Round 1: nickb03 -vs- Ferbian

[D-Man]

Which is the better multiman match type, King of the Mountain or Money in the Bank?

This is a first round match in the Debater's League. nickb03 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.​

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

As the home debater, I choose to be on the side that the King of the Mountain Match is the better multi-man match type, and Ferbian can go first.

 

[Ferbian]

Thank you Nick. And good luck to you sir.

Money in the Bank has created numerous stars. We see to this day stars that have been created thanks to the Money in the Bank ladder match. We see Edge who is now a multiple times world champion, thanks to his first Money in the Bank ladder match victory at Wrestlemania 21. Just as well as CM Punk is now a multiple times world champion thanks to his two victories at Wrestlemania.

The long list of people that have gone on to becomes champions through Money in the Bank solidifies the fact that Money in the Bank creates stars, and they do it in a big manner. Unlike what TNA's King of the Mountain match accomplishes. King of the Mountain takes a range of talents that are either already former world champions, the current world champion, or someone who could very well become world champion alone.

You could even discuss that TNA's King of the Mountain match puts talent in there that doesn't need to be in there. The Money in the Bank ladder match most of the time does the opposite. At every Wrestlemania we see someone who has some kind of reason to be in there. The majority of them are there as potential, and legitimate future world champions. And the reigns that has been accomplished with these Money in the Bank briefcases should very well prove my point. Sure some may have been worse than others. But each and every one of them has managed to create a star one way or another.

The Money in the Bank ladder match has become so popular that we have now had the introduction of a Pay Per View to work around it. As opposed to TNA who has seemingly canceled the whole deal because there were no King of the Mountain match at Slammiversary 2010. WWE has opened up for a chance to create even more stars, and let some Main Event Players be included to, what you would say "Create legitimacy" to the match. TNA has simply dumped their concept.

The King of the Mountains match is a featured concept at Slammiversary, a Pay Per View, while regarded as one of the big 4, it is not the premiere event. Money in the Bank has been featured at Wrestlemania every year since it's introduction. Therefore it would mean that WWE at least values their event more than TNA values theirs. Therefore it would mean that the event would be higher regarded due to it being given as a treat to the fans at the biggest event of the year.

And that is why, Money in the Bank is the better multiman match type.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Thank you Nick. And good luck to you sir.

Good luck to you as well.

Money in the Bank has created numerous stars. We see to this day stars that have been created thanks to the Money in the Bank ladder match. We see Edge who is now a multiple times world champion, thanks to his first Money in the Bank ladder match victory at Wrestlemania 21. Just as well as CM Punk is now a multiple times world champion thanks to his two victories at Wrestlemania.

Everything you have said here is true. But the subject of this debate revolves around which match type is better. The subject given in the OP does not ask which match creates the biggest stars. It doesn't ask which match brings in the most PPV buys. It doesn't ask which company uses the match in a better way. It only asks which match-type is the better concept. And clearly it's the King of the Mountain match.

The Money in the Bank ladder match is just a ladder match. Sure, it has expaned the number of participants, but it's really just a ladder match.

The King of the Mountain match is far more interesting. It's a much more in-depth, complex kind of match. It has everything Money in the Bank has (several superstars, a ladder, big spots, etc.), and much more. In the KOTM match, there are pinfalls/submissions. You have to qualify to climb the ladder/grab the briefcase by pinning/submitting one of your opponents. If you are pinned or you submit, you must go into the penalty box, and more than one person can be in there in one time, which can lead to some decent fights/partnerships. It's just a much better kind of match all around.

The long list of people that have gone on to becomes champions through Money in the Bank solidifies the fact that Money in the Bank creates stars, and they do it in a big manner.

Once again, I think you're off topic. The match itself is still nothing more than a ladder match.

Unlike what TNA's King of the Mountain match accomplishes. King of the Mountain takes a range of talents that are either already former world champions, the current world champion, or someone who could very well become world champion alone.

It hasn't accomplished as much because TNA hasn't accomplished as much. This concept is unique to TNA, and TNA isn't all that great. But that doesn't mean they haven't come up with one of the best ladder matches around. TNA just got the idea out there to the American public before another promotion could.

You could even discuss that TNA's King of the Mountain match puts talent in there that doesn't need to be in there.

TNA has used the King of the Mountain match (mostly) as a championship match. Only once was it used on the X-Division title, and only once did they use it on Impact! for the winner to receive a future World title match. It's mainly a main event match, for the World Title. They are using main eventers who are competing for TNA's top prize. Not sure what your problem is with their choice of participants, but once again, it doesn't really matter, because that isn't the question at hand.

The Money in the Bank ladder match most of the time does the opposite. At every Wrestlemania we see someone who has some kind of reason to be in there. The majority of them are there as potential, and legitimate future world champions. And the reigns that has been accomplished with these Money in the Bank briefcases should very well prove my point. Sure some may have been worse than others. But each and every one of them has managed to create a star one way or another.

No doubt MITB creates stars. It's done so for Edge, CM Punk, Swagger (kind of), etc. But that doesn't mean it's a better type of match. I'll say it again; it's just a regular, nothing-special-about-it ladder match. The way WWE uses the match makes it important, but that doesn't mean the match itself is more interesting/entertaining than KOTM.

The Money in the Bank ladder match has become so popular that we have now had the introduction of a Pay Per View to work around it. As opposed to TNA who has seemingly canceled the whole deal because there were no King of the Mountain match at Slammiversary 2010. WWE has opened up for a chance to create even more stars, and let some Main Event Players be included to, what you would say "Create legitimacy" to the match. TNA has simply dumped their concept.

The Money in the Bank match has become popular because it's a WWE event. WWE is far more popular than TNA. But when comparing these two matches, it really doesn't favor WWE.

