Round 1: Little Jerry Lawler -vs- Coco

[D-Man]

Which is the better high risk match type, Ultimate X or Ladder?

This is a first round match in the Debater's League. LJL is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate he will be on and who debates first, but he has 24 hours to make his choice.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

Good luck.​

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm going to debate that Ultimate X is the better high risk type and Coco can go first.

 

[Coco]

You’ll have to afford me a brief moment to gloat, LJL. I just can’t accept that backing Ultimate X over the ladder match is anything other than a suicide mission. I’d gladly accept the suicide mission if I’d been charged with it, but it wouldn’t have been my first choice. More power to you, sir. [/classy]

Now, onto business.

I can see at least three core reasons the ladder match is superior to the Ultimate X. To keep this nice and tidy in the early going, I’ll be kind enough to break this down point by point for you.

Reason Number One: Safety​

Fight this one all you want, but there’s a healthy pile of psychological experiments which strongly suggest that people are able to complete tasks they’re highly practiced in with more efficiency than ones they’re not. Now, why am I talking about psychology? Well, as you may or may not be aware, there’s a strong body of work that points to a connection between motor function and the brain. Try not to act too shocked here. We’re just getting started.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. What am I babbling about and what does this have to do with a difference in safety between Ultimate X and the ladder match? Well, let’s have a look at the differences in the tasks required of each type of bout.

The ladder match requires a one to climb a ladder. At its core, this is nothing more than a standard household chore that one would get practiced in when charged with tasks such as painting, cleaning the eavestroughs, and other tasks that require someone far taller than the average bear. If you’d like to break it down to an even more basic level, climbing a ladder is little more than climbing a steep set of stairs while also employing the occasional use of your hands.

Ultimate X, on the other hand, charges its participants with the highly irregular task (for most people) of swinging or pulling one’s self across a high wire. Compared with what the ladder match at its core asks of those who take part in it, I’m probably safe in assuming that the Ultimate X asks people to take part in more out of the ordinary physical activity than the ladder match. That would mean that the tasks a ladder match asks of its participants can be completed with more efficiency than the Ultimate X. Ergo, it serves to reason that the Ultimate X match opens the average participant up to more physical risk than the ladder match. Not only is this true of the essential task one needs to complete to be successful in the bout, but of the bumps one takes. One would be far safer bumping from a height off of a structure they’re essentially familiar with in the ladder than attempting to create a novel bump off a high wire, which most people do not find often in their day to day lives.

Am I saying the Ultimate X has produced more injuries than the ladder match? Of course not. In fact, I’m more than willing to accept that the reality is probably the opposite. However, the ladder match has been around far longer than the Ultimate X. The victims that the ladder match has piled up over time is simply a product of its longer and richer history. That’s not to suggest that the Ultimate X match, by nature, doesn’t present a greater threat to those involved. It does, as established above.

Now, I’m sure some out there think I’m helping LJL out by laying down this wicked argument for why the Ultimate X presents more risk to those involved. However, what we all have to remember is that pro-wrestling is a work (“Duh, I know&#8221. One thing that’s paramount to that is presenting the most convincing danger possible while putting one’s self in the most miniscule amount of danger that the situation allows. While this becomes an extremely difficult task in when one is selling a “high risk” attraction like the ladder match or the Ultimate X, I feel my logic is sound in asserting that the ladder match is the safer bout between the two. Thus, it is superior. If you’re making your workers take more risk, you open yourself up to the loss of bankable talents due to injury. If you’re looking at pro-wrestling as the business it is, than we can all agree this is not cool.

Reason Number Two: Ability to Use Big Names Efficiently​

Before I get into this section, I’d just like to point out that I’m a fan of the little men of pro-wrestling. I love the compact, athletic types. However, when looking at pro-wrestling as a business, we all know that (despite the changing of the guard in recent times) a certain caliber of physical specimen has normally provided the greatest return on investment in the United States.

That’s right; I’m talking about your larger men. Not necessarily big men. But larger. Especially your larger men with more run-of-the-mill, conservative wrestling styles. Triple H stands as one of the top draws in WWE history right now. Hulk Hogan is legendary. The Undertaker’s prowess as an overseas draw and special attraction is legendary. Bruno Sammartino and Andre the Giant both define the full framed bankable attractions of yesteryear. And I don’t think I need to tell you who the top attraction in the business today is. But I will: John Cena. After all of this has been established, I don’t think I need to press this issue any further with examples like Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior, The Rock, and Goldberg. Simply put, larger men with more conservative styles than your average cruiserweight make up the bulk of your bankable top talent in America.

That said, the mega draws of America are rarely equated with the type of little man associated with your ideal Ultimate X match. In fact, let’s look past the “ideal” Ultimate X: Larger men with more conservative wrestling styles really have no place in the bout PERIOD. The heavier Samoa Joe floundered in his Ultimate X outing. Hernandez excelled only because he is an exception to the standard archetype of a 6’2”, 285lb wrestler, incorporating awe inspiring dives into his repertoire the likes of which would make Triple H shit in his pants. Ultimate X, at its core, is associated with the type of smaller wrestlers with a video game character move sets that have, for the most part, only been associated with fringe appeal in the United States. To incorporate larger, more traditional wrestlers in the match would only invite the use of a ladder to make the situation work, and that’s a point in the ladder match’s column. It speaks to the variety of men who can successfully work a ladder match. When you look back over the last year and see that larger and conservative wrestlers have worked highly successful ladder matches (from Big Show, to Triple H, to Drew McIntyre, to Jack Swagger, to Kane, and so forth), it becomes apparent that the ladder match allows more bankable stars to participate, which in turn makes it a more bankable attraction.

