Who let the dogs out: Snoop Dogg vs. Underdog

It's the bow to the wow; who's the best dog in the pound? As the star of the highly popular cartoon from the 60s and 70s, Shoeshine Boy is a humble dog who spends his nights as the mighty superhero, Underdog. Calvin Broadus is one of the most recognizable rappers in the game under his alias, Snoop Dogg. But how can you possibly decide which dog(g) is better? Well have no fear, Who Would Win? is here to solve your dilemma.

Rappers today are often bragging about their success and their rhymes, but also they also spend a lot of time shamelessly admitting to criminal activity. Snoop is one of the pioneers of this. Whether it's cocaine possession or his past with the Crips, Snoop is a gangsta who's no stranga' to illegal activities and has served time. Underdog, on the other hand, fights crime and battles gangsters, such as Riff Raff. Underdog has handled all kinds of criminals, from mad scientists to aliens. Technically, being a superhero means taking the law into your own hands, so Underdog has no moral high ground in this case, as this makes him a criminal too. However, in terms of a fight between the two, Underdog has the advantage. Even though Snoop has rolled with the likes of the Crips as well as 2Pac and Dr. Dre (from the streets of Compton), he has no tactical advantage over Underdog, who can fly, has super strength, and is invulnerable to any heat the Crips are packin'. Besides, Riff Raff is a wolf, so Underdog already has experience fighting canine gangsters. When it comes to dog fights, Underdog wins (and Michael Vick loses).

But though they may have different views on justice, these two hounds have surprisingly similar style - considering their tendency to drop rhymes. Underdog consistently introduces himself by saying, "there's no need to fear, Underdog is here!" or "Not plane, nor bird, nor even frog. It's just little old me, Underdog!" Snoop Dogg obviously has made a career of rhyming, and he often uses it for self-promotion as well ("With so much drama in the LBC/ It's kinda hard being Snoop D-O-double G"). Underdog, however, limits his rhymes severely by sticking to the subject matter of crime fighting. Snoop doesn't hinder himself this way, opening his rhymes up to more than just one topic. You may make the argument that it's easy to rhyme when you put the suffix -izzle at the end of everything, but you have to give Snoop credit for more or less inventing that (And technical-izzle, it's actually surprisingly difficult-izzle. See? That sounds terrible). If the two decided to settle the feud by way of rap battle, Snoop's freestyling ability would give him the edge over Underdog's simpler, pre-composed rhymes (and likely both would resort to a rap battle before violence). As far as canine cadence is concerned, Snoop has the edge with the more euphonious pooch poetry.
Snoop can even call out Shoeshine in German

However, this comparison has only considered Snoop Dogg vs. the Underdog cartoon. But when we bring the 2007 live-action movie into play, the dog's reputation is severely hampered. Voiced by the guy from My Name is Earl, this surprising cast starts the movie with a strike already against it. Casting Jim Belushi as a starring role is another strike, as he is the virtual opposite of Sean Connery cool. And as a general rule of thumb: any time you see Patrick Warburton in something that's not Seinfeld, you should stay away. And I also can't think of a time when a live-action talking dog was a good idea, so that's four strikes. The third one was a foul ball, I guess. So, that being said, Snoop Dogg is the best Dogg, which I guess makes him man's best friend. Had the question come up before 2007, this would have been a tougher debate. But in light of the Belushi-tainted legacy, Snoop drops Underdog like he's hot. In other words: it's Snoop D-O-double Gizzle for the wizzle, fo' shizzle. Get ready for the next episode.
Drop it like you forgot your oven mitt

PS: Hold up! Heyyy, before I move on, let's not forget that Snoop Dogg is cousins with Nate Dogg, one of the smoothest voices in the business (rap apparently runs in the Dogg family) . Having Nate Dogg on your side basically gives you an automatically catchy hook. It even worked for Shaq.

