Round 5: Unsex -vs- Riaku

[D-Man]

Which of William Regal’s leadership roles was better, as Commissioner in 2001 or as Raw General Manager in 2008?

This is a fourth round match in the Debater's League. Unsex is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

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

Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

Good luck.​

 

[Remix]

I'll be arguing that his role as Raw GM in '08 was better, and I'd like Riaku to go first.

 

[ABMorales787]

Very well. I'll start. Good luck to Unsex.

William Regal. He (unofficially) debuted in the WWE as a "Real Man's Man" in the fall 1999, but was removed from TV. He returned on September 18, 2000 and from there went on to feud for and subsequently win the European Championship. Going into 2001, William Regal was named the new commissioner of the WWF following Mick Foley's firing by defeating Al Snow on March 8 2001. The "Goodwill Ambassador" went into the year with a feud for the Intercontinental Championship against Chris Jericho and fought for the belt at the opening match in Wrestlemania X-Seven in a losing effort. The feud continued at Backlash in a "Duchess OF Queensbury" match. Basically making up rules as the match progressed and winning it. As the months followed the Invasion angle began with Regal still being WWF commissioner. He then sided with The Alliance and aided Stone Cold Steve Austin in winning back the WWF title from Kurt Angle. He was fired as WWF commissioner but made Alliance commissioner. From there he goes to small feuds with Raven and Tajiri until The Alliance ends at Survivor Series. Ending Regal's commissioner role.

Fast forward to 2007, Raw has been without a GM for a long time so a battle royal to name a new one is won by Regal. From there on Regal would use his power to do as he pleased in the show. Going as far as canceling matches and even forcing himself and winning the 2008 King of the Ring. All of this came to an abrupt end when he lost to Mr. kennedy and was fired. In reality he was suspended for 60 days for his second violation of the WWE Wellness Policy.

After a nice history lesson on William Regal, we can see he does well on authority figure roles. Probably his best roles ever. But the debate here questions which was best. His 2001 or 2007-2008 role. In my eyes it was 2001 role. he was a much more active competitor as well as an enforcing figure. Winning many PPV matches against Tajiri, Chris Jericho, Al Snow and Rikishi. On the other side, Regal did in fact win the 2008 King Of The Ring. However other than that, not much. He never competed on PPV and his role was much less active. On occasion he competed in losing effort to the likes of Randy Orton and John Cena and at one point tried to end Ric Flair's career but also failed. As King Of The Ring he didn't get to do much as a few months later, he was fired due to his second wellness violation.

Regal was not much of an influence in his '07-'08 role as his 2001 role. He did draw heat from turning off the lights, but it really wasn't something as memorable as when he sipped a coffee mug full of Chris Jericho's pee or the "Duchess Of Queensbury" match. Or reading Shakespeare before getting stunned by Austin. Basically, I say that his '01 run was his most memorable.


I await my opponent's response.

 

[Remix]

Thanks for opening swiftly Riaku.

As you may have guessed from my opening post, I feel that Regal's role as General Manager was superior to his run as Commissioner. I'll explain why in more detail later on in this post.

I'm going to skip most of the early history of Regal, because my opponent gave an excelent account of it. However I feel that I need to make one alteration to it. William Regal was not 'removed from television' as my opponent says. He was sent to drug rehab, and subsiquently fired because it didn't work. He then went to WCW, got fired again before redebuting as William Regal in the WWF. With the history report sumaraly updated let's get to the meat and bones of the debate.

The first reason that Regal's run as General Manager was superior to his run as a Commissioner was that as a GM he really didn't accomplish all that much. He failed to win the IC title against Jericho, and was only able to beat him by (as you say) making up rules mid match. In this time he also lost twise against Raven on PPV before teaming up with Tajiri (where he proceeded to do not a whole lot) before defecting to the Alliance. Meanwhile as a General Manager he won King of the Ring by beating CM Punk in the finals. While that accomplishment might not sound like much, it's more than he achieved as Commissioner.

