Week 2: Milkyway -versus- Thunderball

[Mr. TM]

The better asset to the Professional Wrestling World? Bret Hart vs The Rock

Thunderball 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.

 

[Milkyway!]

If you decide to go first, do you care to go ahead and tell me which side you're choosing? I need to get started before tomorrow, becuase I've got school.

 

[Dave]

I will be taking Bret Hart. I will have some arguments up later.

 

[Dave]

When you mention WWF/E, there are many names that immediately come to the fore front of my mind. Those names being Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vince McMahon. Though to be honest, there is one more man who has become synonymous with the WWF/E and that man is Bret “The Hitman” Hart. When we think of Bret Hart there is many things that come to mind and all of it just cements the fact that Bret Hart is one of the greatest assets to wrestling in general. He had charisma, he had class and he was one of the best in-ring performers this side of Hulk Hogan.

There are a couple of things that have leave me in no doubt as to the impact that Bret Hart had on wrestling and I will try my best and cover those things and hopefully convince you that Bret Hart was a greater asset to wrestling than the Rock.

Dubbed the “Hitman”, Bret Hart become known to many as the most charismatic and graceful wrestlers in history and some of the matches that he had were absolutely astounding. I, personally, have never been the biggest of Bret Hart fans but when I was trying to decide which side I was going to argue for, Initially, I was going to argue for The Rock but the more I investigated and thought about, the more I realized that that would be a huge oversight on my part and more importantly, very naïve and wrong of me to think in such a way. Since deciding that I was going to debate for Bret Hart, I have been able to watch some more matches from him and I honestly feel quite stupid for doubting his abilities as a wrestler. The first match I watched was Bret Hart vs. Mr Perfect at Summerslam 1991. This was the match that first gave Bret any singles success and it also gave him his first WWF Intercontinental Championship. I watched this match and it really hit home that Bret Hart was one of the most diverse and varied wrestlers in History, eventually besting Mr Perfect with a sharp-shooter in the middle of the ring. Looking back on things now, I realise that this win marked a turning point in the history of the WWF and it is of no wonder that people still talk about this match in such a high regard. The next match I got a chance to look at was the match vs. ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 13. This match has to be one of the greatest matches that I have seen in a long time. Bret Hart eventually getting the win against Austin in a brutal match, the like of which I haven’t seen in a good while. The point is, the lasting legacy of these matches will perhaps never die. The match in particular with Austin is one of the best matches I have seen and the impact on the wrestling world is huge. Austin turned face and Bret turned Heel, showing that Bret was just as diverse when playing a character outside of the ring as he was comfortable in the ring. If you think that an asset to wrestling is someone who is a great wrestler who can cut a great promo and play both a heel and a face with ease, which I do, then there is no better candidate than Bret Hart.

This is not to undo what The Rock has done in a wrestling ring but to be quite honest the only match that The Rock can claim to be as big as a Bret Hart match is the battle with Austin at Wrestlemania X-7. However, let us not forget that if it wasn’t for the match with Bret Hart at Wrestlemania 13, there would not have been the Austin that we all know and love. Bret Hart was responsible for putting over one of the biggest faces the WWE has ever seen. If you think that a great asset to wrestling is someone who can put people over with ease and can make someone look good whilst winning against them, then their no better candidate than Bret Hart.

The next thing that I think makes Bret Hart one of the biggest assets that the WWF/E has ever seen is the much-publicised ‘Montreal Screw-job’. People argue that this incident has tarnished the legacy of Bret Hart but I would beg to differ. This match and incident is the biggest talking point in the history of pro-wrestling. It has put both Bret Hart and Vince McMahon into the stratosphere and I think Vince McMahon knows this. The impact that this had on the WWF/E and wrestling in general is just too huge to ever count. It set up the Mr McMahon character and is the probably the most talked about incident in the history of wrestling. If anything, the ‘Montreal Screw-job’ has only cemented Bret Hart’s place as one of the biggest icons and talking points ever to grace a wrestling ring. If an asset’s job is to create moment that no one will ever forget and moments that will create discussion amongst the fans of the product, then Bret Hart is one of the biggest assets in history.

If that is not enough for you, how about the respect that is demanded of Bret Hart in all the roots of wrestling. Everyone knows how good the man was in a ring but it is the lasting legacy of Bret Hart that people will always remember. There is no bigger accomplishment in wrestling than being held in the highest esteem and regard by your fellow competitors and the fan base in general. Bret was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2006 and there is no bigger award that he can receive from his peers. This is as nothing compared to the respect and love that the fans will always have for the Hitman. We need look no further than the WrestleZone Tournament for this fact to be proven. Fans voting that Bret Hart is one of the greatest competitors in history. If an asset is someone who has reached the pinnacle of pro-wrestling and is held in the highest regard by the fans that he is trying to please, then there is not many who can be called an asset before Bret “The Hitman” Hart.

 

[Milkyway!]

The question whether or not Bret Hart is better than The Rock, in the ring has nothing to do with this debate. Nor is it, Who is better overall. The question that lies before us here today, is "Who did more for the business, Bret Hart or The Rock?" I think most certainly, without any question it is The Rock. The Rock was a superior entertainor, The Rock was better on The Mic, Because The Rock, did something more than Bret Hart was capable of doing. Because The Rock, drew more money, than Bret Hart ever dreamed about. Due to these facts, I say, The Rock was a better asset to the Wrestling world, than Bret Hart ever dreamed about by any means.

I don't think theres any question that Bret Hart is easily in the top 5 best technical wrestlers in the world. But that wasn't part of the question. Which was a better asset to the company? Like many of the greats, The Rock was an entertainer. He didn't need to be on the TV for more than 20 minutes a show, to let his presence be known. In 5-10 minutes The Rock could make a promo that up and coming wrestlers need to listen to before making it big. Such as:

[youtube]i_PJXp55R4s[/youtube]

Or how about the segment that drew the highest ratings, that RAW has ever gotten?

[youtube]3wWMtCQkXr0[/youtube]

[youtube]wbJdXJjuGP0[/youtube]

[youtube]1Zwe6CgB7jA[/youtube]

If you think that an asset to wrestling is someone who is a great wrestler who can cut a great promo and play both a heel and a face with ease, which I do, then there is no better candidate than Bret Hart.

Then The Rock is your man. Why settle for great, when you can have one of the greatest, if not the greatest promo cutter in the WWE history. Such as:


[youtube]V1kfX02bHho[/youtube]

[youtube]1iJqQO78gY0[/youtube]

If an asset’s job is to create moment that no one will ever forget and moments that will create discussion amongst the fans of the product, then Bret Hart is one of the biggest assets in history.

Then the Rock is your man. Because outside of the greats like Hogan, and Austin, there isn't one man that has created as much discussion and brought the more mainstream attention to the wrestling business in the world. People that don't even watch wrestling anymore, still to this day associate men like Hogan, Austin, Hogan, Andre The Giant, and someone very important that you forgot. The Rock. The Rock still brings in viewers to this day. People see him in big films, and associate his face, with the wrestling business. Drawing further money for the WWE.

