Are you a Jim Cornette or Paul Heyman guy

[The Blue Nova]

Both guys are very similar having started out in wrestling as photographers later managers as well as announcing and owning there own promotions. Which do you prefer I personally prefer Jim Cornette and his style

[Mayonnaise]

Heyman in every possible way. Yes, I would even let him handle my finances, at this point he couldn't do any worse than I have.

[Deleted]

I'm a Russo guy

[thecrusherwi]

I would probably trust Cornette more. I love to hear him talk. Most of his ideas for how wrestling should work are outdated or proven to be incorrect in today's climate, but iI always get the sense he's being true to who he is. I trust that he believes what he says. When Heyman talks, even in shoot stuff, I always get the sketchy used car salesman vibe.

[Hit Girl]

Cornette.


Heyman is a great talent, but I hated hardcore wrestling and its legacy.

[Deleted]

Smackdown was fantastic under Heyman and didn't use hardcore wrestling. Cornette's a great on-screen personality but as a booker? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Saul Goodman]

Cornette never did anything I liked. In the 90's I was more of a fan of USWA than SMW. I liked camp Cornette but only because I was a huge Yokozuna fan and Owen Hart fan, not because of Cornette. The NWA storyline sucked, OVW was boring with him in charge. Now he sounds like a whinny 8 year old who is mad because he did not get his way during his interviews. ROH also sucked during his time. There is a reason why both WWF and TNA picked Russo over him.

Hayman made the 90's wrestling aka garbage wrestling and at times it was awful. It fit the times but can not hold up anymore. ECW was not as great the 2nd time watching it as it was the first time watching it. In fact I really dislike old ECW and that is saying something because I was a big fan in the 90's. He tried too hard to shock the viewer and after awhile nothing can shock us anymore. Hayman is over rated and not everyone of his ideas were gold.

If I had to pick one of these two I will pick Hayman by a country mile. Hayman seems like a better person, he is a lot more creative than Cornette and he knows how to change with the times.

[chazraps]

Jan 2, 2015 0:57:08 GMT -5 Mayonnaise said:

Heyman in every possible way. Yes, I would even let him handle my finances, at this point he couldn't do any worse than I have.

I'm undecided on the matter, but I do want to point out for the record that Cornette has a pretty unique history of getting finances right. His time in OVW was the first time they turned a profit, which the WWE was not expecting it to do as a developmental league. He also got Smokey Mountain in the black in terms of finances at an astronomically fast rate, if I recall correctly.

[chazraps]

Also, holding Heyman responsible for "hardcore wrestling" and what it became in any promotion not named ECW strikes me as kind of absurd. It's like docking The Beatles because there's so many poor Beatles tribute and cover bands out there.

[hughmorris]

Ladies and Gentlemen my name is Hughmorris and I am a Paul Heyman guy.

[________ has left the building]

Cornette is great for historic trivia and old school stories but can't adapt to modern wrestling fans' tastes. Heyman meanwhile understands the correlation between current trends and wrestling fans'ever evolving tastes. So Heyman for the win.

[RowdyRobbyPiper]

Jan 2, 2015 1:08:48 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Cornette.


Heyman is a great talent, but I hated hardcore wrestling and its legacy.

This. X 100.

[Deleted]

Heyman. Dude is so brilliant and I could listen to him talk all day that he could probably convince me its a good idea to franchise a blockbuster store

[Yamashita Enforcement Division]

See, Heyman's problem is his biggest strength, Heyman knows to grab onto the current cultural period and build his company around what will work in the here and now. This means that in the 90s Heyman put together a hardcore show that got people drunk and ornery, and when he was in charge of Smackdown he put on a different kind of show that was still relevant. Look at how he described what he would have done with ECW coming into the new millennium from the ECW Q and A, he would have completely changed his style to work with the modern sensibilities, this is all great. Unfortunately, this means he gets saddled with the stigma of things that were at one point accepted only to look really poor in hindsight, like the hardcore, garbage wrestling.

Jim Cornette on the other hand, stays with his idea of what makes a good wrestling show and works his damnedest to put on that show everywhere he goes. This means that he is doing fundamentally the same booking style in 2010 as he was doing in 1991. It means that he is not going to move with the times, but by offering a consistent product, he is going to catch people who want that. He offers a singular, targeted product that has the market come to it, rather than chasing a market. This means that his programs look old fashioned and he can be a tad out of touch with his projects.

I voted Cornette, just because I feel that we need someone booking the style of the NWA territories no matter what the decade is.

[Deleted]

I f***ed up and voted for Cornette but I think I changed my mind.

I think Heyman's creative peaks are far higher than Cornette's, but I think Cornette is far more consistent in terms of putting on a product that doesn't drive you insane (I liked ROH under Cornette). ECW had moments that definitely redefined what wrestling is capable of in terms of storytelling but it is also a sea of shit garbage wrestling. However Heyman has a better grasp on what's cool and if I want my company to have any growth I'd go with Heyman, if I want a solid base and am fine remaining a niche product that's booked logically then I'm going with Cornette.

[Deleted]

[Kevin Hamilton]

I like Corny alright, but Heyman is way more entertaining in just about every way.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Jan 2, 2015 1:08:48 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Cornette.


Heyman is a great talent, but I hated hardcore wrestling and its legacy.

Absolutely. For all his flaws, Cornette never put the long term wellbeing of workers at risk to get a few cheap pops, he didn't encourage workers to go out there and actually hurt oneanother in a worked sport. When things went south for his promotion, he paid the bills before he folded it, he didn't keep telling the people he'd encouraged to dash their brains out with chairs that the cheque's coming while working to get himself a job elsewhere.

[Ben Wyatt]

Jan 2, 2015 2:51:56 GMT -5 ________ has left the building said:

Cornette is great for historic trivia and old school stories but can't adapt to modern wrestling fans' tastes. Heyman meanwhile understands the correlation between current trends and wrestling fans'ever evolving tastes. So Heyman for the win.

This right here.

Make no mistake about it, Heyman isn't flawless either, but Cornette can't seem to get past the notion that it isnt 1986 anymore

[A Platypus Rave]

Prefer how? Like as a booker? Probably Heyman.

Jan 2, 2015 1:07:01 GMT -5 thecrusherwi said:

I would probably trust Cornette more. I love to hear him talk. Most of his ideas for how wrestling should work are outdated or proven to be incorrect in today's climate, but iI always get the sense he's being true to who he is. I trust that he believes what he says. When Heyman talks, even in shoot stuff, I always get the sketchy used car salesman vibe.

See I get the same vibe from Cornette, especially when he talks about people/companies since his story seems to change depending on who is paying him.