If WWE had come up with the concept for the King of the Mountain match it would be just as popular, or more so, than Money in the Bank. WWE could have used the same concept for a #1 Contenders match, a WWE/WHC match, or even for the IC/US belt. But (unfortunately) TNA came up with it first.

The King of the Mountains match is a featured concept at Slammiversary, a Pay Per View, while regarded as one of the big 4, it is not the premiere event. Money in the Bank has been featured at Wrestlemania every year since it's introduction. Therefore it would mean that WWE at least values their event more than TNA values theirs. Therefore it would mean that the event would be higher regarded due to it being given as a treat to the fans at the biggest event of the year.

Again, you are totally off topic. The OP doesn't even mention TNA or WWE. It's only asking which match type is better. It's not asking which company has come up with the better way to use this type of match. These matches are not always used in the same manner. Either one of these matches can be used in several different ways, with many different prizes going to the winner. This is not a competition between TNA and WWE.

And that is why, Money in the Bank is the better multiman match type.

You have not, in any way, shape or form, proven why the Money in the Bank match concept, a generic ladder match with a 6 or 8 men involved, is a better match-type concept than King of the Mountain.

If you want to have a debate in regards to TNA vs. WWE, we can do that some other time (and we would probably agree on most things). When talking about these two matches, it's almost irrelevant which company uses which match. You have proven that WWE utilizes MITB far better than TNA uses KOTM. But, that isn't the question at hand.

King of the Mountain is bigger, more complex, more action packed, and more interesting. In all honesty, I wish WWE had come up with this concept. WWE has had far more of my personal favorite wrestlers than TNA has. But TNA came up with it. But that does not change the fact that Money in the Bank is a far more simplistic, generic match when being compared to the King of the Mountain concept.

 

[Ferbian]

Everything you have said here is true. But the subject of this debate revolves around which match type is better. The subject given in the OP does not ask which match creates the biggest stars. It doesn't ask which match brings in the most PPV buys. It doesn't ask which company uses the match in a better way. It only asks which match-type is the better concept. And clearly it's the King of the Mountain match.

Yet the rules doesn't state in which way we determine what is better. A match type doesn't have to simply revolve around what the match in itself is all about. It can also revolve around what it manages to accomplish. Something which the Money in the Bank ladder match has superiority in because it accomplishes more in creating stars.

The King of the Mountain match is far more interesting. It's a much more in-depth, complex kind of match. It has everything Money in the Bank has (several superstars, a ladder, big spots, etc.), and much more. In the KOTM match, there are pinfalls/submissions. You have to qualify to climb the ladder/grab the briefcase by pinning/submitting one of your opponents. If you are pinned or you submit, you must go into the penalty box, and more than one person can be in there in one time, which can lead to some decent fights/partnerships. It's just a much better kind of match all around.

You said it yourself (Refer to bolded part). The King of the Mountain match is more complex. Therefore it could very well also ruin it for the casual fan. It's more confusing for a person who doesn't put himself into the whole deal. As well as for a wrestler who has to be featured in the match for the first time. Confusion can happen.

The ladder match is simple. Yet the concept is overall known. It's simply a ladder match, which makes it easier for the contestants, as well as the fans to get into it.

And because of the simplicity of competing in it. It creates for better matches. Both for the fans to follow, as well as the wrestlers to compete in. It simplifies the match to the point where it gives an more enjoyable experience in watching.

It hasn't accomplished as much because TNA hasn't accomplished as much. This concept is unique to TNA, and TNA isn't all that great. But that doesn't mean they haven't come up with one of the best ladder matches around. TNA just got the idea out there to the American public before another promotion could.

The fact that TNA hasn't accomplished enough doesn't warrant enough to explain why the match in itself hasn't accomplished enough. It's simple. The match hasn't accomplished enough because it barely creates new world champions. The majority of people that has competed in the King of the Mountain match, as well as the people who have won it, have been world champions to the point where another reign doesn't improve their legacy, because it's just another reign.

The Money in the Bank, while it has increased a number of reigns (Edge and CM Punk) the majority of times it has given a brand new champion.

TNA has used the King of the Mountain match (mostly) as a championship match. Only once was it used on the X-Division title, and only once did they use it on Impact! for the winner to receive a future World title match. It's mainly a main event match, for the World Title. They are using main eventers who are competing for TNA's top prize. Not sure what your problem is with their choice of participants, but once again, it doesn't really matter, because that isn't the question at hand.

The problem with the choices of participants is that neither one of the participants (Especially not the winner for the most of it) doesn't need to be in there. They don't need to become world champion again. Their careers is at a point where they're already main eventing. And therefore could win the championship without the match.

Money in the Bank creates main event wrestlers. It helps to create the future of the promotion. In that manner the Money in the Bank ladder match is therefore the better match.

No doubt MITB creates stars. It's done so for Edge, CM Punk, Swagger (kind of), etc. But that doesn't mean it's a better type of match. I'll say it again; it's just a regular, nothing-special-about-it ladder match. The way WWE uses the match makes it important, but that doesn't mean the match itself is more interesting/entertaining than KOTM.

That's all about opinions Nick. Just because you might not find the Money in the Bank match more entertaining than the King of the Mountain match. It doesn't mean that it's automatically the situation for each and every other wrestling fan out there. The King of the Mountain's complexity could very well kill off the interest for some fans.

The Money in the Bank match has become popular because it's a WWE event. WWE is far more popular than TNA. But when comparing these two matches, it really doesn't favor WWE.

The popularity of the promotion doesn't necessarily mean that the match in itself becomes more popular just because there's a bigger fanbase to back it up.

If WWE had come up with the concept for the King of the Mountain match it would be just as popular, or more so, than Money in the Bank. WWE could have used the same concept for a #1 Contenders match, a WWE/WHC match, or even for the IC/US belt. But (unfortunately) TNA came up with it first.