I did not have relations: Tiger Woods vs. Bill Clinton

Tiger Woods has quickly become the current most notorious cheater in the country. But it wasn't long ago since another very influential figure got busted for infidelity (think Presidents). So who's the better cheater: Bill or Tiger? Let's think about how each adulterer reacted to getting caught. Woods kept quiet for a day or two until he decided what he was going to say, and then came out with dull and calculated apologies: a classic, conventional move for an athlete. Tiger's reputation was one of the cleanest in sports - not only was he one of the most dominant athletes in history and the first billion dollar athlete, he always seemed to say the right thing. So when he fell from grace, he fell hard; his portrayal in the media changed quicker than Michael Jackson's after he died. Clinton decided to blatantly lie to the entire nation, which is usually frowned on for people of his profession. Clinton's cheating was bigger in the sense that he was the leader of the free world, but it probably wasn't as surprising considering some of the questionable things he had said before (Like when he said he tried marijuana but didn't inhale - yeah, and he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, either). As for punishments, Clinton seems to have taken the bigger blow, becoming only the second President to be impeached while Tiger spent a few weeks in a fake rehab center. Tiger spent his whole career giving cookie-cutter, impersonal interviews. It's ironic that his debacle was so personal and humiliating - with the images of his wife smashing in his wrecked car's windows were on every news, sports, or celebrity gossip channel for about a week. Obviously, Clinton's cheating was humiliating, but we didn't get any stories of Bill passed out in a crashed motorcade while Hillary smashed the windows in with JFK's golf clubs (but wouldn't that have been awesome? How awkward would it be for the Secret Service working that shift?) As far as public perception goes, Tiger is currently one of the most unpopular figures in pop culture, but Bill keeps popping up on campaign trails and PSAs for relief programs. People seem to have forgiven the Clint'. However, it may just be a matter of time before the whole Tiger thing blows over and he does his best Michael Vick and plays the redeemed athlete.

What we can judge now is the uniqueness of the act itself. It turns out that Tiger was sleeping with women wherever he went around the country. It's definitely newsworthy, but it's not something that we've never seen before with athletes/celebrities. Clinton, however, committed his adultery in the Oval Office. That's either the dumbest idea ever or the ballsiest (sorry for the awkward word choice). Regardless, that's a story that doesn't come around that often. I don't even know how a President can sneak around to have an affair. Aren't they like always being watched? You'd have to be a ninja or something. The fact that he's regained public favor after this recklessness is appalling, especially because I can't remember when it changed or how (JFK did the same thing and is now revered. Obama, take note). Tiger slept around and got attacked by his wife on national TV (Fail). Bill Clinton defiled the Oval Office, lied to the American public, and is now somehow in the nation's good graces (FTW). He gets points for originality and sticking the landing. Clinton beats Tiger like he beat Bob Dole.

PS: These are two of the most famous recent cheaters, but there have been scores of cheaters worthy of being in this discussion (JFK, Hester Prynne, Lancelot, King David, Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, Henry VIII, Brad Pitt). This debate feels a bit like the BCS: only giving two parties the chance to win when there are so many other worthy candidates. To properly address this question, I may need to build up a larger list and make a playoff bracket for history's best philanderer. Maybe for March Madness. Any requests?

Fedora, whip, and backpack: Indiana Jones vs. Dora the Exporer

From Magellan to Columbus, the world has known many great explorers. But the two that most exemplify the adventurous spirit of the last century are, of course, Indiana Jones and Dora the Explorer. Standing in the face of the fiercest enemies - Nazis, heart-ripping cults, and a fox named Swiper - these adventurers let nothing stop them from reaching their destination. But which one is the greatest explorer? Initially, it appears to be Jones. Looking at the tools of their trade, Indy is known for his whip, pistol, and his trademarked fedora. Dora is known to carry a map and a backpack. While Dora's may be more practical, it's not nearly as cool. I thought she was supposed to be an explorer, not a lost first grader. Indiana Jones makes split-second choices in life-or-death situations, while Dora can't make any decisions without asking the audience at least three times what she should do. As far as the scope of their adventures go, Indy's feats are far greater. While Dora's half-hour hunt for blueberries was impressive, it doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. But despite the initial reaction, there are some things Dora can do that Dr. Jones can't. For example, Indy always gets himself into situations where he has to kill at least like 10 people just so he doesn't die. Dora, on the other hand, typically gets what she's looking for without having to kill anyone. Usually, she finds a way to cooperate with the characters she meets. She can always stop the devious fox, Swiper, just by repeating "Swiper, no swiping," until he gets sick of hearing her wretched voice. This worked once for Jones ("Sallah, no camels!"), but it isn't a very effective strategy against angry Nazis. Also, if she ever encountered a snake, it would probably be no big deal. Indy, though, would likely pack it up and call it quits at that point. And Dora's writers never decided to incorporate aliens into the plot out of the blue, nor did she ever have to share a screen with the kid from Even Stevens. So that's a plus.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work on Nazis

