Week 3: fromthesouth -versus- Little Jerry Lawler

[Mr. TM]

Over time, wrestlers have jumped ship from one promotion to another promotion. Each time the wrestler had a different run in each company. Some have been better, some have been worse. But for those wrestlers who faced a similar push, in which company did they thrive more in?

Did Gail Kim thrive more in WWE or TNA?


Little Jerry Lawler 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.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'll say that Gail Kim thrived more in TNA and I'll go first.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Gail Kim first came to WWE in 2001 and made her first televised WWE match in July 2003 in a battle royal to crown the WWE Women's Champion. She won by eliminating Victoria and would hold the title for four weeks before losing it to Molly Holly. She was injured for five months in 2003-2004 and was released in November of 2004.

The problem with Gail Kim in the WWE is that she hit the ceiling too early and had nowhere to go but down. Sure Carlito and Santino won titles in their debuts, but at least they had something higher to acheive. The Women's Championship was the highest pinnacle in the women's division and what else was Kim going to do? I don't think they were going to go the Chyna route and let her compete with the men. If they would have builded her up slowly and then let her win the title, then maybe she would have been around longer. Now let's look at Gail Kim in TNA.

On October 8, 2005, she made her TNA debut forming an alliance with Jeff Jarrett and America's Most Wanted. She would be with them for a couple of years before they split up. At Bound For Glory 2007 she became the first TNA Knockout's Champion. She would lose the title to Awesome Kong on January 10, 2008 and would leave TNA on August 21, 2008 to return to the WWE.

Gail Kim thrived more in TNA then she did in WWE because they did not rush her even though there wasn't a knockout's divison until her last year there and that could be a huge factor. She started out as a valet to the greatest tag team in TNA history in AMW. Trish Stratus started out as a valet and look how she turned it. When the Knockout's Divison was created, Gail Kim was trusted enough to be their first champion. Her and Awesome Kong even main evented an episode of Impact, something I don't know has ever happened in WWE. If Gail Kim didn't win the title in her WWE debut, maybe she would still be there instead of going to TNA. However, thriving in TNA gave her the opportunity for WWE to hire her again.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlaU5h3xZBM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlaU5h3xZBM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Had to post it.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I believe that Gail Kim's run in TNA was great, but it was WWE where she thrived.

1. No one saw her run in TNA. She was out of TNA right at the beginning of their expansion. She was the headliner of that division for a time, but as soon as Kong came along, she relegated to second banana. You could argue that even Angelina was getting more press than her as well. She was the headliner of that division by default, and as soon as the division gained a title and more exposure, TNA set the wheels in motion to get someone else to be the face of that division.

2. In WWE she was immediately pushed as number one. She was put on top of a division full of former champs and stars. She was the hope of the division. WWE obviously valued her more highly than TNA ever did. She won a seven woman battle royal, eliminating Victoria to win. Victoria is now one of the top two women in the TNA division. WWE obviously values her more highly than TNA.

You can prove that she thrived more in WWE based on these two ideas. She was more valued by the company, and this is where she made her name. She is comparable to Kurt Angle. While Kurt was never the face of WWE (and Kim was), and he has had more titles and exposure on TNA, his run in WWE set the basis for all other runs. This debate isn't about where one was more famous, but rather about which stop was more vital to her career. I would argue that the WWE stop set the framework for her time in TNA.

LJL:

Gail Kim first came to WWE in 2001 and made her first televised WWE match in July 2003 in a battle royal to crown the WWE Women's Champion. She won by eliminating Victoria and would hold the title for four weeks before losing it to Molly Holly. She was injured for five months in 2003-2004 and was released in November of 2004.

Exactly my point. She was immediately number one, and then her next match was with one of the most recognizable female wrestlers of the generation. In TNA, she was champion by default, and as soon as someone was available to take the belt off of her, it was gone. Kong didn't lose the belt back to her, she lost it to a newcomer, Taylor Wilde. TNA didn't see the necessity to give the belt to Kim, and instead lowballed her on a contract offer to get rid of her. If she had thrived more in TNA, she would still be there.

The problem with Gail Kim in the WWE is that she hit the ceiling too early and had nowhere to go but down. Sure Carlito and Santino won titles in their debuts, but at least they had something higher to acheive. The Women's Championship was the highest pinnacle in the women's division and what else was Kim going to do? I don't think they were going to go the Chyna route and let her compete with the men. If they would have builded her up slowly and then let her win the title, then maybe she would have been around longer. Now let's look at Gail Kim in TNA.

