Winner's Bracket Debate #5: Stormtrooper -vs- Milenko

[D-Man]

Was the Raw General Manager guest host concept a success or bust?​

This is a first round, winner's bracket debate in the 2012 Wrestlezone Debater's League Tournament.

Milenko won the coin toss and will be the home debater. He's earned the right to choose EITHER which side of the debate he wants to argue OR who provides the opening statement. He can also defer this choice to his opponent. (The home debater has 24 hours to make this decision otherwise it is automatically deferred to his opponent.)

After these choices are made, the first post of the debate must be posted within the first 24 hours otherwise it will affect the starter's Punctuality portion of the judging. Debaters have 24 hours to respond to their opponent's post and the faster the response, the better chance you have to score higher point totals.

The maximum amount of posts for each debater in this round is three. Once this criteria is met, (or the allotted time of the debate runs out,) the debate will end and judging will commence.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Thursday at 2pm EST where judging will immediately begin. Judging must be finished no later than Saturday at 2pm EST.

Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

Good luck to the participants.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I'm going to choose that it was a bust.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I'll let hyourinmaru Milenko go first.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

The raw guest host concept was a bust for a variety of reasons but I'm going to pick the top 4 reasons that it was just god awful. They are in no particular order.



1) The majority of Guest hosts were not picked with the WWE's target demographic in mind.
The WWE has been targeting kids since before the Guest host concept came about but kids would only only 18 out of 55 and that's if they watched whatever sports, movie, tv show or listened to the kind of music they played. Odds that kids knew all 18 are pretty small. If you were an adult wanting to take your child to a episode of RAW would you do it while say Bob Barker, ZZ Top or Dennis Miller were hosting? I know I wouldn't.



2) The majority of Guest hosts had nothing to do with Wrestling before being a guest host.
15 out of 55 guest hosts had something to do with the WWE before the became guest host. I'm talking about anyone who had an in ring segment no matter how small, main stream celebrities that participated in a match and of course past superstars and people who work for WWE backstage (Freddie Prinze, Jr.) That's 45 people who just sucked most of if not all the enjoyment out of any episode they were a part of. Dennis Miller comes to mind first off. I can understand why they picked him seeing how he hosted the Slammies but i only managed to watch about 5 minutes of this episode which was about the norm for me during this time period of Raw.



3)The guest hosts were terrible for ratings.
To tie into point 2 some of the lowest ratings of Raw in 2009 & 2010 came when the guests hosts had nothing to do with Wrestling at all.

When Al Sharpton was host Raw drew a 3.1 rating as did the episode hosted by Ricky Hatton (this I attribute to the majority of Americans not caring about a British Boxer) The Episode Johhny Damon hosted drew a 3.1. The episode Otunga hosted drew a 3.15. Wayne Brady, Flavor Flav as well as the group of Will Forte, Kristen Wiig and Ryan Phillippe drew a rating of 3.05. There a plenty more that didn't reach the 3.5 average RAW usually does on a good week. Those are just the ones that were really, really bad.



4) People just stopped watching RAW.
The ratings show that people stopped watching but there's also the fact I and every wrestling fan I know stopped watching RAW. I caught the first 15 minutes (and that's on a good day) but more often than not I would change the channel, put on a movie or play a video game. The point of any tv show is to get people to watch every week not turn away a good portion of your audience.


All in all it was a horrible concept that lasted about 6 months to long.

List of WWE Raw guest hosts/stars. http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/

 

[Stormtrooper]

On June 29th, 2009, WWE began the gimmick of a RAW “Guest Host” (later renamed “Guest Star&#8221 GM. This gimmick thought of rather negatively my many of the internet fans. Those people are 100% misguided in their downright hatred of the concept. The RAW Guest Host GM gimmick was a success, and there are many reasons why, which I will get to below.

The first and foremost reason why the Guest Host gimmick has been a success is because a lot of the segments were extremely entertaining. WWE is not in the “appease the internet fans” business. They are in the entertainment business. Some of the funniest segments on RAW in recent years were segments involving a Celebrity RAW Guest Host.


3 of the many segments include:

• “The Price Is Raw” (Bob Barker)
  Spoiler

  [youtube]EDDGgknM4A8[/youtube]
• William Shatner doing spoken-word renditions of WWE entrance songs (William Shatner)
  Spoiler

  [youtube]F9RDs_RZ5W4[/youtube]
• The Jerry Springer show gag (Jerry Springer)
  Spoiler

  [youtube]hiBdzxPzU1s[/youtube]

And funny isn't all the Raw Guest Host GMs do. A bunch of them were also excellent in advancing storylines and pushing talent.

• Jesse Ventura is the (kayfabe) reason Sheamus got his first WWE Title, since he booked the Breakthrough Battle Royal.
• Batista (as the first RAW Guest Host GM) put Mark Henry in a match with Randy Orton, that resulted in Mark Henry turning face (a turn that was successful at first before Henry got de-pushed back to the mid-card). And yes, Mark Henry was the MVP of that weeks show.
• Kofi Kingston saved Guest Host Roddy Piper from a Randy Orton Punt Kick that led to Kofi's biggest moment at that time (the boom Drop off a barricade through a table, still one of his biggest moment to date). That was just a few examples.
• Bret Hart returned as a Guest Host, where he started a feud with Mr. McMahon.
• 2 weeks after Jesse Ventura named Sheamus #1 Contender, Sheamus put guest host Mark Cuban through a table, further getting him over.

Those are just a few examples of GMs being directly involved in advancing storylines and helping get talent over.

Secondly, while the Internet fans tend to make people think that the Guest Host GMs actually meant something to the weekly broadcast, they were only brought in to be authority figures. They were not brought in so they can wrestle (even though a couple of them did mix it up in the ring to some extent) or take up all of the precious air-time. The Authority figures job is to make matches. What makes a weekly celebrity less credible then a guy like Teddy Long, Jonathan Coachman, Armando Estrada, Tiffany, Vickie Guerrero, Mike Adamle, or a laptop computer (and Michael Coles iPad), all of which had the same power as Guest Host GMs. Those people listed were useless to the wrestling business (worthless commentators, managers, debuting Diva, Laptop Computer/iPad) when they started, and had no more credibility or on-air respect from the Superstars then any guest host (arguably, some Guest Hosts would have more respect because of their imposing figure/demeanor).