Despite this, though, the debate was over before it began: Sean Connery is Indy's dad. Game, set, and match. The only way Dora could compete is if her father was either Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman, or Harrison Ford. Unfortunately for Dora, her father is none of those people, and Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, so that's a double whammy. A combination of cool as powerful as Connery and Ford is something that no amount of flying saucers or Shia LaBeouf can negate. Fedora > Dora.

PS: While we're on the subject, can you imagine what Indiana Jones would have been like Dora-style? The climax of Henry the Explorer and the Lost Ark would have been Indy looking at the camera saying, "Looking at the Ark will conjure the wrath of God. What should I do? (pause, blinks) Close my eyes! You got it!" followed by a sing-along. What a different place the world would be.
Speaking of juxtaposition

Happiness is a Warm Pizza: Beatles vs. Turtles

For the inaugural post, I find it only fitting to begin with the debate that's been raging since the beginning of time...or at least since the beginning of this particular blog. Which is the better foursome: the Beatles or the Ninja Turtles? One battled fearsome enemies like the Foot and the Shredder. The other got a leg up on the competition and shredded the charts, redefining the music industry. But before we get into their differences, let's take a minute to examine these two Fab Fours' similarities.

Basically, the groups break down in an eerily similar fashion. Both have two de facto leaders: for the Beatles, it's John Lennon and Paul McCartney, while the Turtles have Raphael and Leonardo. Of the two respective leaders, one has a more straight-laced, follow-the-rules kind of approach. Leonardo always seems to be training more than his brothers and bases most of his decisions on what Master Splinter told him to do. This approach is often causing him to butt heads with Raphael. With the Beatles, Paul McCartney's music tends to fit more mainstream, popular conventions like "Hello, Goodbye." John Lennon once criticized him for making silly love songs, so Paul responded with his hit, "Silly Love Songs," similar to how Leo clashes with Raph.
Yep, John Lennon wasn't shy about doing things his own way

As a contrast to the more straight-laced leader, there is the more stubborn, do-it-your own way approach that is taken by Raph and John Lennon. Lennon's songs like "I am the Walrus," "Across the Universe," and "Happiness is a Warm Gun" were more avant-garde and experimental than McCartney's. Raphael is often ignoring the warnings of Splinter and Leo, and tends to leave the group and try to fight the Foot on his own (John Lennon, anyone?). Between both groups' two leaders, there is a healthy balance of following conventions and breaking them.
Leo and Raph at their essence

The Beatles have George Harrison who doesn't write many songs, but whenever he does, they always seem to be good (Something, Here comes the sun, While my guitar gently weeps). Donatello rarely takes over a fight, but has the potential to when he chooses. Both are the technical masters of their foursome - Donny being good with gadgets and computers while Harrison is the group expert on guitar, sitar, or whatever instrument the band needs. These two are the quiet technicians. And then there's Ringo and Michaelango, the jokesters who are both basically just there for comic relief.
Ringo's funny even when he's not trying to be

When you break it down, the Beatles and the Turtles are pretty much the same, in terms of group dynamics at least. So that still leaves the question: which group is better? What does this group dynamic work better in: music or crime-fighting? To address this, we must consider each group's longevity, accolades, and adversaries.