If you think that a great asset to wrestling is someone who can put people over with ease and can make someone look good whilst winning against them, then their no better candidate than Bret Hart.

Actually your man would be The Rock. He lost to Austin several times throughout history, and only beat him once on The Grandest stage of them all. (That I know of) Austin and The Rock had very many matches together, and while I certainly remember The Rock picking up very few wins, Austin always looked very very stong after his matches. This list also extends from Austin, over into Mick Foley, Triple H, The Big Show, and this seems to be the case with everyone else The Rock came in contact with.

Now, take a look at Bret Hart. The guy could put on a wrestling match with the best of them. But at the end of the day, did he really help their careers excel? Is Mr Perfect's best match ever considered to be with Bret Hart? What star did Bret Hart ever make? Hell, he wasn't a star (in Ric Flair's eyes, of course) himself, so I highly doubt he could ever make one. During Bret Harts reign as champion, he never did much, for anybody.

If an asset is someone who has reached the pinnacle of pro-wrestling and is held in the highest regard by the fans that he is trying to please, then there is not many who can be called an asset before Bret “The Hitman” Hart.

I don't know many people, whatsoever. With any problems with The Rock, outside of John Cena. I'm sure hes not high on Mr Mcmahon's list, because of wanting to shed his wrestling image, and move on to Hollywood. But, you do have to look at the big picture. The Rock still drew for the wrestling world, even after leaving the business entirely. His name in mainsteam movies, made people have some sort of nostalgia twards their old wrestling hobbies, I'm sure he draws people to this very day. People recognise The Rocks face in a huge movie, and think of Wrestling, immediately. Thats a great asset to wrestling.

Bret Hart has had many many classics over the years, but the fact remains that he never drew much, at all. The Rock is one of the WWE's top 3-4 draws, ever. Wrestlers may think of Bret Hart as good, and may even look up to him. But The Rock, Austin, Hogan, and McMahon is who they truly desire to be. None of which were really that great in the ring, but were all great on the stick. They could have matches with anyone, and everyone, and still draw big. Bret couldn't do that, with the 2-3 chances he was given to become a huge star. The Rock influences more wrestlers, and more people to this day, so I'm positive that makes him a better asset to professional wrestling. While Bret was amazing in the ring, so was The Rock, just look at these matches. Which I would consider some of the biggest wrestling matches, in the history of WrestleMania.



[youtube]1rFrEXKf6AY[/youtube]

[youtube]KwimANcbiHs[/youtube]

[youtube]HCxN74916m0[/youtube]

 

[Dave]

The question whether or not Bret Hart is better than The Rock, in the ring has nothing to do with this debate. Nor is it, Who is better overall. The question that lies before us here today, is "Who did more for the business, Bret Hart or The Rock?" I think most certainly, without any question it is The Rock. The Rock was a superior entertainor, The Rock was better on The Mic, Because The Rock, did something more than Bret Hart was capable of doing. Because The Rock, drew more money, than Bret Hart ever dreamed about. Due to these facts, I say, The Rock was a better asset to the Wrestling world, than Bret Hart ever dreamed about by any means.

On the contrary, I think that an asset to the wrestling business is not only someone who can bring in money, an asset is someone who can entertain the fans of the product that you are trying to sell. The Rock was phenomenal at cutting a promo, there is no doubt about it but Bret Hart was just as good. I don't believe you can say that being better in a wrestling ring is not being an asset to a wrestling company. I think that is a very naive thing to say and I believe it is because no one can compete with the Hitman inside of the ring, that you have brought this up. At then end of the day, people tune into wrestling to see wrestling. I personally loved wrestling when it was full of promos, a la the Attitude Era but the main reason I have stuck around after that era is because of the wrestling. That is why many have stuck around and it is the reason that people will always watch the WWE. Being a great wrestler is most certainly being an asset.

I don't think theres any question that Bret Hart is easily in the top 5 best technical wrestlers in the world. But that wasn't part of the question. Which was a better asset to the company? Like many of the greats, The Rock was an entertainer. He didn't need to be on the TV for more than 20 minutes a show, to let his presence be known. In 5-10 minutes The Rock could make a promo that up and coming wrestlers need to listen to before making it big. Such as:

I think you are being very naive if you think that Bret Hart wasn't as big an asset to the WWF/E because he was a better wrestler. The fact of the matter is that people want to see wrestling when they watch wrestling, Hell, it is half the reason that old school fans still tune into the product today. Wrestling should be about wrestling and there was few better than Bret Hart. As for the entertainer thing. Of course the Rock could cut a promo and was good on the stick. Bret Hart however, was just as good at parts of his career. I don't know if you have ever seen the Heat generated by his anti-US angle just before he left the WWF. I have never seen heat like that. He executed that part of the business with flawless style. Bret Hart could cut a promo and entertain people just as much as the Rock, if not more.

Then the Rock is your man. Because outside of the greats like Hogan, and Austin, there isn't one man that has created as much discussion and brought the more mainstream attention to the wrestling business in the world. People that don't even watch wrestling anymore, still to this day associate men like Hogan, Austin, Hogan, Andre The Giant, and someone very important that you forgot. The Rock. The Rock still brings in viewers to this day. People see him in big films, and associate his face, with the wrestling business. Drawing further money for the WWE.

Are you legitimately trying to say that teh Rock was the bigger asset to the wrestling business because he has starred in a few Disney movies? John Cena has starred in movies but wrestling fans have never been fans of the transition into movies from wrestlers. In fact, Cena was slated for it and generally, people think it was a mistake for The Rock to transition into film. Look around the place, people are always making thread saying that he should come back and just do what he is good at. Make no mistake, people would associate The Rock more with wrestling, if he was in fact a wrestler. Another asset to wrestling is loyalty from a superstar. The Rock saw a chance to make more money elsewhere and in a heartbeat, he was gone. Bret Hart was a 15 year veteran of the WWF/E and even more in the WCW. How can the Rock be a bigger asset to wrestling than a man who put everything into his matches, every time he went through the ropes? Especially when The Rock wasn't committed to the business in the face of mainstream success.

Actually your man would be The Rock. He lost to Austin several times throughout history, and only beat him once on The Grandest stage of them all. (That I know of) Austin and The Rock had very many matches together, and while I certainly remember The Rock picking up very few wins, Austin always looked very very stong after his matches. This list also extends from Austin, over into Mick Foley, Triple H, The Big Show, and this seems to be the case with everyone else The Rock came in contact with.

Now, take a look at Bret Hart. The guy could put on a wrestling match with the best of them. But at the end of the day, did he really help their careers excel? Is Mr Perfect's best match ever considered to be with Bret Hart? What star did Bret Hart ever make? Hell, he wasn't a star (in Ric Flair's eyes, of course) himself, so I highly doubt he could ever make one. During Bret Harts reign as champion, he never did much, for anybody.

