around him from 1983, had Monsoon not given Hogan his IT factor, he may have been an other guy who was over, from it he got his iconic moveset and ripping of the shirt, but what did immortalise Hulk Hogan? Slamming André the Giant at Wrestlemania III. Had that moment not occured, Hogan would have not been the draw he is and Wrestlemania would not be known as the Showcase of the Immortal had that event not occured.

Let me tell you why this argument doesn't work. You're saying that Wrestlemania, and the business as a whole, would not be where it was with Hogan.....the top DRAW?

Phoenix, how does this prove that workrate and promo time are more important to distinguishing between good wrestlers and the elite? I have never denied that one needs to be a skilled grappler and a skilled talker to be good, however, when moving into the discussion of the best of all time, a deficiency is drawing power signals a deficiency in performance. If you are great in the ring, and great on the mic, and don't draw, you're not doing a good job of getting people to care about you, which makes you ineligible to be considered one of the best. Drawing power is the distinguishing factor in whether or not one is elite or one is on the card.

Those were two main elements that got him to be the draw, while he had the charisma in and out of the ring, he needed a moment to make himself a draw, it took all these multiple elements to turn him into a draw and look what happens from then on?

So, you're saying his status was elevated when he started drawing? That's what I'm saying, case closed. About that tea and those biscuits.....

Headlining another 6 more Wrestlemanias, getting signed to WCW, returning the to WWE and now getting signed to TNA, all this came from Hogan's Charisma, Monsoon's phrase and Wrestlemania III, without those three moments, Hulkamania would never exist and Hogan would just be another guy!

So, without his drawing power, he would be just another guy? That's exactly my point. But, because of his drawing power, he is considered one of the best.

As for Austin, his war with Vince McMahon actually added to what existed. What made Austin become the best? Three moments that were a combination of his skill, charisma and badass attitude, first:

So, this is the moment that made Austin a draw? It's odd that this is alsp the moment when Austin jumped form midcard status to main event status. It is when he became considered one of the best professional wrestlers.

His shoot promo on ECW got people interested in him, he got the backing and interest to come to the WWE.

These are just ways of saying he became more of a draw, and when he did that, hsi status increased. As he became more of a draw, he moved closer to the Pantheon of greats.

Until Wrestlemania 13, he was slowly picking up the pace, but that moment gave him the iconic moment that showed him to be the guy that people support, the heel of the match got made into a face, he had a "will not die" approach and it got him over, but it still missing one thing. Then it came, AUSTIN 3:16, after that moment, he was IT! Austin became the man that people wanted to see because he could give a match that would entertain, he would give promos people love to hear. What was the solution to add the fuel to the fire? Vince McMahon. Austin had reached his over status, the McMahon feud just solidified his place so he would remain there and it worked. But again his attitude, mic work, ring skill and charisma in the ring MADE him a draw, it made him a legend, it made him the man everyone wanted to see. Again, had it not been for these multiple factors, Austin would have not been the man we know and love today.

You keep making my point for me. All of the factors we've mentioned contribute to his status, but being a draw means that people tune in to see you. The reason Austin is held in such high esteem is that people tuned off of WCW on and on WWE to see what Austin was doing to McMahon. Austin became a legend when he drew the viewers away from WCW.

Bit of a hard statement given Rick Rude played a heel, yet he drew the crowds in because he was playing the villain and people watched him because they wanted to see him get beat. Much like Jericho, Edge or Orton these days, because their skill and mic work get you to hate them. They draw people in because they want to hear what they plan to do next to John Cena, Triple H or the Undertaker. The combination skill of men who are faces and men who are heels make the draw, just because one man is in a match doesn't make them a draw

BS. The Undertaker is a draw. Buy rates are higher when the Undertaker is in the main event. Christian may be a better worker and a better talker than Cena, but Cena's status has made him the reason people buy PPVs. More people care about Cena, which makes him better to sell a PPV. His ability to draw a crowd is why he is considered great, even if Christian has more skill.

you need the combination work of both to make each other a draw from their skills, it's why Cena/Edge was the feud of 2006, it's why Cena/Orton is the feud of 2007-09.

You need that combination to be considered good. But, to ascend past being a nice match to see on the card, but the main event, the headliner, he is the guy who gets remembered. He is the guy who becomes a legend. He is the guy that is considered one of the best professional wrestlers.

Hogan is seperate from Rude because his status was solidified from his skills and iconic moments, Rude never had those yet people still remember him. It wasn't because Hogan was a draw that made him above Rude, it's what he did to make himself into a draw, he had to do the work to obtain his status and it didn't rely on drawing ability to get him there, it was what he did first and the rest follow.

I don't see a difference. Rude was better in the ring and better on the mic, but Hogan played his character better, made people care about him. I have fond memories of Rick Rude, but Hogan is a legend, and it was his ability to make people care enough about him to get them to put WWF on their television.

The Hogan we see today relies on drawing ability, which we loathe nowadays, the Hogan that slammed Andre at WM3 was the guy who relied on his skills and abilities to get him to become the draw.

But people watched Wrestlemania to see Hogan slam Andre. That drew them to the show. If he just did it, and no one cared, by your own admission, he would be just another guy. He's a legend because people cared enough to shell out the money to see it done.

That's not what I said at all. I already said that it takes multiple abilities to make the wrestler the best, drawing is what comes from being the best. If you are in the Main Event, you do have an ability to draw otherwise you'd be stuck on ECW, or even TNA these days. As I said, you have to earn the draw power from your skills, being in the Main Event is the first step, but it's keeping yourself there and solidifying your position that makes you a draw.

Granted, to get the opportunity to draw, you have to be skilled. I never denied this. I agree with this. But, there is another step. Those that do draw are considered the greats. Ric Flair could sell 100,000 tickets in Communist North Korea, Hogan could sell 100,000 tickets to watch him take a shit in 1987. These are the legends. Their status comes from their ability to draw a crowd. Real sports are different. We can quantify ability in baseball. That's not the case in wrestling. We always hear that Mr. Perfect is one of the best.......workers in the history of wrestling. We always hear that Hogan is one of the best professional wrestlers of all time. The difference? Hogan made people care enough to tune in to see him. He drew the audience that Mr. perfect performed in front of.

As for DDP, if he's not a good draw, then how come Main Evented WCW for 5 years between 96 and 01? Wasn't he the original branded "People's Champion"? Didn't he feud with Savage, Hogan, Perfect, Luger and Goldberg (to name a few)? He has been recognised as an underrated wrestler because of what his run in the WWE did to him, if he wasn't a big draw, Vince wouldn't have signed him, yes he pissed over what DDP had done because he was a WCW original, but DDP was a proven draw in WCW because he had the charisma and one of the best finishers that was hit out of nowhere. I'm sorry FTS but your logic on DDP is flawed!

OK, DDP was awesome! According to you great, even. How did you just justify his greatness? By telling me he drew an audience. He was recognizable, so people bought his main events. End of story. Even you use drawing power to tell me how great someone is. It's almost like I did that on purpose.