Her problem was the she got injured. WWE, facing many injuries on the men's side, couldn't pay someone not to compete on the women's roster. She proved her durability in TNA and was resigned as soon as possible.

On October 8, 2005, she made her TNA debut forming an alliance with Jeff Jarrett and America's Most Wanted. She would be with them for a couple of years before they split up. At Bound For Glory 2007 she became the first TNA Knockout's Champion. She would lose the title to Awesome Kong on January 10, 2008 and would leave TNA on August 21, 2008 to return to the WWE.[/quote[

Once again, a transitional champion at the beginning of a reign. She was part of the reason TNA's Knockout division is so popular, but there were better competitors. Furthermore, she was pushed as one of many, whereas in WWE, she was instantly number one.

Gail Kim thrived more in TNA then she did in WWE because they did not rush her even though there wasn't a knockout's divison until her last year there and that could be a huge factor. She started out as a valet to the greatest tag team in TNA history in AMW. Trish Stratus started out as a valet and look how she turned it. When the Knockout's Divison was created, Gail Kim was trusted enough to be their first champion. Her and Awesome Kong even main evented an episode of Impact, something I don't know has ever happened in WWE. If Gail Kim didn't win the title in her WWE debut, maybe she would still be there instead of going to TNA. However, thriving in TNA gave her the opportunity for WWE to hire her again.

I disagree. Starting as a valet does not equal starting as women's champ. This shows how she thrived more in WWE. Another example is that in her return to WWE (at a SD! taping that I was at) no one cared when she came down to interfere in a McCool/Maryse match. The people I was sitting near were wondering why Melina was on SD!, and only after five minutes did anyone realize it was Kim. They didn't care. The limited audience in TNA held her back, and did not allow her to thrive.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

1. I believe The Beautiful People are the top two females in TNA today. The problem with Victoria was that she didn't do much in her last five years in the WWE but that's not the discussion we're having but it does relate to Gail Kim. Sure she was trusted with being the number one person but why wasn't she given a longer reign if they valued her so highly. She did get to feud with Stratus and Lita for a few months before she got injured.

2. I know that most wrestlers can't help themselves being injured but they do happen and sometimes we judge them by that. Kim was injured and then when she came back she didn't do much and was released. She was to me the female Kennedy. Very hyped up and started out great but injuries became too much of a factor.

3. The hardest thing for me to debate will be the fact that there wasn't a Knockout Division unitl Kim's third year in TNA but her previous two years set the springboard. She was instantly aligned with the best heels in TNA at that time in America's Most Wanted and Jeff Jarrett. She was relegated as the number one female in TNA even though she was a manager but it was who was she with that she stayed number one and for a much longer period of time than the WWE. When the Knockout's Division started, Kim was trusted enough to win their first championship. Honestly, the only other better competitor besides Angelina Love was Awesome Kong and her and Kim put on great matches. It's rare for two women to main event a show and Kim and Kong did it and Gail never did it in WWE.

4. Gail Kim's current run in WWE has been less than stellar and her being TNA isn't necessarly a hinderance. Vince doesn't even acknowledge TNA and don't you think if he gave TNA a little bit of recognition, more wrestling fans would have watched her and she would be better off than she is now. Her first run in WWE only was greatness for about a month but her stint in TNA with the best tag team and greatest heels of its history, being the first Knockout Champion and main eventing a TNA show made her thrive more.

 

[FromTheSouth]

1. I believe The Beautiful People are the top two females in TNA today. The problem with Victoria was that she didn't do much in her last five years in the WWE but that's not the discussion we're having but it does relate to Gail Kim. Sure she was trusted with being the number one person but why wasn't she given a longer reign if they valued her so highly. She did get to feud with Stratus and Lita for a few months before she got injured.

She got the belt to get noticed, but a feud with Lita or Trish doesn't need the belt to be over. The belt made her credible, and feuds made her an asset.

2. I know that most wrestlers can't help themselves being injured but they do happen and sometimes we judge them by that. Kim was injured and then when she came back she didn't do much and was released. She was to me the female Kennedy. Very hyped up and started out great but injuries became too much of a factor.

But the WWE hype helped her in TNA more than the TNA hype helped her in WWE.

3. The hardest thing for me to debate will be the fact that there wasn't a Knockout Division unitl Kim's third year in TNA but her previous two years set the springboard. She was instantly aligned with the best heels in TNA at that time in America's Most Wanted and Jeff Jarrett. She was relegated as the number one female in TNA even though she was a manager but it was who was she with that she stayed number one and for a much longer period of time than the WWE. When the Knockout's Division started, Kim was trusted enough to win their first championship. Honestly, the only other better competitor besides Angelina Love was Awesome Kong and her and Kim put on great matches. It's rare for two women to main event a show and Kim and Kong did it and Gail never did it in WWE.

