I live in Los Angeles, where having a quirk is "in vogue" but I have never met or run into anybody who threw out "I'm bi-polar lol!" to explain their stupidity or moments of bad behavior. Maybe I'm just good at repelling the possibility of that encounter right up front.

The only booker on that list to never really turn a profit is the one who won. There you go.

If a film director was critically acclaimed yet his films don't make a profit - does that make him a bad film maker?

 

Since when does anyone in wrestling care about critical acclaim?

 

Not the point. the point is good inventions don't necassaraly have a good sales stream.

But a booker has absolutely no purpose other than to come up with ideas that draw money.

 

That could be part of a director's goal, but it's not all of it.

 

That's what makes wrestling unique from other forms of entertainment. It's morphed over time, but pretty much every convention in wrestling exists because either now or in the past, someone thought it was a critical ingredient to drawing money. There may be artistic integrity at times (e.g. wanting to "steal the show"), but it's incidental.

 

Treating wrestling as an art form to be critiqued is a fairly new idea, which is why I think the best booker is the booker that was the most successful. We can pick apart their flaws all we want - and we do, regularly - but ideas either work in execution or they don't.

 

Paul Heyman created something that people enjoyed. But so did everyone else on the list, and the key for them is that they were able to parlay it into something that worked from a business perspective too.

But a booker has absolutely no purpose other than to come up with ideas that draw money.

Says who?

 

If I say Paul Heyman is the greatest booker because I enjoyed his work and stories the msot - who are you to correct me, or anybody else who shares such an opinion under the bizzare basis of money?

 

You could argue wrestlers wrestle to put bums in seats. So if two cats have a 5* match but the match isn't seen by many live, or doesn't generate many buys does it make the match any worse? Fuck no.

As someone who has seen this argument play out 10,000 times in various forms, I suggest you use the term "successful" rather than "great."

But a booker has absolutely no purpose other than to come up with ideas that draw money.

Says who?

 

If I say Paul Heyman is the greatest booker because I enjoyed his work and stories the msot - who are you to correct me, or anybody else who shares such an opinion under the bizzare basis of money?

 

You could argue wrestlers wrestle to put bums in seats. So if two cats have a 5* match but the match isn't seen by many live, or doesn't generate many buys does it make the match any worse? Fuck no.

 

Put it this way. If I was asked who my favorite booker was from that list, it would be a different answer than who the greatest booker was. "Best"/"greatest" doesn't mean "favorite". He's not the greatest because you enjoyed his work and stories the most. He's your favorite because you enjoyed his work and stories the most.

 

Hulk Hogan is the greatest wrestling star of all time. There are plenty of people I like better. I would vote for Hogan on a list asking who the greatest wrestling star was of all time.

1. You have just read EvilClowns post and run with it.

 

2. You are still wrong. Who the "greatest" is is a subjective matter. You seem to think it is based on the fiscals. What about cultural impact, working within limitations? You are ignoring so many factors with the "money" blinkers on, to a subjective matter.

I love you preaching about how everything is subjective while telling me I am wrong.

 

You are using the word subjective as a scapegoat to avoid that calling Paul Heyman a better booker than everyone else on that list is an irrational opinion that isn't really supported by anything other than "I enjoyed him more", which is the answer to a different question than the one that was asked in the poll.

 

It's great that you liked him more. I'm not out to take that away from you. But you seem to be confusing "favorite" and "greatest". They aren't the same thing.

It's entirely possible to have great booking ideas but lack the promotional structure and talent to make it profitable/big.

"Says who?"

 

Says the entire history of Pro Wrestling that makes it very clear that the entire point of booking wrestling is to make money.

I love you preaching about how everything is subjective while telling me I am wrong.

 

You are using the word subjective as a scapegoat to avoid that calling Paul Heyman a better booker than everyone else on that list is an irrational opinion that isn't really supported by anything other than "I enjoyed him more", which is the answer to a different question than the one that was asked in the poll.

 

It's great that you liked him more. I'm not out to take that away from you. But you seem to be confusing "favorite" and "greatest". They aren't the same thing.

You have spun yourself in a massive circle. Answers to your points already above. You may be happy to play the idiot and rattle, but I'm not, I'm out.

 

EDIT: It would also appear Johnny Sorrow could do with some reading lessons. he is raising points which have already been discussed. Keep up. With yourself now... OUT! x

Yeah, you are annoying and mean-spirited, and no one likes you, and you are banned.

