Stennick Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Not to put words in Hive's mouth and if I'm wrong Hive just tell me its cool But I think what Hive was TRYING to say before this thing got so locked onto Heyman being about extreme wrestling, bad at managing money and such is this. I think he was saying its real easy for Paul who hasn't been near a wrestling book in five years cept for what a month of ECW that was constantly rewritten anyway? So in five years Paul has been no where near a wrestling book. I think he was also trying to say its important to elevate new guys but its MORE important to continue to make a profit by any means something that he feels Paul never could wrap his head around due to the fact he lost money out his ass the entire time he ran ECW. Again I could be wrong but I think thats what he was saying. Now here's my take on everything. In 2002/03 he was booking Angle, Benoit, Los Guerreros, Rey Jr., Edge, Brock Lesnar, Matt Hardy, Big Show, Undertaker, John Cena, the cruiserweights, I mean he had a pretty stacked roster and did some great things with it but its not like he took that talent and elevated it to a financial level never before seen. Really its a business, its World Wrestling ENTERTAINMENT, sports ENTERTAINMENT, in the entertainment business its about more than giving a good show. GI Joe is going to be awful but it'll make a 100 million easy. Same thing with the WWE we might think its awful and that their not pushing the younger guys but the fact is their making money. In 2011 when Undertaker is gone, Batista is gone, and the rest of their main event scene is stale they'll put some unknown monster in the ring with John Cena and have him take the title or do whatever. Will it be good booking? No but it will most likley draw the same numbers their drawing today. We say their booking sucks but they have a built in loyal audience that has proven they'll stick with the Katie Vick angles, they'll stick with DX vs. Spirit Squad, they'll stick with anyone Vince gives them. And in doing so they insure that no matter how ****ty the product Vince STILL makes a profit something Heyman hasn't been able to do. So who's the better booker Heyman or Vince? Who knows tough to say but Vince is clearly the better business man in this "business" thats all thats going to matter. Guys like Cornette, Heyman are a thing of the past for better or worst but as I said before you take the "profits" Heyman was getting SD and you take what he was getting before and after and I'm sure their virtually indistinguishable. I never liked ECW until I saw it come to TNN and it became less about balcany dives and "you ****ed up chants" and I think people give Heyman way too much credit. For example Heyman didn't discover Lesnar and he was being pushed from the start on RAW defeating BOTH Hardyz who were at the time solid upper mid card in a handicap match. Hell they had him beat Hulk Hogan and I can promise that was a Vince decision not a Heyman decision. So giving Heyman any sort of real crediton discovering Brock or even pushing Brock isn't too great. Now I'm sure he helped Brock with his performance, he talked to Brock about life on the road and other things which no doubt helped but come on plenty of guys get that from one source or another. On the flip side I'd say he had a LOT to do with CM Punk being where he's at. So its one of those things where people lump a bunch of things together some is fair for credit others not so much. I like Heyman I loved ECW on TNN, I loved Smackdown and he can say whatever he wants and I'll listen and choose to agree or disagree but I think it boils down to he's never concerned himself with making a profit and so him to tell Vince what he needs to do or should do when Vince is making a profit and has been doing this for what thirty years now? I think maybe he should focus his efforts more on TNA but really they don't listen anyway so he's wasting his breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Ehm he discovered Brock in OVW and convinced management to push him too the moon. That he was his on screen manager was just a by-product. And yes Vince is making money and according to reports so is TNA but they could possibly be making more and think more long term. Looking at the current top guys dissapearing due to age is much the same as ECW loosing them all the time due to steals and despite those steals he always put on a good product. His micromanegement combined with poor bussiness skills and the fact they couldn't get a new t.v. deal is what ultimatly caused in the demise of ECW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 No. I never denied the sense in claim. And I apologize to all you Heyman fanboys who are offended because I dare to challenge his holyness... Ahh yes, because acknowledging a person's strengths is rabid fanboi behavior. Seriously, are you 11? Can you not see the difference between what Heyman says and the business of wrestling? No one here has stated that Paul Heyman's business acumen was sound. What everyone here has stated has to do with creative direction. Maybe that's too difficult to understand so I'll simplify it for you. Paul Heyman is a great booker. Get it now? If your only criteria for great booking or ANYTHING is mainstream success, then Britney Spears is a creative genius and Miles Davis was a moron. She's more mainstream than he is (or was) so it's gotta be