Smackdown sans Heyman

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

While I like SD! much more with Heyman booking, you cannot really look at that as a good indication of how good his booking is. Instead, look at ECW. Whether you liked everything in it or not, you've got to hand it to him that the company would have probably been nowhere without him. While the good/great wrestlers are just as responsible, Heyman ultimately takes the credit because he made every decision pertaining to the company, and he ultimately brought all those great wrestlers together in the first place. Without Heyman, I doubt ECW would continue to have as strong a fan base today, because it would have been nothing special, just another indy fed that went out of business or remained small time.

 

As far as SD! goes, I'll take the crap plus the great wrestling over the crap plus the mediocre wrestling any day...

[Guest treble charged]

If Heyman deserves the lion's share of the credit for what ECW did, then he also deserves most of the blame for the company going out of business.

 

Sure, he lost of a lot of his talent that he built the company on over the years, but if he was a great booker, he would have been able to overcome that. Just remember though, for the most part, the crowd chants ECW at former ECW wrestlers during their matches, but not so much at Heyman during his promos.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

the crowd chants ECW at former ECW wrestlers during their matches, but not so much at Heyman during his promos.

Which is an indication of how well Paul got them over.

[Guest the pinjockey]

Heyman seems to be good at getting something out of less talent. Look at the Raven/Dreamer feud one of the top feuds of the 90s and 911 who he put in a role where he became a cult hero (the role the Big Show should play). But when he has talent he seems to just rely too much on the go out and perform and that is it attitude.

[Guest treble charged]

I'd say somone like RVD got more over by doing over the top moves and taking sick bumps then by any storyline that Heyman wrote for him.

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

If Heyman deserves the lion's share of the credit for what ECW did, then he also deserves most of the blame for the company going out of business.

 

Sure, he lost of a lot of his talent that he built the company on over the years, but if he was a great booker, he would have been able to overcome that.  Just remember though, for the most part, the crowd chants ECW at former ECW wrestlers during their matches, but not so much at Heyman during his promos.

Of course he deserves the blame, but he also deserves the notoriety of taking a nothing company and making it something special and something it should never have become, given the the much more expansive resources of its enemies. And people should remember he got ECW to where it was because of the ever-growing fanbase, which only grew due to the wrestling, which only occurred due to the booking.

[Guest RedJed]

One thing to me that is clearly lacking from post-Heyman SD is almost any sort of character development at all. As much as I cant stand him, Big Show actually HAD a decent character back late last year.

 

Also it seems that there is much more pointless backstage candor and other trademark WWE staples returning to the front. Moreless I dont see much of a difference between Raw and Smackdown at all anymore.

[Guest creativename]

A great booker would have made the company a ton of money, which Heyman didn't.

First off, that isn't really true--great booking doesn't necessarily correlate highly with money (not on the short-term, anyway; over the long-term, it does). Secondly, Heyman most likely did make them money. The evidence seems to point Rock, Austin, Goldberg, and Heyman's booking as the only real "draws" the company has had for the past year and a half.

 

The SD!6/Heyman era was the only time in company history that SmackDown's ratings were higher than Raw's. SD! has had a higher number of viewer's than Raw, but SD!'s network rating was never, ever higher than Raw's cable rating. During the SD!6 era, this became a regular thing for months and months, until Rock and Austin came back to Raw earlier this year. Yeah, much of that had to do with Raw simply being in the gutter at that point, but that only emphasizes Heyman's superiority over the rest of the bookers. How much, exactly, did SmackDown's success have to do with Heyman? That's very hard to say, but it is clear that SmackDown was a beloved show for quite a while there, and that a great number of marks were far more interested in it than Raw. And nearly everyone can agree that the show is utter shit now, post-Heyman. The SD6 did get played out...however, isn't repetitive good wrestling better than mind-numbing waste-of-my-fucking-time nonsense?

 

At any rate, I don't think Heyman is that over-rated--fact is, no one really considers him a god. It seems more like the idea of Heyman being over-rated is a belief that is too widely held. People really don't think Heyman is that special. He's just that he makes all the other bookers in the company look like pathetic worms. Granted, making mindless monkeys look inferior is no big accomplishment...but, no one else in the company seems capable of booking as well as Heyman. That's why people want Heyman in power: he's the only guy who actually has a chance of being in power, who will put out a decent product.

