Good new Paul Heyman blog

[Duckman]

I don't know if you guys are like me, but I always make a point to read Paul Heyman's blog on the Sun website here in the UK.

It's always a good read, I respect Heyman's knowledge and skill when it comes to pro wrestling and he always makes good, valid points and backs it up.

This week he's calling for a total overhaul of both TNA and WWE to bring them into 2008 and make them more viable and marketable and ultimately successful today.  He argues that WWE in particular is stuck in a rut which harks back to things that happened over 10 years ago, instead of trying to break the mould and look at new ways of bringing the business forward.

It's a great read and should open up some good discussion, so check it out and let me know what you think:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/heyman/article1842597.ece

Peace

Duckman

[Russ]

Gotta love Heyman's blogs... they're so true too

[Jimmy Chisel]

He makes a lot of good suggestions here but he actually offers no answer to the question he's raised. 

TNA has no center focus just a lot of things happening and a lot of good guys not getting used to their full potential, they're WWE-Lite and should be doing so much better than they are. Well Paul, I'm glad you're finally saying what most of us already knew and were saying, we just weren't getting paid for it. But what can they do about it? Heyman is supposed to be a booking genius but in this article he does nothing to posit what TNA can do to actually fix the problem, maybe he doesn't want to in case someone from TNA reads it (since they're all about using The Sun to spark angles these days) or something.

Rhodes and DiBaisie don't look like anything knew, yeah they do look bland but then again when you're dressed in shirts and slacks and old school shorts you're going to look bland and not very contemporary. Well they are supposed to be sort of preppy kids of legendary wrestlers so I can understand why they don't look "cool" . Whilst Miz and Morrison do look very contemporary so that is a point of comparison it doesn't really matter. Rhodes and Teddy Jnr. aren't supposed to be cool or 2008 looking, they're preppy spoiled kids they should be looking as uncool as possible.

D/x vs Miz and Morrison. Is it going to be the changing of the guard to a new D-Generation of punks? Or will it be a short term "HHH and HBK rule the WWE universe" demonstration like D/x did with Team rKo already?

Well, Randy Orton and Edge have gone on to be two of the biggest heels in the WWE and arguably were on there way to that then if not already there, of course you don't have to lose to put someone over.  DX is just a good cheap pop anyway. Miz and Morrison have become something great on their own merit, so merely being in the ring with DX would get them the rub.

Don't be afraid to attempt a new concept, and alter it along the way according to public tastes and reactions. Get the audience involved in your search for a new manner in which to present the world's second oldest profession. The crowd always loves to have a say in which direction pro wrestling goes.

Again I go back to the point of Paul Heyman not actually positing an answer here. It's so easy to say  "come up with a new concept" but a whole different kettle of fish all together when you try to come up with one. I would argue that the revamping of RAW during this past summer CM Punks title run inclusive was testing the water of something new and different, as were the Scramble matches.

In closing, TNA needs a lot more work than the WWE does, the WWE aren't doing horribly badly. Taking ideas from the past isn't always a bad thing and in a post-modern world genuinely new ideas are hard to come by. Whilst I agree with everything Paul Heyman says I'd like to see him not just list things that are problematic but actually suggest "TNA could do this" or "The WWE could do that" and present solid ideas, of course that is probably not his mandate and he is writing for a tabloid so he's going to just fan the fires of discontent rather than suggest ways in how to contemporize the wrestling which is what he says needs to happen.  So in the end the blog fails to try and address the problem but just tells you "this is wrong, that is wrong but I'm not going to bother to give ideas of how to fix these or what I would do".

[Bryan]

I was interested in RAW the week following the draft with some interesting few changes and storylines, but a month later they were back with the same, tired formula that was draining viewers. I think RAW is now starting to go into the 2.9 level...I just can't fathom how WWE sees the ratings dwindle and go "wow, something needs to change". I know they want to "milk the diehards" but eventually they're going to go away. I mean, I haven't watched RAW in three weeks. TNA is WWE lite, completely agree with that too. Nothing is too interesting to follow and no matter what talent they bring in, the ratings won't go up until they change their product. A two hour show with only about 30 minutes worth of wrestling is just...well, basically copying RAW, minus anything remotely interesting.

But I agree...he didn't really offer anything new. We know WWE needs to update their image...everyone does. But what can they do to bring back people who have moved on from wrestling? That's a question that neither WWE or TNA want to bother figuring out, and as long as that happens nothing's going to change anytime soon.