What the hell? I know that wrestling is scripted, but where it is scripted and predetermined, you have to do the part that makes the match important beyond winning and losing. You need to be good in the ring to even be seen on TV let alone Main Event Wrestlemania. It's like how Savage/Steamboat is named the greatest match of all time, it's not because about who won or lost, it's because they made the match special by giving their all, it wasn't about the scripts it was about entertaining with the moves they had. In fact because of that match, it pushed Savage into the Main Event and teamed and feuded with Hogan, on top of microphone work, those made him a draw which is why he was booked with Hogan, his skills took him to the promised land.

So, these guys were two great workers. I agree. This match showcased their skills to a point where both could be considered main eventers. Now that Savage was a draw, his status moved up. Savage proved he was skilled enough to draw, so he went from the midcard to the main event. He became legendary in that match at Wrestlemania V. He put on a better match at Wrestlemania III, right? Well, he became a legend when he showed an ability to draw. His status improved every week during the Mega Powers angle because people tuned in to see him. Once again, we are not trying to determine the most skilled wrestler. We are trying to determine who is considered one of the best. Savage will get mentioned more times than Steamboat because Savage went on to main event Wrestlemania, and Steamboat didn't. Who the more skilled wrestler doesn't matter. Savage was skilled enough in the ring and on the mic to draw people, and he delivered those people. More people cared more about the character he played than the character Steamboat played. In a performing art, the better artist is the one who gives the performance that moves more people.

Again this is flawed because you can't be a draw if you have nothing to make you into a draw. You have to be the best with ring and on the mic to firstly be considered for the Main Event and then to be considered the best. Edge is a different case because despite being on the midcard between 2001 to 2005, he was drawing from his promos and ringwork. People saw what he did and wanted him in the Main Event, but he worked to soldify his place and the moment he got his IT factor of being the Rated R Superstar, he became an elite member of the roster to make him good enough to feud against John Cena for the title and he hasn't gone back since.

See above. The IT factor you keep mentioning that puts people over the top is drawing power. IT is the ability to draw.

While you say and claim I'm trying to say selling is a draw factor and people are trying to draw, in a matter, they are the selling and drawing the ppv and shows that their company produces, but it's about what makes THEM a draw that makes them the best, key phrase, what makes them, not they are a draw, what makes them a draw. They have to have the skills to be made a draw and as demonstrated earlier, these members here are the elite because they have the mix of skill in and out of the ring and got themselves over through certain ways of presenting themselves, which lead to them being a draw.

What makes them a draw doesn't matter nearly as much as jsut being a draw. A wrestler's job is to draw viewers, merchandise sales, and PPV buys. The one who is better at their job is considered legendary.

But you need the elements to make you a draw, that's the point here. You need to be great in the ring, you need to work the promos to be the best. Drawing comes from being the best, not the other way around, if you didn't have the skills, you wouldn't have a job to start with. Simple as, with charisma and his iconic moments in the ring, Hogan wouldn't be a draw, the same as Austin, The Rock, Savage. Without their ring abilities and technical knowledge, Bret, Angle, Benoit, Jericho, Michaels wouldn't be the draws they are. In the end, you need the skills to be the best, becoming a draw is a sign of recognition of being the best as recognised by the audience.

I never deny that you need skills to be a draw. My argument is that you could have all the skills in the world, but if you don't have the skill to make people care enough about your character to change the channel and watch, you can never reach the elite status.

 

[Phoenix]

Well no. You've actually completely missed the point. My claim is that drawing ability is what makes someone who is already good, one of the best. Obviously someone with no charisma who puts on shit matches is not the best wrestler in the world. You're attempting to negate that. I agree with your claim that you need those things to be considered good. My argument is that once you've reached the point where the fans consider you good, all that can make you one of the best is to draw.

This is actually incorrect, you don't draw to make you the best, you draw to prove why you're the best. To draw means to be watchable, you need to show why you draw to prove you are a draw. Being a draw doesn't make you the best, it means you get a following yes, but a following does not define is someone is the best, it shows he has support, but it's about the skills of the one that make the many watch. Hogan isn't just big because he has drawing power and the fan support, it's because he had the skills to keep it maintaining, the promo work, the matches, the red and yellow, these are what drew the fans to Hogan but he had the skills to bring them in and prove to them and companies and critics why he was the best at what he did. Being a draw is saying you have a name credibility and the means to advertise, but and advertisement without a product makes them a redundant advertisement to begin with. Drawing means "watch me, I'm good" but you need to prove why you're good to be considered a draw, but ultimately show why you are the best.

Al Pacino is considered one of the greatest actors of all time and he shows that in films like Scarface and The Godfather Trilogy, but his name doesn't always draw me to his films, but I recognise his talents. To be considered the best of the best, you need to be recognised for your skills outside of the drawing power, it's like people who have never watched WWE will know who Hulk Hogan is because people will be able to know he's a wrestler and created many moments that people talk about. Essentially, being a draw gives you a good preview effect, but it's what you show and get reviewed after that brings the rest in, people knocked off Star Wars when they first heard of it in 1977 and it became an iconic film because it's what the film showed that people got talking about. I know this is about wrestling, but these film examples are showing how drawing power simply means "this guy is worth a watch" but it doesn't value that man as the best, it's the skills as to why he is the best that make him recognised.

Really? You're going to consider Jeff as not one of the best becuase he was in gimmick matches? Jeff consistently puts on good matches, and is over with the crowd. People buy his stuff, so he is doing his job. Of course he's not the best, but he's on of the best of his era. He made people care about him. So, while Dean Milenko is a more skilled wrestler, Jeff Hardy is one of the best, because Dean couldn't get over on his own.

Once again, you've completely misunderstood the topic. We're not trying to determine who the most skilled grappler is. Wrestling is scripted. There is not way to determine who the best grappler is. They can't compete in the ring. Professional wrestlers are entertainers whose job it is to put buts in the seats. Yes, you have to be skilled, both in the ring and on the mic, but, only the best draw reach that elite status.

Dean Malenko may have not had drawing power, but he's been considered one of the best because he was recognised as a great ring technician. If I recall summarising my first debate with you, I think I used the phrase:

While fame takes the notice of people like Trish, Hogan, Austin, etc. It's because they are the first thought of due to them being pushed forward to us on a constant and even remain in the spotlight today because in some cases they don't want to leave. But when we think deeper on wrestling, we remember the true gems of wrestling, Randy Savage, Mick Foley and even Lita.

This is exactly what I meant by defining what the best are, it was how Lita's legacy was better than Trish's because the skills and ringwork Lita gave allowed Trish to shine and while it's no secret Trish is a great, Lita was a person who is still considered one of the best, still remains talked about and is thought of as a great asset to women's wrestling. To be considered the best, you have to someone that gets talked about even when they're gone from the spotlight of their success like Austin, Savage, Warrior, Bret, The Rock, etc.

Let me tell you why this argument doesn't work. You're saying that Wrestlemania, and the business as a whole, would not be where it was with Hogan.....the top DRAW?

Phoenix, how does this prove that workrate and promo time are more important to distinguishing between good wrestlers and the elite? I have never denied that one needs to be a skilled grappler and a skilled talker to be good, however, when moving into the discussion of the best of all time, a deficiency is drawing power signals a deficiency in performance. If you are great in the ring, and great on the mic, and don't draw, you're not doing a good job of getting people to care about you, which makes you ineligible to be considered one of the best. Drawing power is the distinguishing factor in whether or not one is elite or one is on the card.