Though the Beatles are one of the most famous and influential bands in the history of popular music, the band wasn't actually together for too long. They lasted 10 years (1960-1970). The Ninja Turtles, on the other hand, made their first appearance in 1984 and have been going strong ever since. With comic books, video games, two animated TV series, and four movies, the Turtles have been a part of pop culture for the last 26 years - and they're not done. There are talks of a new live-action TMNT movie scheduled to hit theaters in the next couple of years. Advantage: Turtles.

As far as accolades go, the Beatles have been nominated for 26 Grammys, and won 13 times. They've had 24 Multi-Platinum albums and 15 number one albums on the UK chart: more than any other artist. Queen Elizabeth II appointed them Members of the Order of the British Empire. They have multiple albums (like Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) which are often argued to be the best album of all time. For the sake of time, I won't list the rest of their accolades, and I won't even get into the Turtles' (but that's more because Wikipedia doesn't have an "awards" section on the Turtles' page). Advantage: Beatles

Like Sasha-Baron Cohen said in Talledega Nights, every great hero needs a great villain. Superman has Lex Luthor. Luke Skywalker has Darth Vader. Octomom has shame and integrity. Over the years, the Ninja Turtles have overcome many villains: the Foot, Tatsu, Karai, Bebop and Rocksteady, Tokha and Razar, etc. But their greatest and most iconic foe is obviously the Shredder. From his intimidating mask, to the spikes on his arms and shoulders, and his sparkly purple shirt, Shredder is a source of fear and a profound symbol of evil (at least he was when I was a kid). The Beatles' biggest competition in the 60s was the Rolling Stones. Both invaded from England and lit up the charts, making music with a slightly different approach: the Beatles being the Fab Four while the Stones were more like the bad boys of rock. As arguably the best rock and roll band of all time, the Stones seem like a greater foe than Shredder. I exaggerated a bit before. That purple outfit isn't nearly as intimidating as it was when I was a kid. You really have to question why he thought it was a good idea to leave the house dressed like that (But then again, you can say the same thing about pretty much anything that Mick Jagger/Keith Richards ever wore). And what's up with the name? The Shredder? Way to be original. The Rolling Stones' name is not only catchy but metaphorical as well (I'm usually sold on metaphors). Besides, if you're going to call yourself the Shredder and dud up with spikes all over your armor, you would think shredding things would be a part of your mantra. But I can't remember ever seeing the Shredder actually "shred" anything. It's more for looks. Advantage: Beatles.

By this rubric, the Beatles have the advantage 2-1. But that is based on external factors. What's more important is how the group functions internally. We already talked about how the group dynamics are similar, but whose group functions better? Though the Beatles were able to defeat their external foes, their greatest threat came from within themselves. Like I said, the Beatles lasted 10 years together, and then they broke up. To be considered the better group, I think you actually have to keep your group in tact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's 26 years later and the Ninja Turtles still haven't broken up. Though Raphael has often stormed off in anger, his brothers always convince him that it's for the best that they remain intact. John Lennon walked away once and the Beatles never recovered. Maybe it's because Raph never had a Yoko (which is probably because there are no teenage mutant female turtles). But the reason the Turtles will never break up and the Beatles couldn't withstand inner-turmoil is Splinter. Through the ups and downs, Master Splinter remains the emotional and intellectual rock of the foursome. He's there to offer advice when the Turtles need it, and he teaches them to fight together and utilize each other's strengths as well as their own. Though the Beatles have awards to stretch from here to Liverpool and back, Splinter's steady presence is the one thing they didn't have. Ultimately, their lack of a strong, uniting presence is what allowed their downfall to occur.

Though the Beatles have more awards and a more formidable foe, the Turtles' have the X-factor. As Leo and Mike said in Turtles II,
"You forgot Shredder, we carry insurance."
"Yeah, Mutual Splinter, dude!"
This insurance is what keeps the Turtles together, and is the difference that sets the heroes in a half-shell apart from music's Fab Four. Turtles win.

PS: Oh, and before you ask - yes, I quoted Turtles II from memory.