Week 1: Franchize1990 -versus- IC 25

[Mr. TM]

Should Moolah be hailed as the greatest female wrestler?

IC25 is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

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

 

[IrishCanadian25]

IC25 - The Overrated Moolah​

I certainly believe that a certain level of respect must be reserved for "those who came first," "those who blazed the trail," and "those who inspired others." Jackie Robinson did it in baseball. Joe Louis in boxing. A certain place in fan's hearts will be reserved for them and their efforts under difficult pretenses. Robinson was not the greatest ball player in history, however, nor was Louis the best boxer. And if you follow my logic, The Fabulous Moolah was NOT the greatest women's wrestler of all time.

She is to be credited with several feats. Longest reigning women's champion. First true undisputed women's champion after the NWA changed hands. The trailblazer who helped get the state of New York to lift the ban on women's wrestling. But here's the caveat - she did it at a time when women's wrestling was little more than a side show and defended the titles on the undercards of shows LONG before television or Pay Per View.

WWF promoted Moolah as a 28-year title holder, of course a lie. She had dropped the title several times in the US and Japan. After losing the women's title to a real top-draw in Wendi Richter, Moolah played 2nd fiddle to the feud between Richter and Leilani Kai. The only reason Moolah took the belt back under the guise of "The Spider Lady" was a result of a planned screwjob to take the belt off of Richter, whose heart wasn't into the WWF. She held the belt for two more years despite very limited competition in women's pro wrestling. She dropped the belt to Velvet McIntyre for 6 days, and the only other true challenger was Sherri Martel. Martel ultimately beat Moolah for the belt.

She was the first woman inducted into the WWF Hall of Fame, which she deserved for longevity and trailblazing. But again, she didn't really have to draw on TV or connect with fans outside of the live shows done with the same set of 3-5 challengers. Her matches were often subpar, and women's wrestling was subsequently not taken seriously.

You could choose a few women who were better women's wrestlers than Moolah because of their work to legitimize women's wrestling in a more difficult TV era. Trish Stratus comes to mind. Alundra Blayze / Madusa as well. And had Moolah not returned to the WWF as little more than a side show act with Mae Young, perhaps I'd look differently upon her. But to me, she was little more than a "safe bet" with a meaningless title for a long stretch where TV ratings and PPV buys were not a factor. Stratus, Lita, Chyna, etc - they all did more for women's wrestling in a few years than Moolah did in a few decades. But you can certainly tip your cap to Moolah for being first.

Just not best.

 

[Franchize1990]

Why Moolah is the Top-Ranked Women's Wrestler​

To be considered one of the top wrestlers of all time in the business, one has to show that he or she was/is a dominate presence in the ring, revolutionize the business, and be seen as a true icon who was the best at what he or she did. When speaking about female wrestlers, the first name that should come out of people's mouths is Lillian Ellison, better known as The Fabulous Moolah. She did everything required and then some to get to the top of the mountain and as of right now, no one is close to knocking her off of the summit.


Dominance

On September 18 of 1956, The Fabulous Moolah became the Women's Champion by defeating 13 other female wrestlers in a battle royal (lastly defeating Judy Grable, one of the top contenders at the time). For the next two years, Moolah would defend her title week in and week out against the best competition around the world, leaving the ring victorious each time she fought. She was indeed defeated by Betty Boucher but, she quickly avenged her loss to regain her title within days and would go on to defend her title for another couple of years. March 10, 1968, Yukiko Tomoe beat Moolah in Japan for the Women's Title. Just as the case was for Boucher, it was only a matter of days before she regained her title and would yet again go on to defend against the top talent the world had to offer, this time for an unprecedented eight years. Moolah showed this type of dominance for the next seven years, only losing two times and reclaiming the belt days after. The dominate run seemingly came to an end on July 23, 1984 when Wendi Richter won the title from the Fabulous Moolah and she was unable to regain it back like she was used to. So if my math is correct, The Fabulous Moolah only lost four matches in 27 years, 64 days (factor in leap years). No female wrestler has been, or ever will be this dominant in wrestling again.

Changing the Game

The Fabulous Moolah was not only the most dominant figure in women's wrestling history, she changed the way fans looked at female professional wrestling. Her athletic ability and wrestling skill combined were second to none during her early days in her wrestling career. She was one of the most hated wrestlers, male or female, in her prime and she made the fans care to watch weather someone would be able to beat her or not. Moolah was also:

"an integral figure in the "Rock `N Wrestling" angle that drew the first major national headlines for the WWF.

www.fabolousmoolah.com/bio.html

While Rock `N Wrestling was Hulk Hogan's cartoon, Moolah was one of the few, if not the only, main characters in the show. This show got the kids into wrestling and set up the new generation of fans for years to come. MTV broadcast Moolah's bout with Richter, creating even more national exposure for the business and giving the ladies like Trish Stratus, Mickie James, and Chyna the opportunity to make a good living in professional wrestling. Lastly, Moolah was the first and is one of the only two women ever to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame.

