KOTR Round 1 First Matchup.

Ok here we go, this is the first matchup as the competitors have both sent thier replies to me very quickly so i thought i would get this started.

Below will be the answers from PM's i got off each person and i wan't you to use the poll's to vote for your favourite, very interesting replies because they are very similar, i have set the poll to last 1 day.

The question i asked was:

Who was the worst WWE champion of the last 10 years? - This meant just the WWE championship.

Person A.

The worst WWE champ (not Heavyweight Champ) was Rob Van Dam.

My reasoning behind this is that this was Rob's chance to make me over big time. He was given the opportunity at the same time as holding the ECW belt, and the WWE management were rewarding him for years of service and fan popularity. How did he repay them? By getting busted for drugs.

Some role model and some way to repay the faith shown to you by Vince and Co. Not only did he lose the belt for his actions, he lost it on RAW - thats how stupid he was.

Would he have gone on to better things had he not been indulging - absolutely. However, his title reign will always be remembered for the way it ended and its brevity.

He complained of glass ceilings holding back wrestlers yet Rob having opened the hatch through the ceiling, decided to close it again from inside, just so he could go party with Sabu instead.

Worst champion of the last 10 years - no doubt about it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Person B.

The worst WWE Champion for me would have to be Rob Van Dam. Granted, Jeff Hardy and Sheamus probably warrant mentions but both have the chance or at least eventually redeemed themselves later on.

Van Dam was almost given the belt out of sympathy for an ailing ECW brand. Vince wanted to give it one last shot at establishing it in the big time, but ultimately failed. His MITB win was unspectacular, up to him actually announcing his intention to cash it in at One Night Stand; the ECW PPV. He went on to win the belt from Cena thanks to interference from Edge and in a big 'who cares?' moment, he became the first man to hold the WWE and ECW titles. His reign had no memorable feud, no stand out moment and will always be remembered for the way he dropped the title. On RAW due to a wellness violation. Known more so for his ability to botch and smoke weed he is easily the worst WWE champ of the last 10 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so just to remind you, you can vote on the following guidelines:

1). You enjoyed reading the reply.
2). You thought the argument was explained thoroughly
3). You just liked the reply!
4). You thought it was informative and well written.

Oh and please try not to vote for yourselves!

Let the voting commence!

This is going to be a train wreck, sorry miky!

Mr H wrote:This is going to be a train wreck, sorry miky!

Why do you say that?

Mr H wrote:This is going to be a train wreck, sorry miky!

Your entitled to your opinion it's ok, can i ask why though?

Wow, they are both remarkably similar. Tough choice.

AberdeenSteve wrote:Wow, they are both remarkably similar. Tough choice.

Yeah they are, i thought it was very interesting.

No i mean picking between person A and person B will be a train wreck, not the KOTR idea! 2 almost identical statements, so whoever loses is going to want a good reason as to why! Hence the train wreck!

You get me?

Mr H wrote:No i mean picking between person A and person B will be a train wreck, not the KOTR idea! 2 almost identical statements, so whoever loses is going to want a good reason as to why! Hence the train wreck!

You get me?

Ahh right, to be fair they both put their points across in different ways so it's down to how people judge it.

Judging is close, there was a slight difference in content. But I voted mainly on the writing style that I preferred

Mr H wrote:No i mean picking between person A and person B will be a train wreck, not the KOTR idea! 2 almost identical statements, so whoever loses is going to want a good reason as to why! Hence the train wreck!

You get me?

Because they got less votes than the other person, people are able to post if they wan't to as to who they voted for and why so that's how they can find out.

Oh and also, i voted for Person B simply because i think it was more informative and well written at the same time. Person A wrote thiers very well also, Person B wins for me though.

I must admit that if I had been running it and received these 2 which are very similar, I would have possibly given them another subject write about. Just my opinion though.

Poster B has written a much better response for me, so that is where my vote goes.

Yeah, the only difference for me is the writing style, they are both basically making the same point, but i voted for Person B purely because the statement flowed better.

I agree with David Tails though. Its just a bit unfair for one person to be eliminated based on their writing style!

Mr H wrote:Yeah, the only difference for me is the writing style, they are both basically making the same point, but i voted for Person B purely because the statement flowed better.

I agree with David Tails though. Its just a bit unfair for one person to be eliminated based on their writing style!

I see your point, although Poster A didn't spell his name right so we've got a ready made excuse!

Sigh.

There are going to be flaws i know, but i appreciate peoples feedback on it and will consider it in the future.

Holymiky wrote:Sigh.

There are going to be flaws i know, but i appreciate peoples feedback on it and will consider it in the future.