Finally, a lot of the Celebrity Guest Host segments resulted in Mainstream attention. While internet fans think that they are the only people that matter, they are sorely mistaken. WWE as a company needs to market themselves to as many people as possible, so that more people are aware of their product, and more people would potentially be interested in viewing the product. Having a prime celebrity on the show makes the mainstream media pay attention, and actually show clips on their broadcasts. For the most part, this resulted in positive media attention. After Chris Benoit tried really damn hard to destroy the business (resulting in a public relations nightmare that will never be fully healed), any and all positive media attention helps improve the WWE's image.

The guest host GM concept was extremely innovative. While there is no doubt that there were occasional hiccups (much like there are hiccups by full-time WWE talent), it was a huge success, and should be given the credit it deserves for bringing a lot of innovative, fun, exciting TV for weeks on end.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

On June 29th, 2009, WWE began the gimmick of a RAW “Guest Host” (later renamed “Guest Star”) GM. This gimmick thought of rather negatively my many of the internet fans. Those people are 100% misguided in their downright hatred of the concept. The RAW Guest Host GM gimmick was a success, and there are many reasons why, which I will get to below.

The first and foremost reason why the Guest Host gimmick has been a success is because a lot of the segments were extremely entertaining. WWE is not in the “appease the internet fans” business. They are in the entertainment business. Some of the funniest segments on RAW in recent years were segments involving a Celebrity RAW Guest Host.

Funny to about 10 people out of the millions that watched. The majority of people who tune in to RAW do it for the wrestling and storylines not Al Sharpton, Dennis Miller, Pee Wee Herman or Bob Barker

3 of the many segments include:

• “The Price Is Raw” (Bob Barker)
  Spoiler

  [youtube]EDDGgknM4A8[/youtube]
• William Shatner doing spoken-word renditions of WWE entrance songs (William Shatner)
  Spoiler

  [youtube]F9RDs_RZ5W4[/youtube]
• The Jerry Springer show gag (Jerry Springer)
  Spoiler

  [youtube]hiBdzxPzU1s[/youtube]

None of these were funny in the slightest. The majority of people have not cared about Bob Barker, William Shatner or Jerry Springer for decades. Instead of not funny skits with people no one cares about they should have used the time to build up superstars on the lower card or advancing storylines.

And funny isn't all the Raw Guest Host GMs do.
A bunch of them were also excellent in advancing storylines and pushing talent.

• Jesse Ventura is the (kayfabe) reason Sheamus got his first WWE Title, since he booked the Breakthrough Battle Royal.

• 
  Fuck it you get this one. I enjoyed it and don't have anything bad to say about this
  

  [*]Batista (as the first RAW Guest Host GM) put Mark Henry in a match with Randy Orton, that resulted in Mark Henry turning face (a turn that was successful at first before Henry got de-pushed back to the mid-card). And yes, Mark Henry was the MVP of that weeks show.

  So Batista is responsible for yet another failed Mark Henry push. He could have given that shot to someone that would not have gotten shoved back down the card. Pretty pointless thing for him to do
  

  [*]Kofi Kingston saved Guest Host Roddy Piper from a Randy Orton Punt Kick that led to Kofi's biggest moment at that time (the boom Drop off a barricade through a table, still one of his biggest moment to date). That was just a few examples.

  This would have happened with or with out Piper. I fail to see how this is a point for making the Guest Host as GM concept a success
  

  [*]Bret Hart returned as a Guest Host, where he started a feud with Mr. McMahon.

  So he came as guest host and started a feud that no one out side a few people cared about which led to a pretty meh match at WrestleMania. Again this could have been used to get people over who actually matter.
  
  

  [*]2 weeks after Jesse Ventura named Sheamus #1 Contender, Sheamus put guest host Mark Cuban through a table, further getting him over.

Those are just a few examples of GMs being directly involved in advancing storylines and helping get talent over.

That's all Mark Cuban was there for. IT could have been any fan favorite and hell they might have gotten a rub because I'm sure they would have feuded with Sheamus at some point, maybe for the wwe title

Secondly, while the Internet fans tend to make people think that the Guest Host GMs actually meant something to the weekly broadcast, they were only brought in to be authority figures. They were not brought in so they can wrestle (even though a couple of them did mix it up in the ring to some extent) or take up all of the precious air-time. The Authority figures job is to make matches.

They were the main focus each and every week, this means they do indeed take up precious air time that would have been better spent building up people who actually matter in the WWE. As for getting in the ring the 2 that I remember (Jon Heder and Cedric The Entertainer) should never have gotten in the ring, This also makes them more than Authority figures and this means they take more valuable air time from people who matter. Had they just made matches with the odd backstage vignette I don't think I would have cared who was hosting any given week

What makes a weekly celebrity less credible then a guy like Teddy Long, Jonathan Coachman, Armando Estrada, Tiffany, Vickie Guerrero, Mike Adamle, or a laptop computer (and Michael Coles iPad), all of which had the same power as Guest Host GMs.

• Teddy Long has been around wrestling for years as has Coach.
• Estrada was hated by the fans and got great heat
• Tiffany was well known by the fans and made sense as ECW GM
• Vickie is a Guerrero and spent 99.9% of her adult life around the Wrestling business.
• Mike Adamle was employed by the WWE and they were trying to get him over with the fans.
• The laptop/ipad was a storyline.

All these reasons are why everyone you named was better than some random celebrity that Vince wanted that week. They made sense and were just plain better at what they did

Those people listed were useless to the wrestling business (worthless commentators, managers, debuting Diva, Laptop Computer/iPad) when they started, and had no more credibility or on-air respect from the Superstars then any guest host (arguably, some Guest Hosts would have more respect because of their imposing figure/demeanor).

I bolded the words I want people to pay attention to, WHEN THEY STARTED. Unlike the Guest Hosts they all wanted to be in the business and got better at what they did over the years they were in the company. Not only that WWE fans cared about them and either booed or cheered them while most people never cared about the Guest hosts.

Finally, a lot of the Celebrity Guest Host segments resulted in Mainstream attention. While internet fans think that they are the only people that matter, they are sorely mistaken. WWE as a company needs to market themselves to as many people as possible, so that more people are aware of their product, and more people would potentially be interested in viewing the product. Having a prime celebrity on the show makes the mainstream media pay attention, and actually show clips on their broadcasts. For the most part, this resulted in positive media attention. After Chris Benoit tried really damn hard to destroy the business (resulting in a public relations nightmare that will never be fully healed), any and all positive media attention helps improve the WWE's image.