WWE could very well have taken use of the match themselves. Yet it doesn't make it any more interesting of a match. It doesn't make it anymore of a confusing match. The main event scene of WWE doesn't have many people that are in a position to wrestle in ladder matches. So from a safety perspective King of the Mountains for the main event wrestlers wouldn't make sense. And yes I know it wouldn't need for the Money in the Bank either. But most of the times there's not even a main event wrestler in the Money in the Bank.

You have not, in any way, shape or form, proven why the Money in the Bank match concept, a generic ladder match with a 6 or 8 men involved, is a better match-type concept than King of the Mountain.

The ladder match may very well be generic and one sided. It's a simple match to compete in. That however doesn't make it any less of a better match. The King of the Mountain match has managed to feature a lot of main event wrestlers who are definitely in no position whatsoever to be competing in ladder matches when it comes to creating spots. There's a very small amount of high flyers in the majority of the matches (count out the X division one). It therefore creates for less insane spots.

And you could very well argue "But spots doesn't make the match more interesting". Well that's one side of it, some may not find it more interesting, that's all a matter of opinion. But some obviously have a thing for spots. A lot of the wrestlers that has competed in some kind of ladder match in their WWE career has gotten over due to sick spots. Something with the Money in the Bank has a long list of experience with.

I admit I have not watched each and every one of the King of the Mountain matches. However those that I have spend the time to watch, have not featured spots that I would say could hold a candle to the spots performed in a Money in the Bank ladder match. The competitors as well as the match in itself therefore creates for better and bigger spots. Something that will (opinion again I know) create for a better match.

King of the Mountain is bigger, more complex, more action packed, and more interesting. In all honesty, I wish WWE had come up with this concept. WWE has had far more of my personal favorite wrestlers than TNA has. But TNA came up with it. But that does not change the fact that Money in the Bank is a far more simplistic, generic match when being compared to the King of the Mountain concept.

Bold part is arguable. Again as I mentioned, the spots featured at the King of the Mountain matches I have seen, compared to the spots featured at the Money in the Bank ladder matches are nothing special. The awesomeness of the King of the Mountain match fades compared to the Money in the Bank matches when it comes to creating spots.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Yet the rules doesn't state in which way we determine what is better. A match type doesn't have to simply revolve around what the match in itself is all about. It can also revolve around what it manages to accomplish. Something which the Money in the Bank ladder match has superiority in because it accomplishes more in creating stars.

But that wasn't the question. You are attempting to change the question. The question asks which match-type is better. It didn't ask which match turns professionals into big-time stars. It didn't ask which match has worked better for PPV buys. It's simply asking us which match type is superior. You aren't breaking any rules, but you're answering a question that was not asked, and not really answering the one that was.

You said it yourself (Refer to bolded part). The King of the Mountain match is more complex. Therefore it could very well also ruin it for the casual fan. It's more confusing for a person who doesn't put himself into the whole deal. As well as for a wrestler who has to be featured in the match for the first time. Confusion can happen.

It's somewhat complex, but let's not act as though it's rocket science. Any wrestling fan, with half a brain, can understand the concept. That's like saying the Iron Man match doesn't work because some fans do not know how to count. Or that the Royal Rumble match doesn't work because some fans can't tell time. You're really reaching here, my friend.

The casual fan can figure out this match without a problem. You are making it seem far more complicated than t really is.

The ladder match is simple. Yet the concept is overall known. It's simply a ladder match, which makes it easier for the contestants, as well as the fans to get into it.

You're right, it sure is simple. It's also ol. It's been done to death, over and over again. They can keep adding guys to the MITB match, but at the end of the day, it's a ladder match, and nothing more. WWE has expanded the number of participants, and nothing more in regards to this contest.

Easier for the wrestlers? How hard can it possibly be for a professional wrestler (who is being paid to do their job, hence the word professional) to understand King of the Mountain? These men may be meatheads, but they are not retarted. You qualify by pinning/submitting someone. You want to stay out of the penalty box, and you need to hang the briefcase. I'm not sure why you think people are so dumb they cannot grasp that simple concept.

And because of the simplicity of competing in it. It creates for better matches. Both for the fans to follow, as well as the wrestlers to compete in. It simplifies the match to the point where it gives an more enjoyable experience in watching.

Simplicity automatically makes for a better match? I couldn't disagree more. You really are working overtime to make this concept sound much more complex than it really is.

Wrestling fans are always looking for change. Whether it be in the attitude of the programming they are watching, the style of writing, or the types of matches they see. Wrestling fans are always looking for bigger and better, something new. If people can follow matches like the Royal Rumble or the Elimination Chamber, they can easily get into King of the Mountain. It has expanded upon the dull, over-done ladder match. It's just too bad TNA doesn't have the following to back it up.

The fact that TNA hasn't accomplished enough doesn't warrant enough to explain why the match in itself hasn't accomplished enough. It's simple. The match hasn't accomplished enough because it barely creates new world champions. The majority of people that has competed in the King of the Mountain match, as well as the people who have won it, have been world champions to the point where another reign doesn't improve their legacy, because it's just another reign.

Actually, TNA being in the dumps is the perfect explanation for why this match hasn't become something bigger. If TNA doesn't have the exposure or the reputation of a good promotion, why would anyone care about something they are doing? If the King of the Mountain match were to take place in WWE, it would be as big as MITB or Elimination Chamber.

And saying it hasn't taken off because it doesn't create new Worlds Champions is way off base. It hasn't taken off because TNA hasn't taken off. Why would a casual fan care about a first-time TNA champion? TNA is the problem, not this match. This is one of the best ideas they have come up with, if not their very best.

The Money in the Bank, while it has increased a number of reigns (Edge and CM Punk) the majority of times it has given a brand new champion.