Actually, it's far from the truth. You just need to look at this forum to see that, to be the best you need to be someone that's proven to the crowd, you don't have to be the one who does or doesn't bring the crowd in to be considered the best, you're acknowledged as being a person to watch. This forum constantly talks about the best about what they have done, not what they are going to do, you cannot define the best by what the poster reads, it gives you optimism, but it doesn't say this is the best, what you see afterwards defines about being the best.

When talking about the greatest matches, wrestlers, moments or pay per views, we have to talk about what has been, not what will be. We can no doubt say that The Rock vs. Shawn Michaels will be draw, much like Sting vs. Undertaker, but it's not until the moment where they get in the ring, draw it out, trash talk, hit the 1,2,3 or submit is where the greatness gets defined. This year, the draw factor of HBK vs. Undertaker got people watching Wrestlemania, but it's after we saw the match that we called it a MOTY candidate, you can't define the best by watch draws you in because it's about what panders to the crowd, we wrote off Cena vs. Orton from past matches but they gave us new solid views to give a new perspective about them when they compete, this is how the best is defined, not through drawing power but what they do to make them draw and to be considered the best, the skills and ability they have to create catchphrases we repeat, moves we get excited to see or the twists that shock us to get us talking which is what we get on Raw, ECW and Smackdown each and every week.

About that tea and those biscuits.....

Milk, two sugars please and if you have Oreos then we're good!

So, without his drawing power, he would be just another guy? That's exactly my point. But, because of his drawing power, he is considered one of the best.

So, this is the moment that made Austin a draw? It's odd that this is alsp the moment when Austin jumped form midcard status to main event status. It is when he became considered one of the best professional wrestlers.

You keep making my point for me. All of the factors we've mentioned contribute to his status, but being a draw means that people tune in to see you. The reason Austin is held in such high esteem is that people tuned off of WCW on and on WWE to see what Austin was doing to McMahon. Austin became a legend when he drew the viewers away from WCW.

See my point above. But as said, this was because of the skills he showed and abilities that made him the best, the past tense is correct here because you need to have a past to be considered a present great. You can't be considered the best without proving it through your skills, Austin drew because he had proven he was the best and ready to lead the company and headline Wrestlemania, he was considered the best which made him into a draw.

If you actually recall, WCW still dominated the WWE during Austin's run, the 84 week of beating the WWE actually stopped because of Mick Foley winning the title. He was considered to be good enough to be called the best by Vince McMahon and won the title and the result of it was that he became a draw. Mick Foley was thought high enough to have the title enough to draw the fans in, while part of it plays some fault on WCW with the "butts in seats" comment, his title win drew fans in, meaning he was the best because fans came to see him. While Austin was already at his best when the fans watched him beat McMahon, it didn't aid too much, yes it got people watching because what he did got people to watch, he had to do something to create a draw, which is why being a draw is not the way to be the best because you need something to create a preview and advertise, without having something to bring in the fans, there is no drawing ability, you cannot advertise a motion picture when there's no picture to see to begin with.

I don't see a difference. Rude was better in the ring and better on the mic, but Hogan played his character better, made people care about him. I have fond memories of Rick Rude, but Hogan is a legend.

Which is where you have proven that Rick Rude is enough to be considered the best, you have fond memories and was better in the ring on the mic than Hogan. You consider Hogan a legend when he didn't draw you right now to watch him, it's what he did as you have proven in this statement as to why Hogan is a legend and Rude is one of the best, it's not how they got people watching, it's about what got people talking!

But people watched Wrestlemania to see Hogan slam Andre. That drew them to the show. If he just did it, and no one cared, by your own admission, he would be just another guy. He's a legend because people cared enough to shell out the money to see it done.

Actually people didn't watch Wrestlemania to see Hogan slam André, that was the shock that got people talking about, no-one expected Hogan to beat André and come out on top. It was the fact he did slam André and did win his match that got people watching, that was why it was considered a great moment in Wrestlemania, not because people watched it in expectation of it happening, they considered a great moment, or even the greatest moment of WM because it happened. You can't be the best by expectation, championships (anywhere in sport) can't be won by expectation and consider to be the best, you have to prove why you are, this is what Hogan at WM3 proved and it drew people in because people loved the excitement and talk that WM3 had left after the moment it ended.

So, these guys were two great workers. I agree. This match showcased their skills to a point where both could be considered main eventers. Now that Savage was a draw, his status moved up. Savage proved he was skilled enough to draw, so he went from the midcard to the main event. He became legendary in that match at Wrestlemania V. He put on a better match at Wrestlemania III, right? Well, he became a legend when he showed an ability to draw. His status improved every week during the Mega Powers angle because people tuned in to see him. Once again, we are not trying to determine the most skilled wrestler. We are trying to determine who is considered one of the best. Savage will get mentioned more times than Steamboat because Savage went on to main event Wrestlemania, and Steamboat didn't. Who the more skilled wrestler doesn't matter. Savage was skilled enough in the ring and on the mic to draw people, and he delivered those people. More people cared more about the character he played than the character Steamboat played. In a performing art, the better artist is the one who gives the performance that moves more people.

Thus agreeing that you need something in order to be a draw, Savage did not become a legend because he could draw, he became a legend because he proved week in and week out he was a great on the mic and a great in the ring, he was already a legend before Wrestlemania V came around, it was the draw factor that said "these two are the best and you can watch them at WMV", again saying you have to be the best in order to draw people in.

As for Steamboat, wasn't it because of his performance at Wrestlemania 25 that got people chanting "You still got it" and that led to him being booked in another match at Backlash? Again that was a match that everyone expected to flop and Steamboat with Jericho saved it. Drawing is played on cause and consequence, the cause being the skills on the mic or in the ring of the wrestler showing why he is the best leads to the consequence of him getting the viewers in, drawing will always be a consequence of the cause being the skills the wrestler presents.

See above. The IT factor you keep mentioning that puts people over the top is drawing power. IT is the ability to draw.

I never deny that you need skills to be a draw. My argument is that you could have all the skills in the world, but if you don't have the skill to make people care enough about your character to change the channel and watch, you can never reach the elite status.

The IT factor is NOT the ability to draw, the ability to draw is a result of the IT factor. As I said before, the result of being a draw is a consequence of events and a combination of skill. The same is about being the best but it takes a step before drawing. You need the skills and ability to be considered the best and the drawing ability comes as a result of being the best. However to be the best of the best, the drawing factor become obsolete because history is not measured by what you are drawn to from the past, it's about what the past makes you consider in comparison to the present. Drawing is about anticipation of the future events yet to happen, you go to see and watch, but to talk about what makes the best is about talking about what has been aka the past. That is how drawing ability does not play the role in what being the best is, because it is simply about anticipation, not what you did to create that anticipation aka the skills and abilities you showed already.

