Rating Bookers

[strummer 0]

As far as booking wrestling, which kind of bookers should get more credit?, bookers like Heyman and Sapolsky who say "You have 20 minutes, go have a great match" or like Vince McMahon, who manipulates the product so that he can be the one who gets credit for success. Meaning that Vince created wrestlers and their gimmicks/personas, so he should be the one who gets the credit for their success. Bookers like Heyman let the talent shine and sort of back away from the limelight. On this point, is it good booking when they (Heyman, Sapolsky) say "Go have a good match"? Furthermore, should Vince McMahon be praised for making bad, maybe underserving wrestlers popular or shoud he be criticized for it? Of course Vince has made more money than the other 2 combined, but is he a better booker than Heyman and Sapolsky? I hope everyone gets the point I'm trying to make here, which is what bookers deserve more credit, the "let the wrestlers shine" type or the "I created them, I molded them, I get the credit" type?

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Heyman is better booker but Vince is the better marketer and promoter and business man.

 

If you put Heyman and Sapolsky in charge together, you may finally create the PERFECT company.

 

Sapolsky is the best going right now and has been for quite some time. Heyman relied on storyline and hardcore action way too much and never had a clear flow going and loved the shit out of impromptu matches that only annoyed fans.

 

Sapolsky has completely allowed the workers to do what they want however they want and doesn't take their freedoms.

[strummer 0]

Sapolsky has completely allowed the workers to do what they want however they want and doesn't take their freedoms.

 

so the best bookers are the ones who essentially do nothing? The ones that say "Go have a good match"?

[Guest Pariah]

Heyman didn't just say 'go and have a good match', he protected workers from their weaknesses through his booking. Taz was the unstoppable suplex machine because he wasn't a great seller and had a bad ass attitude and so and so forth throughout the ECW roster.

 

Also, how much praise goes to the booker and how much to the road agent? Its all good for saying Vince should get the praise/critism for booking Randy Orton in a 15 minute match, but it was Pat Patterson or whoever it is now that planned out the matches.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Pat Patterson was the best for planning match finishes.

 

Paul Heyman just would tell 2 good workers to have a match. Not much thought in that.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The guy that booked the WWF in 2000. No one will ever touch his run as a booker.

 

Ric Flair is a very solid booker IMO. His stint in 1989 is proof enough of that.

 

Jerry Jarrett, he knows how to work his formula.

 

Paul Heyman has a lot of faults as a booker and tends to live off of sticking the same good workers against each other over and over. Tends to push worthless talent to the moon just for the sake of it.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

I thought Terry Taylor did a helluva job in the Summer of 2000 (July-ish---August-ish).

[JoeDirt 0]

It depends on what you're booking. Booking ROH like Sapolsky does is different then having to book a TV show.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

A good booker can leave you with doubt in your mind about the results of even the most 'obvious' match. I'm not talking about prelim stuff, but more the main event matches. The best bookers should be able to leave a shred of doubt in even the most intelligent of fans minds. By the same token, when it comes to telling a story that doesn't allow for such doubt, such as Brock Lesnar's march towards the WWE Title at Summerslam 2002, where it's obvious that he's winning as soon as the title match is set up, a good booker should be able to get you to want to see that happen, regardless of whether it's obvious or not. That's why Vince and Hunter aren't as smart as a lot of people give them credit for, because a lot of the time, when it comes to pushing stuff that they want, they can't get the people to want it too. I mean, they wanted Orton to be the chosen one, but they couldn't get people to really want it. Sure, Orton was getting some cheers, and he's getting more cheers now, but nobody is clamouring for him to be the king of the mountain. It's also why the Batista swerve on Monday was totally stupid, because if they tease it again, with a view to pulling the trigger, the emotion won't be anywhere near it could be, because fans have been conditioned to expect the swerve.

 

 

A good booker also doesn't do shit for no reason other than to just do it, or surprise people just to surprise them, with no thought to how it affects the long-term. That's why Russo is a horrible booker; he would lead people to want something, then go in the opposite direction just to swerve them, without thinking about how it would affect things.

[Guest OSIcon]

so the best bookers are the ones who essentially do nothing? The ones that say "Go have a good match"?