The second reason that he did a better job as GM than as commissioner can be summed up by four words. "Kiss my ass club". Now, technically this didn't happen until after he was fired as Commissioner but the fact remains that William Regal's actions as commissioner meant that he had to kiss the ring of Vince McMahon. Say what you like about Regal's run as GM, but he never had to litterally kiss anybody's ass to save his job.

Reason number three is that William Regal as GM was (as far as I can tell (i.e. I looked at OWW because I wasn't watching WWF at the time) a more active wrestler as GM than he was as commissioner, where he spent a lot of time being a glorified manager for Tajiri and playing odd couple with him. Granted he was never wrestling in PPVs, but then when did any other GM? He was also wrestling some higher quality opposition, with him wrestling HHH three times (including a first blood match) and present (at the time) WWE champion Randy Orton. Whereas when he was Commissioner he was wrestling Rikishi and Raven. Forgive me for being considerably less impressed, by beating those two but having good matches with future hall of famers.

Finally, William Regal wielded more power as GM than he did as commissioner. You can say that reciting Shakespere before a stunner or drinking piss is memorable, but what he was doing was reacting to the actions of others. In essence being a ass kissing bitch. As GM Regal was a doer. He won king of the ring. He was taking charge and pulling the plug if you pissed him off, he was screwing HHH out of entering the Royal Rumble, he was abusing his power by making superstars play the dating game. So yeah, he was a better GM than a commissioner because he was actually throwing his weight around rather than being thrown around.

Riaku, I await your responce.

 

[ABMorales787]

The first reason that Regal's run as General Manager was superior to his run as a Commissioner was that as a GM he really didn't accomplish all that much. He failed to win the IC title against Jericho, and was only able to beat him by (as you say) making up rules mid match. In this time he also lost twise against Raven on PPV before teaming up with Tajiri (where he proceeded to do not a whole lot) before defecting to the Alliance. Meanwhile as a General Manager he won King of the Ring by beating CM Punk in the finals. While that accomplishment might not sound like much, it's more than he achieved as Commissioner.

He had a high profile match at Wrestlemania for a high profile championship in what is arguably the greatest Wrestlemania of all time. That alone outshines a tainted King Of The Ring tournament win. It took place on Raw. He never did anything following the "major" win or even fight on PPV. A King Of The Ring win always signifies the coming of a main event push. The only cases in which the push just plain ol' fails and leads nowhere were when Mabel and Billy Gunn won them. Now you can add William Regal to the list of failures and probably why the once legendary tournament fell into obscurity for its final time.

The second reason that he did a better job as GM than as commissioner can be summed up by four words. "Kiss my ass club". Now, technically this didn't happen until after he was fired as Commissioner but the fact remains that William Regal's actions as commissioner meant that he had to kiss the ring of Vince McMahon. Say what you like about Regal's run as GM, but he never had to litterally kiss anybody's ass to save his job.

It was the same thing too on Raw in '07-'08. While he was technically the man in charge, Vince McMahon was also around looking for his bastard son. In this run he was also out to "kiss Vince's ass".

Reason number three is that William Regal as GM was (as far as I can tell (i.e. I looked at OWW because I wasn't watching WWF at the time) a more active wrestler as GM than he was as commissioner, where he spent a lot of time being a glorified manager for Tajiri and playing odd couple with him. Granted he was never wrestling in PPVs, but then when did any other GM? He was also wrestling some higher quality opposition, with him wrestling HHH three times (including a first blood match) and present (at the time) WWE champion Randy Orton. Whereas when he was Commissioner he was wrestling Rikishi and Raven. Forgive me for being considerably less impressed, by beating those two but having good matches with future hall of famers.

He wrestled Triple H in 2004. Due to his ties to Eugene. Never did in his GM role have a first blood match with him. Not only that but the fact that he was gaining more exposure, even though he was occasionally losing, through PPV match appearances. As GM, his appearances were simply him playing second fiddle to Vince McMahon or announcing "Umanga" at WM 24.