Why There Will Never Be Another

If one compares The Fabulous Moolah to other greats like Stratus, Gail Kim, Lita, Victoria, and others who came in after Moolah, that person must state that the level of competition was much higher back in the 50's-80's than it is now. When Moolah was the dominant champion, she could wrestle the top fighters week in and week out no matter where her next opponent came from. The greats from my generation have a boundary that prevents them from doing the same. Instead of having a national organization where anyone can be the best, the WWE and TNA spread the talent out way too thin and have only a few household names. Until the two major national promotions decide to intertwine their female division and let the two best go at each other until one becomes dominant, female wresting will always recognize one person as the top star, and her name is The Fabulous Moolah.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

She did everything required and then some to get to the top of the mountain and as of right now, no one is close to knocking her off of the summit.

You're absolutely right on both counts.

1. She did do everything required, "and then some," including taking part in an unscrupulous screw job that cost the WWF a highly skilled women's wrestler, serving only to make the depth of talent in the women's division evern thinner than it was.

2. Nobody will ever knock her off of the summit, because there is way too much competition in women's wrestling today to believe that one woman will basically be handed a belt for decades.

On September 18 of 1956, The Fabulous Moolah became the Women's Champion by defeating 13 other female wrestlers in a battle royal (lastly defeating Judy Grable, one of the top contenders at the time).

Without looking it up - name them. Name 2 or 3 of them. It's hard to do so because women's wrestlers at the time had no name, no identity, no relevance. I can name several of the wrestlers Ric Flair ousted to win his first WWF championship, not just because it's more recent, but because the people he defeated were actual, relevant competition.

Moolah showed this type of dominance for the next seven years, only losing two times and reclaiming the belt days after.

How many of those matches were seen? How many were publicized? Just like all of the champions during those times, they wrestled the same basic formulaic match at arenas around the country. She defended her title at glorified house shows. How often does a major championship change hands at a house show?

And certainly you understand WHY she never lost, right? It's because there was no other woman who fit the bill. ZERO competition until...

The dominate run seemingly came to an end on July 23, 1984 when Wendi Richter won the title from the Fabulous Moolah and she was unable to regain it back like she was used to.

Competitors started to show up. Younger, more able, more marketable, especially as Vince McMahon Jr. started earning more and more exposure for his pro wrestling product.

Listen, I am certainly not trying to downplay the significance of Moolah's contributions, and on an all-time list, I'd certainly place her in my top 10, probably my top 5. But she wrestled in an era with fewer challengers, virtually no mainstream exposure, and little to no actual athleticism. Moolah in the 1950's couldn't hold a candle to Alundra Blayze in the 80's and 90's, Lita and Trish in the 90's and 00's, or to Mickie James, Awesome Kong, Melina, or Beth Phoenix today.

Think about it this way - Detroit Red Wings great Gordie Howe was a dominating player in the NHL for years. He's the only player in history to have played in the NHL during 5 different decades (the 40's - the 80's). He's a 4-time Stanley Cup Champion and a 6-time scoring leader. He did things in his career better and longer than most.

But despite Howe coming before him, Wayne Gretzky was still a better hockey player, who played in bigger games, who played against better competition. There's no denying this fact, and it holds true for Moolah. She was an original, no doubt, but if her biggest claim to fame was the length of her title reigns during the pre-Wrestlemania era, then you are now telling me that Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund are each better than Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, Bret Hart, and John Cena.

 

[Franchize1990]

Without looking it up - name them. Name 2 or 3 of them. It's hard to do so because women's wrestlers at the time had no name, no identity, no relevance. I can name several of the wrestlers Ric Flair ousted to win his first WWF championship, not just because it's more recent, but because the people he defeated were actual, relevant competition.

I named Judy Grable already and another one who was in the battle royal I believe was June Byers, the Women's Champion before Moolah who was an established wrestler at the time but on her way to retirement. The only reason the competition was more relevant at that time was because wrestling in general was becoming more popular and more people saw it.

How many of those matches were seen? How many were publicized? Just like all of the champions during those times, they wrestled the same basic formulaic match at arenas around the country. She defended her title at glorified house shows. How often does a major championship change hands at a house show?