Once again, you are comparing WWE and TNA instead of Money in the Bank against King of the Mountain. It's hard to give you a response when you are not on-topic.

The problem with the choices of participants is that neither one of the participants (Especially not the winner for the most of it) doesn't need to be in there. They don't need to become world champion again. Their careers is at a point where they're already main eventing. And therefore could win the championship without the match.

Who doesn't need to be in there? I asked you this before, and still no answer. TNA has put their top guys in this match (for the most part). It's a World Title match most of the time. Do I agree TNA needs to let someone surprising win the thing? Sure, that's fine with me. But no one watches, so who would care? Once again, this isn't about how bad TNA is, or how much more popular WWE is. It's about the better match-type. You're going away from the simple, given topic because there isn't much ground to stand on when saying MITB is the better match type. King of the Mountain is everything MITB is, and more. It has expanded upon the idea of the multi-man ladder match, while MITB has stood still. Should WWE change it up? Probably not. But once again, WWE doesn't have to. They are the bigger and better promotion, and shouldn't concern themselves with TNA. But that doesn't mean TNA hasn't come up with a great concept with the King of the Mountain match.

Money in the Bank creates main event wrestlers. It helps to create the future of the promotion. In that manner the Money in the Bank ladder match is therefore the better match.

No. The way WWE has used the match has done that. WWE could choose to use this match in any way they want, for any title they want, or in any other way they see fit. It doesn't have to be for the #1 Contendership. This match is nothing special. The only special thing about it has been WWE attaching a #1 Contenders contract to it, which has nothing to do with the match-type. But that isn't the question at hand.

That's all about opinions Nick. Just because you might not find the Money in the Bank match more entertaining than the King of the Mountain match. It doesn't mean that it's automatically the situation for each and every other wrestling fan out there. The King of the Mountain's complexity could very well kill off the interest for some fans.

The CONCEPT of King of the Mountain is more interesting. I have found the MITB matches very entertaining. But that doesn't change the fact that is essentially just a ladder match, with nothing special happening. If it weren't for a #1 Contenders contract, it would just be a multi-man ladder match. It wouldn't even be called Money in the Bank.

You keep bringing up these fans who might be turned off by complexity, and thinking. Where are these fans? I haven't heard anyone say that before. I would like to know where you came up with this idea.

WWE could very well have taken use of the match themselves. Yet it doesn't make it any more interesting of a match. It doesn't make it anymore of a confusing match. The main event scene of WWE doesn't have many people that are in a position to wrestle in ladder matches. So from a safety perspective King of the Mountains for the main event wrestlers wouldn't make sense. And yes I know it wouldn't need for the Money in the Bank either. But most of the times there's not even a main event wrestler in the Money in the Bank.

Yes, they could have. But, unfortunately, TNA got there first. It would have been used much better in the WWE, I believe. But that means nothing when comparing match-types. Off topic again.

The King of the Mountain match has managed to feature a lot of main event wrestlers who are definitely in no position whatsoever to be competing in ladder matches when it comes to creating spots. There's a very small amount of high flyers in the majority of the matches (count out the X division one). It therefore creates for less insane spots.

And WWE hasn't done this? The WWE uses big guys in these types of matches all of the time. It's really not fair of you to say that about TNA, and not WWE.

And you could very well argue "But spots doesn't make the match more interesting". Well that's one side of it, some may not find it more interesting, that's all a matter of opinion. But some obviously have a thing for spots. A lot of the wrestlers that has competed in some kind of ladder match in their WWE career has gotten over due to sick spots. Something with the Money in the Bank has a long list of experience with.

Are you trying to say King of the Mountain doesn't have the same potential for big spots? I hope not, because that would make no sense. Both matches can be spot-fests. In terms of big spots, there is basically no difference, minus KOTM having the top of the Penalty Box in it's toolbox.

I admit I have not watched each and every one of the King of the Mountain matches. However those that I have spend the time to watch, have not featured spots that I would say could hold a candle to the spots performed in a Money in the Bank ladder match. The competitors as well as the match in itself therefore creates for better and bigger spots. Something that will (opinion again I know) create for a better match.

You may be right about this. But that doesn't mean the potential for big spots isn't there. Once again, this isn't about TNA vs. WWE. Potential for big spots is no different in King of the Mountain than it is in MITB.

Bold part is arguable. Again as I mentioned, the spots featured at the King of the Mountain matches I have seen, compared to the spots featured at the Money in the Bank ladder matches are nothing special. The awesomeness of the King of the Mountain match fades compared to the Money in the Bank matches when it comes to creating spots.

Once again, all TNA's fault. If WWE were to use this match, just once, I'm almost certain it could replace the bland, generic ladder match they use to crown the MITB case-holder. Remember, MITB is just a stipulation. It isn't a match exclusive to it's usual prize. TNA hasn't done a very good job promoting their company, let alone this potentially amazing type of match.

You have done a decent job of trying to make this debate about TNA vs. WWE. But that is not what is being asked. I hope people keep that in mind while reading this entire debate.

 

[Ferbian]

I took the liberty of leaving out the paragraphs that does nothing for this debate.

It's somewhat complex, but let's not act as though it's rocket science. Any wrestling fan, with half a brain, can understand the concept. That's like saying the Iron Man match doesn't work because some fans do not know how to count. Or that the Royal Rumble match doesn't work because some fans can't tell time. You're really reaching here, my friend.

Gee thanks. To be honest, it took me a while figuring out the concept myself Nick.

And I'm sure not with half a brain. And that would mean I'm probably not the only one who has been confused by the concept. There are small children watching that (Don't deny it, it might be TV-14 but there sure as hell are kids slipping through, I'm sure of that!). Besides King of the Mountain is much more complex than a Royal Rumble match, Royal Rumble is simple, as well as the Iron Man match.