Here's an example of him PPV as GM and then as "Commish"

As GM at Summerslam:
[youtube]iAdfEfwABcs[/youtube]

As Commish at WM 17:
[youtube]sXgw3LgdJdY[/youtube]

An authority figure who tends to get physical stands out better than one that doesn't. Especially when he's getting physical at the grandest stage of them all.

Finally, William Regal wielded more power as GM than he did as commissioner. You can say that reciting Shakespere before a stunner or drinking piss is memorable, but what he was doing was reacting to the actions of others. In essence being a ass kissing bitch. As GM Regal was a doer. He won king of the ring. He was taking charge and pulling the plug if you pissed him off, he was screwing HHH out of entering the Royal Rumble, he was abusing his power by making superstars play the dating game. So yeah, he was a better GM than a commissioner because he was actually throwing his weight around rather than being thrown around.

An abusive leader isn't always a good one.

If you look at different perspectives, I find different reasons why the commish role was superior.

From an entertainment side

He was resiting Shakespeare. He was drinking piss. He was making up a match and had a "queen" sitting around watching. He had a goofy sidekick. And he wrestled a lot too. If you want an entertaining leader named William Regal, look him up at 2001. At his best.

From a heat drawing side

This one is hard, but I have to go for it. Even though his 2008 counterpart was turning off matches and screwing Triple H out of the Rumble, 2001 William Regal was calling you miss behaved and spent about 10 minutes in the ring trying to teach you good manners. After a little bit, it gets hugely annoying. The fact that he had prolonged promos as opposed to just giving an order like he did in '08, makes me think he drew more heat in his 2001 tenure. I'm using here the Vickie Guerrero scale. The longer his out there being annoying, the more heat he draws.

More exposure

He had many (albeit small) feuds on TV that led to PPV matches. His most notable was with Chris Jericho. In his 2008 tenure, his feuds were pretty small. His longest and most notable, arguably was with Triple H. Because it was about a month long and led to Triple H destroying the 2002-2007 Raw set. Aside from that, his 2 week feud with Mr. Kennedy and random matches with John Cena, Randy Orton and CM Punk. That's about it. Not too memorable in my book.

In both runs, he was kissing McMahon's ass while throwing his power whenever he could. But he's much more remembered for doing it in 2001. Which is why I believe his 2001 role was best. He was entertaining, provided good many matches, steady heat, and unique. The objective in pro wrestling is to entertain. Which William Regal did best in 2001. Which is why I think that was his best leadership role.

 

[Remix]

[QUOTE="iMPACT! Player" Riaku;2383963]He had a high profile match at Wrestlemania for a high profile championship in what is arguably the greatest Wrestlemania of all time. That alone outshines a tainted King Of The Ring tournament win.[/quote]

He was wrestling at the event as a curtain jerker and was beaten in under 10 minutes. Also, he lost. Winning a lesser title is more impressive than failing to win a greater one.

It took place on Raw. He never did anything following the "major" win or even fight on PPV. A King Of The Ring win always signifies the coming of a main event push. The only cases in which the push just plain ol' fails and leads nowhere were when Mabel and Billy Gunn won them. Now you can add William Regal to the list of failures and probably why the once legendary tournament fell into obscurity for its final time.

Regal being a bad choice for a push has nothing to do with his run as GM, and everything to do with him being too liable to fail another drug test. Yes Regal failed to get the normal push as KOTR, but that's not because his GM run was weaker than his run as commissioner.

It was the same thing too on Raw in '07-'08. While he was technically the man in charge, Vince McMahon was also around looking for his bastard son. In this run he was also out to "kiss Vince's ass".

metaphorical ass kissing is less humiliating than actually kissing Vince's ring.

He wrestled Triple H in 2004. Due to his ties to Eugene. Never did in his GM role have a first blood match with him.

Raw Roulette: 7 January 2008

[YOUTUBE]7 January 2008[/YOUTUBE]

Want to repeat that statement Riaku?

Not only that but the fact that he was gaining more exposure, even though he was occasionally losing, through PPV match appearances. As GM, his appearances were simply him playing second fiddle to Vince McMahon or announcing "Umanga" at WM 24.