I will agree that they garnered Main stream attention but it was short term. But it was short lived and pointless. You say they need to get more people aware of their product and get them to view it but is a non WWE fan going to tune into RAW to see Bob, Barker, Al Sharpton, et al? The answer is No. The only guest hosts people cared about were Ex Wrestlers and even they didn't get new people to watch because if you didn't like wrestling before they wouldn't get you to change your mind. I do agree that Mainstream attention and new viewers are needed by the WWE but The Guest Host concept did very very little to get them attention and did nothing to get new viewers.

The guest host GM concept was extremely innovative. While there is no doubt that there were occasional hiccups (much like there are hiccups by full-time WWE talent), it was a huge success, and should be given the credit it deserves for bringing a lot of innovative, fun, exciting TV for weeks on end.

Innovative yes. Fun exciting TV, good god no. It was boring lackluster TV for weeks on end with a few bright spots that had nothing to do with the RAW guest host.

 

[Stormtrooper]

1) The majority of Guest hosts were not picked with the WWE's target demographic in mind.
The WWE has been targeting kids since before the Guest host concept came about but kids would only only 18 out of 55 and that's if they watched whatever sports, movie, tv show or listened to the kind of music they played. Odds that kids knew all 18 are pretty small.

This is one of the big issues with internet fans. WWE aims to appeal to children. That doesn't mean that they are the target demographic, like the internet likes to think. They are intending to make their brand of Sports Entertainment Television appealing to people of all ages, not just people 16-30, or people under 18.

Also, if you think children tune into a TV show to see a bit-player, you're insane. Kids are watching to see John Cena, Rey Mysterio, etc. Not a GM. Kids aren't tuning in now to watch John Laurinaitis.

If you were an adult wanting to take your child to a episode of RAW would you do it while say Bob Barker, ZZ Top or Dennis Miller were hosting? I know I wouldn't.

If I was an adult with children, I would want to take my kids to see Bob Barker becuase I want to see Bob Barker, while the kids want to see Rey Mysterio, or John Cena (who the children adore like none other).

2) The majority of Guest hosts had nothing to do with Wrestling before being a guest host.
15 out of 55 guest hosts had something to do with the WWE before the became guest host. I'm talking about anyone who had an in ring segment no matter how small, main stream celebrities that participated in a match and of course past superstars and people who work for WWE backstage (Freddie Prinze, Jr.) That's 45 people who just sucked most of if not all the enjoyment out of any episode they were a part of.

Just because they had no prior involvement with WWE doesn't mean they sucked the life out of the episode.

You know, WWE fans probably said the exact same thing back in 1985.
-Billy Martin
-Liberace and the Rockettes
-Cyndi Lauper
-Muhammad Ali
-Mr. T

God, 5 celebrities on one show! That's gotta be a terrible thing for wrestling using your logic. What show was that again? Oh yeah, WRESTLEMANIA

Dennis Miller comes to mind first off. I can understand why they picked him seeing how he hosted the Slammies but i only managed to watch about 5 minutes of this episode which was about the norm for me during this time period of Raw.

The writing for that show was atrocious. Dennis Miller stood no chance during that atrociously written show. Was he a good host, no, but that doesn't mean the concept was bad. Mike Adamle was a bad GM. Michael Cole was a bad commentator. They are both full-time workers.

3)The guest hosts were terrible for ratings.
To tie into point 2 some of the lowest ratings of Raw in 2009 & 2010 came when the guests hosts had nothing to do with Wrestling at all.

When Al Sharpton was host Raw drew a 3.1 rating as did the episode hosted by Ricky Hatton (this I attribute to the majority of Americans not caring about a British Boxer) The Episode Johhny Damon hosted drew a 3.1. The episode Otunga hosted drew a 3.15. Wayne Brady, Flavor Flav as well as the group of Will Forte, Kristen Wiig and Ryan Phillippe drew a rating of 3.05. There a plenty more that didn't reach the 3.5 average RAW usually does on a good week. Those are just the ones that were really, really bad.

Occasionally, RAW has lower ratings then you or I (or the WWE) would prefer. However, you are looking at the ratings wrong. You can't judge the whole of the RAW Guest Host GM concept based on a few individual weeks ratings, as individual weeks can be affected by a wide variety of things, much of which is out of the control of WWE. You need to look at the ratings as a whole. How do you do that? You compare the ratings to what happened that week the year before and the year after.
Using your sources, I made a nice little spreadsheet. And here it is

Spoiler

Guess what. The span of the RAW GM Guest Host led to the highest ratings during that timespan.

4) People just stopped watching RAW.
The ratings show that people stopped watching

Again, no it didn't

but there's also the fact I and every wrestling fan I know stopped watching RAW. I caught the first 15 minutes (and that's on a good day) but more often than not I would change the channel, put on a movie or play a video game. The point of any tv show is to get people to watch every week not turn away a good portion of your audience.

So because you stopped watching something means it wasn't good? Since when did you become the end-all, be all?

Using your logic, the Guest Host GM gimmick was a great success because I kept watching, and I don't know anyone that stopped watching.

List of WWE Raw guest hosts/stars. http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/

Thanks for citing those 2 sites, they came in handy to prove your points incorrect.

Funny to about 10 people out of the millions that watched.

Actually, I would say that it was funny to the ten thousand plus in the arena. I value their opinion on the humor over the humor of one person who is arguing against the very segment, since your opinion is bias on the matter.

The majority of people who tune in to RAW do it for the wrestling and storylines not Al Sharpton, Dennis Miller, Pee Wee Herman or Bob Barker

Of course they watch RAW for the Sports Entertainment. And guess what, RAW still had plenty of that during that time. RAW did not become a 2 hour long “Dennis Miller Show” or “Al Sharpton Show” or “Bob Barker Show” like you are arguing.

Oh, and Pee Wee wasn't a Guest Host GM. He was hysterical though.

None of these were funny in the slightest. The majority of people have not cared about Bob Barker, William Shatner or Jerry Springer for decades. Instead of not funny skits with people no one cares about they should have used the time to build up superstars on the lower card or advancing storylines.

Actually, I would say that more people cared about Bob Barker, William Shatner, or Jerry Springer then anyone on the WWE roster. Bob Barker was a Game Show Host on TV for 50 years, Shatner is a world renown actor, and Jerry Springer is a hugely popular syndicated Talk Show host. The only wrestling person possibly more cared about publicly then those 3 people would be Dwayne Johnson. Because he's an actor.

And your suggestion is to replace world famous celebrities with lower card wrestlers? Sorry, but more people care about Bob Barker then Curt Hawkins.

