ATH First Round Match 8 : Sin Eater vs thebostoncrab

beakerjoe

We are at the final question of the round as SinEater takes on former champ TBC.

Can the Mr Eater topple the former champ, lets find out.....



Heres the rules again :


I will post a topic and you have to post your response including why you made that choice within a given time limit (before the next match is scheduled to begin), take care while making your responses however as the other contestant can counter your arguement i.e pointing out possible flaws in what youve said.


*you can only counter an arguement two times so make sure your point is worth making. If someone's defense of their arguement isnt good it will count against them.

*You can use the same answer as your opponent if you wish i.e you agree with their choice however its hard to win a debate when your making the same points someone has already made

see the OP of the main thread for further details or if any examples are needed check out previous years competitions.

Question 8


"Wrestling fans” are notorious for voicing what they like and
      don't like in pro wrestling, but what one complaint from fans do you
      think carries the most amount of unjustified or unfair criticism?"

thebostoncrab

beakerjoe wrote: »

Question 8

"Wrestling fans” are notorious for voicing what they like and
      don't like in pro wrestling, but what one complaint from fans do you
      think carries the most amount of unjustified or unfair criticism?"

You can't wrestle *clap clap clapclapclap*
You can't wrestle *clap clap clapclapclap*
You can't wrestle *clap clap clapclapclap*


God, any time I hear this chant I want to scream. In fact, any time I hear about Cena and his 5 moves of doom and his inability to wrestle I have to hold back getting into an argument.

Cena is a damn fine wrestler. Is he a technical workhorse like Daniel Bryan or Kurt Angle? No, but he doesn't need to be.

And neither did Hulk Hogan. Neither did The Rock. Neither did Stone Cold Steve Austin.

I think accusing Cena of being unable to wrestle is a lazy, lazy argument against John. I have my issues with Cena, the two big ones are his selling after a match and how he won't lock in the SFT correctly. But these facts do not make him a bad wrestler.

Wrestling is about telling a story, it's about pacing and it's about athleticism. Some of my favourite matches of the past 10 years have all involved John Cena, and when people watch them they become instantly invested in them. Look at his matches with Punk, with Bryan, with HBK, with HHH. These matches are excellent, and stand the test of time very well. Cena knows how to get a crowd invested, and he is a master of it.

And before I hear that tired argument "Oh but he was carried by those guys", it holds no water. If that was the case every single Punk, Bryan, HBK and HHH match would be excellent, but that's simply not the case. They, like everyone else, have had bad matches, and they are usually against people with very little ability.

So why doesn't Cena have poor matches with them if he can't wrestle?

It takes two to produce a great match, and it's impossible to deliver by yourself.

"Oh but Cena always performs the save 5 moves".

You mean a common sequence so that it's easier for the audience to follow the flow of a match? A common sequence that almost every single great wrestler has and uses? Lads, this isn't NJPW, it's the WWE. If you go out there doing 450 splashes and dropping each other on your head every night of the week, you end up like Kurt Angle. Your body can't take it. By following a match schedule like Cena, it both ensures that his body is protected and it makes those big moments even more special.

Cena can indeed wrestle, he can run rings around a lot of the guys on the roster right now. Being a good wrestler doesn't mean who can perform the biggest bump or the most twists and turns; it's about telling a story and making your performance believable. If it wasn't Davey Richards would be the biggest name in the world right now.

Sin Eater

"Wrestling fans” are notorious for voicing what they like and
don't like in pro wrestling, but what one complaint from fans do you
think carries the most amount of unjustified or unfair criticism?"


The target that I feel carries the most amount of unjustified or unfair criticism is WWE’s insistence on a PG rating.

What the pg rating has essentially meant for WWE is less risqué storylines, less female nudity and less blading and chair shots.

There seems to be an assumption out there that the PG rating is to blame for WWE’s inability to reach the same heights the company hit during the Attitude era. If only the promotion could tell more risqué stories we’d soon see better feuds, better wrestling, a better divas division, and certainly we wouldn’t be fed childish gimmicks. What the PG rating has really done, is stopped blood flowing freely from open cuts, prevented nipples being shown, and done away with some god awful storylines.