I beg to differ on this point. I was watching the WWE Raw's 15 anniversary DVD and there is a match that proves you wrong. Bret Hart vs The 1-2-3 Kid. This match is one of the best matches that I have ever seen. The 1-2-3 Kid's finest match inside a ring without a doubt. Saying that Bret Hart could not put someone over as well as the Rock is just flat out wrong. After the match, Vince McMahon, Randy Savage and all the fans got to their feet and applauded the match that they had just witnessed. Randy Savage said it was the best match he had ever seen. I urge you to go and watch some of the matches that Bret Hart had with other before claiming that he could not put people over as well as the Rock.

I don't know many people, whatsoever. With any problems with The Rock, outside of John Cena. I'm sure hes not high on Mr Mcmahon's list, because of wanting to shed his wrestling image, and move on to Hollywood. But, you do have to look at the big picture. The Rock still drew for the wrestling world, even after leaving the business entirely. His name in mainsteam movies, made people have some sort of nostalgia twards their old wrestling hobbies, I'm sure he draws people to this very day. People recognise The Rocks face in a huge movie, and think of Wrestling, immediately. Thats a great asset to wrestling.

More than one of the greatest wrestlers in history!? When people think of the Rock, they think of wrestling and movies. Well, at least I do. When I look at Bret Hart though, my mind is taken to maches that he had with Stone Cold and Mr Perfect. Bret Hart exemplifies everything that is good about wrestling and illuminates all the matches that are in the past. The Rock's character is torn. I mean, how is The Rock, trying to shed his wrestling image, a good thing for wrestling?

Bret Hart has had many many classics over the years, but the fact remains that he never drew much, at all. The Rock is one of the WWE's top 3-4 draws, ever. Wrestlers may think of Bret Hart as good, and may even look up to him. But The Rock, Austin, Hogan, and McMahon is who they truly desire to be. None of which were really that great in the ring, but were all great on the stick. They could have matches with anyone, and everyone, and still draw big. Bret couldn't do that, with the 2-3 chances he was given to become a huge star. The Rock influences more wrestlers, and more people to this day, so I'm positive that makes him a better asset to professional wrestling. While Bret was amazing in the ring, so was The Rock, just look at these matches. Which I would consider some of the biggest wrestling matches, in the history of WrestleMania.

Do you see the hypocrisy here or is it just me? The Rock was decent in the ring but was not even nearly on the same standard as Bret Hart. The thing that the Rock relied on was his ability to cut a promo. In the times of Bret Hart, I think that The Rock would have had nowhere near the success that he had in the Attitude Era. It wasn't about cutting a promo, it was about wrestling and getting the fans enthralled in your matches. Bret Hart was one of the greatest at doing so, only bested by maybe Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan. The point being that Bret Hart could do it all and it wasn't a case of Jack of all trades, master of none. Bret Hart was one of the most talented people who ever steeped into a ring, inside and outside of the ropes. When you really think about it, that's what an asset to wrestling truly is.

 

[Milkyway!]

On the contrary, I think that an asset to the wrestling business is not only someone who can bring in money,

Then you don't know what an asset to the wrestling BUSINESS is. Its a business, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is money nothing else.

an asset is someone who can entertain the fans of the product that you are trying to sell.

You just defined The Rock, and said the oposite of Bret Hart. When Bret was the champion, the ratings were lower than they've ever been before. When The Rock was the champion, they were on a very very high scale for what was normal. Questioning the fact that The Rock entertained the fans, on the product her tried to sell? Listen to the croud reaction to The Rock.

[youtube]-gkwgsHlu3U[/youtube]

The Rock was phenomenal at cutting a promo, there is no doubt about it but Bret Hart was just as good.

Proof? I showed you many videos, show your proof please?

I don't believe you can say that being better in a wrestling ring is not being an asset to a wrestling company.

The question wasn't about being a better asset to the wrestling company. It was about being a better asset to the professional world. The Rock made people look great, cut some of the greatest promos, and drew shittons of money. Whereas Bret Hart made people look great, cut decent promos, and sold absolutely nothing. Obviously, The Rock is a better example for the wrestling business, because he was overall better.

I think that is a very naive thing to say and I believe it is because no one can compete with the Hitman inside of the ring,

Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, Harley Race, Owen Hart, Dean Malenko, The Bulldog, Shawn Michaels, Dusty Rhodes, Killer Kowalski, Bruno Sammartino Sting, Muta, Misawa, and more are just as good as Bret Hart in the ring, if not better. I find it naive for anyone to believe Bret Hart was the greatest inring professional wrestler, ever.

At then end of the day, people tune into wrestling to see wrestling.

Obviously not, as none of the biggest names in professional wrestling, are known for their great technical skills. I'm not saying they didn't have them, but they didn't always show them.

I personally loved wrestling when it was full of promos, a la the Attitude Era but the main reason I have stuck around after that era is because of the wrestling.

This era is some of the best wrestling we've ever seen overall. Yet its no where near the top rating the WWE has ever gotten, and its no where near the golden ages of professional wrestling.

That is why many have stuck around and it is the reason that people will always watch the WWE.

Seeing as how numbers prove you otherwise. No, thats not why people have always watches, and thats not why people will always watch wrestling. People watch wrestling to be entertained, without cutting a great promo, with no charisma, without that it factor, you're nothing more than a midcard wrestler. The reason Bret is put on such a high pedistool is because he was the best Canadian to ever wrestler, which isn't saying much.

Being a great wrestler is most certainly being an asset.

Not when you have no charisma. Bryan Danielson is one of the greatest inring preformers I've ever seen. Hes absolutely golden, but hes got the charisma of a rock. He doesn't put asses in the seats, he doesn't deserve to be in the WWE. (And obviously isn't becuase of such) Bret Hart had about as much Charisma as Bryan Danielson did. Being a great wrestler, isn't the only part of wrestling.

I think you are being very naive if you think that Bret Hart wasn't as big an asset to the WWF/E because he was a better wrestler.

Money is the only thing that matters in a professional wrestling business. Bret Hart's run in the WcW proves you otherwise. He didn't have the huge amount of Canadian fans, and Vince McMahon to book him as God. Thus he fell, flat on his face. Once again, the only reason Bret Hart is considered so great, is because the WWE booked him to be that great, and he was from Canada.

The fact of the matter is that people want to see wrestling when they watch wrestling,

Numbers prove you wrong. The highest rated segment on RAW (Held by The Rock) wasn't even wrestling. The highest rated show ever was at a show called "Main Event" it drew a 15.2, approximately 33 million viewers. Was a series of 3 match, the main event being Hogan vs Andre. Neither of which have superb wrestling skills, by any means whatsoever. Both could put on a great wrestling match though, they were entertaining something Bret Hart's style, is not.

Hell, it is half the reason that old school fans still tune into the product today.

Once again, show me the proof. You've shown no proof to support this.