Reason Number Three: Quality of Performance​

While I’ve recently encountered some scruples deep within my soul regarding dictating what is quality wrestling and what isn’t, I can say without a shadow of doubt that the ladder match produces better performances than Ultimate X. It all goes back to the point I tackled in the section on safety: People carry out tasks which are more familiar to them with a greater degree of efficiency. This extends to the quality of spots one can perform in the ladder match. In many an Ultimate X match, I’ve seen men bump on their feet far more often than their back. There’s a fear involved in working on high wires that simply inhibits one’s ability to perform some of those picture perfect, highlight reel worthy spots we’ve all comes to associate with the ladder match.

And why not associate such beautiful spots and great moments with the ladder match? Just look at what the ladder match offers participants. Solid, familiar structures that participants have plenty of direct and indirect experience to draw on which leads to a more efficient performance. Structures that can be manipulated and used as weapons or bumped on. A deep bank of classic, high quality ladder matches from the past to draw inspiration from. With resources like that and big names to lend to the wholesale appeal of particular ladder matches (bringing with them that intangible “big fight feel&#8221, how can one deny the past quality of this match format or the potential for future quality?

Simply put, the ladder match has it all and is far superior as a “high risk” attraction than Ultimate X.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

You’ll have to afford me a brief moment to gloat, LJL. I just can’t accept that backing Ultimate X over the ladder match is anything other than a suicide mission. I’d gladly accept the suicide mission if I’d been charged with it, but it wouldn’t have been my first choice. More power to you, sir. [/classy]

Now, onto business.

I can see at least three core reasons the ladder match is superior to the Ultimate X. To keep this nice and tidy in the early going, I’ll be kind enough to break this down point by point for you.

By all means do.

Reason Number One: Safety​

Fight this one all you want, but there’s a healthy pile of psychological experiments which strongly suggest that people are able to complete tasks they’re highly practiced in with more efficiency than ones they’re not. Now, why am I talking about psychology? Well, as you may or may not be aware, there’s a strong body of work that points to a connection between motor function and the brain. Try not to act too shocked here. We’re just getting started.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. What am I babbling about and what does this have to do with a difference in safety between Ultimate X and the ladder match? Well, let’s have a look at the differences in the tasks required of each type of bout.

The ladder match requires a one to climb a ladder. At its core, this is nothing more than a standard household chore that one would get practiced in when charged with tasks such as painting, cleaning the eavestroughs, and other tasks that require someone far taller than the average bear. If you’d like to break it down to an even more basic level, climbing a ladder is little more than climbing a steep set of stairs while also employing the occasional use of your hands.

Ultimate X, on the other hand, charges its participants with the highly irregular task (for most people) of swinging or pulling one’s self across a high wire. Compared with what the ladder match at its core asks of those who take part in it, I’m probably safe in assuming that the Ultimate X asks people to take part in more out of the ordinary physical activity than the ladder match. That would mean that the tasks a ladder match asks of its participants can be completed with more efficiency than the Ultimate X. Ergo, it serves to reason that the Ultimate X match opens the average participant up to more physical risk than the ladder match. Not only is this true of the essential task one needs to complete to be successful in the bout, but of the bumps one takes. One would be far safer bumping from a height off of a structure they’re essentially familiar with in the ladder than attempting to create a novel bump off a high wire, which most people do not find often in their day to day lives.

Am I saying the Ultimate X has produced more injuries than the ladder match? Of course not. In fact, I’m more than willing to accept that the reality is probably the opposite. However, the ladder match has been around far longer than the Ultimate X. The victims that the ladder match has piled up over time is simply a product of its longer and richer history. That’s not to suggest that the Ultimate X match, by nature, doesn’t present a greater threat to those involved. It does, as established above.

Now, I’m sure some out there think I’m helping LJL out by laying down this wicked argument for why the Ultimate X presents more risk to those involved. However, what we all have to remember is that pro-wrestling is a work (“Duh, I know”). One thing that’s paramount to that is presenting the most convincing danger possible while putting one’s self in the most miniscule amount of danger that the situation allows. While this becomes an extremely difficult task in when one is selling a “high risk” attraction like the ladder match or the Ultimate X, I feel my logic is sound in asserting that the ladder match is the safer bout between the two. Thus, it is superior. If you’re making your workers take more risk, you open yourself up to the loss of bankable talents due to injury. If you’re looking at pro-wrestling as the business it is, than we can all agree this is not cool.

I'm sure when you were a kid, you enjoyed recess as much as I did. The playground presented a plethora of funs objects we could play on such as the seesaw and swings. I remember many a time I gravitated towards a little structure called the monkey bars. The structure of the Ultimate X is nothing more than monkey bars.

It's also kind of a moot point to bring up that the Ultimate X match has only been around for almost a decade so the ladder match quantity is much bigger. Surprisingly, TNA has almost had as many ladder matches as the WWE so take that statistic and mull that over for a bit.