true, amirite??? Someone call Mike Quackenbush and tell him he's an utter failure because CHIKARA isn't a darling of mainstream wrestling fans. Seriously, go, before I set fire to your straw man. Before you do, lemme ask you a question: Why does every team in the NFL and NBA and the NHL have a person whose sole job is managing the team's player costs (via the salary cap)? Why not have the head coach do it? Maybe you'll see the difference between the roles, or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I agree with you Remianen that just because something makes money doesn't mean its great. I dunno if Heyman is a GREAT booker but I think he's pretty damn good. As I said in an earlier post GI Joe is going to make a 100 mil EASY but I can almost promise its going to be horrible. I will say that John Cena, Randy Orton, even HHH I would imagine aren't going anywhere. Edge the same, they got Jack Swagger so its not like they have no one under or close to 40 thats a main eventer. Heck they'd have more but guys like Brock, Lashley and a few others have left. The problem is its entertainment you go with what makes money. Spears makes money for everyone, Vince's current day WWE makes money for everyone. As to Hyde I'm sure Heyman told Vince something like "you should see this athletic freak in OVW he's gonna be big some day" but lets face Brock was big, built, nasty and a genetic freak with a similar background to already star Kurt Angle. Telling someone Brock Lesnar is gonna be a star in the WWE wasn't exactly a long shot I don't think. Again I give him more credit for CM Punk since thats NOT the type of guy Vince pushes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I agree with you Remianen that just because something makes money doesn't mean its great. I dunno if Heyman is a GREAT booker but I think he's pretty damn good. As I said in an earlier post GI Joe is going to make a 100 mil EASY but I can almost promise its going to be horrible. Not true. It'll have lots of explosions, which the American market loves. Thus, it's a perfect mainstream movie (so it's 'good' to those fans). The problem is its entertainment you go with what makes money. What makes money now isn't necessarily what's going to make money in 5 years. Ask AIG. Ask Wachovia, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and so on. Hell, ask the national bank of ICELAND (the whole country's teetering on the brink of bankruptcy). Their profits were fixed on an untenable situation (that being, eventually those mortgages were going to come due and the noteholders didn't have the ability to pay when they did) just like Vince's situation is fixed on an untenable situation (though far less so, but let's not act like career ending or threatening injuries are rare in this business. There's no guarantee Edge is going to come back in good working condition). Imagine it like a house on stilts. What happens when one of those stilts starts to falter? How and with what do you replace it with? And do you wait until it has failed completely (and your house is perilously shifting to one side) before doing so? This applies moreso to TNA than WWE though. At least the 'E has MVP, Swagger, and co. that are known and rising in their fans' estimation. TNA has the talent but they've been buried and jobbed for so long, it'll take months to build them back up. Seriously, separate the creative from the financial. No one's advocating giving Heyman control of a promotion's finances. They're saying let him control the creative direction. You say he doesn't know what the audience wants? Hell, the audience doesn't know what the audience wants. If someone shovels you (poop) and you eat it, people get the feeling that you like to eat (poop) so they keep shoveling it to you. It's why I think DGUSA is going to be successful. They're new and different. Sure, you won't have very many 'mainstream' fans at their shows. But personally, I don't think you really need too many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Not to put words in Hive's mouth and if I'm wrong Hive just tell me its cool But I think what Hive was TRYING to say before this thing got so locked onto Heyman being about extreme wrestling, bad at managing money and such is this. I think he was saying its real easy for Paul who hasn't been near a wrestling book in five years cept for what a month of ECW that was constantly rewritten anyway? So in five years Paul has been no where near a wrestling book. I think he was also trying to say its important to elevate new guys but its MORE important to continue to make a profit by any means something that he feels Paul never could wrap his head around due to the fact he lost money out his ass the entire time he ran ECW. Again I could be wrong but I think thats what he was saying. Yes, this was pretty much my point. