KOTR Round 1 Second Matchup.

Ok heres Matchup 2.

This question in this match was:

Was the Montreal Screwjob good for Wrestling?

Person A

Simply put....yes.
The public outrage was huge, Vince became evil personified, how dare he ‘screw’ the wholesome, the child friendly, the good guy Bret Hart?
Vince used that outrage and created Mr McMahon, a heel figure that’d have never been seen before, the Man to which everyone wanted to stick it to.
Without that we’d never have had the Austin v McMahon feud, one that kept everyone tuning in week after week to see how Austin would take whatever McMahon threw at him, from doublecrossing to stipulations, it clawed back the ratings from WCW.
Probably the biggest feud that the industry has ever seen, one in which that defined the Attitude era, the common man sticking it to the megalomaniac boss.
That moment when McMahon called for the bell, when Hart spat in his face, it created in an instance the making of WWF.
Sure there were other reasons, WCW’s self implosion, the bringing through of the new stars of the Attitude era like the Rock, HHH, Foley etc.
But was it good though for Bret?
No it destroyed him, he was a shell of his former self in WCW, it sucked his passion, his love for the industry out of him, it left him a very bitter man for many years to come to which he has only just gained closure from.

In closure, without the Screwjob I don’t think WWE would even exist anymore, if that’s a good thing for wrestling though is another debate entirely.

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

Person B.

The Montreal Screwjob, as I doubt I need to remind anyone, refers to the controversial incident that took place at the 1997 Survivor Series event between “The Heartbreak Kid” Shawn Michaels and Bret “The Hitman” Hart.

In the match Michaels placed Hart in Hart’s signature Sharpshooter manoeuver, and despite the ending apparently not being scripted as such, the referee, Earl Hebner, rang the bell and declared Michaels the winner and WWF Champion.

Hart was enraged about this and took his blame out on Michaels and Vince McMahon, who was at ringside at the time and appeared to give the order to Hebner to ring the bell.

The controversy emanates from Hart, apparently, refusing to drop the belt to Michaels in Canada. McMahon was worried that Hart (who was to leave the organisation) would leave with the title and discredit the entire organisation.

In terms of discussing whether the incident was “good” for wrestling it is necessary to discuss the various participants that may have benefitted from the Screwjob happening.

Firstly there is wrestling as a whole and its appearance to fans and the popular media, and secondly there is the WWF, whose interests are subtly different from those of the industry as a whole.

Professional wrestling is not a “real” sport, the endings are planned and the outcomes decided before hand. Despite this fans attend the events and suspend their disbelief while they are watching it. In the name of entertainment they watch men and women enter mock contests – so the “winner” and the “loser” are rather nebulous concepts.

As such it is important for the industry to maintain integrity. Fans know that the story isn’t real in the same way as they do when they watch a soap opera or television drama. They invest their trust in the plot, characters and writers to produce something that they will enjoy. They will often happily sit through some of the most outrageous and unbelievable storylines created by the imagination of writers and bookers as they believe that their investment in the product will be respected and that no one individual will colour the product for their own ends.

Now such a thought will probably be considered naïve, but it is a also still true that fans do not wish to be treated as idiots, or to see incidents that they consider to be unethical. Now, beyond the mask of kayfabe many incidents are allowable as the audience subconsciously knows that the storyline was planned.

However, with the Screwjob this was broken and for the first time the inner workings, the dirty side of the coin if you will, the industry were shown for all to see. Very few of the participants came out looking good from this. Michaels and Hebner shown to care more about the company than the fans, while Hart and McMahon were shown to be more interested in their own gain than of the emotional investments of the fans.

While it is almost certain that there are backstage arguments about who “wins”, who “loses” and who has the title belts; for the sake of the industry these arguments should never spill out onto the ring and into the public view.

The reaction to this was to damage the industry tremendously. The bond of trust between the fans and wrestling promoters was broken and now even the superstars that fans cheered for were seem in a rather more Machiavellian way.