I don't know about many big shows that the NWA had during the early years of Moolah's career so I would believe that anytime a title was defended back then, it was a huge fight. Many matches weren't seen because the technology then pales in comparison to some of the other wrestlers mentioned in this debate. Only half the people in the United States had a T.V. set and I'm sure wrestling wasn't something that was going to be broadcast to the public. When Flair became champion by beating Rhodes, the Hogan Era was just beginning and wrestling was recognized by the fans and mainstream media. Still doesn't change that the top female wrestler in each territory was unable to beat Moolah for a very long time.

And certainly you understand WHY she never lost, right? It's because there was no other woman who fit the bill. ZERO competition until...

The dominate run seemingly came to an end on July 23, 1984 when Wendi Richter won the title from the Fabulous Moolah and she was unable to regain it back like she was used to.

Competitors started to show up. Younger, more able, more marketable, especially as Vince McMahon Jr. started earning more and more exposure for his pro wrestling product.

But at this point in time, Moolah is now in her early 60s and way past her glory days. Plenty of competitors in others sports who are considered the best to ever play ended up getting out-shined by the younger more athletic up-and-comers.

• 
  Ali coming back to get beat by Holmes and Berbick

• 
  Micheal Jordan playing with the Wizards but was never able to get back to the player he once was

• 
  Brett Farve throwing as many interceptions as touchdowns this past year with the Jets

• Lance Armstrong, while showing a good performance wasn't the same as we all know him

• 
  Just saw a story on Luis Resto a good boxer who, at the end of his career, became the person young guys beat to get their career jump started

Moolah still had a couple of title reigns after all of the younger talent began to show up and she was still a relevant contender and not a side show joke where you would feel sorry for her every time she stepped into the ring.

But she wrestled in an era with fewer challengers, virtually no mainstream exposure, and little to no actual athleticism. Moolah in the 1950's couldn't hold a candle to Alundra Blayze in the 80's and 90's, Lita and Trish in the 90's and 00's, or to Mickie James, Awesome Kong, Melina, or Beth Phoenix today.

That's kind of like saying Cy Young couldn't hold a candle to the pitchers of today's greats because the game has changed so much. Back during when Young was playing, pitchers could pitch longer and the game was practically catered to pitchers. Now, a quality start is going 5-7 innings and a larger emphasis has been put on the long ball to keep the sport exciting. Same for the two different eras of wrestling. Back then, the best were given the belt to defend week in and week out and not like today where being able to draw on T.V determined how good of a wrestler someone was.

Think about it this way - Detroit Red Wings great Gordie Howe was a dominating player in the NHL for years. He's the only player in history to have played in the NHL during 5 different decades (the 40's - the 80's). He's a 4-time Stanley Cup Champion and a 6-time scoring leader. He did things in his career better and longer than most.

But despite Howe coming before him, Wayne Gretzky was still a better hockey player, who played in bigger games, who played against better competition.

Difference is that Gretzky's numbers surpass Howe's in every way (points, goals, and assists) except for games played, and most likely nobody ever will surpass that. Gretzky was also a four time Stanley Cup Champion and a ten time scoring champion. Not many female wrestlers have had lengthy title runs like Moolah did during her worst days.

There's no denying this fact, and it holds true for Moolah. She was an original, no doubt, but if her biggest claim to fame was the length of her title reigns during the pre-Wrestlemania era, then you are now telling me that Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund are each better than Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, Bret Hart, and John Cena.

It wasn't about the length of the title reign but, it was about how none of the top female wrestlers in the entire NWA was able to take the strap off Moolah's waist for almost three decades, excluding the four matches she loss only to quickly win the rematch within days.

 

[Mr. TM]

Great fucking debate mates. I am sorry I was worried about you F1990

Clarity of debate- 1 point
Out of all the debates, this debate had one of the more easy topics, and so clarity should have been easy. Both posts were easy to read, but I give the first point to IC

Punctuality- 1 point
Both Debaters were a little behind in this one, but I have to give it to Franchize1990, as IC left early here.

Informative- 1 point
Both brought in great information here. I do hope though, that using wrestling over other sports is done more so in the future out of your two. But I give the point to IC here, as I believe his information was better supported.

Emotionality- 1 point
Franchise, I might fault your debate on a few factors, but your emotionality was incredible. I got a little chocked up here. IC brought the emotion, but you walked up on it. Fantastic, one point for you.

Persuasion- 1 point
Who persuaded me? Well to start with, IC had a difficult task. He was given a few points to be able to nail. But he didn't, and he was able to make a great debate? How? He thought outside the box, and I must say he did a great job. F1990, you just needed to be a little more sure, or this point would be yours and not IC.



