TDigle & JMT -vs- But Seriously

[IrishCanadian25]

TDigle & JMT vs Lariat & Uncle Sam



TOPIC- WHO WOULD BE THE BEST CHOICE FOR WWE TO HAVE HOST RAW ON JANUARY 4TH TO COUNTERACT HOGAN'S TNA DEBUT? BRET HART OR THE ROCK?

TDigle and JMT may select which side they will debate. Lariat and Sam will choose who goes first. The debate begins whenever the participants are ready, with the opening post due by Monday, December 28th. Each team will make 4 posts, with each member of the team required to make 2 of the posts. The team's 4th post must be a structured closing argument. Same judging criteria will apply. THIS THREAD MAY ONLY BE POSTED IN BY THE DEBATORS!!!​

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

We'll let them take the ball first.

 

[jmt225]

Tdigle and myself will argue that The Rock would be the best choice to host Raw on January 4th.

Why? For a couple of reasons....

Let me start off with the obvious: The Rock has a much larger audience than the Hitman, which of course means more ratings for WWE come January 4th. From casual fans to fans who hardly ever watch the sport, they will all tune in to watch The Rock if they know he's on, especially over TNA. The same cannot be said about Bret Hart, unless they're Canadian. And the Canadian market is obviously a much smaller compared to America.

However, let's also look who would be the more entertaining out of the two. Bret Hart WAS a great wrestler. A long time ago. But even so, his skills more or less were in that ring, not on the microphone. His promos back in the day were always drawn-out and boring. They put the crowd to sleep, especially when he was a babyface. And we know for certain that if Bret Hart comes back to WWE, it will be as a babyface. With The Rock, it doesn't matter if he's a heel or a face, he's going to be just as entertaining regardless.

Now, with my recent pick up of ROH's Glory By Honor VIII, I got the chance to see Bret Hart again, and the guy doesn't look anything like what he did back in his heyday. He looked old and beat up, and in typical Bret Hart fashion, there was no emotion in him whatsoever. He came out, said his deal, and left. He got a nice little ovation, but you could tell his heart isn't in the business anymore.

So, to recap requickly, you have a broken down, old, emotionless Bret Hart vs. the most Electrifying man in the history of the business. Seriously, there's no doubt that The Rock would make for a MUCH better host. You could say that The Rock doesn't have any passion for the business himself, and well... I would call bullshit on that one. The few times The Rock has come back to pro wrestling since retiring for his acting career, he's always come with a fire lit under his ass and put on a show for the fans. Here's a quick example.

[YOUTUBE]hK2MRWOZqlE[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]F1N9z6mmxbA[/YOUTUBE]

First of all, listen to that ovation. The fans just absolutely adore The Rock. Bret Hart has his fans as well, but how many of those fans currently watch WWE? Or better yet, how many of those fans actually pay their hard earned money to attend WWE events today? Guys, there's a reason why the "You Screwed Bret!" chants only happen in Canada; it's because hardly any WWE fans in the states give a damn about Bret Hart, because his most loyal fans have stopped watching WWE by this point.

The Rock, on the other hand, with his movies (both for kids and adults), he remains to keep his audience and gain even more with each passing month, both from WWE and outside of it who will turn on Raw if they know Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson has anything to do with the show.

Back to the video, however, look how fired up The Rock is to be there. Look at how damn entertaining the man is with just a few minutes on a microphone, and not only that, but with just that small little rub for Eugene, the next thing you know Eugene is in the main event with HHH. Bret Hart was known as someone who could get anyone over in a match, well... The Rock can get anyone himself over in that microphone, which of course would be a huge key for a host of Raw to be able to do.

To finish up here, it's such an easy choice. On one hand, you have a guy (Bret Hart) whose fan base is limited, and is completely emotionless on the microphone, going up against a guy (The Rock) with a HUGE fanbase and someone as entertaining as they come in this business. No one, in the business or out of it, could ever be as entertaining to host Raw as The Rock. That's simply a fact.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

I just want to say good luck to JMT and TDigs. We know you'll be formidable foes and will make us all bring our A games. Here we go.