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yes, this was pretty much my point. Thank you. I know how it is you got all these points to make and the words get jumbled and mixed its hard to get them out clearly sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 If your going off of the theory that GI Joe will be "good" to those fans that like big explosions and whatever else entails in an average at best summer blockbuster then the WWE is "good" to those fans that like that sort of stuff. I'm not sure I really get the whole AIG and WWE whats good now may not be good in the future schtick. If an injury happens to Edge or whoever their not ABOVE promoting someone to the main event scene. This isn't WCW where the same guys that were main eventing in 94 were still main eventing in 01. Edge is new, Cena is new, Batista is new, Orton is new. These guys all started main eventing from about 04 and 05 on. So its not like the Undertaker is still the main focus of the company or someone to that effect. Really I can't see much of an argument for "younger guys are in need". John Morrison, The Miz, MVP, Jack Swagger, Evan Bourne, Rhodes, Ted Jr, CM PUNK, all of these guys are under 30 years old and all of them make up the bulk of their upper mid card. They would have even more guys in that age range in the main event if Bobby and Brock not too mention RVD were still around. My point isn't that Heyman's bad with money hell I'm bad with money. My point is although Heyman books the type of wrestling WE like to see there has been on evidence to support that Heyman would make them any more money than their making now. My point is Vince could give a damn about much more than making good profits. I'm not saying Heyman couldn't take over the book tomorrow and get the same rating SD or RAW got last week or last month. Hell I bet Heyman could book that show for two years and maintain the ratings. However I'm not so sure he would INCREASE it either. He didn't increase SD's ratings and he got a booker of the year award for that year he booked that show. So getting Heyman into TNA or WWE isn't bad heck it'd be fun, it'd be different but its most likely not going to make Vince or Dixie any more money than their making now. And seriously Heyman's outspoken, brash, at times arrogant and theres nothing wrong with that. But in this business as this time there is no room for more than one alpha male at the top. Vince and Paul have always clashed and then agreed to mutually respect each other. Vince I would imagine would steer clear from that headache unless as I said there was dollar signs in having Paul book. I would personally love to see Paul with the likes of Joe, Styles and others. However at the end of the day would it MAKE any MORE money than their making now? I don't know I can't say for sure and I bet Dixie and Vince can't either. With Heyman does the risk outweight the reward with Heyman? The risk is of course dealing with Heyman who is said to not be the easiest guy when it comes to him being in charge of creative. Thats of course why he was around for around a year with SD and only a few months after that. Sure you can say "well they wouldn't let him book it the way he wanted" even in TEW we can't always book the way we want. If I'm running the WWE I can't put on 90% matches and not have a penelty for it. When you work for someone you have to work the way they want you work and Paul's not great at doing that. Of course they would put it up with if they saw huge dollar signs in Paul's booking but again his booking to the best of my knowlege has ever made any more money than what their doing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattitudeV2 Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 I'm sure we can all agree that Heyman has some good points. Still, it's easy for someone who ran his promotion into the grounds - after never really having turned over a sizeable profit - to tell the big guys how to run their company... Do I think WWE and TNA puts out a product worth watching? No. WWE is lame, silly, childish and stale as hell. TNA is confusing and trying to emulate the worst parts of WCW. But would I find them more interesting if they brought in a bunch of new people with barbed wire and baseball bats and had them blade in every match? No, not really. I think my final point was fair, though exaggerated for effect: Heyman doesn't know what the mainstream audience wants. Never did. Sure, he could make a lot of old ECW-fans veeery happy if he took over WWE or TNA - but would either company be more mainstream succesful with him at the helm? Doubtful. It's funny to me that it's always failed promoters like Heyman and Cornette who raise their voices to tell WWE and TNA what they're doing wrong... wrestling is a business - and businesses need to make money. Hey, it's not because I'm Vince's biggest fan and hate Heyman or anything. And whether I get ECW (the old one's) product right or not is besides the point. What *is* the point is that Heyman's product cathered to a fairly small portion of the wrestling fans of USA and never would have achieved mainstream success even if it had run till today. I'm not disputing that Heyman was good at finding new, fresh people and giving them a chance, giving them their breakthrough. But obviously, that ability alone does not a successful company make. Make Heyman head of talent recruitment but keep him away from the overall running of a promotion... No. I never denied the sense in claim. And I apologize to all you Heyman fanboys who are offended because I dare to challenge his holyness... but I'm just trying to point out that if running a successfull wrestling promotion was all about elevating younger talent and that success could be achieved if only they listened to Heyman - then how come that recipe did not work wonders for his own company? I'm saying that there's probably more to running a national promotion than just the obvious, and that Heyman in all fairness doesn't know what it takes to run a