Your most basic thrillseeker tends to gravitate towards activities that have high risk. The Ultimate X is a high risk match waiting to happen. If you want something high risk, why would you choose the safer option? I'm sure the cables aren't soft and cozy to land on and participants often risk serious injury to amaze the crowd (I'm talking about you Kaz).

Reason Number Two: Ability to Use Big Names Efficiently​

Before I get into this section, I’d just like to point out that I’m a fan of the little men of pro-wrestling. I love the compact, athletic types. However, when looking at pro-wrestling as a business, we all know that (despite the changing of the guard in recent times) a certain caliber of physical specimen has normally provided the greatest return on investment in the United States.

That’s right; I’m talking about your larger men. Not necessarily big men. But larger. Especially your larger men with more run-of-the-mill, conservative wrestling styles. Triple H stands as one of the top draws in WWE history right now. Hulk Hogan is legendary. The Undertaker’s prowess as an overseas draw and special attraction is legendary. Bruno Sammartino and Andre the Giant both define the full framed bankable attractions of yesteryear. And I don’t think I need to tell you who the top attraction in the business today is. But I will: John Cena. After all of this has been established, I don’t think I need to press this issue any further with examples like Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior, The Rock, and Goldberg. Simply put, larger men with more conservative styles than your average cruiserweight make up the bulk of your bankable top talent in America.

That said, the mega draws of America are rarely equated with the type of little man associated with your ideal Ultimate X match. In fact, let’s look past the “ideal” Ultimate X: Larger men with more conservative wrestling styles really have no place in the bout PERIOD. The heavier Samoa Joe floundered in his Ultimate X outing. Hernandez excelled only because he is an exception to the standard archetype of a 6’2”, 285lb wrestler, incorporating awe inspiring dives into his repertoire the likes of which would make Triple H shit in his pants. Ultimate X, at its core, is associated with the type of smaller wrestlers with a video game character move sets that have, for the most part, only been associated with fringe appeal in the United States. To incorporate larger, more traditional wrestlers in the match would only invite the use of a ladder to make the situation work, and that’s a point in the ladder match’s column. It speaks to the variety of men who can successfully work a ladder match. When you look back over the last year and see that larger and conservative wrestlers have worked highly successful ladder matches (from Big Show, to Triple H, to Drew McIntyre, to Jack Swagger, to Kane, and so forth), it becomes apparent that the ladder match allows more bankable stars to participate, which in turn makes it a more bankable attraction.

Samoa Joe and Hernandez attempting the Ultimate X speaks again to it's high risk appeal. Samoa Joe was not a floundering tub of goo back then. Don't confuse bigger wrestlers needing to use a ladder as saying that they need it to win an Ultimate X. Call it innovative and resourceful. I'm sure Rhyno was thinking "resourceful" when he helped Christian and Edge win at Wrestlemania 17.

Reason Number Three: Quality of Performance​

While I’ve recently encountered some scruples deep within my soul regarding dictating what is quality wrestling and what isn’t, I can say without a shadow of doubt that the ladder match produces better performances than Ultimate X. It all goes back to the point I tackled in the section on safety: People carry out tasks which are more familiar to them with a greater degree of efficiency. This extends to the quality of spots one can perform in the ladder match. In many an Ultimate X match, I’ve seen men bump on their feet far more often than their back. There’s a fear involved in working on high wires that simply inhibits one’s ability to perform some of those picture perfect, highlight reel worthy spots we’ve all comes to associate with the ladder match.

And why not associate such beautiful spots and great moments with the ladder match? Just look at what the ladder match offers participants. Solid, familiar structures that participants have plenty of direct and indirect experience to draw on which leads to a more efficient performance. Structures that can be manipulated and used as weapons or bumped on. A deep bank of classic, high quality ladder matches from the past to draw inspiration from. With resources like that and big names to lend to the wholesale appeal of particular ladder matches (bringing with them that intangible “big fight feel”), how can one deny the past quality of this match format or the potential for future quality?

Simply put, the ladder match has it all and is far superior as a “high risk” attraction than Ultimate X.

Trust me. I've seen lots of creative spots performed in an Ultimate X match just as I have in a ladder match. The announcers always talk about how scared a wrestler is if they've never been in a ladder match. I saw Lashley quivering in his boots at Wrestlemania 22. Regal and Taylor didn't have a grand old time at Armageddon 2006 because they were in a different element. Fear in ladder matches is just as high as fear in Ultimate X matches mainly due to the inexperience of those performing in it. Isn't the fact that there are high wires involved in an Ultimate X match speak to it being the better high risk? More dangers equals high risk equals high reward.

Monkey bars, Coco, monkey bars.

 

[Coco]

By all means do.

I'm sure when you were a kid, you enjoyed recess as much as I did.

That's a reach. But I'll play along.

The playground presented a plethora of funs objects we could play on such as the seesaw and swings. I remember many a time I gravitated towards a little structure called the monkey bars. The structure of the Ultimate X is nothing more than monkey bars.

Yeah, I remember how sensitive those monkey bars were to my weight. Exactly like the rungs on the Ultimate X structure.

Wait, what?

Oh, that's right. You're comparing something with solid rungs to wires that are highly sensitive to the weight they're holding. Which makes a grand total of zero sense, in terms of the similarity of the structures (I mean, they're both horizontal and elevated... That's where the similarities end), in terms of the different muscles required the maneuver across rungs and a highly sensitive wire, and in terms of instinctive expectations (fear) created by the shifting wire.

Sing me another one, friendo.