Views of the Attitude era have been coloured by nostalgia, making many believe it was a period of wrestling perfection. What people forget is that while we had great feuds featuring Austin and The Rock bringing people in and keeping everyone happy, there was a lot of embarrassing crap too. We had Mark Henry getting Mae Young pregnant and giving birth to a sex toy, Billy Gunn parading around as Mr. Ass, The Rock rapping about pie(it was a clever metaphor about oral sex!), Katie Vick , and so much more. But as Steve Austin retired and The Rock we were left with an impossible gap at the top to fill, and a lot of questionable storylines. Things like Bischoff’s Hot Lesbian Action, Heidenreich’s implied rape of Michael Cole, Dawn Marie and Al Wilson. Can anybody really say they miss the “risqué” storylines?

There there’s the ban on blading and chair shots to the head. In 2006 Bob Orton bled in a match with the Undertaker. Bob Orton who has hepatitis C (since a teenager) was reportedly told to bleed in the match putting anyone in the ring at risk of exposure. Abdullah The Butcher is another wrestler with Hepatitis C, and is famous for the amount of times he has bladed (famously has scars in his head so deep that you could hold poker chips in them). In 2009 match Abdullah was involved in a match Devon Nicholson in which both men bled. After the match Nicholson had the prize gift of hep C. Nigel McGuiness is yet another wrestler who believes he contracted Hep B in the ring.

Since Benoit, the effects of concussions and head injuries in wrestling have increasingly come under the spot light. I don’t think anyone really misses the days when they would watch their favourite wrestlers (and Benoit was mine at a time) take unprotected chair shots to the head.

But what about the childish gimmicks like el torrito and hornswoggle, I hear the complainers cry. Well to them I point to the likes of Moppy (Perry Saturn’s mascot? Girlfriend?) and Head (Al Snow’s ... Mannequin head girlfriend?), while these gimmicks weren’t aimed at kids, they were aimed at certain areas of the audience which you might not think of as mature. In fact Head seemed to exist as an excuse to make oral sex jokes. Which is great once, but really doesn’t lend itself to an extended time period).

So to sum up. The PG rating in WWE isn’t the cause of WWE’s main problems, it has moved the WWE away from some of the more seedy and salacious aspects that have plagued the company for so many years, and has even helped encourage a healthier, less dangerous ring product.

thebostoncrab

You can't deny that the PG era of the WWE has actually brought along some negatives that would be completely avoidable had it not been for the rating. One you have already mentioned is blading. The health issues you have brought with blading I 100% agree with you on, however they have nothing to do with if the WWE if PG or not, that's an issue of health screening before an athlete joins the WWE. If someone has a clean bill of health, why shouldn't they be allowed to blade? Blading can add so much to match and can really help push a story into new ground. Imagine if Austin hadn't of bladed for Bret in their match at 'Mania, that iconic moment wouldn't have the same impact at all and could have become lost on us.

I'm not saying everyone should blade in every match, then it becomes the same as my point in my defence of Cena; if you do the big moment for every single match it looses its impact. If both men are of a clean bill of health they should have the option to blade, but unfortunately the PG era doesn't allow this, as toy manufactures don't want to to be part of an overly violent product.

This also comes with regulations that affect the in ring action also. Certain moves have to be altered to appeal to the spongers and partners that the PG rating brings in. The biggest showcase of this? Cenas STF.

We all hate it. He doesn't lock it in. Why not? Because if he locked it in the fear is that children will try and do the same and end up doing damage to their friends. Yes, I'm aware of how idiotic that is, but that's the fear certain partners have. Certain partners that wouldn't be on board had it non-been for the PG era. I'm sure if you told someone if they would prefer moves to be applied correctly vs. being PG I think you know what the argument is.


Plus I don't think people are as harsh on the PG product as they are towards the claims made towards Cena. When PG came along people were very quick to call it the death of the WWE as we know it, but over time they realised that was not the case. People still, however, maintain his unfair view towards Cena and his abilities in the ring, and refuse to acknowledge how much he delivers both in and out of the ring.