such. There may be bigger concerns that he's not aware of. Seriously, while one can argue that many of the WWE and TNA frontmen are raging morons (Russo comes to mind) - they can't all be. They can't all be ignorant to the fact that the business needs new blood. So why aren't they just mega pushing people like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Jack Swagger et all - if it's that easy? Your really doubting Heyman aren't you do you realize he has made many men alot of money Austin Foley Malenko Saturn Benoit Guerrero Sabu Tazz Sandman Dreamer Raven Corino Mysterio Psychosis Guerrera Konnan and Credible All those men owe Heyman everything they have. He let Guerrero,Benoit,Malenko,Saturn and the lucha libre stars wrestle not beat each other with chairs and baseball bats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfRoMaN36 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Heymen got a lot of those men their big break, but he never directly gave them a lot of money. If anything he owes a lot of them thousands of dollars for working for free with him when the company started it's death kneel. They just continued to drink his Kool Aid and continued working for him. RVD even states he had to work in Mexico just to pay bills. Many are resentful when they woke up several tears later, broke physically and financially, being forced to piss in a bucket because they have no money to fix the plumbing. And are too broken down to continue wrestling. And to most of them, wrestlings all they know. Those men you mentioned are called whores by many of the ECW faithful for taking the bigger money. They're whores who can still walk and feed their families with no problems. The mans an excellent booker, but he isn't a messiah. I think a lot of you guys need to stop drinking his Kool Aid also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The mans an excellent booker, but he isn't a messiah. No one and I repeat no one made such a statement we just mentioned that he is an excellent booker not going any farther then that. The whole holy fanboy stuff came from somebody using that as a critique. Also as mentioned Heyman only booked SD for one year what if he had had the book longer? It would probably outshine raw atm (even moreso then it does now) which Vince of course would never allow. Also Vince and Paul get along fine by all acounts its Stephanie he has the most issues with. Again on Lesnar there are so many Big/Agile etc guys in OVW that haven't made it. Heyman spotting him and saying this guy is the real deal and then having him get pushed and succed the way he did is an accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yes, Paul Heyman's company folded. You'd probably fold too if you had two multi-million dollar companies poaching your talent every other week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfRoMaN36 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 No one and I repeat no one made such a statement we just mentioned that he is an excellent booker not going any farther then that. The whole holy fanboy stuff came from somebody using that as a critique. I wasn't aiming my comment at anyone in particular. Just that many people including most smarks give him the holier than thou persona so if he says anything, it's true. The man even made many mistakes as a booker himself while running the company. Not to mention the fact that he was trying to get a product that isn't meant for National tv and take it to a national level. It obviously failed after the ill fated ECW on TNN and once they lost the show, the wheels came off and they collapesed. So it had little to do with WCW and the WWF taking their talent (Although it didn't help) It's just that his product will never get over with the masses. You will have too many suits telling you what to do and either you "sell out" or you fold. Heyman folded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Also as mentioned Heyman only booked SD for one year what if he had had the book longer? It would probably outshine raw atm (even moreso then it does now) which Vince of course would never allow. Also Vince and Paul get along fine by all acounts its Stephanie he has the most issues with. Again on Lesnar there are so many Big/Agile etc guys in OVW that haven't made it. Heyman spotting him and saying this guy is the real deal and then having him get pushed and succed the way he did is an accomplishment. The thing is I feel like a year is plenty of time to make something into a big deal. Anything over six months and I feel like its "your" stories being told. By that time its your characters, its the people you want to push, etc. By all accounts Heyman did that and I loved it. However again maybe twice in all of 02 and 03 did SD beat RAW in the ratings with both companies reaching fairly close to the same amount of homes. I'm not knocking Paul as I said I loved ECW for that first month, I loved SD, I loved ECW on TNN. He's great at making people who you would assume have a lack of charisma and making them into somebody. Mike Awesome, Justin Credible, The Sandman, guys like this if looked at on the indy scene doing whatever character they'd be doing if it weren't for Heyman wouldn't be looked twice at. So for that I praise him and I've dug most of what he put out. Early ECW wasn't for me but 98,99,2000 was god stuff, SD was good and the new ECW when he was helping with that was fun. As for