Clarity of debate- 1 point
IC25

Punctuality- 1 point
Franchize1990

Informative- 1 point
IC25

Emotionality- 1 point
Franchize1990

Persuasion- 1 point
IC25

TM rates this 3 points IC25 to 2 points Franchize1990.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I just barely survived, by the skin of my teeth, in a debate with a guy who at the time has less than 50 posts.

Why?

Because he's fucking good, THAT is why.

This is like Polley all over again. Franchize, I hope this is the start of some amazing stuff from you. Holy shit, dude, do you ever have potential. And if it's any consolation, I'd have picked you as the winner here. Sorry I tapered off late in the week, I'd have liked to have dragged this on longer.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity of debate: Very, very tough one here. IrishCanadian25, you are the king of research on here, but, I would have liked to see you analyze the facts a little bit more in your opening post. Franchize1990, your argument was perfect. You came up with criteria that the greatest women's wrestler should meet, and, with verifiable evidence, you showed how Moolah met all of them. I don't think I could have asked for something clearer.

Point: Franchize1990

Punctuality: IrischCanadian25, you were the quickest to post.

Point: IrishCanadian25

Informative: I've already said that you are the king of research on here, IrishCandian25. You aren't too bad yourself, Franchize1990, but, IrishCanadian25 takes the point here.

Point: IrishCanadian25

Emotionality: Another tough one here, and this argument almost makes me think that this particular criterion is unfair. IrishCanadian25, you showed more conviction in your stance through more emotionally-suggestive wording, thus I have to give the point to you. I loved your argument though, Franchize1990, and the only suggestion I can make to you in the future is to be a bit more emphatic/expressive in your posts.

Point: IrishCanadian25

Persuasion: You win this point, Franchize1990, for the same reasons that I gave in awarding you the point for clarity.

Point: Franchize1990

tdigle's Score
IrishCanadian25: 3
Franchize1990: 2

 

[Luther_Hull]

Clarity of debate: Franchize1990, well set out, well thought out opening post from you Franchize, this admin's impressed.

Punctuality: IC25 appeared to go MIA, Franchize1990 takes this one also.

Informative: IC25 knows where it's at when it comes to research, he takes this one, and I doubt he'll drop this point throughout the whole tournament.

Emotionality: Franchize1990, both appeared to believe in their posts, but I thought more effort and thought went into Franchize's posts, no offence intended IC.

Persuasion: I came into this thread with no opinion, and I've left thinking that Moolah is not the greatest ever female wrestler. For that reason, my point must go to IC.


Franchize 1990 3 - 2 IC25

 

[Marquis]

Great Debate.

Clarity- Franchize
Your debate was very neat and easy to read with the way you spaced everything and bolded the title of the following information you were gonna give, and gave a great background.

Punctuality- Franchize
As the others said, IC appeared to leave this one early so I give the point to Franchize.

Informative- IC
I also feel IC gave the better information to support his argument and digged deeper.

Emotionality- IC
While I do agree with Luther that it looks like Franchize put more effort into his, I feel IC showed more feelings and expressiveness for his argument.

Franchize1990- IC
Like Luther, I came in with no opinion and leave thinking Moolah isn't the greatest. Though this took much thought, since after reading both your arguments you both had great points.

Franchize-2 points
IC- 3 points

 

[Bernkastel]

Clarity Of Argument: Both arguments were very clear and I had no problems reading them.

Point: IC and Franchize1990

Punctuality: both of the debates were on time as far as I know, but to avoid a tie I’ll give the point to IC because he initiated the argument.

Point: IC

Informative: Both debaters did an excellent job with their information. On paper this topic would seem like it would be really hard for anyone to go against the grain and I was impressed with IC’s argument… its clear to me that you did your research. At the same time however, Franchize1990 emphasized points that not even I would probably do if I were debating this topic. Because of this, I’m splitting the points yet again.

Point: IC and Franchize1990

Emotionality: Personally I’ll have to go with Franchize1990, IC clearly had more ammunition but Franchize managed to stick with his guns and managed to get his points across despite some of them being refuted.

Point: Franchize1990

Persuasion: IC gets the point on this one, it was clear to me that he did his homework on this one. This is a topic I know pretty well and have debated before and some of Franchize’s points seemed generic… Moolah was an innovator and had longevity, both of those points are easily counterable if the research is done.

Point: IC

Echelon’s rating

IC: 3 points
Franchize1990: 2 points