Wrestling should be about wrestling and there was few better than Bret Hart.

Actually, there are several better than Bret Hart, based on entertainment factors, charisma, and the amount of money these wrestlers made. I'm assuming the fans like them more than Bret Hart.

As for the entertainer thing. Of course the Rock could cut a promo and was good on the stick.

Good? No. The Rock was amazing, I don't think anyone will deny that. The Rock should be on everyone's list at one of the top 4 best promo cutters, ever.

Bret Hart however, was just as good at parts of his career.

So why didn't he ever make any money? If he was so great, why wasn't he sucessful in WcW after getting paid 2.5 million dollars to jump ships? Why would Vince let Bret Hart go, if he was so great? Vince could match the 2.5 million any day of the week. So go ahead, explain it.

I

don't know if you have ever seen the Heat generated by his anti-US angle just before he left the WWF. I have never seen heat like that. He executed that part of the business with flawless style.

Proof?

Bret Hart could cut a promo and entertain people just as much as the Rock, if not more.

No he couldn't. If he could, the ratings would have been much higher when he was champion, and he would have been very successful in the WcW. If Bret Hart was so great, he would have actually been successful. But he wasn't.

Are you legitimately trying to say that teh Rock was the bigger asset to the wrestling business because he has starred in a few Disney movies?

That isn't what I said. I said people still associate The Rock's face with professional wrestling. When did I ever say "The Rock is an important asset to professional wrestling because he was in some disney movies"? Its impolite to put words in peoples mouth.

John Cena has starred in movies but wrestling fans have never been fans of the transition into movies from wrestlers.

John Cena brought mainstream attention the the WWE with both movies hes made. Sparking the nonWWE fan's eye. Causing them to watch the WWE.

In fact, Cena was slated for it and generally, people think it was a mistake for The Rock to transition into film.

Really? Wanna show me the proof on that? Because I'd say the millions of dollars The Rock's movies have made, say otherwise.

Look around the place, people are always making thread saying that he should come back and just do what he is good at.

No, people are saying that The Rock should just come back, from sheer selfishmess. The Rock is a great actor, and has played in some very good movies thus far in his career.

Make no mistake, people would associate The Rock more with wrestling, if he was in fact a wrestler.

The Rock is one of the greatest wrestlers ever, and hes made enough money in the WWE to prove that.

Another asset to wrestling is loyalty from a superstar. The Rock saw a chance to make more money elsewhere and in a heartbeat, he was gone.

Then not many people are assets to the wrestling business. Wrestlers go where the money is. If TNA started offering people 3 million dollars more than they were getting at WWE, I'd suspect nearly 50% of the roster to jump ships. They did when WcW offered large sums of money to join them, over the WcW. The WWE had no main eventors left whatsoever.

Bret Hart was a 15 year veteran of the WWF/E and even more in the WCW.

Obviously, you're being hypocritical. Bret Hart didn't have loyalty either, look at the screwjob. The screwjob happened, because Bret Hart was trying to screw the company. Thus they put Bret Hart in his place.

How can the Rock be a bigger asset to wrestling than a man who put everything into his matches, every time he went through the ropes?

Because The Rock certainly put everything into his matches, everytime he went through the ropes, as well. Just because he completed his goals in the wrestling world, and jumped to movies, doesn't mean hes a bad professional wrestler. By any means.

I beg to differ on this point. I was watching the WWE Raw's 15 anniversary DVD and there is a match that proves you wrong. Bret Hart vs The 1-2-3 Kid. This match is one of the best matches that I have ever seen. The 1-2-3 Kid's finest match inside a ring without a doubt.

Proof?

Saying that Bret Hart could not put someone over as well as the Rock is just flat out wrong.

No its not. Name a few stars Bret Hart made/helped keep over, then compare it to the stars The Rock helped make, and helped keep over. See whos wrestlers are better, and more important, and made the most money. Obviously, The Rocks people, did WAY more than Bret Harts.

After the match, Vince McMahon, Randy Savage and all the fans got to their feet and applauded the match that they had just witnessed. Randy Savage said it was the best match he had ever seen. I urge you to go and watch some of the matches that Bret Hart had with other before claiming that he could not put people over as well as the Rock.

Congragulations? You see where 1-2-3 kidd went don't you? He invented X-pac heat.d X-pac heat is not a good thing, its the worst possible thing you can have in the wrestling world.

I mean, how is The Rock, trying to shed his wrestling image, a good thing for wrestling?

The Rock will never be able to shed his wrestling image. People will always think of him, and think wrestling. Especially Teensagers on up.

Do you see the hypocrisy here or is it just me?

\

Just you, The Rock didn't wrestle a technical style, but he did wrestle one of the most entertaining styles in professional wrestling history. The amount of money he sold, reflects such a thing. He could pop the croud like no other. Bret Hart, had no where near the croud reaction The Rock had, and wrestled a dull, technical style. That we had allready seen 3,000 times before, that was just as good. If not better.

The Rock was decent in the ring but was not even nearly on the same standard as Bret Hart.

Doesn't matter, he was more entertaining in the ring, which is what draws people, and makes them watch the show.

The thing that the Rock relied on was his ability to cut a promo.

No, that was just his best attribute. Doesn't necassarily mean he "relied" on it. Because he certainly had some great matches throughout his years.

In the times of Bret Hart, I think that The Rock would have had nowhere near the success that he had in the Attitude Era.

Proof?

It wasn't about cutting a promo, it was about wrestling and getting the fans enthralled in your matches.

Really? Then why is it the NWO was running wild, cutting amazing promos, drawing the fans. As the WWE had Bret Hart, and was getting the worst ratings they've ever gotten?

Bret Hart was one of the greatest at doing so, only bested by maybe Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan.

Proof?

The point being that Bret Hart could do it all and it wasn't a case of Jack of all trades, master of none.

Not really. The only thing Bret Hart was master at, is being a dull technical wrestler. King of the midcard.

Bret Hart was one of the most talented people who ever steeped into a ring, inside and outside of the ropes. When you really think about it, that's what an asset to wrestling truly is.

Not hardly. You named what the assets were to being a great professional wresting. In-ring wrestling certainly has to do with being a great asset. But you can't deny The Rocks inring abilities to entertain a croud. He was amazing at it, better than Bret Hart ever was at entertaining a croud. Thats for sure. If it were any other way, Bret Hart would have sold way more seats than he did. He would have made it in WcW, and if he was the asset you say he is, Vince certainly, wouldn't have let him go.

 

[Dave]

I'm sorry guys, I don't have a lot of time tonight and I won't have again until the deadline. So, I will have to make this one quick and it might be my last post on this debate. Again, I am sorry.

Actually, neither of us have the definition of an asset wrong, we just have different was of looking at what that definition is. According to dictionary.com, an asset is: A useful or valuable quality, person, or thing. Now, Bret Hart and the Rock were both very useful to the company as a whole. The real debate is in what we see as valuable. For me, as a fan of wrestling, a value I would want to have is skill. Your definition of value is monetary success. We are both correct.