It's also kind of a moot point to bring up that the Ultimate X match has only been around for almost a decade so the ladder match quantity is much bigger. Surprisingly, TNA has almost had as many ladder matches as the WWE so take that statistic and mull that over for a bit.

I have mulled it over. WWE, TNA, and the indies have all had plenty of ladder matches while TNA is just about the only company I know of that promotes the UX match. So... I'm not sure how that affects my previous point in any way. You might want to clear that up for me.

Your most basic thrillseeker tends to gravitate towards activities that have high risk. The Ultimate X is a high risk match waiting to happen. If you want something high risk, why would you choose the safer option? I'm sure the cables aren't soft and cozy to land on and participants often risk serious injury to amaze the crowd (I'm talking about you Kaz).

As I said, the safer option appeals to the people who need to perform and book the match. How is that not an advantage? How do you counter that point?

As for your point regarding thrillseekers, I doubt my safety point means anything to them with the great quantity of Youtubable ladder match moments lying about to remind them that the ladder match has just as much perceivable danger as the Ultimate X. The average fan is left wholly unaware of the safety advantages the ladder has over the wires. Bumps are bumps to them. Their knowledge of how a novel situation like that presented by the wires affects performance is non-existent.

Samoa Joe and Hernandez attempting the Ultimate X speaks again to it's high risk appeal. Samoa Joe was not a floundering tub of goo back then.

And yet he didn't fit in with the match at all, making it a waste of money for those who expected him to at least attempt to make a bid for the belt.

Yes, Joe was more capable as a worker back then. Lending all the more credibility to the notion that your average man of above average size doesn't belong in the match.

Super Mex, as I said, is an exception to most rules about heavyweights. That said, his success there certainly doesn't mean you could book the same level of bankable talent for the UX match as you could for the ladder match.

Don't confuse bigger wrestlers needing to use a ladder as saying that they need it to win an Ultimate X.

With the exception of Hernandez, don't they?

Call it innovative and resourceful.

I'll call it a concession to the advantages of the ladder match.

I'm sure Rhyno was thinking "resourceful" when he helped Christian and Edge win at Wrestlemania 17.

Another great use of the ladder. That match really does have it all.

Trust me. I've seen lots of creative spots performed in an Ultimate X match just as I have in a ladder match.

Never said you didn't. That said, you don't see quite as much instinctive "landing on the feet" in a ladder match as you do in the UX, a testament to the way the ladder allows people to commit to a spot in ways that UX doesn't allow.

The announcers always talk about how scared a wrestler is if they've never been in a ladder match. I saw Lashley quivering in his boots at Wrestlemania 22. Regal and Taylor didn't have a grand old time at Armageddon 2006 because they were in a different element. Fear in ladder matches is just as high as fear in Ultimate X matches mainly due to the inexperience of those performing in it.

Some people have a natural fear of heights (See: D-Von Dudley) while others are simply selling the moment (Really, wrestling is actually a work). Frankly, until you draw conclusions from psychological findings and apply them to explain how the less-than-novel ladder situation is just as frightening as the more-than-novel wire situation, I'm inclined not to take your word for it. That's just me looking to stick to the facts. Sorry.

Isn't the fact that there are high wires involved in an Ultimate X match speak to it being the better high risk? More dangers equals high risk equals high reward.

If there weren't such an array of previous ladder bumps to make them seem equally dangerous, you might have something. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. Selling UX as more dangerous in kayfabe is extremely hard. Selling it as more dangerous to workers is not. You can make money off one of those kinds of risk, meaning more reward for making it look dangerous. The ladder match has the advantage of not actually being as dangerous, which makes it inherently better. The ability for big names to play a real part adds exponentially to that superiority and bankability (and the reward).

Just a quick request: Before we continue playing "debunk the other guy's point", how about we see a real concrete argument for Ultimate X superiority from you? That'd say a lot more about you and your point of view than simply jumping straight into rebuttles for my points followed by you calling it a day.

That's just me trying to help you out like the gent that I am.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Duly noted.

The Ultimate X match did not get off to a glorious start but then again not a lot of great things in wrestling did. In its earlier matches, the belt or red X came loose several times during the match which hindered said match but they fixed it later on so we don't have that occurence anymore.

What I believe makes the Ultimate X superior is that TNA knows where their bread is butter and use it to their advantage. The X-Division was all about no limits and that's where Samoa Joe and Hernandez came it. They did relatively well but TNA knows who to use and how to use them. The ladder match has been watered down with your lumbering oafs (more or less) like Big Show and Mark Henry. Thank goodness the Great Khali has never been in a ladder match. Take the Smackdown MITB match for example. They had to construct a huge ladder built specifically for the Big Show which weighed 350 pounds which looked impressive mind you. However, when it was time to break it out he took damn near five minutes which just killed the match for me. It was hard for me to think that nobody could have stopped him in the five minutes he took to get the ladder but somebody did when he took a minute to climb a couple of rungs? Using big guys in the ladder match just slows it down and TNA will not have that problem because they know who not to use.

Lastly, I believe the Ultimate X is better because there are so many ways and angles you can achieve the goal. With the ladder match it is basically straight up. Real fun there. Ultimate X provides a myriad of options. You can crawl across the top of the cables or swing over or what Hernandez did to try to win against Styles and Daniels. You can also basically commit robbery as Styles did in his first Ultimate X match in 2005 when he snatched the belt while the other two competitors were fighting for it. Also, what moves that are mainly used in ladder matches can't be done in Ultimate X matches. The only real offensive moves I've seen in ladder matches are either finishers for the ladder or the good old fashioned powerbomb. I've seen those in Ultimate X matches plenty of times and done better.