Sin Eater

thebostoncrab wrote: »

You can't wrestle *clap clap clapclapclap*
You can't wrestle *clap clap clapclapclap*
You can't wrestle *clap clap clapclapclap*


God, any time I hear this chant I want to scream. In fact, any time I hear about Cena and his 5 moves of doom and his inability to wrestle I have to hold back getting into an argument.

Cena is a damn fine wrestler. Is he a technical workhorse like Daniel Bryan or Kurt Angle? No, but he doesn't need to be.

And neither did Hulk Hogan. Neither did The Rock. Neither did Stone Cold Steve Austin.

I think accusing Cena of being unable to wrestle is a lazy, lazy argument against John. I have my issues with Cena, the two big ones are his selling after a match and how he won't lock in the SFT correctly. But these facts do not make him a bad wrestler.

Wrestling is about telling a story, it's about pacing and it's about athleticism. Some of my favourite matches of the past 10 years have all involved John Cena, and when people watch them they become instantly invested in them. Look at his matches with Punk, with Bryan, with HBK, with HHH. These matches are excellent, and stand the test of time very well. Cena knows how to get a crowd invested, and he is a master of it.

And before I hear that tired argument "Oh but he was carried by those guys", it holds no water. If that was the case every single Punk, Bryan, HBK and HHH match would be excellent, but that's simply not the case. They, like everyone else, have had bad matches, and they are usually against people with very little ability.

So why doesn't Cena have poor matches with them if he can't wrestle?

It takes two to produce a great match, and it's impossible to deliver by yourself.

"Oh but Cena always performs the save 5 moves".

You mean a common sequence so that it's easier for the audience to follow the flow of a match? A common sequence that almost every single great wrestler has and uses? Lads, this isn't NJPW, it's the WWE. If you go out there doing 450 splashes and dropping each other on your head every night of the week, you end up like Kurt Angle. Your body can't take it. By following a match schedule like Cena, it both ensures that his body is protected and it makes those big moments even more special.

Cena can indeed wrestle, he can run rings around a lot of the guys on the roster right now. Being a good wrestler doesn't mean who can perform the biggest bump or the most twists and turns; it's about telling a story and making your performance believable. If it wasn't Davey Richards would be the biggest name in the world right now.

I feel like this is a good answer, most definitely. However, I think there are a couple of issues with it. First the defence of Cena's use of a "common sequence". Now, TBC points out that every great wrestler uses, or has used, a common sequence, and I'm not gonna say anything against that. But there is a reason that every other great wrestler hasn't had to put up with "You Can't Wrestle" chants ... and that's because the sequence has worked for them.

If you receive these criticisms consistently, then there has to be a problem with your sequence. If you hear these criticisms and do nothing to quash them, if you don't change the sequence then by default yes, you are a bad wrestler. It doesn't matter whether you are a terrible wrestler, or a great one who doesn't show it, what counts is what happens in the ring, and if you keep on using the same ineffectual "common sequence" that continues to draw criticism week in week out without adapting to something else, then the chants are valid.

Also, I feel that the chants are an expansion of the "Cena Sucks" chants, and while TBC limits his answer to Cena's actual ring work, the "You Can't Wrestle" chants can also be viewed as a criticism of Cena's overall abilities as a professional wrestler.

A professional wrestler's skills aren't judged on ring work alone. There are a whole host of other skills that go into making the modern Professional Wrestler. The mere fact that roughly half the live audience in any given arena is vehemently against seeing Cena. This is supposedly the top Babyface of our time, and when the top baby face is getting booed it's obvious that he's doing something wrong. So in that sense, I believe the "You Can't Wrestle" chants are valid.

beakerjoe

Poll added

Sin Eater

thebostoncrab wrote: »

You can't deny that the PG era of the WWE has actually brought along some negatives that would be completely avoidable had it not been for the rating. One you have already mentioned is blading. The health issues you have brought with blading I 100% agree with you on, however they have nothing to do with if the WWE if PG or not, that's an issue of health screening before an athlete joins the WWE. If someone has a clean bill of health, why shouldn't they be allowed to blade? Blading can add so much to match and can really help push a story into new ground. Imagine if Austin hadn't of bladed for Bret in their match at 'Mania, that iconic moment wouldn't have the same impact at all and could have become lost on us.