Don't sweat it, Miky.

It's a great format but obviously some people will have similar opinions, it's just taking a view as to whether they are too similar to seperate or not.

Cracking job mate.

I think it's a great idea Miky, and although the two participants have picked the same topic to base their view on it's still very much about the style and ability to sell their pitch to everyone.

Its not a pop at you Miky, its a good idea and i appreciate the effort it takes to put it all together, but for the very first matchup it would have been good to get the proverbial debate going with 2 totally different answers.

Keep it going though bud.

Oh and just thought i'd say imo Jean Claude Rob Van Damme isnt the worst champion ever! The match and victory against Cena at One Night Stand was immense purely for the crowd reaction.

Mr H wrote:Its not a pop at you Miky, its a good idea and i appreciate the effort it takes to put it all together, but for the very first matchup it would have been good to get the proverbial debate going with 2 totally different answers.

Keep it going though bud.

Oh and just thought i'd say imo Jean Claude Rob Van Damme isnt the worst champion ever! The match and victory against Cena at One Night Stand was immense purely for the crowd reaction.

You must be Poster C?

I wasn't having a go either...I was just suggesting that in future it may be an idea to suggest a different topic if the answers come back as similar as these two.

David Tails wrote:I wasn't having a go either...I was just suggesting that in future it may be an idea to suggest a different topic if the answers come back as similar as these two.

I do think that Poster A and Poster B have chosen different reasoning. I won;t go in to too much detail to avoid influencing people but whilst they have chosen the same person, the reasoning is different.

I'm Poster X!

Miky, am i involved in this by the way? I did say count me in on the original article i think?

Sorry guys, i wasn't accusing you guys of being critical, i know there would be flaws. Afterall, it is my competition!

Just messing. I just hope that everyone manages to get a reply to me within the 24 hours alloted, i am staggering them out so i can keep myself up to date with everyones replies etc.

Mr H, i don't think you are mate, let me check and get back to you.

Thanks for the feedback, love you all.

:cena:

Yep just check the first page of the article and i've written a post saying count me in, but i will be amazed if i get past round one!

Could you just give me a quick heads up just to confirm how its going to work please mate?

Wait, i saw comments saying you didn't want to be involved! i have already done the draw, thats really annoying, i wouild of added you if i had realised

Its ok bud not to worry, dont change it all for my benefit, i'll just vote and comment accordingly!

Im going to go for poster B, not much to choose from but he did highlight that both his MITB win, title chase and subsiquent championships feuds were unspectacular while poster A only focused on the f-up that lost him the title

Give him a bye, with 28 participants ot will help anyway!

King Beer wrote:Give him a bye, with 28 participants ot will help anyway!

How do you mean? Give him a free pass to the next round? Mr H, i apologise so much i missed it cos i'm an absolute idiot! I'm really sorry.

Holymiky wrote:

King Beer wrote:Give him a bye, with 28 participants ot will help anyway!

How do you mean? Give him a free pass to the next round? Mr H, i apologise so much i missed it cos i'm an absolute idiot! I'm really sorry.

Yeah, at some point you're gonna need a few byes ot 3 person rounds because of the odd number of posters.

Ok, Mr H - How does that sound, you can be a sort of input for one of the futue rounds when i need someone to go head to head against people, bascially what King Beer said.

It will help to have you, consider yourself through to a future round, if that's ok with you?

I am genuinely sorry, i skipped past you saying your in when checking and i can't believe i missed it originally!

You could have a triple threat match...

Or just make triple threat matches?

Head to head is better up until the latter rounds.

I will add Mr H at a later round when we need a person, if not i will chuck him into a triple threat so he can still take part as he signed up already.

I will pm you and the other person/persons in the matchup a question, a wrestling related one and it will need to be answered within 24 hours to me and i can then put up a thread for the matchup. You won't know who is the next opponent untill the rounds over and i announce who is knocked out and who is still in etc. Is that making any sense? Lol if it don't i'm happy to explain it more.

Seriously dont worry about it miky its cool. But yeah count me in for the next round, a bye is good with me! But yeah that makes perfect sense, will look forward to your question!

I'll take on H.

Person B is factually incorrect with the following statement:

"Van Dam was almost given the belt out of sympathy for an ailing ECW brand. Vince wanted to give it one last shot at establishing it in the big time, but ultimately failed."

The McECW brand only started in June 2006, the same time RVD won the belt. It was hardly "ailing" because it hadn't even started.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I'll take on H.