More exposure by wrestling on events seen by fewer people? And as you saw from my video above Regal was getting some damn good heat as GM. In spite of wrestling on Pay Per View less regularly.

And honestly how is babysitting Hornswoggle worse than minding Tajiri?

An authority figure who tends to get physical stands out better than one that doesn't. Especially when he's getting physical at the grandest stage of them all.

[YOUTUBE]YtdKjUmehWU[/YOUTUBE]

William Regal getting physical with the WWE champion. If you can tell how great a man is by the company he keeps, Regal as GM was pretty damn great, given that he was wrestling HHH (and countering the pedegree) in a gimmick match and wrestling the current WWE champion.

Regardless of which stage he was wrestling, the guys he was wrestling as GM were better than the likes fo Rhino and Raven.

An abusive leader isn't always a good one.

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it's a fair bet that the more corrupt you are, the more powerful you are.

If you look at different perspectives, I find different reasons why the commish role was superior.

Go ahead.

He was resiting Shakespeare. He was drinking piss. He was making up a match and had a "queen" sitting around watching. He had a goofy sidekick. And he wrestled a lot too. If you want an entertaining leader named William Regal, look him up at 2001. At his best.

Because Regal was drinking piss, he was a better authority figure? I'm sorry but I don't follow that logic. Because Regal was a comedy figure that was treated as such he was better than when he was being taken seriously and still being entertaining?

This one is hard, but I have to go for it. Even though his 2008 counterpart was turning off matches and screwing Triple H out of the Rumble, 2001 William Regal was calling you miss behaved and spent about 10 minutes in the ring trying to teach you good manners. After a little bit, it gets hugely annoying. The fact that he had prolonged promos as opposed to just giving an order like he did in '08, makes me think he drew more heat in his 2001 tenure. I'm using here the Vickie Guerrero scale. The longer his out there being annoying, the more heat he draws.

Check out the Regal sucks chants in the match vs HHH and his mixed reaction in his homeland against Randy Orton. Regal was able to draw excellent heat as GM without extended promos. Being able to do more with less is an asset.

He had many (albeit small) feuds on TV that led to PPV matches. His most notable was with Chris Jericho. In his 2008 tenure, his feuds were pretty small. His longest and most notable, arguably was with Triple H. Because it was about a month long and led to Triple H destroying the 2002-2007 Raw set. Aside from that, his 2 week feud with Mr. Kennedy and random matches with John Cena, Randy Orton and CM Punk. That's about it. Not too memorable in my book.

Feuding with them or not, having matches with world champions, and actually being competitive with them (see him nearly beating Randy Orton in their match) is more impressive than feuding with midcarders.

In both runs, he was kissing McMahon's ass while throwing his power whenever he could. But he's much more remembered for doing it in 2001. Which is why I believe his 2001 role was best. He was entertaining, provided good many matches, steady heat, and unique. The objective in pro wrestling is to entertain. Which William Regal did best in 2001. Which is why I think that was his best leadership role.

As GM in 2007 and 2008 his asskissing was figurative, not literal. In 2001 he kissed McMahon's bare ass on Raw. In reality, everybody sucks up to the boss when it helps them, but nobody has to physically and volantaraly pucker up and kiss the ring.

The choice is simple between GM Regal and Commissioner Regal. King of the ring or Kissing of the Ring.

 

[ABMorales787]

He was wrestling at the event as a curtain jerker and was beaten in under 10 minutes. Also, he lost. Winning a lesser title is more impressive than failing to win a greater one.

So you're saying that winning the Intercontinental Championship is bigger than an opportunity at the World Heavyweight Championship? That why should you be bummed about failing to capture a major title at a major stage, when you can settle for a de-valued one on a regular TV show? Doesn't sound to sportsman-like to me. You'd think that as a sportsman you'd aim for as high as you can go and not settle for a consolation prize. Winning the Intercontinental Championship in the opening match at Wrestlemania 17 seems like a way bigger prize than winning the King Of The Ring on Raw.