the Brock thing again I have never heard Heyman or Brock say that Heyman really went to bat for him. Maybe it happened maybe it didn't but I don't ever remember hearing that Heyman is the one that got Brock onto the roster and the one that pushed him. At the time Brock came up they had just done the brand split so tons of guys were coming up from OVW. Batista, Cena, Orton, TWGTT, Rico. Brock was already getting a big push in OVW teaming with Shelton as the "Minnesota Wrestling Crew" as I remember it. The other big agile guys of the time Cena and Orton two big athletic good looking heavyweights. Brock and Batista two even bigger, and just as athletic men. So to say Brock was plucked from thin air by Heyman and promoted to the main roster and pushed all on a suggestion from Paul I just can't see happening. Again maybe Heyman said something along the lines of "that kid is a beast" or "I'd like to work an angle with him" or something of that nature. However I've never read anywhere that Heyman is the reason Brock was promoted and pushed on the main roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I hear what Heyman's saying but I really don't think this is a huge problem for WWE. WWE's scouting has had a certain amount of dependence on guys coming to them ever since they became top dog, and it generally works. Eight years ago, we had a slew of guys at the top whose days were numbered: now, we've got a main event that is almost entirely different; only the Undertaker and Triple H have remained at the top throughout that period. I'd be willing to bet eight years from now only a handful of current main eventers will still be active and under WWE contract. But nearly everyone in the American wrestling business has the goal of one day being on WWE television, so when and if guys like HBK, Undertaker, Edge, and Triple H leave the main event (although Trips will likely be made on-screen boss or something), their spots will be taken by current talent (the way HBK and Bret Hart rose up the card), or by newcomers (a la Steve Austin coming to WWE after years elsewhere). To me the biggest mistake WWE makes is keeping guys at the top too long: Orton/Cena/HHH has already been a Wrestlemania match: do we really need to see it more? I remember Fully Loaded in 2000 got a great buyrate with a card that featured The Rock vs. Benoit, Triple H vs. Jericho, and Angle vs. Undertaker. It was three established main eventers vs. three newcomers, but it was fresh and new. Of course, all three already established names went home with wins. More than scouting, WWE's problem in regards to star-making is they're afraid of striking while the iron is hot. Jeff Hardy had been the hottest act in the WWE for a year but come Wrestlemania he ends up jobbing to his brother while proven draws Cena and Big Show get to wrestle for the title. That's the kind of booking that elevates no one and doesn't create excitement. Why didn't Christian get a chance in the main event when he went to Smackdown? Why didn't Punk ever get a PPV program with Orton after losing his title? Why was Jericho demoted to jobber to the stars on a Raw roster that was not exactly deep? You could argue these were all sound business decisions and you'd have data to support you: Jericho tanked as undisputed champ, and Punk and Christian weren't proven PPV draws (although Punk had spiked TV ratings). But all of them were terrible decisions from a booking stand-point, and all three have potentially cost the WWE money because they went with the sure thing instead of creating buzz by pushing somebody new. Edit: a quick check on buyrates shows Fully Loaded 2000 was not a huge success, but it did better business than that year's Survivor Series which was anchored by Austin vs. HHH. As huge as Austin had been early in the Attitude era, by late 2000 main events featuring him had started to lose their luster. Considering by this point he had already feuded with nearly every main eventer on the roster, it fortifies my point that you stop growing your market once your main event gets stale, even if those main eventers are huge "names." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Hyde after researching Brock/Heyman lore I found Heyman talking about it. Apparenlty what happened was Taz brought Heyman into OVW for some reason or another. Brock was in the ring working out and Heyman liked what he saw but a lot of people were giving him bad advice. "be more like Goldberg" Or "watch tapes of Sid when he first started he never moved he just stood there being big and mean". After two days of giving Brock advice and working with him Heyman showed him to Vince. Vince agreed that he had all the tools and Vince asked Paul to "take this raw clay and mold him" in his half Vince half Mr. McMahon voice. Heyman coined the phrase "Next Big Thing". So I will say Heyman had more do with it than I have previously thought however I won't say he discovered him or he's the reason he got his big push. He went to bat for him and got him up to the main roster though so kudos and I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foolinc Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Heyman was a fantastic booker and in theory could be the best if he was paired with a financial genius. The problem is that his personality is that of an alpha which means he won't play well with people above him for long. This wouldn't be too big of a problem if