 

No. That isn't all that ROH booking is though. There ARE storylines to nearly every match on every show. The thing is, the storylines and angles don't hamper the in-ring action. In a lot of cases, they ADD to the in-ring action. For example, on 10/2 there was a Jay Lethal/Low Ki match that on paper, is decent at best. It becomes a lot better though when you you factor in all of the booking that went into it. Low Ki had been built up as a strong heel, Lethal has been able to get over really well as a babyface, the match had a storyline behind it (Ki trying to send a message to Joe through Joe's protege), and that the actual match was laid out very well (with Ki and his manager getting into it with Lethal's mom at ringside which lead to Lethal's mom slapping Ki which started his big comeback). All of that turned a match that would have been decent at best had the two just been "sent out there to wrestle" into an above average and memorable match.

 

Knowing the talents of your wrestlers and pairing them up in a way to get the best possible match is a sign of a good booker. However, it is not the only sign. A good booker also needs to be able to make those "decent" matches better through strong build up and match layout. Heymen had the first part down when he booked for Smackdown at the time of the Rey/Edge, Benoit/Angle, Chavo/Eddie tags, but those matches fizzled out because there wasn't much substance to them. It was just 6 guys wrestling for the most part.

 

Despite what anyone says, you NEED strong angles and storylines for good booking. Putting good wrestlers against other good wrestlers will only get you so far.

[Guest Loss]

The guy that booked the WWF in 2000. No one will ever touch his run as a booker.

You'd think people could remember his name since they loved the product that year so much.

 

Chris Kreski

 

[Guest Loss]

Yeah, a great booker isn't necessarily the one who books the most shit. We saw that with Vince Russo. Less is more; creativity is overrated. The storylines fans have traditionally responded to have been very basic. Owner versus employer. Hometown promotion versus rival organization. Renegade heel group versus virtuous babyfaces. Heel wrongs babyface and babyface seeks revenge. You dress it up different cosmetically and you put new stars in the mix, but the best stories in wrestling are always the ones that have been told a million times. A good booker focuses more on what works than what is most creative and when the audience hints they want something, the booker builds it up and pays it off decisively. The more patient and long-term the vision, the better.

 

Therefore, telling two wrestlers to go out there and have a 20-minute match and leaving it at that is sometimes going to be good booking and sometimes going to be bad booking. If you have great workers, you can probably leave them to themselves and be fine unless there's something specific you're wanting to accomplish (and really, it *isn't* a good idea to just put matches out there just for the sake of having a great match). If you have limited workers, you wouldn't lead them out there for 20 minutes with no clue, but if you need them to fill that much time for something, you give them some ideas.

 

Basically, there's no formulaic right or wrong answer. A great booker is just familiar with his talent level (or lack thereof) of the roster and books accordingly.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I wouldn't say creativity is overrated, because I don't think we've seen the full potential of a creative booker... or have even come close. I would say focus is underrated. I wouldn't call Russo very creative - he "thought outside the box" - but that doesn't necessarily mean creative. Since wrestling is very much IN the box, it takes very little creative ability to think beyond it.

 

I wonder what Paul Heyman would be like if he teamed with Linda McMahon?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I'd say creativity is overrated, in that a lot of bookers seem to think they've got to be creative just so they're not seen as being passé. The key to creativity is being creative with the presentation of the same basic booking principals that have drawn and can continue draw, while not letting the actual booking get buried beneath the creativity itself.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Calling creativity overrated is like saying Space Travel is overrated. Well, in once instance - the current and past situations - it is, because it's limited. We can't get beyond the moon. We can't get beyond "This is Your Life". But in another, looking at the potential of it, how could you say that's so when it isn't even NEAR showing its true value. I think we could get high-level storylines, feuds, and promos that would be on the same quality of -say- a CSI, LOST, or whatever. But we aren't getting THAT level of creative work. We aren't even getting UPN sitcom-level creative work. And as a concept, creativity is very much NOT overrated.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Creativity is overrated in the sense that bookers can think they HAVE to be creative just to be creative. There's nothing wrong with creatively booking a modernized version of a classic booking scenario. It's when you try and get TOO creative, and the creativity gets in the way of the booking, that you get problems.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to reinvent the wheel, especially when it comes with wrestling. I would like to see more adventurous booking and writing. Sticking to the "classic booking scenario", which can essentially be called "playing it safe", won't help wrestling evolve. And wrestling CAN evolve. It can go beyond "Good guy vs. Bad Guy". Remember, most of those classic booking scenarios were "new" once.

 

The problem is the people who are able to do such things today suck at it.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Jim Cornette and Gabe Sapolsky are great cases of "less creative" being the better direction.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I don't even want to start to defend the current case of "more creative", because I think it sucks, but I'd say hundreds of millions of dollars garnered by the WWE from 1998-2001, and more fans in one arena in one day than the total amount of fans that have watched OVW and ROH combined, sez "more creative" is the better direction.