Regal being a bad choice for a push has nothing to do with his run as GM, and everything to do with him being too liable to fail another drug test.

Considering that it was cut short because of it, I would say yes. That's precisely one of the reasons why his commissioner run was better. It ran it's course as it was supposed to, was ended correctly, it established Regal's character and delivered each and every week. In the 2008 case, it might have been better, but if was cut short before it got it's true steam going. It's true purpose was never reached. Shame, really.

Yes Regal failed to get the normal push as KOTR, but that's not because his GM run was weaker than his run as commissioner.

You're admitting that his 2001 run was better?

metaphorical ass kissing is less humiliating than actually kissing Vince's ring.

First, literally kissing it was hilarious and second, it happened after he was decommissioned.

Raw Roulette: 7 January 2008

[youtube]7 January 2008[/youtube]

Want to repeat that statement Riaku?

Ummm.... I see nothing there. But then again you can't expect me to get it all right all the time, or remember every episode and every moment. You allude to Regal kissing Vince's ass even though it happened after his commish role.

More exposure by wrestling on events seen by fewer people? And as you saw from my video above Regal was getting some damn good heat as GM. In spite of wrestling on Pay Per View less regularly.

Wrestlemania > B PPV > Raw
PPV match > PPV segment
PPV match > Raw match
Wrestling a face to draw heat > dancing with Cryme Tyme and Coach

He did his skits on Raw very well and also had time to go wrestle on PPV. As opposed to just doing his skit on the PPV.

And honestly how is babysitting Hornswoggle worse than minding Tajiri?

It is worse. Tajiri served a good purpose. He was entertaining and added depth to Regal and his lighthearted character. As opposed to Hornswoggle who was plain old annoying.
[youtube]7-HL13nkv1c[/youtube]

William Regal getting physical with the WWE champion. If you can tell how great a man is by the company he keeps, Regal as GM was pretty damn great, given that he was wrestling HHH (and countering the pedegree) in a gimmick match and wrestling the current WWE champion.

On Raw. In a non-title match. It's like when The Undertaker beat World Champion Jack Swagger in a non-title match. Great showing and all, but it wasn't gonna lead anywhere as he didn't actually challenge for the title. It was just a match to fill the card as opposed as having a background for a PPV or actual title match.

Regardless of which stage he was wrestling, the guys he was wrestling as GM were better than the likes fo Rhino and Raven.

So if Regal were to wrestle Stone Cold Steve Austin in a house show, it would be better than wrestling a jobber on PPV or on TV?
I know wrestling the World Champion on TV is a big deal and all, but then again, guys like Kenny Dykstra, Shawn Stasiak and El Dandy had the same title opportunities on TV. That didn't lead to, or mean much to their characters did it? It didn't do much for Regal either. Or to the storylines currently going at that time. Because if it were the case, we'd see him involved on the main matches of said feuds.

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it's a fair bet that the more corrupt you are, the more powerful you are.

God begs to differ. The argument here is what role was better. Not in which one he was more powerful. The better reign is the one that is best remembered, best portrayed and best exposed. I don't believe you need to be power-hungry to be good on a leadership role in WWE TV. Mick Foley, Jonathan Coachman and Teddy Long have had great runs without being corrupt tyrants. I loved when 'Taker kidnapped Teddy on his limo and the stuff DX did to Coach.

Because Regal was drinking piss, he was a better authority figure? I'm sorry but I don't follow that logic. Because Regal was a comedy figure that was treated as such he was better than when he was being taken seriously and still being entertaining?

WWE is about being entertaining. A leadership role in WWE isn't about getting respect, dishing out commands or being seen as an unopposed high ruler. Its about having a spot on TV to deliver a character that draws the audience's attention. Mr. McMahon is WWE's chairman. We've seen him have his face shoved up Rikishi's ass. We've seen him get covered in shit by DX. We've seen him be Stunned by Austin on a weekly basis for years. The leadership role in WWE is not about being a good leader. It's about being an entertaining one. William Regal presented a unique leader that gave way to some funny moments in WWE. He was a light hearted, but still heel and a leader. To be a successful leader in WWE you don't need to be taken seriously. I don't think commissioner Foley was taken as seriously as Regal in his '07-'08 role, yet commish Foley's role can be seen as superior. Because it was very amusing. Same with Teddy Long.