King of the mountain (From my understanding mind you) asks you to first either submit an opponent, or pin him. Then that opponent goes in a penalty box for X amount of time. And then the person who has pinned or submitted the other, is eligible to, not retrieve a belt, but hang the belt up in the wire thing.

Yep, not complex at all. Money in the Bank: 8 members trying to fight for the chance of a world title match, by retrieving a briefcase using a ladder. Much shorter rules, much less complex.

You're right, it sure is simple. It's also ol. It's been done to death, over and over again. They can keep adding guys to the MITB match, but at the end of the day, it's a ladder match, and nothing more. WWE has expanded the number of participants, and nothing more in regards to this contest.

Ladder matches has been hugely over for a long long time. What's to say that doesn't make it the better match? Everybody loves to watch a ladder match. I mean hell Nick when ripping all the damn stipulations off the King of the Mountain, it's a ladder match as well. So basically the whole thing you're debating for, is the exact same thing you're calling old and boring, with a few fancy stipulations nobody gives a damn about added on top to make it seem innovative, make it seem like it's something new.

Easier for the wrestlers? How hard can it possibly be for a professional wrestler (who is being paid to do their job, hence the word professional) to understand King of the Mountain? These men may be meatheads, but they are not retarted. You qualify by pinning/submitting someone. You want to stay out of the penalty box, and you need to hang the briefcase. I'm not sure why you think people are so dumb they cannot grasp that simple concept.

Because by the end of the day. You come home tired and all that, or you're just planning on sitting back and watching a good ol' Pay Per View. What do you wanna watch most? A simple ladder match with an easy understanding. Or a complex ladder match? I sure know what I'd rather watch.

Simplicity automatically makes for a better match? I couldn't disagree more. You really are working overtime to make this concept sound much more complex than it really is.

Simplicity makes for the match to be much more enjoyable for the casual fan. The Money in the Bank ladder match has great spots, and great matches. The King of the Mountain matches I've watched couldn't hold a candle to the Money in the Bank when it comes to entertaining me.

Wrestling fans are always looking for change. Whether it be in the attitude of the programming they are watching, the style of writing, or the types of matches they see. Wrestling fans are always looking for bigger and better, something new. If people can follow matches like the Royal Rumble or the Elimination Chamber, they can easily get into King of the Mountain. It has expanded upon the dull, over-done ladder match. It's just too bad TNA doesn't have the following to back it up.

Yet is there really any change in the King of the Mountain vs the Money in the Bank Nick? Is there? Because King of the Mountain has been around for 3 years more than the Money in the Bank. So what's to say that it isn't a change away from King of the Mountains that the fans want?

Actually, TNA being in the dumps is the perfect explanation for why this match hasn't become something bigger. If TNA doesn't have the exposure or the reputation of a good promotion, why would anyone care about something they are doing? If the King of the Mountain match were to take place in WWE, it would be as big as MITB or Elimination Chamber.

Yet it's one of the promotions premiere gimmick matches. Shouldn't it be more than enough to gain exposure to the point where it's actually a worthy thing to watch? It doesn't make sense to blame the promotions exposure for the match not having accomplished enough. TNA no matter how we twist and turn it, no matter how few viewers it might have compared to WWE, still draws about 1-1.3 in ratings. (I'm sure that's about a little over a million viewers right?). That's more than enough to expose the match in itself and to accomplish things. Which it still isn't. It's not creating stars, it's not pushing for a new champion that actually makes sense.

I mean dude Jeff Jarrett was undefeated in that damn match prior to Slammiversary 2009. How the hell does it warrant Jeff Jarrett, the promoter(!!) to get world titles left and right? He's a 6 times NWA champion since the introduction of TNA. So of course it's not accomplishing anything because it's giving victories to the wrong people. Money in the Bank has created stars, created the right stars, and all of them have made sense. Does Jeff Jarrett winning title number ... make sense when he's the promoter? No.

And saying it hasn't taken off because it doesn't create new Worlds Champions is way off base. It hasn't taken off because TNA hasn't taken off. Why would a casual fan care about a first-time TNA champion? TNA is the problem, not this match. This is one of the best ideas they have come up with, if not their very best.

Exactly. Why do people care about a new TNA champion, a guy who has been world champion many times before, rather than watching someone win a contract to potentially become a newly crowned world champion?

Who doesn't need to be in there? I asked you this before, and still no answer. TNA has put their top guys in this match (for the most part). It's a World Title match most of the time. Do I agree TNA needs to let someone surprising win the thing? Sure, that's fine with me. But no one watches, so who would care? Once again, this isn't about how bad TNA is, or how much more popular WWE is. It's about the better match-type. You're going away from the simple, given topic because there isn't much ground to stand on when saying MITB is the better match type. King of the Mountain is everything MITB is, and more. It has expanded upon the idea of the multi-man ladder match, while MITB has stood still. Should WWE change it up? Probably not. But once again, WWE doesn't have to. They are the bigger and better promotion, and shouldn't concern themselves with TNA. But that doesn't mean TNA hasn't come up with a great concept with the King of the Mountain match.

Let's have a look at the common competitor throughout the majority of the matches. Mick Foley sure didn't make sense to me in 2009. Samoa Joe didn't really make sense to me in 2007. Hell the majority of the people that have been world champion in some manner before doesn't make sense to me to be in there.

The whole match is killed for me knowing I'll just see someone become X times world champion. And not the excitement of, say Christian winning the briefcase to get a chance to finally become WWE or World Heavyweight champion. I loved that Jack Swagger won the 2010 briefcase. I loved that CM Punk and Edge won their briefcases. Because there were newly crowned champions in sight (Sure CM Punk and Edge second time was less of a wohoo experience, or well maybe not CM Punk because I wanted him back in the main event scene).