 

[FromTheSouth]

This is actually incorrect, you don't draw to make you the best, you draw to prove why you're the best. To draw means to be watchable,

Incorrect. Being able to draw has more to do with being watchable. It has to do with being compelling. People have to want to see you, not tolerate your time on the television. If people liked Rey Mysterio for his talent, then he would draw universally, but he tends to draw Hispanics, so he is marketed to them. He speaks Spanish on a show that is on a network that pulls high Hispanic demographics. Talent is the universal language, Spanish is not. He draws who he appeals to. He is more compelling to one market.

you need to show why you draw to prove you are a draw.

I believe you will have shown that by the time they put you in a drawing position on the card.

Being a draw doesn't make you the best, it means you get a following yes, but a following does not define is someone is the best, it shows he has support, but it's about the skills of the one that make the many watch.

Right. But, not drawing automatically makes you not one of the best, because as a wrestler, your job is to be interesting, and if you're not, you are seriously deficient in one aspect of your job, meaning that you cannot be considered on of the best. Simply put, drawing power is what separates the very good from the great.

Hogan isn't just big because he has drawing power and the fan support,

Never said he was. You're trying to pigeonhole me into saying that the biggest draw is the best wrestler. I never made that claim. I define the best as a group that is a cut above, and they are in that group because they sufficiently performed the duties of their job. I never even said that all draws are included in the best. Just because one draws, that doesn't mean he is the best. My claim is that a very good wrestler who does not draw is deficient in an aspect of his job as a performer, therefore cannot be one of the best.

it's because he had the skills to keep it maintaining, the promo work, the matches, the red and yellow, these are what drew the fans to Hogan but he had the skills to bring them in and prove to them and companies and critics why he was the best at what he did.

Right again. He had the necessary skills and built a following, so he is considered one of the best. Tito Santana, who was far superior in the ring and gave good promos did not make people care about him, so he is not considered one of the best. He is considered very good. The difference? Drawing power.

Being a draw is saying you have a name credibility and the means to advertise, but and advertisement without a product makes them a redundant advertisement to begin with. Drawing means "watch me, I'm good" but you need to prove why you're good to be considered a draw, but ultimately show why you are the best.

In sports, yes. In wrestling, it's not the same. I can't quantify ability in wrestling. There is no other way to show you are the best than to make people care enough about you to watch you.

Al Pacino is considered one of the greatest actors of all time and he shows that in films like Scarface and The Godfather Trilogy, but his name doesn't always draw me to his films, but I recognise his talents.

The name Al Pacino draws people to a film.

To be considered the best of the best, you need to be recognised for your skills outside of the drawing power, it's like people who have never watched WWE will know who Hulk Hogan is because people will be able to know he's a wrestler and created many moments that people talk about.

One more time. I never said the top draw was the best. The best is a group of people who are a cut above. To be in the group, you need to be able to draw. Please tell me one time how you have countered this assumption. You never give an argument why this is wrong. Your arguments are an essay on how to draw, but you don't go to the next step. OK, fine, you have to be talented to draw. No doubt about that. But, if you're talented and don't draw then you are deficient in a major aspect of your job.

Essentially, being a draw gives you a good preview effect, but it's what you show and get reviewed after that brings the rest in, people knocked off Star Wars when they first heard of it in 1977 and it became an iconic film because it's what the film showed that people got talking about.

So, people went because it was good. Wrestlers draw because they are good. Now, in how high of esteem are they held if no one ever sees them? If Star Wars tells a great story, has cool special effects, and is well acted, but doesn't appeal to people, it's not considered a great film. This movie could be good, but if no one wants to see it, how good of a movie could it be?

I know this is about wrestling, but these film examples are showing how drawing power simply means "this guy is worth a watch" but it doesn't value that man as the best, it's the skills as to why he is the best that make him recognised.

And, you have never once denied that making people care about you is a skill. It's a wrestler's job to make the audience care about him enough. If people are changing the channel, the guy isn't that good, now is he?

Dean Malenko may have not had drawing power, but he's been considered one of the best because he was recognised as a great ring technician.

He's considered one of the best workers, but is not an iconic prowrestling figure. We're looking for the best wrestler, which is an all inclusive term. This debate is not about the best workers, of the best talkers, it's about the best of the best. The one thing they all have in common is drawing power. It is what separates them from their peers.

If I recall summarising my first debate with you, I think I used the phrase:

While fame takes the notice of people like Trish, Hogan, Austin, etc. It's because they are the first thought of due to them being pushed forward to us on a constant and even remain in the spotlight today because in some cases they don't want to leave. But when we think deeper on wrestling, we remember the true gems of wrestling, Randy Savage, Mick Foley and even Lita.

That's great. Now, did Foley and Savage not draw? Shit, Foley's title win was the catalyst in getting WWF back past WCW. Savage was in three world title matches at Wrestlemania in his career, the same number as the Undertaker. They are both draws. This is why Abyss is not Foley. Abyss is a better worker, a little crazier, and gives great promos. He even creates a compelling character. He does everything a wrestler needs to do. Foley is a legend because people paid to see him. People enjoy seeing Abyss, people pay to see Foley. Foley is the legend, Abyss is an attraction.

This is exactly what I meant by defining what the best are, it was how Lita's legacy was better than Trish's because the skills and ringwork Lita gave allowed Trish to shine and while it's no secret Trish is a great, Lita was a person who is still considered one of the best, still remains talked about and is thought of as a great asset to women's wrestling. To be considered the best, you have to someone that gets talked about even when they're gone from the spotlight of their success like Austin, Savage, Warrior, Bret, The Rock, etc.

How nice of you to bring up a debate you won when you knew you couldn't win this one. Lita could still draw though. People cared. People bought her merchandise. Trish was a bigger draw, but it's not like Lita wasn't worth checking out. Now, if Lita were just as good, but no one cared about her, she would be lacking a skill that a wrestler needs, and therefore, could not be considered the best.

Actually, it's far from the truth. You just need to look at this forum to see that, to be the best you need to be someone that's proven to the crowd, you don't have to be the one who does or doesn't bring the crowd in to be considered the best, you're acknowledged as being a person to watch. This forum constantly talks about the best about what they have done, not what they are going to do, you cannot define the best by what the poster reads, it gives you optimism, but it doesn't say this is the best, what you see afterwards defines about being the best.

This forum idolizes Bryan Danielson and his rest holds, so let's not use them as an example. But, if you made brilliant post after brilliant post, but people saw your name and went past it, you couldn't be considered the best.

You're trying to narrow this argument into a question of if you're the best because people watch you or if people watch you because you're the best.

That's not what this debate is. My argument is that if people don't want to watch you, then that shows a serious deficiency in your character, and anyone that lacking of a skill essential to their success in the business then, at best, you can be considered very good, but you do not have the complete package of skills that the best do.

When talking about the greatest matches, wrestlers, moments or pay per views, we have to talk about what has been, not what will be. We can no doubt say that The Rock vs. Shawn Michaels will be draw, much like Sting vs. Undertaker, but it's not until the moment where they get in the ring, draw it out, trash talk, hit the 1,2,3 or submit is where the greatness gets defined.

This is not a good argument. All four of those men have already been defined as great. And, we're not talking about great matches, which are one off events, we're talking about a body of work.

