Although those faithful readers (I know there are two of you out there) might be wondering why the geniuses in the sales department engage in such mundane debates, the answer is pretty clear. We are competitive and also enjoy hearing our own voices. And thus the debates ensue. We have wrestled such fascinating topics as Batman vs. Spiderman, Santa vs. the Easter bunny, Chis Farley vs. John Candy, TuPac vs. Biggy and the infamous Gator vs Python, which regrettably ended in a draw.
Sure, we could argue politics or religion. But those topics are a little too touchy for people you have to sit in close proximity to for so many hours each week. So we debate "safer" topics. Unfortunately, even these "safe debates" become heated. But I digress. Enough with the why, let me get back to the important issue at hand… the rebuttal.
I have known young Miller for close to 20 years now and one thing has always remained constant with his arguments -- they are always horribly misguided, fatally flawed, and just plain WRONG. Even as I have watched him grow into the capable young man-child he is today, Miller consistently makes one fateful mistake . . . he continues to doubt my vast comprehension of the cosmos and all beings contained therein.
Based on the knowledge I acquired in vet school (if I went to vet school, why am I in sales, you ask?) and upon the many, many hours of Animal Planet I watch daily, Miller's argument is deficient for multiple reasons. Your boy Sharky is going down. Easily and with less dignity than that of roadkill, my friend.
The main X factor young Miller is over looking here is home field advantage. If this epic battle is to take place in 4 feet of water, then hands down the Grizzly has the advantage. Without depth, the Sharky loses his mobility and everything that makes him an efficient hunter. While it is rare to see a Great White hunt in the shallows, a Grizzly actually prefers to stalk his prey in this environment. Four feet of water is his home and much like the Chicago Bears, Grizzly bears rarely lose at home.
The next clear advantage being overlooked here is the fact that a bear has non-opposable thumbs. No, this does not mean he can use tools or even grip a rusty shank, but this does mean he has ARMS to put Sharky in a rear naked choke and tap him out (if Sharky only had ARMS to tap!!! THE TRAGEDY!). He can use these appendages to jab and swipe his razor sharp claws, all the while back-peddling and keeping his distance from the damaging teeth of the shark. While in his prime, Muhammad Ali used this exact tactic to chop down opponents much larger then him.
Yet another advantage that goes to the Bear is height. Being 8 feet tall would allow for the Bear to pounce on the shark like Laude at an all you can eat sausage buffet (the guy likes sausage). In 4 feet of water the shark is nothing more then an ankle biting battering ram lacking agility and mobility.
And finally… Bears eat fish and things that swim in the water and I have never seen a shark eat anything on land. I could go on all day here but I will spare you all and just cut to the conclusion: Bear wins, end of story.
There is no reply blog necessary here, Miller. I just shut you down, son. Now if you want to talk Chuck Norris vs. God, I am open to debate. GOOD DAY, SIR. I SAID GOOD DAY!