Person B is factually incorrect with the following statement:

"Van Dam was almost given the belt out of sympathy for an ailing ECW brand. Vince wanted to give it one last shot at establishing it in the big time, but ultimately failed."

The McECW brand only started in June 2006, the same time RVD won the belt. It was hardly "ailing" because it hadn't even started.

Then don't vote for Poster B. Simple.

No way i dont want to take on crips, he'll chew me up and spit me out. Its like asking Jeff Brazier to take on Albert Einstein in a science exam!

Mr H wrote:No way i dont want to take on crips, he'll chew me up and spit me out. Its like asking Jeff Brazier to take on Albert Einstein in a science exam!

I think I'd be chewed up and spat out by a few people myself! (David Tai...er, I mean Person B, being one of them)

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I'll take on H.

Person B is factually incorrect with the following statement:

"Van Dam was almost given the belt out of sympathy for an ailing ECW brand. Vince wanted to give it one last shot at establishing it in the big time, but ultimately failed."

The McECW brand only started in June 2006, the same time RVD won the belt. It was hardly "ailing" because it hadn't even started.

If you wish to be picky, you're also 'factually incorrect'.

It was May 2006, after the ECW One Night Stand PPV in 2005, and even then, it became a 'standalone' brand. ECW still existed.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

Mr H wrote:No way i dont want to take on crips, he'll chew me up and spit me out. Its like asking Jeff Brazier to take on Albert Einstein in a science exam!

I think I'd be chewed up and spat out by a few people myself! (David Tai...er, I mean Person B, being one of them)

Yeah but thats because you are 'holier than thou'

Let's be honest guys, you would all get eaten alive if i was in the competition so you know!

JOKE. I would job out first round! I'm poopie!

This is a really good idea well done for setting it up. I like the anonymity of it all! How will we know when it's our match?

*cough*

Scott is Back wrote:*cough*

Why have you changed your ID?

You will get a Pm from me with your question Fadorock, don't worry

Wow Scott, where the hell have you been?

King Beer wrote:

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I'll take on H.

Person B is factually incorrect with the following statement:

"Van Dam was almost given the belt out of sympathy for an ailing ECW brand. Vince wanted to give it one last shot at establishing it in the big time, but ultimately failed."

The McECW brand only started in June 2006, the same time RVD won the belt. It was hardly "ailing" because it hadn't even started.

If you wish to be picky, you're also 'factually incorrect'.

It was May 2006, after the ECW One Night Stand PPV in 2005, and even then, it became a 'standalone' brand. ECW still existed.

The McECW brand didn't exist when they did the first One Night Stand. ECW only became a WWE brand in June 2006 (the second ONS PPV was the starting point which led into the SciFi show). Prior to this, it was a defunct promotion that was occasionally involved in storylines and tributes (hence why it had no champion or TV show). I wasn't trying to stir trouble, I was merely pointing out that Person B's argument contains a factual inaccuracy. Sorry if Person B or anyone else is offended, I thought critiquing the two contributions was the entire point of this.

I also want to say well done to Mikey on the idea (the anonymity thing is a great touch). And furthermore, well done to People A and B on both putting forth very compelling answers. I look forward to reading the rest of the, um, matches.

Was struggling to change my email address, as it was blocking up my personal email, so just opened another one....hope that is within the rules.

Still been reading everyday, loving the tension between DT & Miky....

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

King Beer wrote:

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I'll take on H.

Person B is factually incorrect with the following statement:

"Van Dam was almost given the belt out of sympathy for an ailing ECW brand. Vince wanted to give it one last shot at establishing it in the big time, but ultimately failed."

The McECW brand only started in June 2006, the same time RVD won the belt. It was hardly "ailing" because it hadn't even started.

If you wish to be picky, you're also 'factually incorrect'.

It was May 2006, after the ECW One Night Stand PPV in 2005, and even then, it became a 'standalone' brand. ECW still existed.

The McECW brand didn't exist when they did the first One Night Stand. ECW only became a WWE brand in June 2006 (the second ONS PPV was the starting point which led into the SciFi show). Prior to this, it was a defunct promotion that was occasionally involved in storylines and tributes (hence why it had no champion or TV show). I wasn't trying to stir trouble, I was merely pointing out that Person B's argument contains a factual inaccuracy. Sorry if Person B or anyone else is offended, I thought critiquing the two contributions was the entire point of this.

I also want to say well done to Mikey on the idea (the anonymity thing is a great touch). And furthermore, well done to People A and B on both putting forth very compelling answers. I look forward to reading the rest of the, um, matches.

I'd suggest doing your homework again, it became a brand in May 2006. Last time i checked May and June are 2 seperate months.