Check out the Regal sucks chants in the match vs HHH and his mixed reaction in his homeland against Randy Orton. Regal was able to draw excellent heat as GM without extended promos. Being able to do more with less is an asset.

Drawing heat wasn't the only thing commish Regal could do. I already mentioned the comedy skits, there is also the amusing "good will" promos, his antics with Tajiri and other stuff. He had a lot more depth in 2001. More depth, better character, better on screen role.

Feuding with them or not, having matches with world champions, and actually being competitive with them (see him nearly beating Randy Orton in their match) is more impressive than feuding with midcarders.

I still recall his feud's with Jericho and Rikishi a lot better than the ones with Triple H and Randy Orton. Hell, I even forgot he wrestled Triple H in a First Blood match on Raw.

As GM in 2007 and 2008 his asskissing was figurative, not literal. In 2001 he kissed McMahon's bare ass on Raw. In reality, everybody sucks up to the boss when it helps them, but nobody has to physically and volantaraly pucker up and kiss the ring.

Again, this was after his 2001 run.

The choice is simple between GM Regal and Commissioner Regal. King of the ring or Kissing of the Ring.

Simpler choice. Which do you remember best? His 2001 run or his 2007-2008 run? Because when you look at the general definition of best, it's what stick out to you more, what you remember best.





Since the deadline is tomorrow I'll give my closing argument.

==================================
CLOSING ARGUMENT
==================================

Best. When you ask yourself what was better, how do you define it? When it's done the way it should. When it sticks out better than others. In this case, William Regal's commissionership is better than his role as Raw general manager. It is better remembered as it provided some pretty amusing moments and showed a unique leader that was "bad" but funny and goofy at the same time. It's also well remembered for the fact that he did a pretty good job of balancing a leadership role and wrestling role on an active basis. His '07-'08 counterpart also wrestled, but failed to have the same storytelling direction as our 2001 version. He failed to make a single PPV appearance and most of his matches on Raw seemed more about random enforcement as opposed to an actual feud.

In pro wrestling, a character's objective, regardless of on-screen role, is to deliver a character that can capture the fan's attention. 2001 William Regal did it best by presenting a diverse character that not only drew heat as a heel, but also amused people with amusing skits and promo's. He offered a dynamic that was colorful, unique and captivating. As opposed to his '07-'08 counterpart, who was a simplistic and straight forward controlling heel. 2001 Regal captured my attention a lot more than 2008 Regal with his much more varied character. Offering a great combination on an annoying heel, a comedic one, a technical wrestler and leader. Therefor he provided a better role.

 

[Remix]

[QUOTE="iMPACT! Player" Riaku;2390481]So you're saying that winning the Intercontinental Championship is bigger than an opportunity at the World Heavyweight Championship? [/quote]

Yes I am. Because in wrestling there is no prize for second place. So when you look at achievements, your title wins will reflect better on you than those titles you failed to win.

That why should you be bummed about failing to capture a major title at a major stage, when you can settle for a de-valued one on a regular TV show? Doesn't sound to sportsman-like to me. You'd think that as a sportsman you'd aim for as high as you can go and not settle for a consolation prize. Winning the Intercontinental Championship in the opening match at Wrestlemania 17 seems like a way bigger prize than winning the King Of The Ring on Raw.

But he didn't win. If he had, you'd be right though.

Considering that it was cut short because of it, I would say yes. That's precisely one of the reasons why his commissioner run was better. It ran it's course as it was supposed to, was ended correctly, it established Regal's character and delivered each and every week. In the 2008 case, it might have been better, but if was cut short before it got it's true steam going. It's true purpose was never reached. Shame, really.

Um, it was hardly cut short, seing as it lasted longer than Regal's commissioner run. It was also a success in that he got excellent heat out of it with minimal effort.