No. The way WWE has used the match has done that. WWE could choose to use this match in any way they want, for any title they want, or in any other way they see fit. It doesn't have to be for the #1 Contendership. This match is nothing special. The only special thing about it has been WWE attaching a #1 Contenders contract to it, which has nothing to do with the match-type. But that isn't the question at hand.

But that still doesn't change the fact that WWE has created main event stars by using this match. It's the whole concept of the match to create a future world champion.

The CONCEPT of King of the Mountain is more interesting. I have found the MITB matches very entertaining. But that doesn't change the fact that is essentially just a ladder match, with nothing special happening. If it weren't for a #1 Contenders contract, it would just be a multi-man ladder match. It wouldn't even be called Money in the Bank.

The concept of the King of the Mountain is to pin or submit someone, climb a ladder and hang a belt to become world champion. Real interesting yeah. Sounds incredibly boring to me.

After all, haven't we determined the better wrestler of the people in there if you've managed to pin or submit one of the other wrestlers? What in the world is the purpose of having to climb a ladder afterwards then if you've already proved that you're the better man?

You keep bringing up these fans who might be turned off by complexity, and thinking. Where are these fans? I haven't heard anyone say that before. I would like to know where you came up with this idea.

Not everybody is on the Internet expressing their thoughts on a match Nick. I find it complex and I'm turned off by that as well. If I want to watch someone climb a ladder, I'll watch a regular good ol' classic ladder match. Not some stipulation festival.

And WWE hasn't done this? The WWE uses big guys in these types of matches all of the time. It's really not fair of you to say that about TNA, and not WWE.

They haven't used big main event wrestlers no. There has yet to have been featured a big main event wrestler in a Money in the Bank ladder match. Sure you could argue that Randy Orton is a big sized guy, and he's also a main event wrestler. But it's nothing compared to a guy like Triple H or John Cena. They're not as agile as the other people who has competed. And sure you could argue that "Big Show and Kane aren't agile either Ferbian". No they're not, but they're not main event wrestlers either, and could both benefit from winning a Money in the Bank (Kane did benefit from it, I wouldn't be too excited for Big Show, but he's not as accomplished as ever, so he could benefit from it just a little bit).

Are you trying to say King of the Mountain doesn't have the same potential for big spots? I hope not, because that would make no sense. Both matches can be spot-fests. In terms of big spots, there is basically no difference, minus KOTM having the top of the Penalty Box in it's toolbox.

Both can be. But I have yet to see King of the Mountain live up to that expectation. Because let's face it, ladder matches has the crowd expecting big spots. And yes the penalty box is a toolbox, the amount of wrestlers available as well as the announce tables makes for toolboxes in the WWE matches. And who doesn't love seeing someone go through an announce table?

You may be right about this. But that doesn't mean the potential for big spots isn't there. Once again, this isn't about TNA vs. WWE. Potential for big spots is no different in King of the Mountain than it is in MITB.

I would love to see where you think this particular paragraph you quoted makes it about TNA vs. WWE when it's really King of the Mountain vs Money in the Bank. The Money in the Bank has constantly lived up to its big spot potential. King of the Mountain has not.

Once again, all TNA's fault. If WWE were to use this match, just once, I'm almost certain it could replace the bland, generic ladder match they use to crown the MITB case-holder. Remember, MITB is just a stipulation. It isn't a match exclusive to it's usual prize. TNA hasn't done a very good job promoting their company, let alone this potentially amazing type of match.

I'm not sure how the fact that TNA hasn't been great at promoting the match, as well as the promotion, that it therefore affects the spots in the match. The spots could very well still be featured, but they're not.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I took the liberty of leaving out the paragraphs that does nothing for this debate.

I will do the same.

Gee thanks. To be honest, it took me a while figuring out the concept myself Nick.

I really don't know how to help you there, Ferbian.

And I'm sure not with half a brain. And that would mean I'm probably not the only one who has been confused by the concept. There are small children watching that (Don't deny it, it might be TV-14 but there sure as hell are kids slipping through, I'm sure of that!). Besides King of the Mountain is much more complex than a Royal Rumble match, Royal Rumble is simple, as well as the Iron Man match.

I still can't understand why King of the Mountain is so difficult to understand. If you're pinned, the winner is eligible and the loser heads to the box. One you qualify, you are then able to go after the belt and hang it. This is really, really simple. My 12-year old brother has had no difficulty in understanding what's going on in any of these matches.

I think if booked properly, this match can be one of the most popular gimmick matches in wrestling. Can TNA pull it off? Most likely not. They have a hard time getting people to watch them for free on television, so selling PPV's on a big-time scale doesn't seem likely.

King of the mountain (From my understanding mind you) asks you to first either submit an opponent, or pin him. Then that opponent goes in a penalty box for X amount of time. And then the person who has pinned or submitted the other, is eligible to, not retrieve a belt, but hang the belt up in the wire thing.

Correct.....? What's the problem?

Yep, not complex at all. Money in the Bank: 8 members trying to fight for the chance of a world title match, by retrieving a briefcase using a ladder. Much shorter rules, much less complex.

Just because MITB is about as simplistic as it gets doesn't mean King of the Mountain is too complicated for people to understand, children or adults.

While entertaining, you are allowed to ask people to think.

Ladder matches has been hugely over for a long long time. What's to say that doesn't make it the better match? Everybody loves to watch a ladder match. I mean hell Nick when ripping all the damn stipulations off the King of the Mountain, it's a ladder match as well. So basically the whole thing you're debating for, is the exact same thing you're calling old and boring, with a few fancy stipulations nobody gives a damn about added on top to make it seem innovative, make it seem like it's something new.

I am not exactly bored with the ladder match, but it has been done to death. It's done far too often, and adding something new to the concept cannot hurt. A few fancy stipulations? What do you think the briefcase containing the contract is? Same thing. What I'm trying to get through you head is the fact that MITB is just a ladder match. That's all it is. MITB has also gotten over by having a "fancy" stipulation.