Although The Rock would the sexier choice, I believe that Bret Hart makes for a better host for Raw on Jan. 4th. And my reasons are rather simple.

1) Longer term impact

As I was saying, The Rock is entertaining and would make a good host, but Bret Hart would be a better host due to the fact that you can actually start a STORYLINE with Hart and McMahon. The Rock would be a one time appearance. It wouldn't solve the issue of TNA bringing their A game. Bringing someone as controversial as Hart back into the fold will get everyone talking. Including the IWC, and the regular wrestling community. If you want a longer term impact (no pun intended), then you'd choose someone who could actually appear at Wrestlemania. Which leads me to my next reason.

2) Availability.

The Rock doesn't have that. He's got at least two movies due to come out or be filmed during the Wrestlemania season. Bret Hart doesn't. He can fully commit to the schedule on TV and help build on something instead of popping in and then leaving. Bret Hart's available for the Royal Rumble, Raw, Smackdown, and Wrestlemania. That's more than what The Rock could do.

3) Controversy Creates Cash

You better believe that they'll hammer the Montreal Screwjob angle as hard as they can once Hart makes his way to the WWE. It was a legit controversial finish with him and HBK and the drama of that confrontation alone would make for great television. The Rock's drew no controversy and would be on his best behavior even if he did come to Raw with him being involved with Disney movies and the like. Hart would hold very little back and have no reason TO hold anything back.

So overall, Bret Hart's a better long term choice as far as hosting Raw on Jan. 4th. Seriouisly.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Rebuttal #1

1) Longer term impact

As I was saying, The Rock is entertaining and would make a good host, but Bret Hart would be a better host due to the fact that you can actually start a STORYLINE with Hart and McMahon. The Rock would be a one time appearance. It wouldn't solve the issue of TNA bringing their A game. Bringing someone as controversial as Hart back into the fold will get everyone talking. Including the IWC, and the regular wrestling community. If you want a longer term impact (no pun intended), then you'd choose someone who could actually appear at Wrestlemania. Which leads me to my next reason.

With their 4 January 2010 Raw, what exactly is WWE's aim? Also, do we know for sure that TNA will be bringing their A game, or will they be relying on Hogan's star power while doing nothing to improve their product otherwise? The only things we know for sure are the following:

1) iMPACT! is going head-to-head with Raw on 4 January 2010, and it will be live rather than pre-recorded.

2) As of now, this is the only live iMPACT! that TNA has planned for the foreseeable future.

If anything, 4 January 2010 will be the day that TNA tests the waters to see if it has a fighting chance against WWE on Mondays. In order to give TNA a sound beating that will make it whimper away with its tail between its legs, WWE should bring in someone who will give them a one-off spike in their ratings (i.e., The Rock), not someone who will give them a good storyline leading up to Wrestlemania (i.e., Bret Hart). Granted, Hart would make for great television, but why can't he just guest host the following week?

2) Availability.

The Rock doesn't have that. He's got at least two movies due to come out or be filmed during the Wrestlemania season. Bret Hart doesn't. He can fully commit to the schedule on TV and help build on something instead of popping in and then leaving. Bret Hart's available for the Royal Rumble, Raw, Smackdown, and Wrestlemania. That's more than what The Rock could do.

You're the man, Lariat, but you and I both know that this is just a premise of your previous argument restated. And, like I said above, availability for a long-term angle is not what WWE should be after in this particular case.

3) Controversy Creates Cash

You better believe that they'll hammer the Montreal Screwjob angle as hard as they can once Hart makes his way to the WWE. It was a legit controversial finish with him and HBK and the drama of that confrontation alone would make for great television. The Rock's drew no controversy and would be on his best behavior even if he did come to Raw with him being involved with Disney movies and the like. Hart would hold very little back and have no reason TO hold anything back.