But, if you main event a TNA show, and no one is there to see it, did you really main event? There is my tree falling in the woods argument. There is no denying that she did great things in both companies. But, Gail Kim wants to be known as a wrestler, but to TNA fans, she is best known as a valet. That's her problem. I bet if you asked her which was better for her, she would say that WWE best showcased her wrestling skills, and that was better for her career.

4. Gail Kim's current run in WWE has been less than stellar and her being TNA isn't necessarly a hinderance. Vince doesn't even acknowledge TNA and don't you think if he gave TNA a little bit of recognition, more wrestling fans would have watched her and she would be better off than she is now.

But this argument works for me as well. Vince doesn't need to recognize TNA. Anyone's career would better thrive in the WWE. AJ Styles could put on matches half as exciting in the WWE, but would be twice as famous. The only person who has been in both companies that has had a better run in TNA is Matt Morgan.

Her first run in WWE only was greatness for about a month but her stint in TNA with the best tag team and greatest heels of its history, being the first Knockout Champion and main eventing a TNA show made her thrive more.

Let's look at TNA as a whole. I am a fan of the company. I love the in ring action, I like the stories, and I love that they don't hotshot every feud in your face. That being said, look at their biggest stars. They may get more TV time than they did in WWE, but it is the WWE that has allowed them to thrive. They trade off the names that they made in the WWE. They may be featured on TNA prominently, but they are thriving based on their time in the WWE, or WCW. The big company is star maker, and Gail Kim is no different. Would TNA have pulled the trigger on her run had she not had success in WWE? We may never know for sure, but contextually, success in WWE is what makes you a star in TNA, showing that people thrive based on the name they make at the big boy.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

She got the belt to get noticed, but a feud with Lita or Trish doesn't need the belt to be over. The belt made her credible, and feuds made her an asset.



But the WWE hype helped her in TNA more than the TNA hype helped her in WWE.



But, if you main event a TNA show, and no one is there to see it, did you really main event? There is my tree falling in the woods argument. There is no denying that she did great things in both companies. But, Gail Kim wants to be known as a wrestler, but to TNA fans, she is best known as a valet. That's her problem. I bet if you asked her which was better for her, she would say that WWE best showcased her wrestling skills, and that was better for her career.



But this argument works for me as well. Vince doesn't need to recognize TNA. Anyone's career would better thrive in the WWE. AJ Styles could put on matches half as exciting in the WWE, but would be twice as famous. The only person who has been in both companies that has had a better run in TNA is Matt Morgan.



Let's look at TNA as a whole. I am a fan of the company. I love the in ring action, I like the stories, and I love that they don't hotshot every feud in your face. That being said, look at their biggest stars. They may get more TV time than they did in WWE, but it is the WWE that has allowed them to thrive. They trade off the names that they made in the WWE. They may be featured on TNA prominently, but they are thriving based on their time in the WWE, or WCW. The big company is star maker, and Gail Kim is no different. Would TNA have pulled the trigger on her run had she not had success in WWE? We may never know for sure, but contextually, success in WWE is what makes you a star in TNA, showing that people thrive based on the name they make at the big boy.

1. Sometimes it has to be about a belt for a feud to get over. Let's say she didn't get the title at her debut. If she would have feuded with Trish or Lita over the belt and won it after a couple of months, it would make fans think that she had what it took to stay around. The exact opposite happened in that she won the belt and then feuded with Trish and Lita after losing it to Molly Holly. Instead of feuding with Holly over the belt, they joined alliances and feuded with Trish and Lita. It did get her over a little bit most fans would say if you're not fighting for the belt we are going to lose interest in you.

2. I agree with you and disagree with you with anybody's career thriving in the WWE. Granted the WWE does give you more exposure but it doesn't necessarily mean you career is going to be so much better. I don't know this to be 100% fact but from what I've seen, Vince doesn't like what Vince didn't create. Booker T has won numerous titles in WWE but his success didn't measure up to what it was when he was in WCW. Rob Van Dam finally got his world title but drug problems were his demise. If you're not drawing the crowd in and aren't doing your job as a face or heel, you can find yourself at a quick exit from the WWE.

3. Vince likes to put stupid gimmicks on people in hopes they will work and will ship the wrestler out if he fails to perform the gimmick excellent. Matt Morgan could have been great for WWE if he wasn't stuck with the stuttering gimmick. Christian is another example that comes to mind. Vince felt he wasn't good enough of a main-event draw to win a world title so Christian went to TNA. He won his first world title in TNA and held for it a while. Months after redebuting with the WWE, he is a two-time ECW Champion. I would believe some of the success he had in TNA convinced Vince to bring him back and put a title on him.