So Batista is responsible for yet another failed Mark Henry push. He could have given that shot to someone that would not have gotten shoved back down the card. Pretty pointless thing for him to do

This was a case of a Guest Host creating a long-term storyline (Mark Henry face turn) and mini-feud (Mark Henry vs. Randy Orton). The Guest Host can't help how it works out in the long run, since he's not associated with the show after that week. And you're trying to both break kayfabe and protect it at the same time here. Batista is the reason for the push (Kayfabe) but he should have given it to someone else because Mark Henry later got de-pushed (breaking Kayfabe). All the Guest Host can be accredited is what happened while he was there. Mark Henry got a huge reaction when he turned face, and pinned the Viper (who was a massively over heel and WWE Champion at the time)

This would have happened with or with out Piper. I fail to see how this is a point for making the Guest Host as GM concept a success

But it did happen to the Guest Host. Piper was the Guest Host GM, he was assaulted, Kofi saved him.

So he came as guest host and started a feud that no one out side a few people cared about which led to a pretty meh match at WrestleMania. Again this could have been used to get people over who actually matter.

Bret Hart returning was the biggest story of the entire 2010 WWE year. And Bret putting Vince in the Sharpshooter at Mania was one of the best moments in WrestleMania history. So yeah, I'd say it was rather awesome, and he advanced storylines (the show ended with McMahon kicking Hart in the man-region)

That's all Mark Cuban was there for. IT could have been any fan favorite and hell they might have gotten a rub because I'm sure they would have feuded with Sheamus at some point, maybe for the wwe title

No way in hell could it be anyone. Sheamus got the heat because he assaulted a non-wrestler, but more importantly he assaulted the Guest Host GM (who also happens to be the proprietor of the building the incident took place and a huge figure in the local area).

They were the main focus each and every week, this means they do indeed take up precious air time that would have been better spent building up people who actually matter in the WWE. As for getting in the ring the 2 that I remember (Jon Heder and Cedric The Entertainer) should never have gotten in the ring, This also makes them more than Authority figures and this means they take more valuable air time from people who matter. Had they just made matches with the odd backstage vignette I don't think I would have cared who was hosting any given week

No they weren't the main focus every week. The main focus every week was the Main Event storyline, usually involving John Cena, Triple H, Randy Orton, or whatever. The Guest Host GM had 2-4 minor segments each week. And when they got in the ring, they always were involved in a storyline of sorts. Cedric The Entertainer furthered the Chavo Guerrero storyline, and Heder was a heel working in the DX vs. ShowMiz storyline.

• Teddy Long has been around wrestling for years as has Coach.
• Estrada was hated by the fans and got great heat

Manager, Commentator, Referee. How is that more credible then someone, say, Shaquille O'Neal or Mike Tyson?

• Tiffany was well known by the fans and made sense as ECW GM

Tiffany debuted as an authority figure. She debuted as the assistant GM of ECW, shortly thereafter becoming the GM.

• Vickie is a Guerrero and spent 99.9% of her adult life around the Wrestling business.

No she didn't. She was married to a wrestler, while being at home raising a family. She did not begin to have anything to do with the Sports Entertainment Business until after Eddie Guerrero passed, when she became a manager of sorts before becoming a GM.

• Mike Adamle was employed by the WWE and they were trying to get him over with the fans.

He was a terrible commentator that was thought of as a joke by most everybody. He was very marginally better as a GM, but not by much.

• The laptop/ipad was a storyline.

You're right, the laptop/iPad was a tool to communicate with an unknown GM. That's very credible right there, invisible GM. (red text indicating sarcasm)

All these reasons are why everyone you named was better than some random celebrity that Vince wanted that week. They made sense and were just plain better at what they did

That's just an out-and-out lie. The bad Guest Host GMs were better then Mike Adamle. And Tiffany was plain and generic, making her boring as hell. The Celebrity Guest Host GMs at least had personality.

I bolded the words I want people to pay attention to, WHEN THEY STARTED. Unlike the Guest Hosts they all wanted to be in the business and got better at what they did over the years they were in the company. Not only that WWE fans cared about them and either booed or cheered them while most people never cared about the Guest hosts.

I think I may have been mis-interpreted. The Guest Host GM had the same amount of credibility as a GM as all the GMs I listed when they started AS GMs, not when they started in the business/with WWE.

And personally, I much so prefer Random Weekly Celebrities over someone like Mike Adamle, Coach, or Tiffany. Random Weekly Celebrities give you a fresh face (or faces) every week, with the potential of having a heel GM one week and a face the next.

I will agree that they garnered Main stream attention but it was short term. But it was short lived and pointless. You say they need to get more people aware of their product and get them to view it but is a non WWE fan going to tune into RAW to see Bob, Barker, Al Sharpton, et al? The answer is No. The only guest hosts people cared about were Ex Wrestlers and even they didn't get new people to watch because if you didn't like wrestling before they wouldn't get you to change your mind. I do agree that Mainstream attention and new viewers are needed by the WWE but The Guest Host concept did very very little to get them attention and did nothing to get new viewers.

You're missing the point. Of course the media attention is short term. But what you're not realizing is that their involvement being showcased on the major media enterprises means that they are also showing WWE talent. They aren't just showing the Guest Host GM, they are showing the Guest Host GM interacting with WWE talent. That gives those talent a vehicle to reach the masses that they otherwise have no way to reach.

And as I said earlier, every time they show WWE in a positive light, it gets them a little bit further from the Chris Benoit murders. It doesn't matter how short-term that media attention is.

Innovative yes. Fun exciting TV, good god no. It was boring lackluster TV for weeks on end with a few bright spots that had nothing to do with the RAW guest host.

Glad you agree it was innovative. While you personally may not have liked it, it led to many good segments and positive media attention, all the while not taking much of any time from the full-time talent.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

This is one of the big issues with internet fans. WWE aims to appeal to children. That doesn't mean that they are the target demographic, like the internet likes to think. They are intending to make their brand of Sports Entertainment Television appealing to people of all ages, not just people 16-30, or people under 18.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when a show aims to appeal to a certain age group doesn't that make them their target demographic? The original ECW appealed to Adult men and that was their demographic. TV shows like Regular show and Adventure time appeal to young children (age 7-9) which makes them the target demographic for those shows. I'm not saying WWE doesn't appeal to others but they are targeting children which makes them their Target demographic.