This year, the draw factor of HBK vs. Undertaker got people watching Wrestlemania, but it's after we saw the match that we called it a MOTY candidate, you can't define the best by watch draws you in because it's about what panders to the crowd, we wrote off Cena vs. Orton from past matches but they gave us new solid views to give a new perspective about them when they compete, this is how the best is defined, not through drawing power but what they do to make them draw and to be considered the best, the skills and ability they have to create catchphrases we repeat, moves we get excited to see or the twists that shock us to get us talking which is what we get on Raw, ECW and Smackdown each and every week.

This is not a good argument. All four of those men have already been defined as great. And, we're not talking about great matches, which are one off events, we're talking about a body of work.

Milk, two sugars please and if you have Oreos then we're good!

I do have Oreo cookies. You can't have any until you concede.

See my point above. But as said, this was because of the skills he showed and abilities that made him the best, the past tense is correct here because you need to have a past to be considered a present great. You can't be considered the best without proving it through your skills, Austin drew because he had proven he was the best and ready to lead the company and headline Wrestlemania, he was considered the best which made him into a draw.

Skills he showed made him good. His ability to draw is what makes him an icon.

If you actually recall, WCW still dominated the WWE during Austin's run, the 84 week of beating the WWE actually stopped because of Mick Foley winning the title.

So, Mick's career highlight is that he was a bigger draw than WCW.

He was considered to be good enough to be called the best by Vince McMahon and won the title

The title doesn't go to the best. It goes to someone who can draw. But let's say we're both right. The title goes to the best person in the company. The champion goes to a draw. Therefore the best person in the company is a big draw, and not just someone who puts on good matches.

and the result of it was that he became a draw. Mick Foley was thought high enough to have the title enough to draw the fans in, while part of it plays some fault on WCW with the "butts in seats" comment, his title win drew fans in, meaning he was the best because fans came to see him. While Austin was already at his best when the fans watched him beat McMahon, it didn't aid too much, yes it got people watching because what he did got people to watch, he had to do something to create a draw, which is why being a draw is not the way to be the best because you need something to create a preview and advertise, without having something to bring in the fans, there is no drawing ability, you cannot advertise a motion picture when there's no picture to see to begin with.

Tell me when they start advertising the product as featuring Jamie Noble. The best guys are draws. No matter how skilled you are, if you don't draw you are lacking in ability.

Which is where you have proven that Rick Rude is enough to be considered the best, you have fond memories and was better in the ring on the mic than Hogan. You consider Hogan a legend when he didn't draw you right now to watch him, it's what he did as you have proven in this statement as to why Hogan is a legend and Rude is one of the best, it's not how they got people watching, it's about what got people talking!

It's not about what I consider to be the best. I think the community as a whole would define Hogan as better than Rude in a broad all encompassing sense.

I think you're next argument is that one of the best is a higher level of success than legendary. That's not right.

Actually people didn't watch Wrestlemania to see Hogan slam André, that was the shock that got people talking about, no-one expected Hogan to beat André and come out on top. It was the fact he did slam André and did win his match that got people watching, that was why it was considered a great moment in Wrestlemania, not because people watched it in expectation of it happening, they considered a great moment, or even the greatest moment of WM because it happened. You can't be the best by expectation, championships (anywhere in sport) can't be won by expectation and consider to be the best, you have to prove why you are, this is what Hogan at WM3 proved and it drew people in because people loved the excitement and talk that WM3 had left after the moment it ended.

Champions in wrestling are always awarded by expectation. True, you have to do something to merit those expectations, but the title is not given to the most skilled. Think about it this way. If the title, as you imply, is always given to the best, what happens when he fails to draw? The title is taken away, making someone else the best. The ex-Champ is still good, but now, the best is someone who is expected to draw.

Thus agreeing that you need something in order to be a draw,

Never said you didn't. In fact, I think I've said ten times that you need to be good to draw. Are you even reading my posts?

Savage did not become a legend because he could draw,

Yeah he did. He was put in the position to draw becauce

he proved week in and week out he was a great on the mic and a great in the ring,

and once he did draw, he gained that legendary status.

he was already a legend before Wrestlemania V came around, it was the draw factor that said "these two are the best and you can watch them at WMV", again saying you have to be the best in order to draw people in.

You have to be good to be put in a position to draw. You have to draw to be a legend.

As for Steamboat, wasn't it because of his performance at Wrestlemania 25 that got people chanting "You still got it" and that led to him being booked in another match at Backlash?

Irrelevant. He's still good. Awesome. The only reason he got that opportunity is because he spent years filling southern arenas to battle with Flair. He delivered when given the opportunity to draw. You can give the same match at the beginning of the card as the main event. The difference is that when you deliver as a draw you become a legend, to deliver at the bottom of the card, you get remembered for a moment in time.

Again that was a match that everyone expected to flop and Steamboat with Jericho saved it. Drawing is played on cause and consequence, the cause being the skills on the mic or in the ring of the wrestler showing why he is the best leads to the consequence of him getting the viewers in, drawing will always be a consequence of the cause being the skills the wrestler presents.

You refuse to finish the argument though. I never said that it didn't take skill to draw. As a matter of fact, I have said time and again that one must be adequate in the ring and on the mic to be considered good. The difference between the good workers and the legends of the business is that the legend make people care about them, and the people who care buy tickets and T-shirts.

The IT factor is NOT the ability to draw, the ability to draw is a result of the IT factor.

Here's your argument here. "I don't know what the IT factor is, but it's not what you said it was." Then what is it?

As I said before, the result of being a draw is a consequence of events and a combination of skill. The same is about being the best but it takes a step before drawing.

Wrong. The best are the performers who take their skills and make people care enough to watch them. This is what makes you a legend.

You need the skills and ability to be considered the best and the drawing ability comes as a result of being the best. However to be the best of the best, the drawing factor become obsolete because history is not measured by what you are drawn to from the past, it's about what the past makes you consider in comparison to the present. Drawing is about anticipation of the future events yet to happen, you go to see and watch, but to talk about what makes the best is about talking about what has been aka the past. That is how drawing ability does not play the role in what being the best is, because it is simply about anticipation, not what you did to create that anticipation aka the skills and abilities you showed already.

So, if you've drawn in the past, you're one of the best. Glad we agree.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I am going to be at work when this round ends tomorrow, so I will present my closing statement now.

I would like to commend Phoenix on a valiant effort, but this post is to tell you why I won the round.

The question in this round was whether or not drawing power is what it takes to be the best in professional wrestling.

1. I made it very clear in this round that I defined "the best" as the elite group. Phoenix never denied this point. To do so now would be rather unethical being that it hasn't been debated up until now, and I will not have a chance to respond. Thankfully, I am sure Phoenix is above that.

2. I made two observations at the beginning of the round.

First of all, no where in the topic does is expressly state that my side has to defend that the biggest draw is the best.

This is important because Phoenix tried to narrow the debate down to a point where I had to defend Hogan and Austin as the only two wrestlers in the universe. He wanted me to have say that they were the best strictly because they were the biggest draws. He continued to state that it is their skill that made them the best, and that is why they drew. I had a different take on this. My take was that no matter how much skill one has, if he cannot create a compelling character, then he is seriously deficient in a major aspect of his job. Phoenix limited skills to in ring ability and mic skills. He said that just because someone draws, that does not mean they are the best wrestler. I granted that it takes promo and grappling skill to be considered good, but that the best wrestlers are the ones who combines those skills well enough to be compelling. If one is compelling, people will change the channel, order the PPV, or buy the T-Shirt. This the separating factor between the good and the great. This is another point that Phoenix has not denied.