 

BTW, on the ECW thing: as others have already pointed out, it is quite absurd to say that ECW's failure indicates Heyman's is a poor booker. Everyone knows that Heyman was a terrible businessman, a complete failure. However the fans' long-lasting loyalty to the ECW product, which is a very unique thing, as well as the quite impressive popularity of ECW at the time (popularity, not profitability) speaks very well of the fans' interest in what Heyman booked. Of course Justin Credible/not giving RVD the belt are universally considered monunmental booking blunders. Heyman just looks like gold in comparison to everyone else.

 

So, Heyman is a "good" booker, with occasional flashes of crappiness and brilliance. He's just like the fans' Obi-Wan though, in the "only hope" terms. That's why people support him so much.

[Guest treble charged]

First off, that isn't really true--great booking doesn't necessarily correlate highly with money (not on the short-term, anyway; over the long-term, it does). Secondly, Heyman most likely did make them money. The evidence seems to point Rock, Austin, Goldberg, and Heyman's booking as the only real "draws" the company has had for the past year and a half.

That's my main point with regards to Heyman in ECW. In the early days of the TNN deal, if he had put out a great product, that would have attracted viewers. Sure, they weren't getting a great deal of promotion on the network, but I watched every week at the beginning of that show, but, after 6 months or so, I lost interest. I watched it occasionally, but it wasn't 'must see' like it had been early on. I'm still watching a fair bit of WWE today, so I think that's a good gauge as to what a product has to be like for me to consider not watching it.

 

The SD!6/Heyman era was the only time in company history that SmackDown's ratings were higher than Raw's. SD! has had a higher number of viewer's than Raw, but SD!'s network rating was never, ever higher than Raw's cable rating. During the SD!6 era, this became a regular thing for months and months, until Rock and Austin came back to Raw earlier this year. Yeah, much of that had to do with Raw simply being in the gutter at that point, but that only emphasizes Heyman's superiority over the rest of the bookers. How much, exactly, did SmackDown's success have to do with Heyman? That's very hard to say, but it is clear that SmackDown was a beloved show for quite a while there, and that a great number of marks were far more interested in it than Raw. And nearly everyone can agree that the show is utter shit now, post-Heyman. The SD6 did get played out...however, isn't repetitive good wrestling better than mind-numbing waste-of-my-fucking-time nonsense?

Well, kind of like you said, being the best writer in the WWE currently isn't saying a whole lot, but from what we see today, I will say that Heyman could probably write a better show than what is being put out today. As for repetitive good wrestling being better than a lot of what is on SD now, I will agree with you to a point, but even the most hardcore workrate freak is going to get bored eventually of seeing some permutation of the same 6 guys over and over and over and over again week after week. That was one of Heyman's faults right there, too. He gave away ****+ matches on TV every week for free. What insentive is there to pay $35 to see Benoit/Guerrero when I can see Angle/Guerrero for free and the match will be just as good?

 

At any rate, I don't think Heyman is that over-rated--fact is, no one really considers him a god. It seems more like the idea of Heyman being over-rated is a belief that is too widely held. People really don't think Heyman is that special. He's just that he makes all the other bookers in the company look like pathetic worms. Granted, making mindless monkeys look inferior is no big accomplishment...but, no one else in the company seems capable of booking as well as Heyman. That's why people want Heyman in power: he's the only guy who actually has a chance of being in power, who will put out a decent product.

Have you ever listened to Live Audio Wrestling? Heyman can do no wrong in their eyes, which is just being totally blind to the faults the guy has (which may not be that numerous as compared to other writers, but Heyman has booked a lot of crap in the past [didn't he once put Cyrus/Gertner on a PPV and have Gertner paint his belly ala Kamala?]). I won't go so far as to say he's the only guy who has a chance to be in power who will put out a decent product, but I will agree that he's one of a few.

 

BTW, on the ECW thing: as others have already pointed out, it is quite absurd to say that ECW's failure indicates Heyman's is a poor booker. Everyone knows that Heyman was a terrible businessman, a complete failure. However the fans' long-lasting loyalty to the ECW product, which is a very unique thing, as well as the quite impressive popularity of ECW at the time (popularity, not profitability) speaks very well of the fans' interest in what Heyman booked. Of course Justin Credible/not giving RVD the belt are universally considered monunmental booking blunders. Heyman just looks like gold in comparison to everyone else.