 

[Coco]

Duly noted.

The Ultimate X match did not get off to a glorious start but then again not a lot of great things in wrestling did. In its earlier matches, the belt or red X came loose several times during the match which hindered said match but they fixed it later on so we don't have that occurence anymore.

You're not helping your case yet...

What I believe makes the Ultimate X superior is that TNA knows where their bread is butter and use it to their advantage. The X-Division was all about no limits and that's where Samoa Joe and Hernandez came it. They did relatively well but TNA knows who to use and how to use them. The ladder match has been watered down with your lumbering oafs (more or less) like Big Show and Mark Henry. Thank goodness the Great Khali has never been in a ladder match. Take the Smackdown MITB match for example. They had to construct a huge ladder built specifically for the Big Show which weighed 350 pounds which looked impressive mind you. However, when it was time to break it out he took damn near five minutes which just killed the match for me. It was hard for me to think that nobody could have stopped him in the five minutes he took to get the ladder but somebody did when he took a minute to climb a couple of rungs? Using big guys in the ladder match just slows it down and TNA will not have that problem because they know who not to use.

You've done a fine job pointing out one spot in one match that didn't go according to plan. Now, look at all the ladder matches with big guys that came off just fine. Look at the MITB matches Kane has been involved in (one, which he was heavily involved in, is still considered the best one by many), TLC 4 with Kane, Big Show vs. RVD, JeriShow vs. DX... One miss with an entirely impractical prop doesn't damn the entire concept of the ladder match, nor does it make it worse than Ultimate X, nor do the shortcomings of Big Show in that spot or Khali (an extreme example) illustrate that big names like Rock, Triple H, and Cena aren't welcome in the ladder match format.

As for TNA knowing where their bread is buttered, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Ultimate X has become a rather overused afterthought with only a fraction of the sizzle it once had in light of the gradual death of the X-Division. "No limits" X-Division gimmick or not, that division isn't really where the money is for TNA at this point, As such, a gimmick that is so closely associated with that division and difficult to use with the brand's true money makers is rendered utterly unbankable and insignificant to the masses at large. Sure, there's that fringe audience that wants to see video game-like workers such as the Motor City Machineguns and Generation Me have at it in such a format. But that's a fringe that nobody has successfully built a mainstream wrestling promotion in the United States on.

But where Ultimate X falls short, the ladder match picks up the pieces in spades. It's as relevant as ever, having been one of the main attractions at WrestleMania in recent years and incorporating a variety of workers, big and small, unorthodox and traditional. TLC has it's own pay per view, sold on the back bone of two ladder matches, incorporating real stars into an already exciting, high-risk concept.

Lastly, I believe the Ultimate X is better because there are so many ways and angles you can achieve the goal. With the ladder match it is basically straight up. Real fun there. Ultimate X provides a myriad of options. You can crawl across the top of the cables or swing over or what Hernandez did to try to win against Styles and Daniels. You can also basically commit robbery as Styles did in his first Ultimate X match in 2005 when he snatched the belt while the other two competitors were fighting for it. Also, what moves that are mainly used in ladder matches can't be done in Ultimate X matches. The only real offensive moves I've seen in ladder matches are either finishers for the ladder or the good old fashioned powerbomb. I've seen those in Ultimate X matches plenty of times and done better.

Yes, LJL. I see sunset flips off of the wires all the time. Superplexes as well. Spears off of wires onto other wires and the use of the SSP are also very common. And the Walls of Jericho in the wires is one of my favorite spots ever.

Oh, wait. Those are all ladder spots, not UX spots. My mistake. Well, I guess that means you're really selling short just how much room to execute fantastic moves the ladder gives it's participants. And with the comfort of the ever familiar ladder for the performer. A true gem, that match.

As for unique finishes to the ladder match, while they may be running short, that's one point I feel is worth sacrificing to Ultimate X. What does the ladder format get in return? The benefit of not having it's main structure fixed in place. The ladder can be used as a bridge, can be set up against the ropes, and has a myriad of uses as both a weapon and something to bump on. This opens things up for infinite creativity in ways a fixed structure like Ultimate X will be shown to lack as it ages.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

You're not helping your case yet...


You've done a fine job pointing out one spot in one match that didn't go according to plan. Now, look at all the ladder matches with big guys that came off just fine. Look at the MITB matches Kane has been involved in (one, which he was heavily involved in, is still considered the best one by many), TLC 4 with Kane, Big Show vs. RVD, JeriShow vs. DX... One miss with an entirely impractical prop doesn't damn the entire concept of the ladder match, nor does it make it worse than Ultimate X, nor do the shortcomings of Big Show in that spot or Khali (an extreme example) illustrate that big names like Rock, Triple H, and Cena aren't welcome in the ladder match format.

As for TNA knowing where their bread is buttered, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Ultimate X has become a rather overused afterthought with only a fraction of the sizzle it once had in light of the gradual death of the X-Division. "No limits" X-Division gimmick or not, that division isn't really where the money is for TNA at this point, As such, a gimmick that is so closely associated with that division and difficult to use with the brand's true money makers is rendered utterly unbankable and insignificant to the masses at large. Sure, there's that fringe audience that wants to see video game-like workers such as the Motor City Machineguns and Generation Me have at it in such a format. But that's a fringe that nobody has successfully built a mainstream wrestling promotion in the United States on.