I give Dean Milenko as an example. He was an incredibly skilled grappler, however, he did not create a compelling enough character to build a giant following. Wrestling is a performance, not a sport, and because Dean Milenko's performance was not enough to draw, he was deficient in his job as a professional wrestler, and being that this deficiency was in a major aspect of the job, he cannot be considered one of the best. Hogan was not as good in the ring, but...he made people care, he drew people, millions of them, and he is iconic.

Phoenix gave an example from out first debate showing that Lita left a bigger legacy than Trish because she was more skilled in the ring. That's fine if he thinks Lita's legacy backstage will be longer lasting, but Trish's impact in ticket sales is what makes her the poster child of women's wrestling to the fans, and why they consider her the best ever, and consider Lita as an outstanding performer, but not one of equal status to Trish. The difference is nothing but Trish's attraction as a draw. It is what separates the two.

Secondly, it does not say that I must limit the discussion to the drawing power of a wrestler. These will become apparent as we move through the debate.

This point is important in that I established the group theory. I established that there is a pantheon of wrestlers who were able to create a following, and that these are the legends, the greats, and the ones who were skilled, and did not create a following, will forever be known as good guys who could fill spots on the card. Tito Santana, Kane, Regal - these men were very talented, and could perform in most positions on the card effectively and credibly, but they never got to the point where they were essential viewing. History will shine on them favorably, but will not put them on the Mt. Rushmore of wrestling.

To continue, I will highlight a few points of contention through out the round.

Again that was a match that everyone expected to flop and Steamboat with Jericho saved it. Drawing is played on cause and consequence, the cause being the skills on the mic or in the ring of the wrestler showing why he is the best leads to the consequence of him getting the viewers in, drawing will always be a consequence of the cause being the skills the wrestler presents.

I think this summarizes Phoenix's main point. He wants to make this a chicken and egg debate. He says the best are draws, I say the draws are the best. It's really the same argument with different wording. Phoenix says it himself, drawing and greatness go hand in hand. Whether one is great because he draws, or draws because he is great, Phoenix never denies drawing power and greatness are associated, and that skilled wrestlers who do not draw are not considered great. Who cares if one draws because he is the best or is the best because he draws? It is clear that the best draw and those who do not draw are, simply, not the best.

In conclusion, this debate can be narrowed down to two main points. The argument that drawing power is what separates the talented and skilled from the iconic and legendary has never been argued. Throughout this entire debate, Phoenix tries to prove that the best wrestlers are the ones who draw. That's fine. That could even be true. But there have been plenty of skilled technicians who haven't drawn a stick figure, and they will never be considered legends. Secondly, Phoenix never denies that the lack of ability to draw is a glaring deficiency in the ability of a wrestler, and when evaluating that wrestler's skillset as a whole, this glaring weakness prevents their entry in the legend's club.

Thank you for reading this debate. I enjoyed it Phoenix, and TM, the topic was awesome.

 

[Phoenix]

I want to apologise for the late post, reason being was I flat out exhausted after work, I know I was posting on the forum, but I just had no energy to debate until now. As prior, I'll only cover the points that are actually relevant to the debate and not break every single sentence down like FTS has.

Incorrect. Being able to draw has more to do with being watchable. It has to do with being compelling. People have to want to see you, not tolerate your time on the television. If people liked Rey Mysterio for his talent, then he would draw universally, but he tends to draw Hispanics, so he is marketed to them. He speaks Spanish on a show that is on a network that pulls high Hispanic demographics. Talent is the universal language, Spanish is not. He draws who he appeals to. He is more compelling to one market.

Drawing power does vary on whether your location is based which is why Hispanics will watch Mysterio, because he related to that crowd, much like Regal/Bulldog are to the Brits, Bret Hart to Canada or Cena to the USA, the draw there is being the hometown boy, where people support him because he represents your area and represents your nationality. If this is the FIFA World Cup you are going to support your nation and their representatives, it makes area about birthright and representation rather than drawing power. Like on ECW this week, Regal is the top heel of the brand but he got a huge pop because he was on his home turf, it's not about appealing to them it's about who you represent, there is a difference.

Right. But, not drawing automatically makes you not one of the best, because as a wrestler, your job is to be interesting, and if you're not, you are seriously deficient in one aspect of your job, meaning that you cannot be considered on of the best. Simply put, drawing power is what separates the very good from the great.

I've said it multiple times, but drawing power is not the essential part of being the best, to draw means you are a current interest yes, but it doesn't mean you're the best, I mean Eugene was a popular wrestler to the crowd and drew people in, but was he the best? Far from it. The same can be said for Batista, he's a crowd drawing member of the Smackdown roster, but many consider him to be overrated and fortunate to have had Triple H's backing to even have a World Title shot, if this guy is a draw on the Smackdown Main Event, then why is he not considered the best? The main support are his marks and the nostalgia of his Wrestlemania win keep him there, many feel he's past his prime now and botches up on so many matches. So clearly being a draw doesn't make you the best as he's on week in and week out and is heavily criticised on this forum among other places.

Never said he was. You're trying to pigeonhole me into saying that the biggest draw is the best wrestler. I never made that claim. I define the best as a group that is a cut above, and they are in that group because they sufficiently performed the duties of their job. I never even said that all draws are included in the best. Just because one draws, that doesn't mean he is the best. My claim is that a very good wrestler who does not draw is deficient in an aspect of his job as a performer, therefore cannot be one of the best.

Ok, firstly, I have not made any attempts to pigeonhole you into anything, I'm stating the facts and how it is that the biggest draw doesn't mean jack into being the best wrestler. It has been you who's been putting yourself into that corner and you have stated this, even in your closing statement that being the best draw means the best. I will have further things to say when your closing comments are rather twisting what I have said in order to make an argument because you know I have been right throughout this debate.

As stated above in this post and the post I did prior, drawing power does not determine who is the best, it determine who is watchable at the current time, the ability to buy a ticket and feel that guy is going be to the reason to watch the show, like Becca is with HBK, it's not worth it for her if he's not on the show or Doc going to watch the Hurricane, yeah it means these guys are draws but it doesn't mean they are the best much like the best isn't always the biggest draw. In comparison you have Evan Bourne, one of the best high flyers in the current wrestling world today, he has an excellent moveset and I would no doubt consider him to be one of the best highflyers at the end of the day but he's not got drawing power because he hasn't been booked for his skill in WWE, the stuff we see is barely even half of his moveset. In comparison, you have Eugene, he got rubs off The Rock, Triple H, Bischoff, etc, the crowd loved him but everyone wondered why the hell he was in the ring to begin with. The same goes for Hornswoggle, Raw's top draw for the kids, he gets the pops week in and week out, but can you seriously tell me he's going to be considered the best? If so you need to get out of this debate right now and hang your head in shame!

In sports, yes. In wrestling, it's not the same. I can't quantify ability in wrestling. There is no other way to show you are the best than to make people care enough about you to watch you.