The problem is that we both believe that different things make people assets to a company. I think that a wrestling company should make wrestling the highest priority and you believe that money is the highest priority and that is fine because that dispute can't be settled here.

What I will say is that Bret Hart was one of the most talented people inside of a ring and there was occasions that Bret Hart really did strike gold on the stick. You ask me for proof and I will give you it:

[youtube]O-CaGfjoNjI[/youtube]
[youtube]KvnRFOunIew&feature=PlayList&p=A003D2F880BC75AD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=66[/youtube]

Some of the better prmos that I have seen and undoubtedly some of the best promos that Bret ever did. Listen to some of the pops that he was getting in the first one and listen the heat he is drawing in the second one. Bret Hart could cut a promo, that is not in doubt. Personally, I thought that The Rock was a better promo cutter but because that's what he did. The Rick had certain things that he would say that would have been in chorus but Bret never needed to do this. Some of the sayings that The Rock would come out with made you believe that they were great promos but to be quite honest a lot of them were the same old stuff from the Rock. Bret went out there and spoke his mind and worked his alignment well.

Also, saying that Bret being the best Canadian wrestler ever being nothing is ridiculous. Canada has produced some of the best wrestlers that teh WWE has ever seen. Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Edge, the list goes on. Canada is a great ground for wrestling talent.

The argument that Bret was not a good seller is basically ludicrous too. If tha was the case, why did Vince sign him to 20 year contract? If that was the case, why was he offered the biggest contract in pro-wrestling history to join the WCW? My point is that Bret Hart could sell. Otherwise it would make no sense to sign him to such an expensive contract would it? Giving someone such a big contract who could not get any return out of it is bad business and we all know what an asset should be, don't we Milk? Someone who brings in money? If that's the case both the WWE and WCW are stupid because they would be making an untallyable loss. The case for why Vince McMahon let Bret go is not because he could not sell, it is because he wanted to take the company public and that meant minimising the long-term agendas that the WWE had. It was not because he couldn't sell or entertain, otherwise he would have been out of there way before Montreal. My point being: If Bret was a case of no-return, why was he around for the 15 years before that?

I'm not putting words in your mouth actually, I am interpreting it the way that I saw it. Which was: The Rock see a Rock movie and think of wrestling, which may or may not be true at the end of the day. When I think of Dwaine Johnson, the movie star, I think of Dwaine Johnson in movies, not in wrestling. Bret Hart is wrestling through and through. When I see him, I automatically think of the Montreal Screw Job and some of the best matches I have ever seen.

The Rock is one of the greatest wrestlers ever, and hes made enough money in the WWE to prove that.

No he wasn't and I though that you were trying to prove that wrestlers. real wrestlers, didn't make money!?

Obviously, you're being hypocritical. Bret Hart didn't have loyalty either, look at the screwjob. The screwjob happened, because Bret Hart was trying to screw the company. Thus they put Bret Hart in his place.

I'm sorry but this is just plain ignorant of you. Bret Hart never screwed Bret Hart as te saying goes. Vince McMahon screwed Bret Hart. Please give me any proof that Bret Hart was trying to screw the WWE. Bret Hart was released from his 20 year contract and told to ask Ted Turner if he would still offer him the same contract that he offered before. You know, the one he rejected when he signed a 20 year contract with the WWE. As I mentioned before, Bret was told that it did not make business sense to tie him to such a lengthy contract, especially when he wanted to take the company public. Bret Hart wanted to stay with the WWF/E.

My final point is that you are trying to prove that Bret Hart was bad for business in monetary terms when he wasn't nearly as bad as you make him out to be. The Attitude Era was the most successful Era in wrestling history, Period. The Rock was not wholly responsible for that though, he was part of it but not everything. There was a time in the WWF/E's history that Bret Hart led the way in every sense of the word. He was the biggest draw and the best superstar on the roster, it is arguable. The Rock cannot be given all the credit for the success of the Attitude Era and all the money it made because he played second fiddle to Austin during a time when the WWF/E needed to show that it was dominant. Just because the Attitude Era was a better draw in terms of ratings, or more financially sound was not because of the Rock, which is what I think you are trying to prove with some of your arguments.

Either way, great debating with you Milk.

 

[Milkyway!]

Actually, neither of us have the definition of an asset wrong, we just have different was of looking at what that definition is. According to dictionary.com, an asset is: A useful or valuable quality, person, or thing.

Then obviously The Rock is where the money is at. Lets go ahead and take a look at where the company was ratings wise when Bret Hart was champion, then take a look at when The Rock was champion, ratings wise.

Considerable the peak of Bret Harts career, 1995-97.

September 4, 1995 2.2
September 11, 1995 2.5
September 18, 1995 2.7
September 25, 1995 1.9
October 2, 1995 2.5
October 9, 1995 2.6
October 16, 1995 2.6
October 23, 1995 2.2
October 30, 1995 2.1
November 6, 1995 2.6
November 13, 1995 2.6
November 20, 1995 2.3
November 27, 1995 2.3
December 4, 1995 2.6
December 11, 1995 2.5
December 18, 1995 2.3

January 1, 1996 2.6
January 8, 1996 3.0
January 15, 1996 2.4
January 22, 1996 2.9
January 29, 1996 2.4
February 5, 1996 2.7
February 12, 1996 Not On
February 19, 1996 3.1
February 26, 1996 3.1
March 4, 1996 3.6
March 11, 1996 2.9
March 18, 1996 2.9
March 25, 1996 2.8
April 1, 1996 2.9
April 8, 1996 4.7
April 15, 1996 3.1
April 22, 1996 3.3
April 29, 1996 2.9
May 6, 1996 4.1
May 13, 1996 3.5
May 20, 1996 2.3
May 27, 1996 2.3
June 3, 1996 2.3
June 10, 1996 2.7
June 17, 1996 2.3
June 24, 1996 2.7
July 1, 1996 2.6
July 8, 1996 2.5
July 15, 1996 2.6
July 22, 1996 2.2
July 29, 1996 2.1
August 5, 1996 2.8
August 12, 1996 2.0
August 19, 1996 2.9
August 26, 1996 Not On
September 2, 1996 Not On
September 9, 1996 2.4
September 16, 1996 2.1
September 23, 1996 2.0
September 30, 1996 2.3
October 7, 1996 2.1
October 14, 1996 1.8
October 21, 1996 2.6
October 28, 1996 2.0
November 4, 1996 2.3
November 11, 1996 2.5
November 18, 1996 2.4
November 25, 1996 2.1
December 2, 1996 2.3