I'm not saying everyone should blade in every match, then it becomes the same as my point in my defence of Cena; if you do the big moment for every single match it looses its impact. If both men are of a clean bill of health they should have the option to blade, but unfortunately the PG era doesn't allow this, as toy manufactures don't want to to be part of an overly violent product.

This also comes with regulations that affect the in ring action also. Certain moves have to be altered to appeal to the spongers and partners that the PG rating brings in. The biggest showcase of this? Cenas STF.

We all hate it. He doesn't lock it in. Why not? Because if he locked it in the fear is that children will try and do the same and end up doing damage to their friends. Yes, I'm aware of how idiotic that is, but that's the fear certain partners have. Certain partners that wouldn't be on board had it non-been for the PG era. I'm sure if you told someone if they would prefer moves to be applied correctly vs. being PG I think you know what the argument is.


Plus I don't think people are as harsh on the PG product as they are towards the claims made towards Cena. When PG came along people were very quick to call it the death of the WWE as we know it, but over time they realised that was not the case. People still, however, maintain his unfair view towards Cena and his abilities in the ring, and refuse to acknowledge how much he delivers both in and out of the ring.

I wouldn’t deny that the PG rating has brought some negatives, but the benefits far outweigh those negatives.

At this time and day when Ebola has finally made it’s way to the USA mainland, I have absolutely no problem with the banning of blood. Sure Austin’s moment might not have had the same impact without the blood, but that’s an artefact of a very different time to the one we live in now, he did bleed and there’s no point in trying to think what would or wouldn’t have happened in a fantasy universe where he didn’t. Maybe it is a that bit more difficult to achieve an iconic moment without blood, but fact of the matter is an open wound is dangerous. Even discounting blood born illnesses there are any number of ways an open wound can be infected. Hardcore Holly nearly lost his life to a staph infection he caught in the ring. Wrestling is a dangerous business without having to make it more so. The ban on blading may be to help sell merchandise, but it's benefits are massive.



In Cena’s STF I feel you have managed to do yourself a bit of disservice and come up with an example of how Cena may be proving he is a bad wrestler. You might ask why? It’s not his fault that he isn’t allowed to properly apply the STF. And that’s true, it’s not. But he is the wrestler applying the move. If you cannot use or apply a move properly, then don’t use that move. There are a thousand and three other holds that might fit the bill. Just use a different submission move!

thebostoncrab

Sin Eater wrote: »

I feel like this is a good answer, most definitely. However, I think there are a couple of issues with it. First the defence of Cena's use of a "common sequence". Now, TBC points out that every great wrestler uses, or has used, a common sequence, and I'm not gonna say anything against that. But there is a reason that every other great wrestler hasn't had to put up with "You Can't Wrestle" chants ... and that's because the sequence has worked for them.

Or because people aren't harsh on them because it's not "in" to hate on these guys? The sequence works, just listen to the pop that always comes about when ever Cena starts to hit it, you can hear the fans cheering for him because they know what's coming up, just like a sequence is supposed to do. Every single time it's done smoothly and it always gets a response. I know you'll might say "but some start booing, not cheering", but that doesn't take away from it's ability, because you are still getting a response. Those fans want to see their guy survive or reverse the sequence, because they are invested in the match. If you have managed to invest in the audience in the match, then you are certainly doing something right.

Sin Eater wrote: »

If you receive these criticisms consistently, then there has to be a problem with your sequence. If you hear these criticisms and do nothing to quash them, if you don't change the sequence then by default yes, you are a bad wrestler. It doesn't matter whether you are a terrible wrestler, or a great one who doesn't show it, what counts is what happens in the ring, and if you keep on using the same ineffectual "common sequence" that continues to draw criticism week in week out without adapting to something else, then the chants are valid.