Figured that was coming sooner than later. No doubt he will come back with another alias in the future

Yeah, you are annoying and mean-spirited, and no one likes you, and you are banned.

I love this board and never feel that I have to be on edge to speak my mind. To be banned from here is pretty difficult.

 

And yes, the obvious function of a booker is to make money. Pure art, which is subjective (up to a point, as purely relative subjective is an inherently dumb position philosophically), relates to the question of one's favorite booker; it's inherently nihilistic.

A worst booker thread would be pretty easy, right? On any level - subjective, objective, money lost, bad angles, etc, Russo would get the nod.

 

Is there anyone else on Russo's level, or even in the same stratosphere?

Stephanie?

Is Thriller the greatest album of all-time? It's sold the most records

 

Money generated is a shallow way of thinking about art, and wrestling is absolutely art

 

Who is the the most profitable booker is definitely not the same thing as who is the greatest. One is objectively based on data, the other is subjective and speculative. If your personal critera for greatest is money drawn that's fine, but not everyone will look at things that way

I understand that. My issue was with picking the one person on the list who hadn't shown that he could turn a profit. I don't think drawing money is the end all be all in evaluating wrestlers, and I would understand that point of view if we were debating wrestlers. Wrestlers are performers. Bookers are not, unless they are wearing multiple hats. In most cases, a booker can have all sorts of great ideas, but if they aren't selling tickets, they don't last long in the position.

 

Wrestlers get hired for all sorts of reasons. Headliners are usually expected to draw, sometimes you have mechanics who are there to give good matches in the undercard, sometimes green wrestlers who are perceived to have potential are hired just to give them experience working, etc. But bookers are hired for one reason -- to come up with ideas that get people interested enough in what they are watching that they're willing to spend money to see it. That's why I think bookers have to be evaluated by that standard.

Bookers aren't always picked based on thinking they'll draw the most money though. Maybe they should be, but I don't think that's the case. Why was Stephanie McMahon given the head writer position? Why has she kept the job so long? Boss' daughter. Why did Vince Russo get a million chances in TNA despite never proving he could draw money for them in any capacity? Jarrett's friend and had the wool pulled over Dixies eyes. Why did Cary Silkin hire Gabe Sapolsky for his super indy vanity promotion? Because he was a mark for the fact he'd been Paul Heyman's assistant. I don't even think the original goal of ROH was to draw money, it was to put on cool shows, and weren't they bleeding so much money over the years that Silkin finally got rid of Gabe out of desperation?

So your only counter-argument to bookers being chosen based on box-office success is nepotism and cronyism?

So your only counter-argument to bookers being chosen based on box-office success is nepotism and cronyism?

Yes, because it happens time and time again in wrestling.

 

There's also different ways to value success than sheer money drawn. Paul Heyman taking a tiny Northeast indy and turning it into what it became was a success story. How many bookers in the modern era have grown a company the way he did, and at a time when most promotions were dying?

I haven't taken the time to look up some of the figures that were reported/speculated on in the WON or elsewhere at the time, but when it was all said and done, didn't ECW lose more money than SMW? ECW & Heyman's booking are incredibly memorable and something a lot of fans look back on fondly -- probably due to a combination of (1) when it got hot coinciding with (2) the online scene expanding, (3) being so different from what many people in the northeast had grown up with or been exposed to and (4) integration with pop culture primarily due to music.

 

For those of us that weren't getting tapes from Japan or had scene much/any Memphis, this was NEW and it was awesome. As an impressionable teenager it was guaranteed to rock your world. Call ECW a success story if you like, but you're going to need a pretty restrictive definition of success. It was beyond memorable as demonstrated by how much play it still gets to this day. But none of that changes the fact that checks were being bounced left and right as opposed to cash coming in hand over fist.

Heyman had really bad timing. Trying to build at time that WCW had a ton of money to throw around and a complete disregard for long term sustainability made managing costs close to impossible. Would be much easier today with TNA as the number 2. Especially since he wouldn't have interest in the people they pay the most money to like Hogan and Sting. I have a hard time blaming him for failing in that environment.

Saying he's not the greatest booker of all time is not blaming him for anything, or even saying he's bad.

Wrestling may be a form of creative expression, but I don't think it rises to the level of art. Wrestling matches and the storylines that build them up are devoid of content, which is an essential element of art.