So overall, Bret Hart's a better long term choice as far as hosting Raw on Jan. 4th. Seriouisly.

You have convinced me here that WWE was right to hire Hart to a short-term contract. However, I have yet to be convinced why he would be a better guest host than The Rock on 4 January 2010. With another company potentially coming after a nice-sized chunk of your viewership, it's best to bring out the big guns and send them home packing as soon as possible; this is something The Rock can accomplish, although I unfortunately can't the same thing for Bret Hart.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Rebuttal #1

With their 4 January 2010 Raw, what exactly is WWE's aim? Also, do we know for sure that TNA will be bringing their A game, or will they be relying on Hogan's star power while doing nothing to improve their product otherwise? The only things we know for sure are the following:

That's a good question, but ultimately, I think that TNA is simply gauging what kind of numbers they could get on Monday Nights opposing Raw. Sure Hogan will play a big part of that, but he's also going to be a big part of TNA for the time being. Hence is why instead of having a one time shot of The Rock, a STORYLINE to match the Hogan story would be more sensible and more of a win for the WWE.

1) iMPACT! is going head-to-head with Raw on 4 January 2010, and it will be live rather than pre-recorded.

2) As of now, this is the only live iMPACT! that TNA has planned for the foreseeable future.

Exactly. They're seeing if it's possible to do a live show and to see if they can garner the ratings needed to even consider a move to Monday nights. This is a test run. So instead of Vince giving some air time to a one and done guy like The Rock, why not give the fans a story to keep up with to oppose anything iMPACT does? It's a smarter long term decision and that's what the WWE needs to think about. It's not a "What can you do now?" business, it's a "What can we build to by a certain time frame?" That's all TNA wants to do and to counteract that, the WWE should do the same thing.

If anything, 4 January 2010 will be the day that TNA tests the waters to see if it has a fighting chance against WWE on Mondays. In order to give TNA a sound beating that will make it whimper away with its tail between its legs, WWE should bring in someone who will give them a one-off spike in their ratings (i.e., The Rock), not someone who will give them a good storyline leading up to Wrestlemania (i.e., Bret Hart). Granted, Hart would make for great television, but why can't he just guest host the following week?

That's the polar opposite of what the WWE should do. The SPIKE in ratings wouldn't detract TNA. It would probably give them momentum. Hogan would probably think that, "Well, if they'll use The Rock just to try to show us up in the ratings, they're desperate." Instead, the WWE should do the right thing and build a story to Wrestlemania and do business as usual. Show TNA that they're not a threat and keep on truckin'.

You're the man, Lariat, but you and I both know that this is just a premise of your previous argument restated. And, like I said above, availability for a long-term angle is not what WWE should be after in this particular case.

But it's an argument that works. The Rock is great. We all know this. And if this were a one time special by TNA, then yes, the Rock should compete with TNA on Monday. But it's not. Hogan's not a one time thing. He's a part of the company long term. So why not make a short-term investment in a great wrestler like Bret Hart and build some longer term stories to go along with it? There's also more options to use, too. Hart could help feud with Vince, DX, and help build up the Hart Dynasty. He'd be a much more valuable asset than The Rock would be.

You have convinced me here that WWE was right to hire Hart to a short-term contract. However, I have yet to be convinced why he would be a better guest host than The Rock on 4 January 2010. With another company potentially coming after a nice-sized chunk of your viewership, it's best to bring out the big guns and send them home packing as soon as possible; this is something The Rock can accomplish, although I unfortunately can't the same thing for Bret Hart.

As I was saying, Vince would look desperate to bring in someone that hasn't even been in the business for nearly 6 years. It would look like Vince is scared of TNA and sees them as a threat and in order to counteract that, go with someone who's just a name at this point. That's all TNA is doing right now. They're going with a huge name to hopefully help them garner some ratings. What the WWE should do is build to Wrestlemania, which is what they've always done this time of year.