Because by the end of the day. You come home tired and all that, or you're just planning on sitting back and watching a good ol' Pay Per View. What do you wanna watch most? A simple ladder match with an easy understanding. Or a complex ladder match? I sure know what I'd rather watch.

I don't know Ferbian, when I'm thinking of ordering a PPV, I don't sit around debating which will enable me to think less...

Simplicity makes for the match to be much more enjoyable for the casual fan.

You say this, yet I have never heard anyone else say so. I know plenty of casual fans who love matches like the Elimination Chamber. Not everyone is totally freaking out over how much you have to think while watching a match. It's really a non-issue.

The King of the Mountain matches I've watched couldn't hold a candle to the Money in the Bank when it comes to entertaining me.

That's TNA's fault. I have never said that a King of the Mountain match, so far, has been better than any MITB match, because that isn't the question. I think the match-type of King of the Mountain is more well-thought out, and could be a big hit..if it weren't in TNA. TNA's booking is shit, we all know this. But, for the 34th time, this isn't about how bad TNA is.

The whole match is killed for me knowing I'll just see someone become X times world champion. And not the excitement of, say Christian winning the briefcase to get a chance to finally become WWE or World Heavyweight champion. I loved that Jack Swagger won the 2010 briefcase. I loved that CM Punk and Edge won their briefcases. Because there were newly crowned champions in sight (Sure CM Punk and Edge second time was less of a wohoo experience, or well maybe not CM Punk because I wanted him back in the main event scene).

So you don't like the match because it's possible, or even likely, you won't see a new World's champion? The same thing can be said about many, many other kinds of matches.

But that still doesn't change the fact that WWE has created main event stars by using this match. It's the whole concept of the match to create a future world champion.

No. WWE has created stars by adding that stipulation onto an already existing match (the ladder match).

The concept of the King of the Mountain is to pin or submit someone, climb a ladder and hang a belt to become world champion. Real interesting yeah. Sounds incredibly boring to me.

And someone climbing up a ladder and grabbing a briefcase doesn't? I'm not even sure how you can make that comment. How can that sound boring? Maybe you don't think it sounds good, but boring?

After all, haven't we determined the better wrestler of the people in there if you've managed to pin or submit one of the other wrestlers? What in the world is the purpose of having to climb a ladder afterwards then if you've already proved that you're the better man?

Having multiple pinfalls and submissions adds action to the match. It adds an element you won't find in MITB.

Not everybody is on the Internet expressing their thoughts on a match Nick. I find it complex and I'm turned off by that as well. If I want to watch someone climb a ladder, I'll watch a regular good ol' classic ladder match. Not some stipulation festival.

For the love of Christ, it really isn't that complicated. You are just being dramatic.

I would love to see where you think this particular paragraph you quoted makes it about TNA vs. WWE when it's really King of the Mountain vs Money in the Bank. The Money in the Bank has constantly lived up to its big spot potential. King of the Mountain has not.

Matches are booked by writers. Just because TNA has garbage controlling their creative department, doesn't mean this isn't a solid and entertaining match-type.

I'm not sure how the fact that TNA hasn't been great at promoting the match, as well as the promotion, that it therefore affects the spots in the match. The spots could very well still be featured, but they're not.

Booking! They have shit booking. They are worse at booking than promoting. But that doesn't mean the match-type can't be great. Spots are booked. They do not magically pop out of nowhere, on the spot. They are planned ahead of time, carefully. TNA is at fault for not making this happen. Blaming a match-type for this problem is beyond ridiculous.

To say MITB is the better concept because it's more simplistic is quite sad. Do you say the same thing about video games? Movies? TV shows? Simplistic does not make for more entertaining, it just dulls the senses.

 

[Ferbian]

Nick and I have agreed to settle with our closing arguments, simply because we both feel we'd be repeating ourselves way too much if we continue the back and forth debating. I would like to take this final chance to wish Nick good luck, and hope for the best for both of us.

--------------------------------------------

Closing argument​

As we all know Money in the Bank has been able to accomplish things all around, creating new stars, creating exciting matches and getting the crowd behind it so much that we're seeing a Pay Per View revolving around the concept. That would obviously make for it to seem like the superior match would it not?

My opponent would tend to disagree with that, so let's look at some comparisons. While my opponent might feel the majority of this is off-topic, I will state it either way.

We're seeing more stars created from Money in the Bank, it prepares for the future of the business​

As I have already listed, there has been a lot of stars created from Money in the Bank, King of the Mountain however has managed to create very little star power, they have practically given a championship to one who has already been champion at one point or another, or could get there by themselves. Money in the Bank has proved itself to be the stepping ground for wrestlers into a world title scene, and for some, a main stay in the main event.

Money in the Bank is guaranteed high impact action​

Money in the Bank almost always guarantees for a big spot to be performed in one way or another. We've seen Evan Bourne with a Shooting Star Press off a ladder, we've seen Mark Henry slam Kofi Kingston onto a ladder. Hell pretty much a big spot was involved in CM Punk getting the briefcase in 2009, 2 ladders against each other with Kane falling off in the end.

The Money in the Bank has always one way or another managed to shock the world with massive spots. There's of course some that has fewer and less excitement than others, there's always gonna be that. But in the end, they have all managed to produce some kind of match that left the crowd talking.

Money in the Bank has it's own Pay Per View now, King of the Mountain wasn't even featured at it's home base Pay Per View this year​

King of the Mountain is usually an event that takes place at Slammiversary, it has been one of the premiere gimmick matches of TNA for it's whole existence, but it's scrapped now. Slammiversary has passed our way in 2010, and it wasn't on the card. How does that really say anything about King of the Mountain being a better match if TNA doesn't even want to feature it anymore? Money in the Bank has it's own Pay Per View now, and it's still going strong.