But where Ultimate X falls short, the ladder match picks up the pieces in spades. It's as relevant as ever, having been one of the main attractions at WrestleMania in recent years and incorporating a variety of workers, big and small, unorthodox and traditional. TLC has it's own pay per view, sold on the back bone of two ladder matches, incorporating real stars into an already exciting, high-risk concept.


Yes, LJL. I see sunset flips off of the wires all the time. Superplexes as well. Spears off of wires onto other wires and the use of the SSP are also very common. And the Walls of Jericho in the wires is one of my favorite spots ever.

Oh, wait. Those are all ladder spots, not UX spots. My mistake. Well, I guess that means you're really selling short just how much room to execute fantastic moves the ladder gives it's participants. And with the comfort of the ever familiar ladder for the performer. A true gem, that match.

As for unique finishes to the ladder match, while they may be running short, that's one point I feel is worth sacrificing to Ultimate X. What does the ladder format get in return? The benefit of not having it's main structure fixed in place. The ladder can be used as a bridge, can be set up against the ropes, and has a myriad of uses as both a weapon and something to bump on. This opens things up for infinite creativity in ways a fixed structure like Ultimate X will be shown to lack as it ages.

The one aspect TNA has been shitted on more than anything else than its overuse of gimmick matches and especially what they call them. Whoever heard of a Fish Market Street Fight? Tragic. The WWE has watered down basically every gimmick match they have had with the ladder match being no exception. I was fine with them having a ladder match every now and then because I thought it should signify the end of a feud like it did with Cena/Edge (more or less) and Jericho/Michaels. I was even satisifed when they decided to do Money in the Bank although I think it's become useless now when they should have tweaked King of the Ring. With the incorporation of the Money In The Bank and the TLC PPV's, ladder matches have become pretty mundane. So now, they're going to have a MITB match at Wrestlemania and a PPV three months later? The ladder match has already become diluted and will further become so with all these changes.

The majority of the focus of TNA in it's lifespan has been about either the tag team division or the X-Division. It's only been until 2007 when they started focusing on the main eventers and even now, most of the storylines currently are focusing on wrestlers who have been in X-Divison or in tag team competition. The Ultimate X match was a way for a Styles or Daniels to help solidify themselves in the main event. It has helped tag teams improve their resume with LAX. Who are the big moneymakers in TNA right now? Angle, Styles, and I guess you can throw RVD in there as well. I believe that their styles can easily fit in an Ultimate X match if they ever decide to have one. That would garner a lot of interest in TNA and with the elimination of the KOTM, maybe that will be the route they will go.

More or less, the ladder match has been full of midcarders whether it be your Money in the Bank match or a standard ladder match. Cena has only been in one ladder match, HHH has been in two or three, and even HBK who most claim is the innovator of the ladder match has only competed in around five. Vince protects his greatest assets more than anyone else and he knows that the ladder match is not the safest option. TNA's greatest assets have performed in Ultimate X matches before so there's that sense of familiarity and trust.

 

[Coco]

The one aspect TNA has been shitted on more than anything else than its overuse of gimmick matches and especially what they call them. Whoever heard of a Fish Market Street Fight? Tragic. The WWE has watered down basically every gimmick match they have had with the ladder match being no exception. I was fine with them having a ladder match every now and then because I thought it should signify the end of a feud like it did with Cena/Edge (more or less) and Jericho/Michaels. I was even satisifed when they decided to do Money in the Bank although I think it's become useless now when they should have tweaked King of the Ring. With the incorporation of the Money In The Bank and the TLC PPV's, ladder matches have become pretty mundane. So now, they're going to have a MITB match at Wrestlemania and a PPV three months later? The ladder match has already become diluted and will further become so with all these changes.

Your complaint about ladder matches becoming diluted doesn't ring true with me on multiple levels.

First of all, why are we comparing MITB to King of the Ring? More importantly, when MITB is still created new stars with great success, how does your opinion that they should be running King of the Ring instead make MITB "useless"?

Second of all, you don't know that the future will involve MITB matches taking place at both Mania and a summer pay per view. How does doing it once to get that new pay per view on the map quickly dilute the concept in any significant way and what leads you to assume MITB matches will happen that frequently in the future?

Third of all, ladder type matches were used last year to put the stamp on the climactic chapter of the Punk-Hardy rivalry at the second biggest show of the year, sell a pay per view with DX at the wheel, put Punk on another level at WrestleMania, and steal the show with Christian and Shelton. While they're being used somewhat often, how could you argue that any of the ways it's being used aren't in the best interest of the company? These are fine uses of the bout. This isn't the match that was diluted by bookers shrugging and saying "Fuck it, let's put The Guns and Lethal/Creed on iMPACT in an Ultimate X match with no build at all." When the only company in the world that runs that match is booking them like that, I don't think we should be talking about the ladder match becoming diluted. Learn the difference between something being used well on a regular basis and something being diluted with pointless exposure before you try to make anyone swallow that pill.

Finally, why is all of your focus regarding ladder matches limited to WWE? It's not like we haven't seen "ladder wars" promoted on the indy level. Why are you ignored those ladder matches?