How is it not the same? Wrestling is a sport and WWE is Sports Entertainment, while the matches have been predetermined, you have to make the match happen and make it watchable, just because you're booked to win doesn't mean it's enough to make people watch you, even if you lose you have to be watchable enough to be seen as taken to the limit to the point where the loss doesn't even matter but the fact they just saw a great bout happen.

One more time. I never said the top draw was the best. The best is a group of people who are a cut above. To be in the group, you need to be able to draw. Please tell me one time how you have countered this assumption. You never give an argument why this is wrong. Your arguments are an essay on how to draw, but you don't go to the next step. OK, fine, you have to be talented to draw. No doubt about that. But, if you're talented and don't draw then you are deficient in a major aspect of your job.

You have simply failed to realise that throughout this debate, and I even said this at the start, that having drawing power does not constitute as being the top draw, but is one of the elements combined with the skills and ability the wrestler shows that is needed. The debate topic states is drawing power (alone) is what is needed to be the best? I said no it’s not, it's one of the elements you need but you have to have the skills which outshine the drawing ability in the long wrong to be considered the best. You also should realise from my last debate with you that I don't go all out to saying you're wrong, I read what you say and take into consideration to create why my point is right.

So, people went because it was good. Wrestlers draw because they are good. Now, in how high of esteem are they held if no one ever sees them? If Star Wars tells a great story, has cool special effects, and is well acted, but doesn't appeal to people, it's not considered a great film. This movie could be good, but if no one wants to see it, how good of a movie could it be?

Word of mouth, someone has to see it first to let someone else know it's great. That's the cause and effect method of drawing taking effect because people have seen it to know it's good to get others to watch it. When you see a film you base your goings on the trailer, word of mouth and the reviews. You never go based on one or the other, you need all three to consider going to see it, it's then after you see it and it proves why it is great that you consider it to be a great film, much like how a wrestler proves he is the best, you see it to believe it, not what the previews say.

And, you have never once denied that making people care about you is a skill. It's a wrestler's job to make the audience care about him enough. If people are changing the channel, the guy isn't that good, now is he?

He's considered one of the best workers, but is not an iconic prowrestling figure. We're looking for the best wrestler, which is an all inclusive term. This debate is not about the best workers, of the best talkers, it's about the best of the best. The one thing they all have in common is drawing power. It is what separates them from their peers.

That's great. Now, did Foley and Savage not draw? Shit, Foley's title win was the catalyst in getting WWF back past WCW. Savage was in three world title matches at Wrestlemania in his career, the same number as the Undertaker. They are both draws. This is why Abyss is not Foley. Abyss is a better worker, a little crazier, and gives great promos. He even creates a compelling character. He does everything a wrestler needs to do. Foley is a legend because people paid to see him. People enjoy seeing Abyss, people pay to see Foley. Foley is the legend, Abyss is an attraction.

And this is where you pigeonholed yourself, again this is about being the best in wrestling, not the iconic, the best. While we have discussed about the best of the best, we're discussing what it takes to be considered the best in general, not the elite. This is where you have limited yourself in your debate because you think we're purely discussing who the current elite are when it's about who (sorry Bret) the best there is, the best there and the best that ever will. If I was to ask someone directly who is the best ring technician, they would say Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Dean Malenko. If I said the best ring general they would say Triple H, Austin, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho. If I asked the best at entertaining, they would say Hogan, Austin, The Rock, HBK, Undertaker. If I asked who is the best of all time, they will state who they feel. All of these are simple examples of how the best is broken down into categories but who is the best of the best is what people personally feel is the best. From watching them week in and week out, they have truly decided who they feel the best is in their opinion, they were drawn to them, but it's because they saw their skills inside and outside the ring to even consider them the best.

You're trying to narrow this argument into a question of if you're the best because people watch you or if people watch you because you're the best.

That's not what this debate is. My argument is that if people don't want to watch you, then that shows a serious deficiency in your character, and anyone that lacking of a skill essential to their success in the business then, at best, you can be considered very good, but you do not have the complete package of skills that the best do.

Adding a few extras words doesn't change your argument there because as I've bolded, you've just said your argument is exactly the same thing, but just a few extra words to make it sound beyond the simple terms you have laid out here, sorry!

This is not a good argument. All four of those men have already been defined as great. And, we're not talking about great matches, which are one off events, we're talking about a body of work.

Which is what all four men proved they have done from their series of wrestling from eight to near twenty years of experience, but it's the fact they have been proven workers that they do have drawing ability, but it's because they've spent all of those years of using the mic and wrestling some of the best matches we see, it's how those one off events give a nostalgia feel to those matches. Again, proven from their skills shown that they are great enough to be considered the best.

I do have Oreo cookies. You can't have any until you concede.

Got them in the shop on offer, so I'm good thanks.

The title doesn't go to the best. It goes to someone who can draw. But let's say we're both right. The title goes to the best person in the company. The champion goes to a draw. Therefore the best person in the company is a big draw, and not just someone who puts on good matches.

Tell me when they start advertising the product as featuring Jamie Noble. The best guys are draws. No matter how skilled you are, if you don't draw you are lacking in ability.

Champions in wrestling are always awarded by expectation. True, you have to do something to merit those expectations, but the title is not given to the most skilled. Think about it this way. If the title, as you imply, is always given to the best, what happens when he fails to draw? The title is taken away, making someone else the best. The ex-Champ is still good, but now, the best is someone who is expected to draw.

In regards to the title, the championship belt is a draw itself, so if you put Jamie Noble as WWE Champion, for example, people will no doubt get excited because he's considered by Vince McMahon to be great enough because his skills in the ring and on the mic are great enough to lead the company and get people to watch him. Having the belt makes you a draw because you're seen as great enough to hold it, going by your argument does this mean David Arquette is a big draw? I'll let you ponder on that one.

There have been champions in the past who have failed to draw, when Hogan won his 6th title off of Triple H, they lost ratings, so they gave the belt to the Undertaker who was taken as a more legitimate champion, he was the hot thing at the time because he heel run and the methods he showed through it got him to the top again. Same goes for Orton in his first title reign, clearly they thought he was a draw enough and look what happened there, he spent another 3 years perfecting his ring work and style so he could be considered a proper main event competitor, so going by drawing power alone to tie you to the belt doesn't always mean you are the top draw because it does fail at times.

Never said you didn't. In fact, I think I've said ten times that you need to be good to draw. Are you even reading my posts?

I am, but I don't think you have been reading mine

You have to be good to be put in a position to draw. You have to draw to be a legend.

Far from the truth, but not repeating myself again for it.

Irrelevant. He's still good. Awesome. The only reason he got that opportunity is because he spent years filling southern arenas to battle with Flair. He delivered when given the opportunity to draw. You can give the same match at the beginning of the card as the main event. The difference is that when you deliver as a draw you become a legend, to deliver at the bottom of the card, you get remembered for a moment in time.

You refuse to finish the argument though. I never said that it didn't take skill to draw. As a matter of fact, I have said time and again that one must be adequate in the ring and on the mic to be considered good. The difference between the good workers and the legends of the business is that the legend make people care about them, and the people who care buy tickets and T-shirts.