You're admitting that his 2001 run was better?

No. Perhaps I should have added "Which it isn't" in brackets. But then, these things slip my mind late at night.

First, literally kissing it was hilarious and second, it happened after he was decommissioned.

yes. It happened 24 hours after he got fired due to the disbanding, and was the full stop to Regal's commissioner run. Either way, if the final memory of William Regal as commissioner is of him kissing Vince's ass that's a poor end to a poor run.

Ummm.... I see nothing there. But then again you can't expect me to get it all right all the time, or remember every episode and every moment. You allude to Regal kissing Vince's ass even though it happened after his commish role.

I must have fucked up the embedding. let me put it in again.

[YOUTUBE]QVql6dF0BFg[/YOUTUBE]

And like I say. It happened within a day of Regal's second firing as commissioner and happened because of his poor job as commissioner.

Wrestlemania > B PPV > Raw
PPV match > PPV segment
PPV match > Raw match
Wrestling a face to draw heat > dancing with Cryme Tyme and Coach

In terms of what? Certainly not exposure (which we're arguing about), because more people watch Raw than Wrestlemania. By a couple of million viewers.

He did his skits on Raw very well and also had time to go wrestle on PPV. As opposed to just doing his skit on the PPV.

So, we're agreed that William Regal got time on PPV in both roles, and is very good at doing skits? Wrestling, acting it nabs you the same pay cheque.

It is worse. Tajiri served a good purpose. He was entertaining and added depth to Regal and his lighthearted character. As opposed to Hornswoggle who was plain old annoying.

[youtube]7-HL13nkv1c[/youtube]

Some people find Hornswoggle funny. Either way he was babysitting someone for comedic purposes. What's the difference?

On Raw. In a non-title match. It's like when The Undertaker beat World Champion Jack Swagger in a non-title match. Great showing and all, but it wasn't gonna lead anywhere as he didn't actually challenge for the title. It was just a match to fill the card as opposed as having a background for a PPV or actual title match.

Losing to Randy Orton, the WWE champion > losing to Chris Jericho the Intercontinental Champion. And did Regal's matches against such important guys as Rikishi matter? No. They were filler matches which were on PPV instead of Raw.

So if Regal were to wrestle Stone Cold Steve Austin in a house show, it would be better than wrestling a jobber on PPV or on TV?

Non comparable situations. House show matches are irrelevent and seen by >1% of Raw's TV audience, just like dark matches.

A better comparason would be wrestling Randy Orton on Raw or Rikishi on PPV.

I know wrestling the World Champion on TV is a big deal and all, but then again, guys like Kenny Dykstra, Shawn Stasiak and El Dandy had the same title opportunities on TV. That didn't lead to, or mean much to their characters did it? It didn't do much for Regal either. Or to the storylines currently going at that time. Because if it were the case, we'd see him involved on the main matches of said feuds.

Well the Match vs Randy Orton was about Regal teaching Randy Orton some respect. So there was something of a storyline to the match. see:

[YOUTUBE]2dWQYlBWARs[/YOUTUBE]

Sure, it wasn't the main feud runniing up to Backlash but Regal was never a main eventer. His matches with HHH were Hunter's main storyline though (with Regal's never ending attempts to keep HHH out of the Rumble).

God begs to differ.

I'll listen to his case when he's proven to exist. Until then, I won't retract my statement.

The argument here is what role was better. Not in which one he was more powerful. The better reign is the one that is best remembered, best portrayed and best exposed. I don't believe you need to be power-hungry to be good on a leadership role in WWE TV.

YOu don't need to be a power hungry tyrant, but Regal playing one was very well done.

Mick Foley, Jonathan Coachman and Teddy Long have had great runs without being corrupt tyrants. I loved when 'Taker kidnapped Teddy on his limo and the stuff DX did to Coach.

Oh I see. You like your authority figures to be bitches. I guess that explains why you enjoyed watching Regal kiss ass and drink piss.

WWE is about being entertaining. A leadership role in WWE isn't about getting respect, dishing out commands or being seen as an unopposed high ruler. Its about having a spot on TV to deliver a character that draws the audience's attention.