Refusal to change a sequence does not make someone a bad wrestler. The only people who complain about it every week are the ones who just look for an excuse to rip on Cena. As I explained above, it works, and he shouldn't have to change it up. If the sequences are met with silence then you have a serious problem...and when's the last time Cena was met with silence? This isn't Xpac heat.

Sin Eater wrote: »

Also, I feel that the chants are an expansion of the "Cena Sucks" chants, and while TBC limits his answer to Cena's actual ring work, the "You Can't Wrestle" chants can also be viewed as a criticism of Cena's overall abilities as a professional wrestler.

And, again, I have argued that does who chant "you can't wrestle" are simply looking to rip on Cena. They hate him, and they will chant against him no matter what. And Cena knows this. He knows his audience very well, and he knows that even thought these guys hate him, he can hold their attention. Hell, he gets so much heat from them he is the perfect heel and he plays it to a fine art. Cena may be the first man who can be a face and a heel at the first time without been a tweener, and that takes a lot of skill to pull off.

Sin Eater wrote: »

A professional wrestler's skills aren't judged on ring work alone. There are a whole host of other skills that go into making the modern Professional Wrestler. The mere fact that roughly half the live audience in any given arena is vehemently against seeing Cena. This is supposedly the top Babyface of our time, and when the top baby face is getting booed it's obvious that he's doing something wrong. So in that sense, I believe the "You Can't Wrestle" chants are valid.

Cena never gets booed by half the arena, and when people boo him the majority are only doing it because it's the done thing. Remember when Cena returned at the Rumble? That pop was immense, and it was hilarious to watch so many people in NY (a notorious smark city) mark out, only to sheepishly remember that "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to boo him". If Cena was met with silence then there would be an issue, but he wasn't. Cena has all the skills; he can deliver in the ring, he can tell a perfect story, he can grab and hold the crowds attention, and he can more than deliver on the mic. Again, if being a pure technical wrestler was the only thing need to be a great wrestler then Davey Richards would be the biggest name in the sport today.

Sin Eater wrote: »

At this time and day when Ebola has finally made it’s way to the USA mainland, I have absolutely no problem with the banning of blood. Sure Austin’s moment might not have had the same impact without the blood, but that’s an artefact of a very different time to the one we live in now, he did bleed and there’s no point in trying to think what would or wouldn’t have happened in a fantasy universe where he didn’t. Maybe it is a that bit more difficult to achieve an iconic moment without blood, but fact of the matter is an open wound is dangerous. Even discounting blood born illnesses there are any number of ways an open wound can be infected. Hardcore Holly nearly lost his life to a staph infection he caught in the ring. Wrestling is a dangerous business without having to make it more so. The ban on blading may be to help sell merchandise, but it's benefits are massive.

...are you honestly bringing Ebola into your argument as to why PG is a good thing? Medical checks have ZERO to do with a products television rating, end of. Nothing here is as a result or affected by the rating of the show; if it was rated R it would still receive the same medical checks. Once someone is medically tested and cleared then there should be no issue with them bladding; tests are very simple and quick. Bladding can work and has worked many times in the past, I mean how many times when a big match like Hell in the Cell comes around do you see people say "God, if only it didn't have the PG rating, then it could deliver so much more" and it's the truth; PG holds back these type of matches and has made them almost meaningless.

Sin Eater wrote: »

In Cena’s STF I feel you have managed to do yourself a bit of disservice and come up with an example of how Cena may be proving he is a bad wrestler. You might ask why? It’s not his fault that he isn’t allowed to properly apply the STF. And that’s true, it’s not. But he is the wrestler applying the move. If you cannot use or apply a move properly, then don’t use that move. There are a thousand and three other holds that might fit the bill. Just use a different submission move!

You're point has gone around in circles. You are right, Cena not being able to apply the STF correctly isn't his fault, it's the partner deals, which only came about because of the PG rating. If it wasn't there, Cena could apply this move correctly and everyone would be happy. And why should he change the move? The only people it bothers are the smarks; the ones buying all those t shirts and toys don't know any better and they know when the move comes out it's go time!