You win a slam does that mean you are the best poet competing? NO, regrettably poetry isn’t like basketball or football where we crown the grand champion and that is that.
The creators of the slam event were smart enough to realize that America is more interested in something when we can crown a clear winner. Even something everyone knows is speculative and metaphysical seems like it should have a singular champion, someone to define it.

Why can’t there be only one? Poetry isn’t like the highlander universe, everyones outlook is different and people compliment each other in ways that are necessary. Nick Fox doesnt do what Jon Sands does and neither need too. Try naming a “Champion of colors” and then tell me how that color won?

Why have a slam then if there can be no ultimate champion? To get competitive, creative people talking about poetry again. The slam event was created to initiate arguments and keep people coming back to the venue. You always think someone has been cheated and your supposed too, in fact your supposed to come back and watch them fight for redemption. What is the point of that?
Let me tell you and I am talking to Red Sox fans now…remember how great that feeling of never really getting your just due and winning a world series was? Remember winning it and then feeling like you missed that feeling?

That is how a slam is supposed to feel. You are supposed to be shocked and inspired and then dissappointed by the score given and driven to come back. You are supposed to be driven on stage to make your own point.

This is no disrespect to anyone that has won a slam but if you have slammed then you already know this and I don’t have to appologize.