January 6, 1997 2.1
January 13, 1997 2.3
January 20, 1997 2.2
January 27, 1997 2.2
February 3, 1997 2.6
February 10, 1997 2.3
February 17, 1997 2.1
February 24, 1997 2.5
March 3, 1997 1.9
March 10, 1997 2.3
March 17, 1997 2.4
March 24, 1997 2.5
March 31, 1997 2.7
April 7, 1997 2.2
April 14, 1997 2.2
April 21, 1997 2.8
April 28, 1997 3.4
May 5, 1997 3.2
May 12, 1997 3.2
May 19, 1997 3.1
May 26, 1997 2.7
June 2, 1997 2.5
June 9, 1997 2.2
June 16, 1997 2.4
June 23, 1997 2.4
June 30, 1997 2.5
July 7, 1997 2.5
July 14, 1997 2.6
July 21, 1997 4.1
July 28, 1997 2.9
August 4, 1997 2.7
August 11, 1997 2.9
August 18, 1997 3.2
August 25, 1997 Not On
September 1, 1997 Not On
September 8, 1997 2.2
September 15, 1997 2.6
September 22, 1997 2.4
September 29, 1997 2.7
October 6, 1997 3.0
October 13, 1997 2.3
October 20, 1997 2.9
October 27, 1997 2.3
November 3, 1997 2.6
November 10, 1997 3.4
November 17, 1997 3.1
November 24, 1997 3.0
December 1, 1997 3.0
December 8, 1997 3.0
December 15, 1997 2.7
December 22, 1997 3.1
December 29, 1997 3.6




Considerable The Rocks peak 2000-2003. I must note the fact, that much of 2001 The Rock wasn't there. Only during the early parts was he there, otherwise he was filming The Mummy Returns.

January 3, 2000 6.4
January 10, 2000 6.8
January 17, 2000 6.0
January 24, 2000 6.7
January 31, 2000 6.6
February 7, 2000 6.5
February 14, 2000 4.4
February 21, 2000 5.9
February 28, 2000 6.5
March 6, 2000 6.4
March 13, 2000 6.3
March 20, 2000 6.2
March 27, 2000 6.6
April 3, 2000 6.4
April 10, 2000 6.2
April 17, 2000 6.7
April 24, 2000 7.1
May 1, 2000 7.4
May 8, 2000 6.2
May 15, 2000 6.1
May 22, 2000 7.1
May 29, 2000 6.4
June 5, 2000 5.9
June 12, 2000 6.8
June 19, 2000 5.8
June 26, 2000 6.4
July 3, 2000 5.3
July 10, 2000 6.0
July 17, 2000 6.2
July 24, 2000 6.2
July 31, 2000 6.4
August 7, 2000 6.3
August 14, 2000 5.9
August 21, 2000 6.2
August 28, 2000 4.9
September 4, 2000 4.2
September 11, 2000 5.8
September 18, 2000 5.7
September 25, 2000 5.4
October 2, 2000 5.4
October 9, 2000 5.4
October 16, 2000 4.8
October 23, 2000 5.5
October 30, 2000 4.9
November 6, 2000 5.1
November 13, 2000 5.0
November 20, 2000 5.0
November 27, 2000 5.0
December 4, 2000 5.0
December 11, 2000 5.75
December 18, 2000 4.8
December 25, 2000 3.8

January 1, 2001 4.55
January 8, 2001 4.8
January 15, 2001 5.2
January 22, 2001 5.6
January 29, 2001 5.4
February 5, 2001 5.0
February 12, 2001 4.8
February 19, 2001 4.8
February 26, 2001 5.1
March 5, 2001 4.5
March 12, 2001 4.9
March 19, 2001 4.6
March 26, 2001 4.7
April 2, 2001 5.7
April 9, 2001 5.4
April 16, 2001 5.1
April 23, 2001 5.1
April 30, 2001 4.98
May 7, 2001 4.6
May 14, 2001 4.5
May 21, 2001 4.2
May 28, 2001 4.2
June 4, 2001 4.3
June 11, 2001 4.1
June 18, 2001 4.2
June 25, 2001 4.7

January 7, 2002 4.9
January 14, 2002 4.4
January 21, 2002 4.6
January 28, 2002 4.5
February 4, 2002 4.5
February 11, 2002 4.4
February 18, 2002 4.7
February 25, 2002 4.7
March 4, 2002 4.5
March 11, 2002 4.5
March 18, 2002 5.3
March 25, 2002 5.4
April 1, 2002 4.8
April 8, 2002 4.8
April 15, 2002 4.8
April 22, 2002 4.8
April 29, 2002 4.4
May 6, 2002 4.6
May 13, 2002 3.9
May 20, 2002 3.7
May 27, 2002 3.7
June 3, 2002 4.1
June 10, 2002 4.2
June 17, 2002 3.9
June 24, 2002 3.7
July 1, 2002 3.6
July 8, 2002 3.7
July 15, 2002 3.8
July 22, 2002 4.3
July 29, 2002 3.7
August 5, 2002 3.7
August 12, 2002 3.9
August 19, 2902 4.0
August 26, 2002 3.9
September 2, 2002 3.6
September 9, 2002 3.4
September 16, 2002 3.4
September 23, 2002 3.6
September 30, 2002 3.6
October 7, 2002 3.8
October 14, 2002 3.8
October 21, 2002 3.7
October 28, 2002 3.4
November 4, 2002 3.5
November 11, 2002 3.1
November 18, 2002 3.7
November 25, 2002 3.4
December 2, 2002 3.3
December 9, 2002 3.3
December 16, 2002 3.5
December 23, 2002 3.3


January 6, 2003 3.6
January 13, 2003 3.9
January 20, 2003 3.8
January 27, 2003 4.1
February 3, 2003 3.5
February 10, 2003 3.9
February 17, 2003 3.8
February 24, 2003 4.0
March 3, 2003 4.5
March 10, 2003 4.0
March 17, 2003 3.8
March 24, 2003 3.5
March 31, 2003 3.7
April 7, 2003 3.5
April 14, 2003 3.45
April 21, 2003 3.8
April 28, 2003 3.9
May 5, 2003 3.5
May 12, 2003 4.4
May 19, 2003 3.6
May 26, 2003 3.7
June 2, 2003 3.9
June 9, 2003 3.5
June 16, 2003 4.1
June 23, 2003 3.9
June 30, 2003 3.6
July 7, 2003 4.2
July 14, 2003 3.8
July 21, 2003 4.2
July 28, 2003 4.2
August 4, 2003 4.0
August 11, 2003 3.9
August 18, 2003 4.0
August 25, 2003 4.2
September 1, 2003 4.3
September 8, 2003 3.6
September 15, 2003 3.7
September 22, 2003 3.6
September 29, 2003 3.4
October 6, 2003 3.4
October 13, 2003 3.6
October 20, 2003 3.7
October 27, 2003 3.4
November 3, 2003 3.4
November 10, 2003 3.7
November 17, 2003 3.6
November 24, 2003 3.6
December 1, 2003 3.7
December 8, 2003 3.8
December 15, 2003 3.5
December 29, 2003 3.7

Now, Bret Hart and the Rock were both very useful to the company as a whole.