Again, I put that more on the heads of the wrestlers than I do on Heyman's. Sure, he deserves some credit in the success of former ECW guys, but if a wrestler sucked (especially in ECW), then they wouldn't have gotten over. Heyman is good at hiding wrestler's faults, though (RVD, for example).

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

As for repetitive good wrestling being better than a lot of what is on SD now, I will agree with you to a point, but even the most hardcore workrate freak is going to get bored eventually of seeing some permutation of the same 6 guys over and over and over and over again week after week. That was one of Heyman's faults right there, too. He gave away ****+ matches on TV every week for free. What insentive is there to pay $35 to see Benoit/Guerrero when I can see Angle/Guerrero for free and the match will be just as good?

I'm sorry, I understand your point, but there is something inherently wrong with stating that one of a booker's main weaknesses is regularly booking ****+ matches.

[Guest treble charged]

His main weakness was booking great matches at the wrong time. Nothing wrong with having a **** match on free TV every now and then, but you make most of your money on PPVs and you need to give people incentive to buy them, so why give away blowaway matches for free?

 

The SD6 stuff could still be going on today if Heyman had paced it better, rather than blowing his load over a 2 month period.

[Guest creativename]

That was one of Heyman's faults right there, too.  He gave away ****, matches on TV every week for free.  What insentive is there to pay $35 to see Benoit/Guerrero when I can see Angle/Guerrero for free and the match will be just as good?

 

Yes, this was a major problem. What he should've been doing instead was focus TV time on building up the SD6 matches, and have the ****+ matches on PPV.

 

Thing is, do you really think Vince would've been OK with major TV time being used to hype up a Rey-Angle-Benoit Triple Threat, for instance? He'd rather spend it on Albert, Vince-Hogan and Mr. America. The PPVs tend to have matches that Vince deems "worthy", which is not in line with what people will actually pay for.

 

Have you ever listened to Live Audio Wrestling?  Heyman can do no wrong in their eyes, which is just being totally blind to the faults the guy has

LAW is not entirely representative of smark consensus, which is what I'm talking about. LAW is a biased entity. I'm talking about the opinions of smarks at forums such as this one. Most smarks at such forums respect Heyman and believe him to be the best available option, but don't necessarily consider him a genious. Certainly some do, but then, everybody has their fanboys. It's harder to begrude Heyman his fanboys than other people,

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

But how many of those matches were really, truly as good as those on PPV? The only one I can think of is the Eddy/Edge ladder match and possibly Edge/Angle in the cage (but that's a big possibly). All the other really great matches happened on PPV, like Angle/Benoit and Angle/Rey. Perhaps you are correct, but seeing those matches on TV certainly didn't keep me from buying PPV's.

[Guest NoCalMike]

RVD got over INITIALLY because Heyman booked his series of matches with Sabu and had Sabu put him over at "A Matter of Respect '96" That gave RVD his "respect" push even though he was a heel. Once RVD turned face and the company expanded, then RVD got even MORE over because of his in-ring style.

 

As far as smackdown goes, let me first say, Smackdown was better in my opinion when Heyman was involved in the process. The more I read about Vince, the more I believe there is only ONE HEAD BOOKER in WWE, and his name is Vince, all the other writers/bookers do is fulfill what Vince wants to see. Ala, if Vince wants Al Wilson/Dawn Marie, it is Heyman's job to make it interesting, however it is NOT his job(under Vince) to suggest to Vince that the Al/Dawn storyline is ludicrous and should be dropped in favor of maybe, a cruiserweight division. I think Paul Heyman, if allowed to maybe show SOME of his own vision in the product could do wonders and would easily be the best commodity at that level in the company, however Vince is to WWE like George Lucas is to Star Wars: IT IS HIS BABY, and NO ONE, no matter how smarter, logical, better minded, to write/book is going to get in his way of his project.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

And Vince has een crapping out phantom menaces for a while now.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

And Vince has een crapping out phantom menaces for a while now.

He should see a doctor about that.

[Guest notJames]

That's the one thing people forget when discussing the writers and the bookers and the crappy nature of the shows... they all go through the McMahon Filter O'Crap, except instead of weeding out the crap, it actually injects the crap into it, along with healthy doses of cancer, leprosy, and whatever other diseases VKM decides to spew about.