Sometimes the WWE is not the end all be all for great success. You can find more people who thrived more in TNA than the other way around. Gail Kim may have won the title but the luster wore off after a couple of months. Fans started to lose interest in her and her return proves that and I don't see her stint in TNA being a factor. TNA may not be as huge as WWE but I believe they will give you more opportunities to be successful and that is what happened in the case of Gail Kim whether it her being a valet or Knockout's Champion.

 

[FromTheSouth]

1. Sometimes it has to be about a belt for a feud to get over. Let's say she didn't get the title at her debut. If she would have feuded with Trish or Lita over the belt and won it after a couple of months, it would make fans think that she had what it took to stay around. The exact opposite happened in that she won the belt and then feuded with Trish and Lita after losing it to Molly Holly. Instead of feuding with Holly over the belt, they joined alliances and feuded with Trish and Lita. It did get her over a little bit most fans would say if you're not fighting for the belt we are going to lose interest in you.

I think that specific feud didn't need the belt to get over. I am pretty sure that the ability of Kim, Trish, and Lita was enough, but they didn't want Trish or Lita to to do the job for someone who had never had the title. It was important for Kim to have had the belt, but if you have separate feuds going on, then it is good for the division. At that time, Kim was good enough to create interest in a non-title feud. This is another example of how she thrived in the WWE. She never had a memorable non-title match, much less feud in TNA, and as I have said was champion by default. In WWE she had enough clout to participate in a high profile, non-title feud. Most of them men can't pull that off, but for a woman to do so, it shows a unique talent.

2. I agree with you and disagree with you with anybody's career thriving in the WWE. Granted the WWE does give you more exposure but it doesn't necessarily mean you career is going to be so much better. I don't know this to be 100% fact but from what I've seen, Vince doesn't like what Vince didn't create. Booker T has won numerous titles in WWE but his success didn't measure up to what it was when he was in WCW. Rob Van Dam finally got his world title but drug problems were his demise. If you're not drawing the crowd in and aren't doing your job as a face or heel, you can find yourself at a quick exit from the WWE.

I agree, that it is not a lock that WWE is better for your career, but it is a 99% likelihood that the exposure of the WWE is better for your career. Kim left WWE as a former champion, and was the first champion in TNA. As the "headliner" of that division, she came back to WWE where she is a bit player. The exposure of WWE was far better for her career than the exposure of TNA. She had success in TNA because she thrived in her first run in WWE, as champion and as one who feuded with Trish.

3. Vince likes to put stupid gimmicks on people in hopes they will work and will ship the wrestler out if he fails to perform the gimmick excellent. Matt Morgan could have been great for WWE if he wasn't stuck with the stuttering gimmick. Christian is another example that comes to mind. Vince felt he wasn't good enough of a main-event draw to win a world title so Christian went to TNA. He won his first world title in TNA and held for it a while. Months after redebuting with the WWE, he is a two-time ECW Champion. I would believe some of the success he had in TNA convinced Vince to bring him back and put a title on him.

And you can add Chris Harris to that list. Of course, not a single one of them compares to Kurt Angle, alone, much less the entire Mafia, Mick Foley, etc. These guys are at the top of TNA because of WWE success. The WWE success meant much more to their career than anything they do in TNA will. If Kurt Angle breaks Ric Flair's record, it will hardly register with anyone but the IWC, however when HHH breaks it, it will be all over television and print media in ads for that Wrestlemania. The difference is exposure, and for a wrestler this is crucial, being that he has nothing more to trade off of than his name.

Sometimes the WWE is not the end all be all for great success. You can find more people who thrived more in TNA than the other way around. Gail Kim may have won the title but the luster wore off after a couple of months. Fans started to lose interest in her and her return proves that and I don't see her stint in TNA being a factor. TNA may not be as huge as WWE but I believe they will give you more opportunities to be successful and that is what happened in the case of Gail Kim whether it her being a valet or Knockout's Champion.