Also, if you think children tune into a TV show to see a bit-player, you're insane. Kids are watching to see John Cena, Rey Mysterio, etc. Not a GM. Kids aren't tuning in now to watch John Laurinaitis.

Then that bit player shouldn't take up the majority of the 2 hour show. If they only had a few backstage vignettes and made a couple matches that way the kids get to see more of what they want to see.

If I was an adult with children, I would want to take my kids to see Bob Barker becuase I want to see Bob Barker, while the kids want to see Rey Mysterio, or John Cena (who the children adore like none other).

if i was a child I would have been upset the show I was watching was being dominated by a guy I didn't care about and wouldn't watch anymore or ask to go see the shows live

Just because they had no prior involvement with WWE doesn't mean they sucked the life out of the episode.

Except they did. The ratting went down with only a few exceptions. That means people did not like it and stopped watching altogether.

You know, WWE fans probably said the exact same thing back in 1985.
-Billy Martin
-Liberace and the Rockettes
-Cyndi Lauper
-Muhammad Ali
-Mr. T

God, 5 celebrities on one show! That's gotta be a terrible thing for wrestling using your logic. What show was that again? Oh yeah, WRESTLEMANIA

Are you really comparing a horrible weekly guest GM concept to WrestleMania? For the sake of argument I'll go with it.

Everyone you mentioned were the biggest stars of the time Everyone Adults and Children alike wanted to see them. You can't compare any of the guest hosts to them.

The writing for that show was atrocious. Dennis Miller stood no chance during that atrociously written show. Was he a good host, no, but that doesn't mean the concept was bad. Mike Adamle was a bad GM. Michael Cole was a bad commentator. They are both full-time workers.

Adamle wasn't to bad. He left before he really found his niche and Cole is one of the most hated characters on RAW. People may have hated them but they weren't bad.

The guest hots however were bad, with the exception of a small few.

Occasionally, RAW has lower ratings then you or I (or the WWE) would prefer. However, you are looking at the ratings wrong. You can't judge the whole of the RAW Guest Host GM concept based on a few individual weeks ratings, as individual weeks can be affected by a wide variety of things, much of which is out of the control of WWE. You need to look at the ratings as a whole. How do you do that? You compare the ratings to what happened that week the year before and the year after.
Using your sources, I made a nice little spreadsheet. And here it is

Spoiler

Guess what. The span of the RAW GM Guest Host led to the highest ratings during that timespan.

Yeah ok, only problem is we're supposed to look at the Guest GM time frame and the ratings were down for most of them. The ones I put down were just the worst, there are plenty more that were below the norm as well.

Again, no it didn't

Umm, When ratings go down that means people stop watching right?

So because you stopped watching something means it wasn't good? Since when did you become the end-all, be all?

I'm not the end all be all but I will watch anything most people think is Horrible shit. So if I don't like it yeah it's shit

Using your logic, the Guest Host GM gimmick was a great success because I kept watching, and I don't know anyone that stopped watching.


Thanks for citing those 2 sites, they came in handy to prove your points incorrect.

These have nothing to do with anything so I'm ignoring them

Actually, I would say that it was funny to the ten thousand plus in the arena. I value their opinion on the humor over the humor of one person who is arguing against the very segment, since your opinion is bias on the matter.

Of course you would say it's funny you're arguing for it.

Of course they watch RAW for the Sports Entertainment. And guess what, RAW still had plenty of that during that time. RAW did not become a 2 hour long “Dennis Miller Show” or “Al Sharpton Show” or “Bob Barker Show” like you are arguing.

There was wrestling of course. however the guest host was on the screen every 5 minutes which means they took up most of the show. IF they were any good it would have been alright but they were horrible.

Oh, and Pee Wee wasn't a Guest Host GM. He was hysterical though.

Well shit, my bad

Actually, I would say that more people cared about Bob Barker, William Shatner, or Jerry Springer then anyone on the WWE roster. Bob Barker was a Game Show Host on TV for 50 years, Shatner is a world renown actor, and Jerry Springer is a hugely popular syndicated Talk Show host. The only wrestling person possibly more cared about publicly then those 3 people would be Dwayne Johnson. Because he's an actor.

This goes back to my target Audience argument from earlier. Kids do not care about any of them and will not want to watch or go to the shows

And your suggestion is to replace world famous celebrities with lower card wrestlers? Sorry, but more people care about Bob Barker then Curt Hawkins.

Hawkins needs the time to get over a lot more than a celebrity that wasn't gonna be there the next week

This was a case of a Guest Host creating a long-term storyline (Mark Henry face turn) and mini-feud (Mark Henry vs. Randy Orton). The Guest Host can't help how it works out in the long run, since he's not associated with the show after that week. And you're trying to both break kayfabe and protect it at the same time here. Batista is the reason for the push (Kayfabe) but he should have given it to someone else because Mark Henry later got de-pushed (breaking Kayfabe). All the Guest Host can be accredited is what happened while he was there. Mark Henry got a huge reaction when he turned face, and pinned the Viper (who was a massively over heel and WWE Champion at the time)

Fuck me. You get this one to.

But it did happen to the Guest Host. Piper was the Guest Host GM, he was assaulted, Kofi saved him.

It did happen to piper yes but this doesn't mean it made him a good guest host. Kofi could have saved any fan favorite from the assault and he would have gotten the same reaction. This isn't a point in favor of the guest host concept being a success

Bret Hart returning was the biggest story of the entire 2010 WWE year. And Bret putting Vince in the Sharpshooter at Mania was one of the best moments in WrestleMania history. So yeah, I'd say it was rather awesome, and he advanced storylines (the show ended with McMahon kicking Hart in the man-region)

True but all him being Guest host get him back on TV. All the good stuff happened after he was done being guest host

No way in hell could it be anyone. Sheamus got the heat because he assaulted a non-wrestler, but more importantly he assaulted the Guest Host GM (who also happens to be the proprietor of the building the incident took place and a huge figure in the local area).

So no one got heat by taking out a fan favorite during what was supposed to be a shining moment for them? I say again it Didn't have to be Mark Cuban. he was there because he was a big name in the city (which is one of the few that probably brought people in).

No they weren't the main focus every week. The main focus every week was the Main Event storyline, usually involving John Cena, Triple H, Randy Orton, or whatever. The Guest Host GM had 2-4 minor segments each week. And when they got in the ring, they always were involved in a storyline of sorts. Cedric The Entertainer furthered the Chavo Guerrero storyline, and Heder was a heel working in the DX vs. ShowMiz storyline.