 

But I don't think that version of "creative" booking is indicative of what true creative booking is.

[Guest OSIcon]

Obviously, "good creative booking" is not a bad thing. I don't think anybody is trying to argue that it is. If a booker has a creative idea that has never been done before AND the idea works when executed then yes, that's better than rehashing old ideas or keeping it simple.

 

A lot of bookers tend to get carried away with being "creative" to the point that the story doesn't make sense or fit in the wrestling universe. For example, a booker could come up with an extremely creative idea for a story about murder, zombies, and wrestlers coming back to life. While that story might be very creative and might even work well as a one hour television show, it really wouldn't work in the context of a wrestling show. That's when trying to be "creative" is bad.

 

I also disagree that wrestling should evolve "beyond good vs. bad". While I agree that in some areas there can be shades of grey, wrestling always comes down to good vs. evil. What good angle between 1998 and 2001 was based on anything other than "good guy vs. bad guy"? Heck, what angle that ever drew money was based on something other than "good vs. evil"? Austin vs. McMahon was "good vs. evil". The reason it worked was because people related to Austin as a the "cool badass renegade" that they wished they could be and people understood his hatred for his boss, since most people have similiar feelings about their boss or authority figures. Austin may have not acted as a traditional babyface, but when it came down to it, it was clear that he was the good guy and McMahon was the bad guy.

 

Storylines like Bret's in 1997 CAN work also, with someone being a face to one group and a heel to another group. The bottom line was, Bret was a "good guy" to those in Canada and Europe and a "bad guy" to those in the US. At the end of the day, it still comes down to "good vs. bad". It always should.

 

What's the appeal of having wrestling turn into something where there are no good guys or bad guys....only "wrestlers" in general? The major appeal of wrestling is being able to watch a show and genuily LIKE a wrestler and root him on while doing the opposite for someone you hate. That's what makes wrestling different from real sports. It is that storytelling and connection with the wrestlers through "good vs. evil" storytelling.

 

Why do you think the Yankees vs. Red Sox rivarly is so big? It is because it boils down to the basic "good guy vs. bad guy." Most of the country views the Yankees as the bad guy and even though they may have not been Red Sox fans, they got behind their "underdog, feel-good story". Sports TRY to promote these good vs. evil rivalries in order to create more interest and personal involvment in games. So why would wrestling, which has the luxory of scripting these stories, move away from that?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

A lot of bookers tend to get carried away with being "creative" to the point that the story doesn't make sense or fit in the wrestling universe. For example, a booker could come up with an extremely creative idea for a story about murder, zombies, and wrestlers coming back to life. While that story might be very creative and might even work well as a one hour television show, it really wouldn't work in the context of a wrestling show. That's when trying to be "creative" is bad.

 

I dunno bout that. I mean, the WWE couldn't get away with that because they have already established their universe (they have in some part with the Undertaker and Kane. Something like Kaiju Big Battel, or HUSTLE, is a more directed effort). But I look at wrestling as comic books and similar principals apply. I said in my first post that "focus" is underrated, and this is where focus would come to play. It's about how you position your product, it's about focusing on the key elements you wish to impart from your wrestling show on to your audience. It comes down to how far fans are willing to suspend and believe. "Hardcore" wrestling was one style of wrestling, ECW was able to take a niche market and expand it. ROH is taking another style of wrestling (American Strong Style, "Technical", whatever you want to call it) and is doing something similar. There are elements which make up a wrestling fan, the "sports/competitive" side is one, and the "fantastical" is another. I think there has been much more considered focus on one area than the other, and I personally would like to see a more creative version of professional wrestling. Because wrestlings potential in this regard has remained untapped for the most part.

 

I also disagree that wrestling should evolve "beyond good vs. bad".

 

I said it *can*, and I said that I would like to see more adventurous storytelling, to take advantage of wrestlings full potential. I never said it SHOULD evolve beyond that. Hollywood, which has been able to expand itself much more than wrestling, still sticks to GvsE for the vast majority of its films, and they are very successful with that formula. Theatre, for even longer than film, has been doing that as well. So to expect wrestling to do that would be silly. My point is I would like to see wrestling TRY to expand beyond their formulas, because that's the only way change can occur.

 

 

What's the appeal of having wrestling turn into something where there are no good guys or bad guys....only "wrestlers" in general?