Incorrect, The Rock was much more useful to the company. The lowest average the ratings had, during The Rocks greatest years was around In the begenning 4.5-6.0, in the latter half of his peak 3.0-4.0. The average during Brets is around 2.0-3.0 Thus, The Rock was bringing in millions more viewers.

The real debate is in what we see as valuable. For me, as a fan of wrestling, a value I would want to have is skill.

Thats nice, but its not what you value. The wrestling world is a business, the fact of the matter is, all that matters. Is money.

Your definition of value is monetary success. We are both correct.

My definition is what the wrestling world is. Nothing else, you're incorrect. I'm correct.

The problem is that we both believe that different things make people assets to a company.

The problem is, you don't know what a business is. If you would like the definition of that, I'll gladly tell you. A business is a "commercial enterprise: the activity of providing goods and services involving financial and commercial and industrial aspects. Noting more, nothing less. The WWE is a business, its about money.

I think that a wrestling company should make wrestling the highest priority and you believe that money is the highest priority and that is fine because that dispute can't be settled here.

Wrong, ask Vince McMahon what his company is. Its a business I don't think I need to define it again, as I just did.

What I will say is that Bret Hart was one of the most talented people inside of a ring and there was occasions that Bret Hart really did strike gold on the stick. You ask me for proof and I will give you it:

Heh, those were some decent promos. No where near the quality The Rock put out on a nightly basis. Either way though, one video said the match was in 97. Going back up to the ratings its anywhere betwen a 2.0-3.0. Bret was doing such a great job. The promos I showed you, were the biggest draws in RAW history. I'm positive mine mean more, and are better because of such a thing. So, its safe to assume The Rock > Bret Hart on the mic, and theres no doupting it.

Some of the better prmos that I have seen and undoubtedly some of the best promos that Bret ever did.

Subjective, hardly usable in a debate.

Listen to some of the pops that he was getting in the first one and listen the heat he is drawing in the second one.

Nothing close to what The Rock got during his heyday.

Bret Hart could cut a promo, that is not in doubt.

Not on the scale The Rock could.

Personally, I thought that The Rock was a better promo cutter but because that's what he did.

No, The Rock did it all, putting on a solid show, no matter what Vince told him to do. Streetfights, promos, matches, putting someone over. The Rock could do it all, and still draw a huge croud.

The Rick had certain things that he would say that would have been in chorus but Bret never needed to do this.

Whos Rick?

Some of the sayings that The Rock would come out with made you believe that they were great promos but to be quite honest a lot of them were the same old stuff from the Rock.

Thats called a niche Dave. People find their niche after a long period of time. Thats about like saying Cena only does 5 moves.

Bret went out there and spoke his mind and worked his alignment well.

You act like The Rock didn't. Thats really funny.

Also, saying that Bret being the best Canadian wrestler ever being nothing is ridiculous. Canada has produced some of the best wrestlers that teh WWE has ever seen. Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Edge, the list goes on. Canada is a great ground for wrestling talent.

Chris Jericho, and Edge are the only ones that actually drew great amounts of money, and are very useful to the WWE. Beniot died before really hitting his peak, as did Owen. I allready showed you the ratings on Bret, he didn't draw much either. Lowest the WWE's flagship show ever had, at that.

The argument that Bret was not a good seller is basically ludicrous too.

Who said Bret wasn't a good seller. Bret is considered as good as he is, becuase of his selling ability.

If tha was the case, why did Vince sign him to 20 year contract? If that was the case, why was he offered the biggest contract in pro-wrestling history to join the WCW?

Because the WcW thought Hart was good, and the WWE was using him wrong. Obviously, he was wrong, as when WcW got their hands on him, Bret Hart did nothing, and was basically one long shitfest.

My point is that Bret Hart could sell. Otherwise it would make no sense to sign him to such an expensive contract would it?

Sigh? What are you talking about? Sell as in make money? Or sell as in selling moves. You should probably know the term is draw, when it comes to money, not sell. Sell means selling a wrestling move.

Giving someone such a big contract who could not get any return out of it is bad business and we all know what an asset should be, don't we Milk?

What did anyone get in return from Bret Harts contracts? WcW lost 2.5 million dollars. The WWE was going under becasue of his huge amount of money going into his contract. The money Bret offered was a mistake. Theres an old saying. Its not dumb to make mistakes, as long as you learn from them. Yeah, Vince learned from that mistake.

Someone who brings in money? If that's the case both the WWE and WCW are stupid because they would be making an untallyable loss.

Which he did.

The case for why Vince McMahon let Bret go is not because he could not sell,

Draw* Yes it is, its because the WWE was seriously going under because of the amount of money Bret was making from the WWE, without drawing any of it back in.

it is because he wanted to take the company public and that meant minimising the long-term agendas that the WWE had.

Incorrect. The WWE went public in October of 1999. Bret Hart signed his 20 year contract a few years before that.

It was not because he couldn't sell or entertain, otherwise he would have been out of there way before Montreal.

Sigh. Ratings prove you otherwise. So, yeah, he couldn't DRAW.

My point being: If Bret was a case of no-return, why was he around for the 15 years before that?

Well, for one thing. Bret was in the WWE for quite a few years, before actually debuting. I think he actually got on show around 88-89. His reign as a big star started in 92-3. Which only lasted for 4-6 years, before the montreal screwjob.

The Rock see a Rock movie and think of wrestling, which may or may not be true at the end of the day. When I think of Dwaine Johnson, the movie star, I think of Dwaine Johnson in movies, not in wrestling. Bret Hart is wrestling through and through. When I see him, I automatically think of the Montreal Screw Job and some of the best matches I have ever seen.

\

Subjective, hardly usable in a debate.

I'm sorry but this is just plain ignorant of you. Bret Hart never screwed Bret Hart as te saying goes. Vince McMahon screwed Bret Hart. Please give me any proof that Bret Hart was trying to screw the WWE. Bret Hart was released from his 20 year contract and told to ask Ted Turner if he would still offer him the same contract that he offered before. You know, the one he rejected when he signed a 20 year contract with the WWE. As I mentioned before, Bret was told that it did not make business sense to tie him to such a lengthy contract, especially when he wanted to take the company public. Bret Hart wanted to stay with the WWF/E.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Vince believed that Bret was physically deteriorating and it began to effect his performance. In other words, Bret Hart was aging and falling from his prime.

With that being said, Vince explained that Bret was suffering from behavioral issues which in the end led to him being extremely disruptive when in the locker-room with the other wrestlers.

Vince also said that he felt Bret was beginning to become a real pain in the ass.

Bret began to miss dates and things of that nature which created a gigantic inconvenience with the financial situation of the WWF who was paying him for full-time performance.

Bret believed that he had earned and or deserved more money than which was included in his existing contract.

Vince suggested to Bret that WCW (the competition and the company that Vince would later purchase) might have the ability to offer him the amount of pay that he desired.

On top of all the controversy, Bret refused to give up the WWE title. He believed he should retain the belt to the very end.