Despite this damage that was done to the industry as a whole, the WWF/E, which has since principally represented wrestling as a whole since due to its domination, emerged from it not just unscathed, but as the dominant and leading promoter within the industry.

The Screwjob storyline was, in all likelihood, a short term fix to one of the largest problems that the WWF had at the time. Their leading performer, and champion, was leaving for another promotion.

The same emotion investment in the competitors by the fans needs to be made in the titles that they will. It would be unthinkable for the WWF to continue to exist as a legitimate organisation if it were to have Bret Hart join WCW with the WWF title.

The storyline was thus created to ensure this didn’t happen and there would be the obvious risk of the company seeing its viewer numbers plummet further as a result.

Instead, the WWF captured the anger of the fans at seeing their hero, Bret Hart, be screwed over by the WWF, and more importantly, Vincent Kennedy McMahon.

Up to 1997 Vince was a commentator on the WWF product. While it was known that he was the owner of the company, it was not widely recognised with a series of Commissioners heading up the product on television.

Following this incident the anger of the crowd was directed squarely at Vince and he was able to create the Mr McMahon character that was widely used on television from 1997 – 2002.

Many credit the rise and domination of WWF/E to the Attitude Era espoused by Stone Cold Steve Austin, but the obvious point to make is that there could only have been attitude from Austin if there was someone, or something to revolt against.

Now, storyline writers could have created a villainous character to be the anti-Austin and this would have been likely to be effective to a certain extent. Yet, the same qualities of kayfabe that bind the industry would have prevented the crowd from fully embracing this heel as someone in charge of Austin and the company.

By breaking kayfabe and acknowledging McMahon as the owner, and Austin’s boss, the WWF/E were able to tap into a reservoir or resentment that surrounded the employee-boss relationship and by tapping into this, making Austin the character of blue collar Americans, the WWF/E were able to market their product far more effectively than their competition.

Ultimately, the Montreal Screwjob was a necessary act by those in-charge of the WWF to protect the WWF. It fully succeeded in this task and was a good thing for the organisation to give the McMahon-Austin storyline that followed it the basis that it needed to take the company to the next level. Despite this, the storyline was not good for the industry as a whole. It shone a light on the murky, backstage, elements of the show and broke the trust and kayfabe barrier that existed between the fans and the industry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!

Wow!

Person A strikes me as too biased against Bret, while Person B goes on way too long (pot meet kettle).

However both are very good answers.

B wins it for me, by a whisker.

I voted for Person A because Person B's response was too long and drawn out whilst Person A gave a good answer in a nutshell. Although i believe the WWE would still exist even if the screwjob didnt happen.

I got bored by Person B's ramblings.....Though i agree, sounds like Person A is a bit harsh on Bret.....


Person A by Default

I'm 99.9% sure i can guess who Poster B is!

I voted for Person A, as I am sure there are some inaccuracies in Person B's assertions that Bret was leaving with the title and it went on a little too long.

King Beer wrote:I'm 99.9% sure i can guess who Poster B is!

PM me who you think Beer!

Mr H wrote:

King Beer wrote:I'm 99.9% sure i can guess who Poster B is!

PM me who you think Beer!

Sent!

Pm me who you think and i still won't tell you! Muahahahaha!

Its good to see you imposed the 500 word limit rule!

Person A, as person B gave us a history lesson as opposed to really answering the question until the end.

Hobo - I said maybe for the next round, it's unfair to do it now.

I can't work out who B is but it seems like it should be obvious! (It's not me, I swear).

Do we find out afterwards who each person is?

Holymiky wrote:Hobo - I said maybe for the next round, it's unfair to do it now.

It was sarcasm, Miky.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I can't work out who B is but it seems like it should be obvious! (It's not me, I swear).

Do we find out afterwards who each person is?

Yes when the voting ends each time i will state who it was or i may even wait till all the matches have happened in each round before i announce whos left, the trouble is when it comes down to the final i guess it will have to be revealed in some way, unless anyone can suggest a way i can keep it secret throughout?