Chavo's storyline was an embarrassment and another example as to why the concept sucked. As for Heder I hate him so I admit biased here.

Manager, Commentator, Referee. How is that more credible then someone, say, Shaquille O'Neal or Mike Tyson?

In a global media standpoint they aren't . How ever in a WWE standpoint I will take a manger, Commentator or a ref over a boxer & Basketball player any day of the week

Tiffany debuted as an authority figure. She debuted as the assistant GM of ECW, shortly thereafter becoming the GM.

ok but she was a big part in getting Christian the ECW title so I will take her over a guest host who made (with a few exceptions) throw away matches

No she didn't. She was married to a wrestler, while being at home raising a family. She did not begin to have anything to do with the Sports Entertainment Business until after Eddie Guerrero passed, when she became a manager of sorts before becoming a GM.

She was a prt of the Eddie/Rey/ Dominic storyline so that cuts that part out. OK i may have exaggerated but I would take one of the most over heels on the roster than any guest host.

He was a terrible commentator that was thought of as a joke by most everybody. He was very marginally better as a GM, but not by much.

And he was still better than the majority of guest hosts

You're right, the laptop/iPad was a tool to communicate with an unknown GM. That's very credible right there, invisible GM. (red text indicating sarcasm)

being a sarcastic smart ass gets you no points Stormy

That's just an out-and-out lie. The bad Guest Host GMs were better then Mike Adamle. And Tiffany was plain and generic, making her boring as hell. The Celebrity Guest Host GMs at least had personality.

I like Adamle, he made some good matches as GM as did Tiffany. And that is more than I can say for the Guest FMs

I think I may have been mis-interpreted. The Guest Host GM had the same amount of credibility as a GM as all the GMs I listed when they started AS GMs, not when they started in the business/with WWE

.
They have less credibility due to the fact they were gonna be gone at the end of the night.

And personally, I much so prefer Random Weekly Celebrities over someone like Mike Adamle, Coach, or Tiffany. Random Weekly Celebrities give you a fresh face (or faces) every week, with the potential of having a heel GM one week and a face the next.

If only the fresh faces didn't suck you would have a point.

You're missing the point. Of course the media attention is short term. But what you're not realizing is that their involvement being showcased on the major media enterprises means that they are also showing WWE talent. They aren't just showing the Guest Host GM, they are showing the Guest Host GM interacting with WWE talent. That gives those talent a vehicle to reach the masses that they otherwise have no way to reach.

All the times I saw it on main stream media was them talking about the random celeb with only a small mention of the WWE or Raw

And as I said earlier, every time they show WWE in a positive light, it gets them a little bit further from the Chris Benoit murders. It doesn't matter how short-term that media attention is.

This is the 2nd time you mentioned Benoit. What in God's name does he have to do with any of this?

Glad you agree it was innovative. While you personally may not have liked it, it led to many good segments and positive media attention, all the while not taking much of any time from the full-time talent.

it led to only 2 good segment and that was when Jesse Ventura made Sheamus Vs Cena A tables match. All other segments were meh at best and shitty at worst.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Correct me if I'm wrong but when a show aims to appeal to a certain age group doesn't that make them their target demographic? The original ECW appealed to Adult men and that was their demographic. TV shows like Regular show and Adventure time appeal to young children (age 7-9) which makes them the target demographic for those shows. I'm not saying WWE doesn't appeal to others but they are targeting children which makes them their Target demographic.

1. You are so hung up on the “Target Demographic” that you're missing the biggest issue. You don't become a popular TV show/Live entertainment venture by putting all your eggs in one demographic basket. By bringing in people that appeal to people outside that “Target,” you increase your chance of bringing in people.
2. Kids do not go to places on their own. Even if you are trying to get only the kids, you have to do things that appeal to the parents, who will be taking the kids.Bringing in celebrities that they heard of helps.

Then that bit player shouldn't take up the majority of the 2 hour show. If they only had a few backstage vignettes and made a couple matches that way the kids get to see more of what they want to see.

That's the thing. They weren't dominating the majority of the 2 hour show. They were on for less then 20 minutes, tops, in 2-5 segments. The show is 125 minutes. That's hardly dominating. And if they were on more then that, they were interacting with, and putting over the WWE Talent, whom the kids are there to see.

if i was a child I would have been upset the show I was watching was being dominated by a guy I didn't care about and wouldn't watch anymore or ask to go see the shows live

If you were a child, you would see your favorite Superstar/Diva and leave happy. If your favorite Superstar/Diva lost, you may be less happy.


Kids don't care who is on the screen more, they just want to see their favorites. I would all but guarantee they did, since the favorites among the majority of the kids were John Cena, Rey Mysterio, and Hornswoggle. Cena and Hornswoggle were on every week, and Mysterio was on Smackdown.

Except they did. The ratting went down with only a few exceptions. That means people did not like it and stopped watching altogether.

Again, a few weeks means nothing. Every year there are a few weeks with low ratings, especially in the summertime. I was showing you that the Guest Host GM concept AS A WHOLE was a success, since the ratings were up compared to the same timeframe as years past.

Are you really comparing a horrible weekly guest GM concept to WrestleMania? For the sake of argument I'll go with it.

I'm comparing celebrity involvement in Sports Entertainment. As such, the comparison works.

Everyone you mentioned were the biggest stars of the time Everyone Adults and Children alike wanted to see them. You can't compare any of the guest hosts to them.

Just like Shaquille O'Neal, Ben Roethlisberger, Jeremy Piven (this is during the height of Entourage), Bob Barker. I can go on if you want. They had some legit big-time stars during the Guest Host GM run. So yes, I can compare them to people like Liberace and the Rockettes, or even Muhammad Ali.

Adamle wasn't to bad. He left before he really found his niche and Cole is one of the most hated characters on RAW. People may have hated them but they weren't bad.

Adamle couldn't even remember his damn lines. He was atrocious.


And you yourself even said that Michael Cole sucked and you would turn it off because of him. So now you're saying that Cole is excellent?

The guest hots however were bad, with the exception of a small few.

Honestly, you have your wording confused. The Guest Hosts on a whole were fine, with the exception of a small few.

Yeah ok, only problem is we're supposed to look at the Guest GM time frame and the ratings were down for most of them. The ones I put down were just the worst, there are plenty more that were below the norm as well.