The majority of the focus of TNA in it's lifespan has been about either the tag team division or the X-Division. It's only been until 2007 when they started focusing on the main eventers and even now, most of the storylines currently are focusing on wrestlers who have been in X-Divison or in tag team competition.

Yeah, sure. That's why in 2006, the X-Division started going downhill at an alarming rate while Sting and Double J took center stage. For the entire year. Sure, the tag division was hot there for two months, but the focus was Jarrett and Sting. And the headliners haven't looked back since then. So that's at least four and half years of the X-Division and tag division being afterthoughts. Certainly sounds like the majority of TNA's lifespan to me. But nice try. Thanks for coming.

The Ultimate X match was a way for a Styles or Daniels to help solidify themselves in the main event.

Which is why Styles floundered as a cry-baby lacky for a decent sized period following many following many an Ultimate X outing and Daniels has become a footnote in TNA history, right?

That match made zero main eventers. None. Ever.

It has helped tag teams improve their resume with LAX.

Undercard nobodies. Exactly.

Who are the big moneymakers in TNA right now? Angle, Styles, and I guess you can throw RVD in there as well.

Just got an add in the paper for a TNA Live event in my area. Advertised above AJ? Angle and Anderson. Booked above AJ on TV? RVD, Hardy, and Abyss.

AJ is far from the big money maker. He's damn near a cruiserweight who just happens to be a large part of a second rate promotion's history. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe that their styles can easily fit in an Ultimate X match if they ever decide to have one.

But they've never put real headliners in UX. Never. Ladder matches, on the other hand, see that kind of action on a far more regular basis, meaning that ladder matches can be associated with bigger names NOW, at the time of this argument. Not in some hypothetical future that may never arrive.

That would garner a lot of interest in TNA and with the elimination of the KOTM, maybe that will be the route they will go.

More maybes. Wow.

More or less, the ladder match has been full of midcarders whether it be your Money in the Bank match or a standard ladder match. Cena has only been in one ladder match, HHH has been in two or three, and even HBK who most claim is the innovator of the ladder match has only competed in around five.

You're only forgetting Chris Jericho, booked as a headliner in a couple ladder matches. And Edge, booked in his share of main event ladder matches. And Randy Orton. Don't forget Ric Flair. Even Taker's had his crack at it a couple times.

Do you think Sting would ever work Ultimate X? I don't. But Taker feels safe enough to work the ladder match. Name value, sir. The ladder match has gotten plenty. The Ultimate X only gets it in your fantasy world.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Your complaint about ladder matches becoming diluted doesn't ring true with me on multiple levels.

First of all, why are we comparing MITB to King of the Ring? More importantly, when MITB is still created new stars with great success, how does your opinion that they should be running King of the Ring instead make MITB "useless"?

Second of all, you don't know that the future will involve MITB matches taking place at both Mania and a summer pay per view. How does doing it once to get that new pay per view on the map quickly dilute the concept in any significant way and what leads you to assume MITB matches will happen that frequently in the future?

Third of all, ladder type matches were used last year to put the stamp on the climactic chapter of the Punk-Hardy rivalry at the second biggest show of the year, sell a pay per view with DX at the wheel, put Punk on another level at WrestleMania, and steal the show with Christian and Shelton. While they're being used somewhat often, how could you argue that any of the ways it's being used aren't in the best interest of the company? These are fine uses of the bout. This isn't the match that was diluted by bookers shrugging and saying "Fuck it, let's put The Guns and Lethal/Creed on iMPACT in an Ultimate X match with no build at all." When the only company in the world that runs that match is booking them like that, I don't think we should be talking about the ladder match becoming diluted. Learn the difference between something being used well on a regular basis and something being diluted with pointless exposure before you try to make anyone swallow that pill.

Finally, why is all of your focus regarding ladder matches limited to WWE? It's not like we haven't seen "ladder wars" promoted on the indy level. Why are you ignored those ladder matches?

Since the Ultimate X match has only been done by TNA, I wanted to focus on the place where ladder matches are used more frequently with the WWE.

Yeah, sure. That's why in 2006, the X-Division started going downhill at an alarming rate while Sting and Double J took center stage. For the entire year. Sure, the tag division was hot there for two months, but the focus was Jarrett and Sting. And the headliners haven't looked back since then. So that's at least four and half years of the X-Division and tag division being afterthoughts. Certainly sounds like the majority of TNA's lifespan to me. But nice try. Thanks for coming.


Which is why Styles floundered as a cry-baby lacky for a decent sized period following many following many an Ultimate X outing and Daniels has become a footnote in TNA history, right?

That match made zero main eventers. None. Ever.


Undercard nobodies. Exactly.

At the time LAX, AJ Styles, and Christopher Daniels were some of the biggest stars in TNA during that time along with Jarrett and Sting.

Just got an add in the paper for a TNA Live event in my area. Advertised above AJ? Angle and Anderson. Booked above AJ on TV? RVD, Hardy, and Abyss.

AJ is far from the big money maker. He's damn near a cruiserweight who just happens to be a large part of a second rate promotion's history. Nothing more, nothing less.


But they've never put real headliners in UX. Never. Ladder matches, on the other hand, see that kind of action on a far more regular basis, meaning that ladder matches can be associated with bigger names NOW, at the time of this argument. Not in some hypothetical future that may never arrive.