 

Megalomaniacs blinded by their own crapulence make baby Jesus cry.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Heyman is partly responsible for the crappy state of Smackdown right now. His ballsed-up booking of Brock-Angle and his overuse of the SD6 matches has left very few fresh, viable matchups on the show. Also, it was Heyman who initiated the plummet in Benoit's position. Apparently Paul's idea of a follow-up to a classic star-making match like Benoit-Angle at the Rumble is to run the same match again a few weeks later, only shorter and with Benoit losing again, thus making him look like a chump and therefore not on Angle's(and by de facto Brock's) level.

Anyway, the question is not Smackdown without Paul Heyman, its Smackdown without Kurt Angle. Angle's absence hits harder, because he really has been crucial to the show in the last year.

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

Heyman is partly responsible for the crappy state of Smackdown right now.  His ballsed-up booking of Brock-Angle and his overuse of the SD6 matches has left very few fresh, viable matchups on the show.  Also, it was Heyman who initiated the plummet in Benoit's position.  Apparently Paul's idea of a follow-up to a classic star-making match like Benoit-Angle at the Rumble is to run the same match again a few weeks later, only shorter and with Benoit losing again, thus making him look like a chump and therefore not on Angle's(and by de facto Brock's) level.

Anyway, the question is not Smackdown without Paul Heyman, its Smackdown without Kurt Angle.  Angle's absence hits harder, because he really has been crucial to the show in the last year.

If Paul was told to make Angle look strong for a future World Title matchup against Brock Lesnar, then Heyman did his job perfectly. The best way to make someone look good is to book them against someone like Benoit, who will make them look like a million bucks (and himself a million bucks in the process). The fact is, Benoit came out of those matches looking great, whether he lost or not. I don't blame Heyman for not following up on a push for Benoit, because it probably wasn't his call. But Angle, before the actual feud with Brock started (the feud was admittedly shitty), was very, very credible as a contender and possible/probable usurper to Brock's title. Bottom line, as has been stated, is SD! was not Heyman's vision, it was Vince's vision with a few Heymanesque touches thrown in. That said, I really think that if Heyman had continued to book SD! to this day, the show would still be just as kick ass as it was when it was beating Raw, even without guys like Kurt, Edge, and Chavo around for awhile. Heyman knows how to use guys like Spanky, Nunzio, Noble, Mattitude, even A-Train and Big Show to their maximum potential while protecting their weaknesses. As has been painfully obvious, the current bookers for SD! don't have this strength.

[Mecha Mummy 0]

Well, lemme put it this way. When Heyman was booking SD, I watched the whole show, start to finish.

 

Now? I watch maybe the first twenty minutes and tune back in later if there's something interesting.

[Guest EN090]

For what it's worth I haven't watched Smackdown in the last three weeks or so. The Mr. America crap was what finally did it for me.

 

When Heyman was around we had an entertaining show all-around. Sometimes, however, I think he focused too much on the Smackdown 6 and just throwing out matches. Sure they were great but I wish he would devoted a little more time to storytelling and putting together A REASON for those great matches.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Sure they were great but I wish he would devoted a little more time to storytelling and putting together A REASON for those great matches.

I agree. I like a reason for the matches. I believe it was tOA that coined the 6 the "roll 'em out there gang", and they were right. After Edge and Rey won the tag titles in the 2/3 falls match, the angle stalled. The following week was Angle/Benoit for no particular reason, the week after was Angle and Benoit against the Guerreros in singles matches, which just seemed to be there to give the four ring time, and the week after that they had a tag match which was an anti-climatic "end" to the rivalry. Also, there was the fact that the Survivor Series matchup had no chance to live up to the TV matches, leaving no incentive to buy the PPV for it.

 

Hamburglar is right, BTW. There was no reason to give away the Angle/Benoit Rumble rematch like that. None.

 

That said, SD has definitely had a step down since Mania (not NWO, IMO), but for the reasons listed above I won't coin Heyman as a 'genius'.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Heyman is far from a genius. He just happens to be better than the current writers who I'm not sure can feed and clothe themselves.

[Guest humongous2002]

Heyman has a great mind for wrestling, unlike Vince who has a great mind on how to market a wrestler but as a booker he is more into cartoonish storylines like Mr. America. If it wasn't for Vince stealing ECW's ideas there wouldn't have been a WWF attitude era so that shows you how good Paul E. is, he might not be a genius but he knows what the fans want to see on their wrestling shows. He could take a jobber like Steve Richards and make him interesting (remember the b.W.o?).But it seems that Vince is going senile and wants to get old and die very poor by putting his company out of business.