Which Regal did better as GM.

Mr. McMahon is WWE's chairman. We've seen him have his face shoved up Rikishi's ass. We've seen him get covered in shit by DX. We've seen him be Stunned by Austin on a weekly basis for years. The leadership role in WWE is not about being a good leader. It's about being an entertaining one.

Apparently your idea of being entertaining means being somebody else's bitch.

William Regal presented a unique leader that gave way to some funny moments in WWE. He was a light hearted, but still heel and a leader.

So Commissioner Regal was WWE's Michael Scott? Sounds like a great leader to me.

To be a successful leader in WWE you don't need to be taken seriously. I don't think commissioner Foley was taken as seriously as Regal in his '07-'08 role, yet commish Foley's role can be seen as superior. Because it was very amusing. Same with Teddy Long.

I disagree. GM Regal was able to be entertaining without being a complete and utter bitch. Which is quite an asset.

Drawing heat wasn't the only thing commish Regal could do. I already mentioned the comedy skits

Which GM Regal also did just as well.

there is also the amusing "good will" promos, his antics with Tajiri and other stuff. He had a lot more depth in 2001. More depth, better character, better on screen role.

I disagree and consider the '07-08 role to be superior.

I still recall his feud's with Jericho and Rikishi a lot better than the ones with Triple H and Randy Orton. Hell, I even forgot he wrestled Triple H in a First Blood match on Raw.

And why was he feuding with people like Rikishi in the first place? I mean come on, he's supposedly the most powerful/important man on the roster who's commisioning all the matches. So why would he waste his time with useless people like Rikishi? In his GM run he was actively getting involved with important people on the roster.

Again, this was after his 2001 run.

24 hours after. It's relavent to the discussion.

Simpler choice. Which do you remember best? His 2001 run or his 2007-2008 run? Because when you look at the general definition of best, it's what stick out to you more, what you remember best.

I remember his GM run being superior.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Riaku, you would've lost the clarity point had Remix not decided to be pedantic and dispute one of your facts regarding William Regal's early history: discuss the topic at hand, not William Regal's history prior to his on-air WWE leadership roles (you guys split the point for clarity). Both of you brought in a lot of information, so you split the point here as well. Remix was took more than 24 hours for one of his posts, so Riaku gets the point for clarity. Both of you guys had great back and forth, so I'm splitting the persuasion points between the two of you.

Final Score
Riaku - 3
Remix - 2

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: Riaku
Good opening and actually had a closure to the debate. Also responding to paragraphs rather than line by line helped Riaku here.

Punctuality: Riaku
Unsex had a few delays with posting.

Informative: Draw
Equal amount of information, correction and youtube videos used, split here.

Persuasion: Draw
While it was a great debate, neither had a killer point or post that gave them the edge over the over as to which role was better. I liked Regal in both roles he had and you both reminded me why Regal is a good leader type of character, but neither swayed me on which one stood out, in the end Regal as Commish/GM was great on both fronts.

Final Score
Unsex: 1.5
Riaku: 3.5

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Riaku had a closing argument which wrapped up his argument nicely, point to him

Point - Riaku

Punctuality: Apparently Unsex was late, so Raiku again

Point - Raiku

Informative: Gonna take issue with Killjoy flat out saying Regal and HHH never had a first blood match and then being proven wrong with video evidence, a little bit of research would've saved that for him

Point - Unsex

Persuasion: Gonna agree with Pheonix here, neither guy made a killer point and both defended their points well enough, so a pretty even debate

Point - Split

My scores;

Unsex - 2
Riaku - 3

 

[D-Man]

MAN I loved this debate. Both brought very good, neat, and organized back and forth arguments here. I can only give the edge on one point to Riaku since Unsex was late with a post. Besides that, I see the whole thing as being split. Well done.

Final Score
Riaku: 3
Unsex: 2

 

[D-Man]

After a complete judge's tally, Riaku is the victor with 12.5 points to Unsex's 7.5.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!