didn't like to do everything, including the finances. Now as far as his article is concerned it was a glorified ad for Dragon Gate USA. It isn't a bad thing as any press for indies is good, but let's call a spade a spade. To bash WWE and TNA for not scouting new talent like colleges or MLB baseball teams is insane. There are three US promotions that are big enough to sign "written" contracts. That's it. And while you can make the arguement that they are competing UFC too, but that's just one more company. As for pushing new stars, well I guess TNA has that problem. However, if they push the World Elite, Morgan, Hernandez as well as keep AJ and Joe in the upper card they should be ok. Of course they are TNA so I'm not holding my breath. WWE on the other hand is perfectly fine. Their top two fueds are Orton/Cena/Triple H and Punk/Hardy. Four of the five are around the age of 30. Plus guys like Ziggler, Swagger, Bourne, Kingston, Morrison, The Miz, DiBiase, etc that could be on their rosters for years to come in some manor. WWE's system for pushing new talent isn't broken so why try to fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepy Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Heyman's biggest strength was his ability to give / mould / develop characters which were interesting who the fans would want to see. I think that's the biggest problem facing TNA and WWE at the moment, they aren't creating these characters and I don't think they have an understanding of how to create them. People like Lashley have all the tools necessary to be a top star yet no matter how hard they're pushed they just aren't accepted as top level stars and fans don't care. Considering how much went into the Lashley / Umaga match at Wrestlemania the payoff was so disappointing as Lashley never had a character to get the fans interested. Until the WWE and TNA have the ability to develop these characters, they may as well give up scouting for new talent. NOTE, CHARACTER IS NOT THE SAME AS GIMMICK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Yes, Paul Heyman's company folded. You'd probably fold too if you had two multi-million dollar companies poaching your talent every other week. If the guy had actually made money and were able to pay his workers, perhaps they'd have stayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderndaywarrior Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 If they guy had actually made money and were able to pay his workers, perhaps they'd have stayed. I think that's the crux of it: Heyman is a good booker but a lousy accountant;for a Heyman booked promotion to work you'd need to have a situation where has 100% control of the booking but someone else has 100% control of the finances.Probably something similar to how Memphis was before Lawler had any financial say in the company that ran there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedew Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Probably something similar to how Memphis was before Lawler had any financial say in the company that ran there. Except Heyman wouldn't book himself into 20 title reigns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderndaywarrior Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Except Heyman wouldn't book himself into 20 title reigns Lol,good one! Still,through the 80's they did manage to be a very fun promotion to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Heyman's biggest strength was his ability to give / mould / develop characters which were interesting who the fans would want to see. I think that's the biggest problem facing TNA and WWE at the moment, they aren't creating these characters and I don't think they have an understanding of how to create them. Truth. Also, Paul Heyman didn't just push new guys. He pushed new styles. All of these young up-and-comers wrestle exactly the same. You're lucky if you get 1 unique move each. Paul Heyman brought in luchadors. He pushed Hardcore wrestling. Things the American mainstream hadn't seen before. There are new frontiers out there. WWE and TNA aren't looking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genadi Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Truth. Paul Heyman brought in luchadors. He pushed Hardcore wrestling. Things the American mainstream hadn't seen before. The mainstream still didn't though, not until WCW and WWF pushed them. If a tree falls in the woods... Heyman was a great booker I don't think anyone can dispute that, he was a terrible promoter though. The words are often mixed up and the latter is far more important imo. Vince may have some short sighted booking from time to time and even 10 year olds can poke holes through some WWE storylines. The guy is the greatest promoter I've ever seen though, second to none. There are new frontiers out there. WWE and TNA aren't looking for them. In WWE's case they only recently had plans to go Worldwide and open sister companies in Mexico, Japan and even Australia. If that's not a new frontier what is? I have no comment on TNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 In WWE's case they only recently had plans to go Worldwide and open sister companies in Mexico, Japan and even Australia. If that's not a new frontier what is? That's WWE bringing their product to other frontiers, not WWE bringing those frontiers into their product. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.