 

You are putting the focus on the wrong part. "Classic Booking Scenario" was the point, "Good vs. Bad" was the example.

[Sass 0]

Great bookers: Giant Baba (AJPW), Riki Choshu (pre-1997 NJPW), Hishashi Shimna (UWF), George Scott (JCP/Mid-Atlantic/WWF), Antonio Pena (1992 - 1995 AAA) and Francisco Flores (pre-1990 UWA).

 

Good/Bad bookers: Pat Patterson (WWF), Chris Kreski (WWF), Eddie Gilbert (WWC), Jerry Jarrett (Memphis), Dusty Rhodes (Florida/JCP), Bill Watts (Mid-South), Paul Heyman (ECW/WWF), Jim Cornette (SMW) and Jushin Liger (NJPW).

 

Bad bookers: Vince Russo (WWF/WCW), Kevin Nash (WCW), Ole Anderson (GCW/WCW), Verne Gagne (AWA), Kevin Sullivan (Florida/WCW), Dusty Rhodes (post 1986 JCP), Riki Choshu (post-1997 NJ), Masa Chono (NJPW), Mitsuharu Misawa (AJPW/NOAH), Keiji Muto (AJPW), Shin'ya Hashimoto (Zero-One), Gen'ichiro Tenryu (WAR/AJPW) and Jeff Jarrett (TNA).

[Guest krazykat72]

The guy that booked the WWF in 2000.  No one will ever touch his run as a booker.

You'd think people could remember his name since they loved the product that year so much.

 

Chris Kreski

 

uhm......Vince was/is/has always been the prime booker for WWE since 1983.

Kreski had a good run as a member of the writing team, but lets get seriousness.

No one comes close to making as much money as Vince did in the boom period.

He's the best promoter/booker of all time and deserves all of the credit/blame for his product since in the end, the calls are his. I find it *hilarious* when anyone lists another name as booker for WWF. It never worked that way and until he steps down, never will.

 

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[Guest Pariah]

Kreski however was the guy that kept flow charts for each storyline and wrestler so everyone actually had a point of reference and knew who was doing what, he was pretty much the organiser of the writing team while Vince had overall control and say on what made it to TV.

 

Kreski quit to produce a television series or something, right?

[Guest krazykat72]

Kreski however was the guy that kept flow charts for each storyline and wrestler so everyone actually had a point of reference and knew who was doing what, he was pretty much the organiser of the writing team while Vince had overall control and say on what made it to TV.

 

Kreski quit to produce a television series or something, right?

yes. I believe he left in September of 2000.

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[Guest Loss]

He left, citing burnout.

 

Vince is the head booker, and yes, he's the best promoter in wrestling history. But Vince has been the only constant in the history of the company and the quality has gone up and down because of other factors, so those who have worked alongside him deserve credit as well.

[Kizzo 0]

Kreski had a good run as a member of the writing team, but lets get seriousness.

No one comes close to making as much money as Vince did in the boom period.

He's the best promoter/booker of all time and deserves all of the credit/blame for his product since in the end, the calls are his. I find it *hilarious* when anyone lists another name as booker for WWF. It never worked that way and until he steps down, never will.

 

Vince McMahon is a very good editor/booker....and before 2001 he picked the right people for the job to lead the creative team or become a member of it.....

 

And to add to this reply...Kreski wasn't just a "member" of the creative team...he actually was the head dog of that team.....2000 had all of his fingerprints on it......no one signs a 7 figure deal(if memory serves correct) just to sit on the creative team....Kreski was a former head writer on the Martin Short show, and also did writing for the Daily Show on Comedy Central....and did some writings with William Shatner....he isn't taken a backseat on the creative team with all of those credits....unless he's running it....of course all of his ideas had to go pass McMahon...and looking at 2000 looks like all of them did....

 

Of all the bookers and writers.....Kevin Nash had to be the worse.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Sapolsky has completely allowed the workers to do what they want however they want and doesn't take their freedoms.

 

so the best bookers are the ones who essentially do nothing? The ones that say "Go have a good match"?

More or less, it's really pretty crazy

[Guest Loss]

I'd say the best bookers are the ones who have a clear idea of what they're wanting to accomplish with every match, and they're pushing the talented and/or over guys who the fans want to see in those spots. The best bookers keep it simple. If you look at the most successful angles in history, they've usually been very slow-paced and easy-to-follow.

 

I don't think a great booker necessarily finds something for everyone to do. If you try to make everyone a star, no one is a star.