Therefore it's obvious with these facts presented, that in every way possible no matter how you twist and turn it. The Money in the Bank ladder match is just better.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Closing Argument

WWE's Money in the Bank ladder match has done everything my opponent has stated. It has given us new champions, created new stars, and has even inspired it's own PPV. It's high octane, just like any other match involving a ladder (King of the Mountain as well). Lots of big spots, guys flying around, you get the point.

If the question asked in the OP was which match has created bigger stars, I would have answered Money in the Bank. If it would have asked which match has become more popular among wrestling fans, I would have answered Money in the Bank. If it would have asked who is doing a better overall job with their product, TNA or WWE, I would have answered WWE, without question.

But none of those questions were asked. It was a very simple question; "Which is the better multiman match type, King of the Mountain or Money in the Bank?"

The Money in the Bank match type- not the event, not the stipulation involved, but only the match and rules of the match- is nothing more than a simple ladder match. The match itself is only popular due to the stipulation WWE has put with it; whoever wins gets a WWE title shot. That's it. If that match did not have a title shot up for grabs, or a title at all, it would be just another ladder match.

Has it been more interesting with six or eight men as opposed to two or three?? I guess so, but if it weren't for a WWE/WHC title shot, would it be anything more than a ladder match with 6 guys? I don't think so. Without the stipulation added to this basic ladder match, it wouldn't be anything special.

The King of the Mountain match-type is actually a pretty well-thought out idea. Five men enter. Each man has to qualify by pinning/submitting one of his four opponents (the man who is pinned/or submitted must enter the penalty box for two minutes). Once you qualify, you are eligible to grab the belt (from the ref), climb the ladder, and attempt to hang the belt (reverse of the regular ladder match). The man who hangs the belt, wins the belt, and is the King of the Mountain.

My opponent would have you believe this is an overly-complicated concept. My 12-year old brother has watched every single King of the Mountain match, and has never had any sort of difficulty understanding what was going on. People are not nearly as stupid as Ferbian is making them out to be. Is it more complicated than your regular (MITB) ladder match concept? Sure, but that's the point of expanding.

You are giving fans something they have never seen before, something totally original. This was done with Hell in a Cell and The Elimination Chamber as well. The MITB match is not original. The stipulation added to the MITB match type is the only unique thing about it.

Has TNA done a bang-up job promoting and/or booking King of the Mountain? No, but they haven't done a decent job in either one those aspects since opening their doors. What I'm trying to say is we shouldn't confuse TNA's shitty booking with how great this match could be. If done right, this match is the most original contest involving a ladder out there today.

I'm asking some of you to put away your disdain for TNA's creative team. This isn't about TNA vs. WWE. This is about MITB vs. KOTM. Just the matches. Not the prior wrestlers involved, not the titles at stake, not which company has ownership, and not the stipulations added. This would be so much easier to argue if King of the Mountain were a WWE match, and MITB were a TNA match. But that isn't the way it is. I hope those who read this understand what I'm trying to say.

Thanks for your time everyone, I appreciate it.

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: nickb03
From the go he stays on subject and calls Ferb out on it, recognising that the match is about which type is better and not it's purpose.

Punctuality: nickb03
Ferb nearly took 2 days with with his last reply in comparison to nickb03 who didn't even delay over 24 hours.

Informative: Draw
Giving half a point on this one, I didn't really feel either debater maxed out on information as it was pretty repetitive and nothing new was added on the info front.

Persuasion: nickb03
This is mainly due to nickb03 keeping at best to keep the subject at hand, while I give great kudos to Ferbian for his debating, I felt that his side of the debate wasn't concrete enough in convincing me why I should prefer MITB over KOTM. While at times nick's main defence was "TNA's fault" he was able to defend what Ferbian threw at him and countered with another element while for me Ferbian was too defensive in my opinion.

Final Score
nickb03: 4.5
Ferbian: 0.5

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Nick gets the points as Ferbs went off topic a bit.

Point: nickb03

Punctuation: Ferbs was late for his final post.

Point: nickb03

Informative: I'm with Phoenix on this one. Nothing new was added throughout the debate.

Point: Split

Persuasion: Now this is getting to the nitty gritty. I'm not a fan of King of the Mountain, I find it dumb as shit to have to hang a belt up to win a match. The concept is good, and would be better if they had to take the belt off, but the execution doesn't do anything for me. Now while MITB is simplistic, simple is effective in wrestling and always has. Nick just had to sway me to even the middle to get full points here, but that didn't happen. He didn't persuade me to his side, even while sticking to the topic at hand.

Point: nickb03 one, Ferbian one

CH David scores this nickb03 3.5, Ferbian 1.5.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Good job, nickb03. You unfortunately had no opening post, so you, in my eyes, lose the debate by default. With an opening post detailing your argument, you would have won this thing hands down.

Final Score

Ferbian 3.5 (Clarity, Informative, Persuasion (1.5))

nickb03 (Punctuality, Persuasion (0.5))

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- I have to give this to Ferbian. He had an opening post which detailed his argument. Nick did not. Didn't know his points. He just went on the attack. Ferbian had a clear argument and it was well organized.

Point: Ferbian

Informative -I am going to split. Both had a lot to work with and they did not capitalize.

point: both

Punctuality - Nick wins here. He was quick. At one point Ferbs took a life time.

Point: Nick

Persuasion- I have to give this to Ferbian. I agreed with MITB and he kept me on the same side. Nick really didn't do anything to persuade me because I didn't really know where he stood on the matter. Ferbian had an opening post and I knew his point. Which was just enough to persuade me.

Point: Ferbian

Tally:

Ferbian: 3.5
Nick:1.5

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, nickb03 is the victor on 11 points to Little Ferbians's 9.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!