Here's some more ratings for you on an individual basis.
June 29th (Batista): 3.9
July 27th (Shaquille O'Neal): 3.95
8/10 (Sgt. Slaughter): 3.8
8/17 (Freddie Prinze Jr.): 3.79
8/24 (Floyd Mayweather): 3.93
9/07 (Bob Barker): 3.8
1/11 (Mike Tyson): 3.7
2/22 (Jewel/Ty Murray): 3.8

Umm, When ratings go down that means people stop watching right?

When they're consistently down, people stop watching. But they weren't, there were occasional dips. When there are occasional dips, they generally can be attributed to numerous things out of WWEs control, be it a pre-emption, stiff competition from another channel, the time of the year (more people go away in the summertime or during holidays).


And as I have proven, the ratings as a whole actually went UP.

I'm not the end all be all but I will watch anything most people think is Horrible shit. So if I don't like it yeah it's shit

Again, you are not the end-all, be-all when it comes to television quality. You stopped watching, good for you. That doesn't mean the product sucked, it just meant you decided to let the least important person on TV each week dictate your viewing pleasue.

These have nothing to do with anything so I'm ignoring them

So we take you stopping watching the show as an indicator of quality, and me continuing to watch the show as nothing? Yeah, that's not happening.

Of course you would say it's funny you're arguing for it.

While yes, I found it funny, I based my opinion on the fact that the ARENA found it funny. That's ten thousand plus people that found it funny.

There was wrestling of course. however the guest host was on the screen every 5 minutes which means they took up most of the show. IF they were any good it would have been alright but they were horrible.

First of all, for the most part they weren't shit. And they weren't on the screen forever, they had 2-5 segments, each of which involved full-time talent working with the celebrity host.

This goes back to my target Audience argument from earlier. Kids do not care about any of them and will not want to watch or go to the shows

Kids aren't going to watch the guest hosts. If they wanted the guest host to appeal to kids, they would get Barney. Instead, they got the guest host to appeal to the parents, whom are taking the kids.

Hawkins needs the time to get over a lot more than a celebrity that wasn't gonna be there the next week

Television shows are about getting people to tune in. Not a single person outside of Curt Hawkins family and friends are tuning into RAW if he's on. You'll get a few more with a celebrity.

Fuck me. You get this one to.

Yeah, of course I get it. It shows that your argument has more holes then a mesh shirt.

It did happen to piper yes but this doesn't mean it made him a good guest host. Kofi could have saved any fan favorite from the assault and he would have gotten the same reaction. This isn't a point in favor of the guest host concept being a success

But all we were talking about is the guest host doing things to get people over. In this case, Piper (the host) did things to get Kofi and Orton over (he was getting assaulted and then saved)

True but all him being Guest host get him back on TV. All the good stuff happened after he was done being guest host

If there was a Slammy for Moment of the Year, that's it right there. That happened with GUEST HOST GM Bret Hart on January 4, 2010.

So no one got heat by taking out a fan favorite during what was supposed to be a shining moment for them? I say again it Didn't have to be Mark Cuban. he was there because he was a big name in the city (which is one of the few that probably brought people in).

Again, you're totally misunderstanding Sports Entertainment and Sports Entertainment fans. You get some heat by assaulting a Superstar. You get more by assaulting a non-Superstar employee. You get tons more by assaulting a non-employee, especially a local legend like Cuban. Not to mention the media talking about Mark Cuban being put through a table. He was doing interviews days later about it, and putting over WWE, Sheamus, and the fact that being put through a table hurts.

Chavo's storyline was an embarrassment and another example as to why the concept sucked. As for Heder I hate him so I admit biased here.

So Chavo's storyline sucked? Well, his storyline involved losing to a favorite of the target demographic, who loved it. Either the Chavo/Hornswoggle storyline was good for business, or the Target Demographic thing is entirely thrown out the window.

In a global media standpoint they aren't . How ever in a WWE standpoint I will take a manger, Commentator or a ref over a boxer & Basketball player any day of the week

Well, I'd tend to side with the boxer over the commentator. The boxer can destroy me systematically, while the commentator/manager/ref are puny wusses. And the basketball player you speak of is more physically imposing then 9/10 of the roster.

ok but she was a big part in getting Christian the ECW title so I will take her over a guest host who made (with a few exceptions) throw away matches

So you'll take Tiffany, who debuted as an (assistant) authority figure of the 3rd brand and was boring, bland, plain, generic, whatever, over a celebrity that has personality and can work a crowd, and people actually care about them.

And when she debuted, she had nothing to do with Christian getting the ECW title. The entire thing I was saying is that they had nothing going for them when they were named authority figures, thus making them equal to the Weekly Celebrities.

I like Adamle, he made some good matches as GM as did Tiffany. And that is more than I can say for the Guest FMs

The RAW Guest Host GMs made every single match involving RAW talent, not only on RAW, but also on PPVs.

Shawn Michaels vs. Triple H vs. John Cena for the title at Survivor series? Joey Logano and Kyle Busch made that one. Sheamus vs. John Cena? Jesse Ventura. I'd say those weren't throwaway matches. They were PPV Main Events. There were tons more, too. If it was a match involving RAW talent, the Guest Host GM made the match.

She was a prt of the Eddie/Rey/ Dominic storyline so that cuts that part out. OK i may have exaggerated but I would take one of the most over heels on the roster than any guest host.

When she debuted, she was a face that no one cared about that couldn't do her job properly. And she was barely involved in the Dominic storyline.

And he was still better than the majority of guest hosts

I don't know what you were watching, but Mike Adamle was unwatchable. His last night with WWE he literally stood there forgetting his lines on live TV. The Guest Host GMs had personality, knew their lines (aside from the occasional slip of the tongue).

being a sarcastic smart ass gets you no points Stormy

Being an invisible GM with a disembodied voice gives you no credibility as an authority figure either. Weekly Celebrities >>>> Laptop/iPad with disembodied voice or someone reading eMails.

They have less credibility due to the fact they were gonna be gone at the end of the night.

Of course that didn't matter, since never once did any superstar use the “You're not gonna be here next week, so what you say doesn't matter” excuse for not doing something.

If only the fresh faces didn't suck you would have a point.

Again, just randomly saying they suck doesn't make it so. Yes, one or 2 of them did suck. Much like Mike Adamle sucked for months on end, or Michael Cole sucked as a commentator for months on end. The Guest Host GMs had personality, most of them were able to work a crowd.

All the times I saw it on main stream media was them talking about the random celeb with only a small mention of the WWE or Raw

That's funny, because every time I saw the mainstream media talking about the celebrity hosting, they would say “(so-and-so celebrity) was on WWE Monday Night RAW (Monday night)” all the while showing clips of the program, most of which involved the celebrity interacting with a guy.