More maybes. Wow.

From 2002 until now, who have TNA fans consistently wanted to see? Kurt Angle, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles. Joe and Styles have participated in Ultimate X matches. TNA doesn't have the big moneymakers WWE has so they have to utilize their product.

You're only forgetting Chris Jericho, booked as a headliner in a couple ladder matches. And Edge, booked in his share of main event ladder matches. And Randy Orton. Don't forget Ric Flair. Even Taker's had his crack at it a couple times.

Do you think Sting would ever work Ultimate X? I don't. But Taker feels safe enough to work the ladder match. Name value, sir. The ladder match has gotten plenty. The Ultimate X only gets it in your fantasy world.

I think Sting would work Ultimate X if he was asked to. He wouldn't need to go out there and do Shelley or Sabin moves out there. Sting would do just fine.

 

[Coco]

Since the Ultimate X match has only been done by TNA, I wanted to focus on the place where ladder matches are used more frequently with the WWE.

Which makes a grand total of zero sense. We're having a general discussion. Not a WWE vs. TNA discussion. Just because I'm riding TNA because the image they portray is the only one Ultimate X gets to have, that doesn't mean we need to limit the discussion of the ladder match simply to what happens in the WWE.

At the time LAX, AJ Styles, and Christopher Daniels were some of the biggest stars in TNA during that time along with Jarrett and Sting.

LAX was involved in their first major feud at the time. They'd just finished a feud with Bullet Bob Armstrong. AJ and Daniels were popular (obviously), but that's beside the point. Styles and Daniels were midcarders. Just look at how little of importance they'd do in the coming months and years for proof of that. They were never the focus of the product at the time. They were never stars being thrust into the storm that is Ultimate X.

The real stars were Jarrett, Sting, and Christian, all world champs that year, and an up and coming Samoa Joe (who floundered like a star in his first UX match). Simply put, the Ultimate X has served as an attraction best left to midcarders at best, an accusation you more or less tossed my way regarding the ladder match. Untrue. The ladder match can be and has been far more than a midcard attraction. Ultimate X has shown no real signs of that.

From 2002 until now, who have TNA fans consistently wanted to see? Kurt Angle, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles. Joe and Styles have participated in Ultimate X matches. TNA doesn't have the big moneymakers WWE has so they have to utilize their product.

Which they don't. When they get the chance, they do everything in their power to push ex-WWE guys, ex-WCW guys, and now ex-ECW guys. Styles being the sole exception in recent times, they won't be their own company and utilize their own people unless they run out of people from other companies to push first.

That said, I'm not sure what this has to do with my assertion that the real stars of TNA haven't come close to Ultimate X. They really haven't, as AJ hasn't been the real star of TNA for most of the history of the company. Joe was at a point, but he's shown that the achetype of the real star isn't fit for the bout. Awful showing. Still.

Sting would do just fine.

Well, you go right ahead and delude yourself. Doesn't hurt me.

If this is the best you have, I really don't know how long this debate can last.

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: Coco
Kept his points strong and was very good at countering LJL's points and adding great responses on top of them. Nice opening post really set the tone of the debate.

Punctuality: Coco
Both very prompt, but LJL took the longest to respond at one point by 16 hours approx and Coco has had the quickest ever response of about 20 mins!

Informative: Coco
I feel Coco's provided more information as he was throwing out more backup in his responses, making them feel thicker and his opening post really made me consider elements that I would normally overlook.

Persuasion: Coco
From the word go, Coco took control and was always on top of LJL's points and giving back further responses and being solid with them. His opening post was something that was never truly countered and wouldn't let LJL have the time to give an effective response. LJL didn't really give a strong counter for me to see why Ultimate X was better as Coco was providing reason after reason.

Final Score
Coco: 5
LJL: 0

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Both were pretty clear, but Coco's foot was on the gas pedal and he killed it. I just want to say that what Coco did was exactly what I look for. No trailing off, and stuck to the topic at hand.

Point: Coco

Punctuation: I don't know if there was an agreement with D-Man, but after Coco's final post LJL just seemed to quit.

Point: Coco

Informative: Coco freaking brought it with this debate. Added more substance to his responses each time.

Point: Coco

Persuasion: It has to be Coco. He never let up on LJL, and pounced on every little thing that he said. Sorry LJL, but Coco got the clean sweep.

Point: Coco x2

CH David scores this Coco 5, LJL 0.

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- I was reading this last night and I realized Coco was clear all the way through. LJL seemed to go a little off topic which took away from his clarity.

Point - Coco

Punctuation - It didn't take Coco long to respond. Same goes for LJL. I know he went hours in between posts. Bur that's okay, because people have lives. But LJL lost interest towards the end.

Point - Coco

Informative - Coco came hard from the very beginning. His first post was well thought out and worth the read.

Point - Coco

Persuasion - I still give this to Coco because of all the information he brought. Coco went hard and never let loose with the information. He persuaded me enough to read all this.

Coco- 5
Kenan- 0

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

What is up with you guys that defer not giving opening posts? Saying that you're going to argue for "X" and then deferring to your opponent DOES NOT count as an opening argument.

Final Score

Coco 4.5 (Persuasion, Clarity, Informative, Punctuality (0.5))

Little Jerry Lawler 0.5 (Punctuality (0.5))

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, Coco is the victor on 19.5 points to Little Jerry Lawler's 0.5.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!