His desired actions would destroy an accepted tradition which implied that if one were to leave the company and/or retire, such events would result in the release of the belt that the individual currently held.

Vince felt that Bret's actions were unacceptable. Bret misbehaving lead to his demise. He himself chose to leave without any reminisce of honor and or pride.

My final point is that you are trying to prove that Bret Hart was bad for business in monetary terms when he wasn't nearly as bad as you make him out to be.

Yes he was.

The Attitude Era was the most successful Era in wrestling history, Period.

Well, there was the 80's which can compete with The Attitude era as well. They still hold a few record of their own.

The Rock was not wholly responsible for that though, he was part of it but not everything.

Thats like saying Hogan was the only one responsible for the 80's huge sucess. When there were about 6-7 huge stars, celebs, and mainstream attention straight onto a growing WWE. Hogan was the biggest draw, but he wasn't the only one drawing.

There was a time in the WWF/E's history that Bret Hart led the way in every sense of the word.

Which is often considered the "Dark ages" of the WWE.

He was the biggest draw and the best superstar on the roster, it is arguable.

Your point being? I showed you the ratings. Hardly a draw.

The Rock cannot be given all the credit for the success of the Attitude Era and all the money it made because he played second fiddle to Austin during a time when the WWF/E needed to show that it was dominant.

Yet the Rock still played a very loud fiddle. He may have been in second place to Austin, but Bret is no where near the level of Austin.

Just because the Attitude Era was a better draw in terms of ratings, or more financially sound was not because of the Rock, which is what I think you are trying to prove with some of your arguments.

Hardly.

Either way, great debating with you Milk.

You too.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity of Argument - There were some grammatical errors in your post, Dave, but you nonetheless presented your debate neatly. Milkyway!!!, please split up your main argument and your rebuttal. It's not only beneficial for the judges, but it gives you two legitimate posts instead of one.

Point: Dave

Punctuality: Milkyway!!!, you are always punctual and snappy, so you get the point here.

Point: Milkyway!!!

Informative: Milkyway!!!, you presented tons of information in the form of videos and ratings, but, what purpose did these data serve? You argued that The Rock was a better draw than Bret Hart. and thus that he was the bigger asset to WWE, but you only presented information that could have, rather than did, lead to this conclusion. Do bigger ratings automatically mean larger gates and buyrates? Do bigger ratings increase WWE's advertising revenues and rights fees? If you would have answered these questions in the affirmative, then you probably would have given the best argument that I have seen so far in this league.

Point: Dave

Emotionality: Milkyway!!!, you are always a smart ass, and that wasn't any different here. Good job.

Point: Milkyway!!!

Persuasion: Dave, you kept your argument simple and straightforward. I understood where you were coming from, and I was able to easily outline your argument to see if everything matched up (it did). Milkyway!!!, your arguments here were ambitious, but there were some critical reasoning errors. Work on them, and there's no doubt in my mind that you have a great shot at winning this whole thing.

Point: Dave

tdigle's Score
Milkyway!!!: 2
Dave: 3

 

[Mr. TM]

Clarity of Argument - Like Tdigs, I noticed a lot of grammar mistakes on both ends, not just Dave's, but Dave's was a lot easier to go through. Also, I thought that Milk could have easily put his information together better.

Punctuality: Unfortunately Dave missed some time, and will lose this point here.

Informative: Tdigle took a lot of the words out of my mouth. Much of Milks information was good, but inconclusive. Things like ratings can be used to a certain amount, but explain why. Also, don't use information that can be easily disputed against.

Emotionality: Dave, you are like a wet towel out there sometimes. I know you are a calm guy, but show your fighting spirit. Milk gets this point.

Persuasion: Many people know that Bret Hart is my favourite wrestler. I grew up in a time when it was people like Bret, The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Diesel and so forth taking over from the Golden Era. I understood what was happening in wrestling at the time, and it was dying. These four men cannot be blamed, they had to replace many and I mean many legends. As Bret is seen as one of the head guys of the WWE, blame can easily be placed on him, and just like a coach being fired for a shit teams performance, it is an easy way out.

When the new era of wrestling that we now know as the Attitude Era began, ratings picked up, and it sure as hell was not just for the Rock. Unfortunately, Milk was beating this horse to death. Which is too bad, because I would have been swayed easily by this simple fact. Bret Hart may be the best wrestler ever in my books, but the bigger asset is harder to gauge, and that is why I used it as the question in all of these debates. It could easily go the other way, and I though especially in this case could. But Milk gave me little to give him this point. Dave, you stuck by a larger pocket of reasoning, and you have swayed me here.


TM rates this 3 points Dave 2 points Milk.

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Like TM and Tdigs, have said, both had grammatical errors, but Dave's was more well presented and easier to follow.

Point: Dave

Punctuality: Dave said he would be late, missed some time, Milk gets the point.

Point: MilkyWay

Informative: Again, like TM and Tdigs, Milky had a bunch of evidence to try and prove for the Rock, but there wasn't any conclusive evidence that directly points to the Rock being that much better.

Point: Dave

Emotionality: I know Dave is a calm guy, and he got into it a little bit, but Milky had that fighting spirit that topped Dave.

Point: MilkyWay

Persuasion: This is where Dave really took it for me. Milky used some videos about Rock promos, and how they were huge on the ratings scale, but ratings aren't everything. It is the emotion that comes out of promos, like Bret's had. Milky was trying to discredit all that Bret had done, only saying that he was big because he was Canadian, and trying to discount him as a great wrestler. Dave stayed straightforward, whereas Milky went from circumstantial proof, to saying Bret couldn't draw and trying to discredit him.

Point: Dave

CH David scores this Dave 3, MilkyWay 2.

 

[Blade]

Clarity: Dave. Posts were kept straight and to the point. Like others have said, some errors. But that was on both sides.

Punctuality: Milkyway, as explained above.

Informative: Milky brought up videos and ratings, but didn't do a good job in linking them. Dave did better at putting forward his info and making it matter.

Emotionality: Dave was too business like for my tastes. Milky gets the point.

Persuasion: Dave. Milky used some bad arguements that Dave was able to use really well against him, especially the 'putting people over' arguement.


Dave 3 Milkyway 2

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity of Argument - Both were very clear but I believe Milk could have organized his just a little better. So he loses the point.

Point Dave

Punctuality: Milk was on time. Dave was not. Therefore he loses the point.

Point: Milk

Informative: Tdigle basically spoke for all of us. Milk had a lot of information but none of it was conclusive. Dave used his information and tried to make it matter.

Point: Dave

Emotionality: Dave you need to show a fighting spirit. You were too calm.

Point Milk.

Persuasion: I really wouldn't call it persuasive but Milk used some bad arguments and Dave took it to him. Neither did anything to persuade me but Dave did enough to get me to agree with him. Dave stayed straightforward with his arguments and did a good job.

Point Dave

Points
Dave 3
Milk 2