This is the 2nd time you mentioned Benoit. What in God's name does he have to do with any of this?

He tried to kill the entire industry. He was the cause for the massive amounts of negative publicity that WWE is still trying to get past.

Any time they mention WWE in a positive light, it helps alleviate the negativity created by that piece of shit Benoit.

it led to only 2 good segment and that was when Jesse Ventura made Sheamus Vs Cena A tables match. All other segments were meh at best and shitty at worst.

Again, that's the furthest from the truth. 99% of the segments involving Celebrity Guest Host GMs were as good or better then any GM Segment with any full-time GM. Couple that with the positive media attention, and having new people in charge every week (who could be face or heel), and you get innovative, fresh, entertaining television, which leads to higher ratings, which as I have already proven, happened thanks to the RAW Guest Host GM.

 

[D-Man]

Ok, debating is closed in this thread and judging may begin.

Nice work.

 

[CH David]

Clarity - I'm gonna give this to Milenko. He had precise points that he targeted. Trooper had a nice opening post with bullet points, but it didn't exactly jump out at me.

Point - hyourinmaru

Punctuality - Overall Trooper was quicker.

Point - Stormtrooper

Informative - This was intriguing. Milenko brought in and even linked the ratings. Trooper used the ratings in his own light. I'll give it to Trooper because of his spreadsheet. It worked nicely.

Point - Stormtrooper

Persuasion - The guest host concept was solid in trying to get people to continue to tune in. Using Troopers spreadsheet, ratings started out on a high end. But then it seemed to kinda taper off, with an occasional peak and more middle of the road or lulls. At the end of each week most of the guest hosts were forgettable. There was no sustained success gained by them either. The public image is still wrestling is lame and for morons. Hell Survivor Series in '09 only had 235,000 buys which was down a lot from the previous year. That doesn't sound successful for one of the Big Four to me. Nobody thought after they saw it on TMZ, E! or Access Hollywood or whatever that WWE is awesome again. Nor did they care that the WWE is trying to be safe and wellness aware. If they did, success would've been sustained, and even seen a gain. Milenko got me on his side of the fence, though barely. Most of the stories that used the guests were rather weak and even had me tuning out for a random baseball game on tv.

Points - hyourinmaru

One thing that has bugged me throughout this debate is Trooper implying that Chris Benoit was actually trying to destroy the business. Like that fateful night he actually thought "Fuck this business, fuck this life, I hope it goes down in flames. Here's how I'll do it!".

CH David scores this hyourinmaru 3, Stormtrooper 2.

 

[SavageTaker]

Clarity of debate -I thought that although Milenko had a better outline for his opening post, Stormy was much more clear and concise. Stormtrooper gets the point here.

Punctuality - Milenko was able to respond in the same day almost every time so he'll get the point here.

Informative - Both men brought in great ratings information but Stormy really did a better job at using it. Not only did he bring in the rating information for that particular year, but also for the previous year and the one after it. He was also kind enough to put it into a spreadsheet so that allowed us to really see the ratings in a more organized matter.

Stormy, you did win the informative point but I do have to make a comment on something you said in your opening post that really bothered me:

After Chris Benoit tried really damn hard to destroy the business (resulting in a public relations nightmare that will never be fully healed), any and all positive media attention helps improve the WWE's image.

I don't know what Chris Benoit was thinking when all of those events went down and I'm sure you don't either. I don't know if his goal was to destroy the business he participated in for many years and loved or not but I'm going to ask this once, and once only, please do not bring in information like this and try to twist it into something no one has any idea about. Next time I see you or anyone else do this, I will automatically give the point to the other person.

You can bring in as much information as you want, but it needs to be true as well. In this case it wasn't true so I already gave you and everyone else a warning regarding false information. I hope I don't see it again.

Persuasion - Ultimately, I ended up agreeing with Stormy and the rating info he brought in really helped his point. Milenko, I found myself thinking that you chose the correct side but unfortunately once Stormy brought in his arguments, I don't think you did a good job at your rebuttals to make me believe that you were indeed correct.

Stormy: 4 points, Milenko: 1 point.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Clarity: Milenko, I'm sorry, but I can't overlook the fact that you messed your very first sentence (within your first point) up. It just, I don't know, threw me off. Stormtrooper's point.

Punctuality: Milenko wins here simply for consistency.

Informative: I appreciate the effort Stormtrooper put in with the spreadsheet and the details on the ratings. Almost any other debate I've read so far, Milenko would've probably won the point. Hard luck man.

Persuasion: Difficult one here. I found myself agreeing with Stormtrooper more than not, but at the same time, I did think Milenko's evidence was harder/better/truer in its use. This is the only time I'd consider a split point, but due to the nature of this job, I cannot (plus D-Man would likely send NorCal round to collect) so I'm going with my gut and Stormtrooper. Hard luck (again) Milenko.

Point on the debate: Stormtrooper, I'm with the other two guys, you need to chill the fudge out when it comes to the Benoit situation. I know you dislike him, but seriously, compose yourself.

FunKay Scores It: Stormtrooper: 4, Milenko 1

 

[Nate DaMac]

Clarity- Stormtrooper just structured everything much better. Concise and easy to read.

Point- Stormtrooper

Punctuality- Milenko, I suppose. He responded pretty quickly.

Point- Milenko

Informative- Like FunKay said, Milenko would have won any of the debates I've judged to this point, but Stormtrooper turned it on him and went even further by turning it into a spreadsheet.

Also, I'm not going to bag on Stormy here for the Benoit stuff. I don't think it was something he meant to be translated so literally.

Point- Stormtrooper

Persuasion- Milenko really didn't have much to offer here for me. It really just sounded like a lot of typical IWC jargon(It wasn't funny, it was stupid, it sucks.) He tried to show that the ratings lowered with guest hosts but Stormy showed that they were only dips, no consistent patterns, and the ratings during that time frame were actually higher than those of the years before and after.

Stormy just seemed to be the more "adult" of the 2 here. It really wasn't close to me.

Point- Stormtrooper

Nate scores it Milenko 1, Stormtrooper 4.

 

[D-Man]

Congratulations to Stormtrooper who defeats hyourinmaru (Milenko) by a score of 14-6. He will move onto Winner's bracket #15 while hyourinmaru moves down to Loser's bracket #11 to face CP Munk.

Nice work, guys.