I don't like the fact that Poster B wants to give us a history lesson of the Screw Job. Poster A for me.

David Tails wrote:I don't like the fact that Poster B wants to give us a history lesson of the Screw Job. Poster A for me.

Yeah one thing I noticed is they say at the start "I don't need to remind you", but then spend the next 5 or 6 paragraphs reminding us.

I still went with B because I think within the unnecessarily huge amount of words is a decent and better thought out argument. I think the main reason A is winning is because B just goes on and on and people stop reading.

Guidelines 1 and 4 though, Crips.

I did get bored after the first 4 paragraphs.

King Beer wrote:Guidelines 1 and 4 though, Crips.

I did get bored after the first 4 paragraphs.

Well, B definitely wins on guideline 2.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

King Beer wrote:Guidelines 1 and 4 though, Crips.

I did get bored after the first 4 paragraphs.

Well, B definitely wins on guideline 2.

Agreed, however i think A would've been better had they used paragraphs.

I just think B is trying too hard.

Poster A for me, I wouldn't be bothered by the length of poster b's article if there were some critcal evaluative points but the first 17 paragraphs didnt really give me much to work on, A's was shorter but had much more meat

Has B finished yet?

After reading B again it seems like whoever it is has been watching the McMahon DVD and preaching what Shane says!

I've got a good idea who B is

I thought that too!

Two names one starts with a T and the other with a P (delete this incase it ruins the game)

Your actually wrong lol.

You're




:spank:

only joking mate

Miky, how long are the votes open for mate?

a day each...if its a clean win by a massive amount i may stop it earlier, but i don't have the power too so may have to get one of the admins/mods to close it early but not sure.

A mod is almost always on anyway so you should probably always get it shut ASAP

I got a bit of a kicking there - congrats anyway Hero.

JoshSansom wrote:I got a bit of a kicking there - congrats anyway Hero.

You did well though Josh, and thank you for taking part i appreciate it.

Cheers Josh
Think it was a battle of tabloid v broadsheet and my Sun style headline grabbing effort pulled them in

Interesting that people thought I’m a Bret hater, I’m a huge mark for him! I abandoned my wife and kids on my birthday last year to queue up to meet him!

it wont let me vote the voting thing has dissapeared?

Fadorock wrote:it wont let me vote the voting thing has dissapeared?

Polls are now closed!

I wouldn't say you come across as a Bret hater at all - in fact you make no mention of the rights or wrongs of Bret's decisions in your article. You just make the fairly legitimate point that Bret wasn't the same afterwards (which few can probably disagree with), Bret the character kind of died after that, the best there is, the best there was, the best there ever will be was replaced with "Bret got screwed" and no one could look beyond that to see that he was still performing

Even to this day if you ask people about Bret the first thing that they associate with it is the Screwjob.

I suppose that I should have checked what style people were writing in first! I had assumed that it was supposed to be an article style as opposed to post style, maybe had I written it differently at least people would have been able to see the crux of my argument instead of giving up half way through!

holymiky requested for me to close the polls

King Beer wrote:I'm 99.9% sure i can guess who Poster B is!

Did you guess right?

No he didnt and neither did I!

Did anyone work out that I was A by the way?
KB commentated on my lack of paragraphs which has been previously mentioned in my writing style so wondered if anyone else realised?

I was thinking Hero hmmm it's your writing style so people are going to know, im suprised no-one defo said it would be yours!

I actually thought it was Odnan.

If it makes you feel better Josh, I was one of the few whho voted for you, but I was also probably one of the few who actually read the whole thing.

I thought Josh was Talking Point altho it was very Daviesesque

Both great answers, although it took me most of lunch to read B (only joking B). Enjoyed that contest

the-gaffer wrote:I thought Josh was Talking Point altho it was very Daviesesque

Only because it went on so much!

Just justifying his opinion which you like tn do thats all

No worries gaffer, I thought people would suspect it was me because it was such a ridiculously long answer.