Skip to main content

Muppets Vs. Sesame Street

Like I told Luke, I want to debate more on the decline about random topics, or important ones. But I decided on our first debate: Who wins in a puppet fight, the main Muppets or the main Sesame Street puppets?

Sesame Street Gang: Bert, Ernie, Big Bird, Grouch, Count, Elmo, Zoe, Cookie Monster, Aloysius Snuffleupagus, and Grover.

Muppet's Gang: Kermit, Ms. Piggie, Fozzie, Gonzo, Swedish Chief (not main but certainly fan favorite), Sam Eagle, Rolph, Animal, Statler, and Waldorf (The two old guys)

To me this could go either way but for the sake of starting an argument I'm going with Sesame Street's Gang. I love the Muppets and all but as I see it the Muppets are mismatched in to many of the fights. I matched everyone up with I felt the best suitable character from the other show and these were my projected outcomes and the reason I chose Sesame Street.

Kermit vs. Elmo-battle of the team bitches but with Elmo being easily ticklish and Kermit having battle experience from Muppets Treasure Island, I've got Kermit taking the fight.

Bert & Ernie vs. Statler & Waldorf-sources and cartoon skits have proven to me that Bert has become a violent drunk, this will be to much for the hilarious old guy duo even with the little help Bert will receive from Ernie.

Gonzo vs. The Grouch-A battle of the outcasts takes a turn for the worse while both characters release their inner hate for the world and there lonely lives and channel it into a violent battle that ends in a draw.--Gonzo pushes over the Grouch's trash can and because I've never seen his legs I assume he doesn't have any, so while on the ground the Grouch gnawed off Gonzo's legs and while both are lying on the ground and can't reposition themselves they choke each other out, Grouch goes first but Gonzo is quick to follow after extensive blood loss.

Big Bird vs. Sam Eagle-Sam Eagle and Big Bird are very similar sizes. Though Sam Eagle has the Treasure Island combat experience like Kermit, I feel Big Bird's drug addiction (my proof of this is because its been brought to my attention that he is the only person/thing to be able to see snuffeupagus) and Big Bird I'm sure will take some PCP to superhero himself out of his mind so he feels no pain, is super strong, and wonders the streets nude unknowingly (for example).

Aloysius Snuffeupagas vs. Swedish Chief-Easy fight to call due to the fact the Snuffeupagus is possible imaginary and the Swedish Chief is not only completely awesome but has knifes and I'm sure a lot faster than an elephant.

Ms. Piggy vs. Zoe-The women's fight is completely one sided with Zoe being the girl version of Elmo and Ms. Piggy having a well documented anger-management problem. Ms. Piggy gives a brutal beating.

The Count vs. Fozzie-An evenly matched fight to begin with but the Count has a secret weapon, as he calls in his bats to help him finish off Fozzie.

Grover vs. Rolph-Another fairly even match but with a slight weight advantage in Rolph's favor I think he out muscles Grover in the end.

Animal vs. Cookie Monster-The battle of the mentally challenged. Though Animal is clearly the crazier one and Cookie Monster isn't exactly brilliant, Cookie Monster will use the chain around Animal's neck to his advantage.

Final Outcome:

MuppetsSesame Street


Luke said…
I can see the argument that Sesame Streeters are all repressed from low pay and long hours while they can't express themselves on a children's show -- thus explosively violence. Not to mention you make a detailed and convincing case.

But the Muppets put on a variety show. Surely no one gets less respect then they? Plus everyone knows the muppets roll armed with empty whiskey bottles. Gonzo will crack Oscar's green head open in the first swing.

(btw, I fixed your html. you need to upgrade yo skillz yo.)
Unknown said…
I feel that fozzie's necktie and bowler would work to his advantage and that the count's cape and monocle would be a hazard. the count would never know what's coming. further more snuffy is not imaginary! though, i think for other reasons not stated, he would loose the battle.

the one think you did not count on was the interference by Ms. Piggy and her aforementioned anger issues in the other matches. you know she would be pulling an ambush unless locked up until her match. Piggy vs. Zoe would have to be the last contest.
There is no effing way that Animal would lose to Cookie Monster. Either Cookie Monster has had his chocolate chip fix, leaving him docile, contented, and in a coma like state; or he is jonesing for some oatmeal raisin goodness, and is much to preoccupied with assuming the fetal position and crying hysterically to think about fighting.

Either way, Animal has long since bitten Cookie Monster's head off in about the time it took you to read the first sentence.

Also, what happened to Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem? I'll tell you where: selling bad junk to the entire Sesame Street cast.
The Muppets win by default, after the paramedics don't arrive in time, and the Sesame Street characters die after having visions of Hell, which cause massive coronaries.
And just who were these lazy paramedics? Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and his hilariously retarded assistant, Beaker.
Anonymous said…
The muppets had Harry monster, case closed mofos
pmerg said…
I know I left out a lot of the other awesome muppet characters, you don't have to point that out but they were left out because there weren't enough sesame street characters. So if you want to argue which group is better then argue using the characters I chose for you.
Luke where did the muppets get whiskey bottles and how come sesame street doesn't get to carry rum, vodka, or even gin bottles?
Lisa good call with the monocle as a hazard I didn't think about that. plus I'm not sure how anyone can loose a fight? and the fights weren't in a particular order.
Greg the beginning part about adding characters was for you. be content with it.
and brewtang that was a sad attempt to make any point what-so-ever.
Luke said…

everyone knows that variety show theater performers are only one step above carnies. kid show actors are like royalty compared to variety performers. Fozzy, for example, went on to an unremarkable career as a Vegas lounge act puncuating bad jokes with gin and outbursts at his ex-wife. No way Big Bird has a bigger whiskey bottle than Kermit. That's all I'm saying...
Amanda Todd said…
I googled Gonzo vs. Grover and found this post! I think one was a rip off of the other but which? Anyways, I just wanted to say that I spent 10 min staring at the picture at the top of your blog! I would LOVE to see a larger version of this! It's gorgeous and there is so much going on! Very cool.

Popular posts from this blog

Reading (and Writing) Critical Theory

Il faut ĂȘtre absolument moderne. - Rimbaud , Un Saison en Enfer Long Sunday has dusted itself off for a series of essays on Axel Honneth 's new collection of essays : Pathologies of Reason . Unfortunately, I have not read the book. But many of the essays have been published previously in English, collected now under the rubric of the "legacy of Critical Theory." What I intend to do here is not to review the book, but to reflect on a few issues illustrated by the symposium at Long Sunday. I comment at considerable distance from the text itself: a response to responses at Long Sunday to an edited volume of essays translated from German. What Honneth really says is thus not an issue for me. This fact however points our attention towards a truism: that 'Critical Theory'—here more narrowly construed than in Craig McFarlane 's contribution—is a discourse sustained by readers and commenters. There is not only a set of primary texts that form the foundatio


For undergraduates, perhaps this passage describes the goal of academic writing, but I am surprised that a respected scholar would write so lazily about hermeneutics. But when, for example, I turn to Sir David Ross's magnificent commentary on Aristotle's Physics I do not do so in order to cover what the learned Sir David thought -- I do so in order to cover what Aristotle thought[…] But I am not in a sense, reading Y: Y is transparent, and I read Aristotle through him. I suspect that the author Jonathan Barnes, in the introduction to the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle , does not mean to say that an interpreter of a text can achieve the goal of transparency, only that transparency is the goal. But it is a bit disingenuous for the editor of an introductory book of essays to suggest to his novice audience that the contents therein might be taken uncritically as the word of Aristotle himself. It is even more disingenuous after explicitly noting the many necessary omissions and,