Everything I said above applies here. I will add that the luster wore off on her TNA title soon after she won it. The arrival of Kong and the Beautiful people wiped Kim right out of the scene. Taylor Wilde delivered the death knell. As soon as TNA announced a women's title, the put the belt on her and mobilized as quickly as they could to take it off of her. TNA's effort to resign her was token at best. Her run in WWE gave her a name, and as soon as that name wore off, it was back to WWE. She thrived in WWE because she made a name, and in TNA, that name disappeared because she didn't get the necessary exposure to maintain it. TNA can be a career killer, whereas WWE is where one thrives.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Summation

Gail Kim has won titles in both TNA and WWE and is only one of two women to do so with the other being Victoria/Tara. Her winning the title in her WWE debut cannot be ignored but that was her only shining achievement. It is true that the WWE gives you more exposure but I believe she was given more opportunites in TNA and capitalized on them.

Being a valet of the greatest heel tag team in TNA history and becoming the first Knockout's Champion exceeded all that she did in WWE. I know she was injured for most of her WWE career but we factor injuries in when talking about everybody else so she is no exception.

FTS said the reason of her limited crowd reactions were because of TNA but she was losing interest with the fans in WWE anyway so I don't think the TNA factor had anything to do with it. Her time in TNA was so great that the WWE decided to hire her back. Granted it hasn't gone as well as I thought, but TNA is hardly to blame.

Gail Kim was given top billing in a episode of TNA Impact, something that would have never happened in WWE. All the success she had in TNA surpassed those in WWE because she was given more chances and capitalized on them thus thriving more in TNA than WWE.

 

[Mr. TM]

Clarity of Argument - Both did well, nice opening arguments to start off. However, FTS had some errors in his, and I really liked LJL's closing post.


Punctuality: FTS was on time, he gets this point.


Informative: Hmm, I really feel both of you could have done better in bringing in information better in this debate. Sure its not the biggest topic in the world, but there was a lot more. LJL did bring in the better information here though.


Emotionality: LJL's style is quite tame. He is more likely to say "you debate nicely". FTS is more likely to be passionate about the debate. FTS is easy to mark like that from what I have seen of his debates, but he had little of that. And LJL had little to show in his calm debating style. I will give this to FTS here, but you two could have easily taken it to the other poster.


Persuasion: Both of you could have narrowed in on the topic. Really, I had very little care about here, and SHES CANADIAN! Imagine that. I am the biggest Canuck mark ever. So really, if you convinced me at all, Ill give it to you. LJL, you will get this point here, because I viewed her as having something in TNA, despite the company's lowered stance.


TM rates this 3 points LJL, 2 points FTS.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity - Little Jerry Lawler, it seems like you felt very comfortable with this topic. And, when you feel comfortable with a topic, you present extremely cogent arguments.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Punctuality - fromthesouth gets the point here.

Point: fromtheouth

Informative - Little Jerry Lawler gets the point here.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality - This is tough one. fromthesouth is passionate in all of his debates, and that's always a plus for him. But, Little Jerry Lawler always keeps his cool, even when provoked by emotionally charged words. I'm splitting the point here.

Point: Split

Persuasion - Little Jerry Lawler, you presented the better argument overall, so I'm giving you the point here.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

tdigle's Score

Little Jerry Lawler - 3.5
fromthesouth - 1.5

 

[CH David]

Clarity: LJL appeared to be more knowledgable on Gail as a whole, and not just saying that her time in WWE was crap compared to TNA.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Punctuality: FTS gets it.

Point: fromthesouth

Informative: LJL brought more in from both runs, WWE and TNA. FTS more or less went with strictly WWE, mentioning TNA but not in its importance.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotion: LJL was the calmer of the two, and unfortunately for him, the point goes to FTS.

Point: fromthesouth

Persuasion: I feel LJL presented his point thoroughly, acknowledging her runs in TNA and WWE like I previously mentioned, and even though her name was made in her first few months in WWE, she sustained it for 3 good years in TNA, and showcased herself very well.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

CH David scores it Little Jerry Lawler 3, fromthesouth 2.

 

[Miko]

Fucks sake, are there no easy rounds to judge?

Clarity: I got no complaints about either one of you on this, I think LJL's more clear explanations to his points does earn him the point though.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Punctuality: FTS

Point: fromthesouth

Informative: Hmm, well if I am honest both guys brought up relevant facts about Kim's career, both used their facts to argue a good point. This one's real tough but LJL takes the point here

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotion: I said in the other round that it's hard to judge through text, guess I was wrong. FTS seemed like he completely believed he was right, backed up with a good argument, it was persuasive.

Point: fromthesouth

Persuasion: I was nuetral on this point and this is one of those debates where I read the first post and thought "yeah he's right", then I read the second and thought "of course", this happened most of the way through, that doesnt happen often. Although at the end FTS just about eeked this one for me, but it was close, real close.

Point: fromthesouth

Lord Miko scores Little Jerry Lawler - 2
fromthesouth - 3