No it doesn't. You need a combination of all three elements with the right balance to get there, Mysterio was selling t-shirts and masks from the moment he first arrived, no doubt an instant draw. But his main skill came from his ring work and again I'd consider him as one of the best highflyers of all time, but I would never consider him the best of the best. Yes he can draw a crowd, but he was doing so for many years and how did he become champion? Oh yeah, because his best friend died. I don't mean to sound cold about Eddie's passing but Mysterio only benefitted and became champion because of it. He didn't get it because he was a draw, it was even considered awful booking because it exploited Eddie's death. So if Mysterio was such a big draw for so long, how come he never won the title out of it? Or even has won another World Title since?

Here's your argument here. "I don't know what the IT factor is, but it's not what you said it was." Then what is it?

It's a spark, the moment you transform and evolve out of a mode and completely break it which gets people talking and watching. The IT factor varies per person, but it is the spark where their skills have reached perfection.

So, if you've drawn in the past, you're one of the best. Glad we agree.

I never said that, I said if you've drawn in the past you're more likely to get spoken of by people, but when you think about it and get in a proper discussion about what made those guys special, the elements that made them a draw, you can call the best. It's the skills that make the man stand out, the drawing power makes you popular at a moment, but to be considered the best you have to remember why they were the best.

 

[Phoenix]

In Summary

Firstly a big thanks to TM for a great debate topic and to FTS for being a great competitor.

The topic of this debate as pointed out in my opponent's closing statement was whether or not drawing power is what it takes to be the best in professional wrestling. The key word is the best here, not a legend or the best of the best, just simply the best. While my opponent tries to use his closing words to state what I did and did not do or attempt to do, I will not be using that here, I will be summarising what I have said as to why drawing power alone does not constitute to being the best in wrestling.

I have said at the beginning:

While I have said no it does not, my reason is simply put, it's not what it takes to be the best, but plays a part as numerous reasons are needed to be the best

And that has been what I have gone out to prove, to be considered the best you need to great in the ring, great on the mic and have some drawing power. But the latter is the least important element because it only matters when the wrestler is currently active, not when he has retired and is doing B-Movies and running for government. We talk about who is the best on the mic and who is the best in the ring based on different elements of technical ability, skill, charisma or broken down even further through a certain ring style like speed or power. But as many posts have come and gone on this forum about who is the best, we get many of the same answers, to get the best of the best, we'll never have the true answer because much like drawing power, it's based on the opinion of if someone wants to watch that person.

But how does a wrestler become watchable? Simple, you have to see him at work to make you want to see him again. The best are the ones who draw people in having proven themselves on many occasions whether it's from their ring work or what they have said on the mic, it grabbed people's attention and draws them to watch you. Proving yourself week in and week out puts you on top and the crowd may or may not support your cause, but in the end, it's the company that feel you should be at the top from rewarding your hard work that is the pay off. While the crowd support does play a role in your success at the current time, it does not factor on whether you are the best in the end, Hornswoggle and Eugene are crowd draws, but they'll never considered to be the best, Dean Malenko and Perry Saturn had great ring skill but never drew crowds in, yet the latter two will be remembered in the long run because they have proven why people will back to watch them after the event while the former two are just entertainment for the moment.

In the end, while there are Elite Legends, the discussion is about being the best in general, not the ultimate best but those we will remember in the end because they have something to deliver. It's not about getting onto the Mount Rushmore of wrestling, it's about getting to the top of the general mountain of wrestling and unless you have the skills and ability to take you to the top, you won't be remembered in time or you won't draw at the moment you're in action. You need to have a product to get people to watch you and more importantly, remember you, the product is yourself, the wrestler, without the skills in and out the ring to take you there, you cannot even be put on the list for consideration, while drawing power can play a role, it's not the reliable resource for finding the best in the world of wrestling which is why we cannot solely rely on drawing ability to be considered the best is wrestling, but rather take it as an element that is combined with the skills the wrestler has to make him the best.

 

[Mr. TM]

Clarity: Phoenix as always kept his clean. FTS does put a lot of effort into his posts, but if they were strung together more, they would be more effective.

Emotionality: FTS and Phoenix throughout weeks 1-9 have been working hard on upping their emotion levels. Keeping it in check, yet showing what they have. It is like the birthing process, 9 weeks (months) of this, just to be born here. It really is a beautiful process. Did I choose 9 weeks for this very reason, with the labour (All star week and shit)? Some people say that a birth is a beautiful thing. If I remembered my myspace password, I would show you all my baby pictures

But this was two fucking blue ass stillborns. there was no hair pulling in this. There was no cracks about FTS's mother, or Phoenix's dog. Sure, sure, maybe you were holding it back because of those awful flaming rules. But there was no bar room thread to go along with this, was there? Didnt think so. So you both lose 13 points, and are both eliminated from contention.

Just kidding, but sometimes I like to amuse myself. Anyways, FTS gets this point, because although Phoenix kept it cool, he showed no rising in his argument, and it hurt going towards the end.

Punctuality: FTS wins

Information: Phoenix wins. You know, had more infor and such. pretty tired from my story.

Persuasion: I have to give the points to FTS here for many reasons. Outside of the debate, I figure FTS needs less time to work on his league, so lets hope he has to worry about this. Just kidding bucko! (Check out the CLDL in the Cigar Lounge).

Phoenix was better at building a structure of a debate, he did that with a calm manner while giving us the information it takes to win this debate. But fts(ftw) took those beams, and made it a home, an office, a stripclub, or an internet forum... or something.

FTS 3-2 Phoenix.

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Phoenix kept his neat and clean. FTS was also well written, just a lot of clutter.

Point: Phoenix

Punctuality: Phoenix was late in response to one of FTS' posts, so and FTS hopped on for his conclusion.

Point: fromthesouth

Informative: Phoenix used a lot of good information and videos. I felt some videos from FTS, and using them to his own advantage would have helped him more.

Point: Phoenix

Emotionality: I didn't feel any heat towards each other. No yelling or name calling. Also didn't even feel a cocky confidence out of either of you guys. Just seemed like a nice mutual debate.

Point: Split

Persuasion: This one could have gone one way or another. Very difficult to choose. If you are the best, you will draw? Will you draw, which makes you the best? I think I have to go with Phoenix on this one. If you can put all of the elements together, ring and mic skills, charisma, you will become the biggest draw.

Point: Phoenix

CH David scores this Phoenix 3.5, fromthesouth 1.5.

 

[Blade]

Clarity: Phoenix made his arguments really well. Usually I side with FTS for this, but I'm gonna give the point to Phoenix.

Emotion: Honestly, I didn't see much of this from either guy. There was some back and forth banter, but nothing more. Neither guy gets the point here.

Informative: Phoenix brought out more to try and back up his argument, the videos and referencing past wrestlers and so on. FTS did too, but Phoenix did it better. Phoenix gets the point.

Punctuality: Phoenix was late, I believe, with a post or two. FTS gets the point.

Persuasion: FTS was spot on with his argument, I gotta give him the point.

FTS 2 Phoenix 2

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

tdigle's Score

fromthesouth - 2.5
Phoenix - 2.5

Extended comments will be up tomorrow.

 

[BooCocky]

My Score...

Phoenix: 2
FTS: 2.

I will post why tomorrow...