Week 7: Little Jerry Lawler -versus- Thriller

Mr. TM

Throwing a tantrum
Should WWE have more or less Pay Per Views?

Thriller 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.

This round ends Friday 1:00 pm Pacific
 
May we have a great debate.

I'm sure my opponent will say that there should be less PPV's because they don't have time to develop superstars and the feuds they are in. I will tell why the current PPV system is fine and needs no less PPV's.

Back in the day, everyone was looking to the four big PPV's: Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series. The feuds were built up over a long period of time which culminated in some all-time great matches. But the same can be said for today when there is a PPV every month.

Look at one of the best rivalries in recent memory betwen HHH and Shawn Michaels. Their feud went on and on through many PPV's for almost two years. If you don't have enough time to develop a feud between two superstars on the weekly shows, then you are not doing a good job. There are usually four RAW, ECW, and Smackdown shows between PPV's so it's not that hard for feuds to start and develop. That's if you plan to end the feud straight away. If it's ongoing that gives more time for the stars to shine and more great matches can be a result of that.

I believe if there were less PPV's than they would show more free matches on TV which would give viewers less incentive to buy the PPV. More PPV's means more money and more cities to host them and give wrestling fans a chance to go to these PPV's they wouldn't normally had if there were less of them.
 
I think that having fewer pay-per-views would be great for the WWE for many reasons.

First, I believe that buyrates would increase. In the current model, there are 14 pay-per-view events in a 12 month year. This means that 10 months have one PPV, while two have two. The typical consumer doesn't get the excitement of wanting to purchase a show, because if they aren't interested in the card, they can wait 3 weeks for the next one. The shows become much more exciting and prestigious if there are fewer. Plus, there are many fans who just order the Big 4 anyway, so if there were fewer PPVs, they might be more likely to order more than just those four.

In addition, it would help to end the complaints of the product getting stale. Feuds are rushed since pay-per-view matches have to be put on every 3-5 weeks, and they have little time to develop. Feuds can be developed over PPVs, but that reduces the prestige of having a pay-per-view match. The midcard would also benefit, because the main event feuds wouldn't have to take up as much time per show, since they would have more episodes to build the feud.

While it may seem on the surface that fewer pay-per-views would hurt business, I believe fewer PPVs would improve both buyrates and the product overall.
 
I think that having fewer pay-per-views would be great for the WWE for many reasons.

First, I believe that buyrates would increase. In the current model, there are 14 pay-per-view events in a 12 month year. This means that 10 months have one PPV, while two have two. The typical consumer doesn't get the excitement of wanting to purchase a show, because if they aren't interested in the card, they can wait 3 weeks for the next one. The shows become much more exciting and prestigious if there are fewer. Plus, there are many fans who just order the Big 4 anyway, so if there were fewer PPVs, they might be more likely to order more than just those four.

In addition, it would help to end the complaints of the product getting stale. Feuds are rushed since pay-per-view matches have to be put on every 3-5 weeks, and they have little time to develop. Feuds can be developed over PPVs, but that reduces the prestige of having a pay-per-view match. The midcard would also benefit, because the main event feuds wouldn't have to take up as much time per show, since they would have more episodes to build the feud.

While it may seem on the surface that fewer pay-per-views would hurt business, I believe fewer PPVs would improve both buyrates and the product overall.

Let's get into your topic about feuds. I am going to use the Randy Orton/HHH feud as an example. It started right before the Royal Rumble when Orton punted Mr. McMahon. If there were less PPV's, then you would pretty much have had the same buildup maybe minus the No Way Out match with Shane McMahon. Orton and HHH had an unspectacular match at Wrestlemania. If there were less PPV's then we would have to wait till either the Great American Bash or Summerslam and that is a long wait.

They got to fight at Backlash, Extreme Rules, and The Bash which helped further the feud. The fans might have gotten disinterested and that feud would have died quickly. With the PPV system we have now, you have more chances to two wrestlers to have a good feud and more often than not they succeed. We wouldn't have gotten the great Jericho/Mysterio matchups with less PPV's.

Most of the major pay-per-views like Survivor Series lost their prestige a long time ago and that's not because of all the other PPV's. If you just have the four big PPV's and if some aren't spectacular, then you won't make as much money. At least with the PPV system now, you have more opportunities to deliver.
 
Another reason the PPV system is fine is that nowadays, feuds end in gimmick matches and not in the big PPV's. The Austin/HHH feud in 2001 didn't specifically end at No Way Out. It ended in a Three Stages of Hell match. The HHH/HBK feud ended in Hell In A Cell at Bad Blood which is not a major PPV. Would it have been better ended at Summerslam? Maybe or maybe not.

If you went to less PPV's, you run into the danger of long, boring feuds. This current system guarantees more opportunities to spice up the feud or axe it after a certain time. You can have a feud over the span of four or five PPV's now and last four or five months than to have the less PPV system and have a feud last twice as long. It hurts more than it helps.
 
Too bad we had such a one sided debate. Hopefully Thriller gets back into the debates and pushes for a playoff spot!

Clarity of debate- 1 point
Have to give it to LJL, he just has a lot more in line and done.

Punctuality- 1 point
Thriller missed most of the week, LJL gets it.

Informative- 1 point
Thriller didn't get the chance to ut up much info, and LJL did. LJL gets the point

Emotionality- 1 point
As little debate happened, I have to look at LJL's brief moment battling Thriller and give the points to LJL.

Persuasion- 1 point
Didn't really know where my loyalties lay on this. More PPVs could be used to push two different sets of talents, so that's good. But it does kill the product. So anyone could have convinced me, and since LJL had a lot more done, he swayed me.

TM rates this 5 points LJL to 0 points Thriller.
 
Clarity Of Debate - Both debaters presented short and sweet opening arguments.

Point: Split

Punctuality - With respect to their opening arguments, both debaters were punctual.

Point: Split

Informative - I'll give Little Jerry Lawler the point here. I commend you for making another post when you had another point to make.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality - Little Jerry Lawler gets the point here.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Persuasion - I like the both debaters' opening arguments. Thriller had the much easier task though, and it would have made a difference if he would have been able to respond to his opponent's argument and rebuttal.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

tdigle's Score

Little Jerry Lawler - 4

Thriller - 1
 
Clarity: I liked how both had their opening posts clearly state what they were arguing.

Point: Split

Punctuality: LJL was on time, and unfortunately Thriller missed time.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Informative: LJL put up good information, Thriller couldn't back himself up much after his post.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality: LJL gets the point.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Persuasion: Thriller may have been able to get me if he was able to keep going on here, but LJL was persistent and gets the point.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

CH David scores this Little Jerry Lawler 4.5, Thriller .5.
 
Clarity: Thriller had the clearer posts of the debate

Point: Thriller

Punctuality: LJL

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Informative: LJL gave us the most and best information

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality: LJL gets the point.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Persuasion: Little Jerry Lawler had a full debate to work me

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Miko scores this round

Little Jerry Lawler - 4
Thriller - 1
 
Clarity: LJL
The argument made more sense.
Punctuality: LJL
See TM
Informative: LJL
Brought up more pertinent information
Emotionality: LJL
Went out of his way to make a second post when he thought of another point to make.
Persuasion: LJL
Was actually able to respond to his opponent's post.

5- LJL
0- Thriller
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,825
Messages
3,300,727
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top