JicKie "FalKon" Mames;2566370 said:
His WCW Accomplishments Were The Foundation Of His Career
Every career must start somewhere; however, just because you began your career in a company, do well there, and then move on to do better things with the company you work for after that does not mean the start of your career was better than the end of it.
To compare it to sports, look at Steve Young. He started his career in Tampa Bay, and did alright considering the circumstances. However, when someone sees Steve Young's highlight reel, they'll mostly see his work in San Fransisco. Why? Because he did more with that team than he did with Tampa Bay, even if his play in Tampa Bay was the reason why he got the job with San Fransisco in the first place.
The same goes for Booker T. Years from now when you see highlights from this man's career, you're going to mostly see Booker with dreadlocks, not the flat-top version.
1) One of Booker T's main lines and ways to continuously hype himself in the WWE (as well as providing a gimmick to being himself) was that he won the World Title five times... four of which stemmed from his time in WCW. So, although he pushed the reigns in the E, it wouldn't have been possible if he didn't win them in WCW, correct? In turn, Booker T would have been less interesting to watch and being "just another African-American wrestler" (and I mean this without any reference to being racist). There aren't that many African-American wrestlers who achieved World Title success, so anyone with those accolades (especially multiple time winner) would go far if proven themselves.
Would those reigns have mattered though if he hadn't constantly put over the fact that he was World Champion five times in WCW while in WWE? Who would really care or remember that fact if it weren't for the platform WWE gave him to constantly mention that accomplishment? Hardly anybody.
Also, don't get it twisted, "Being a 5-Time World Champion" is NOT what got Booker T over. He got over with the help of The Rock, ability on the mic, the capability to have good matches, and of course the Spin-a-Roonie. Those more than anything else are why he was so successful in WWE. Saying he was a 5 time World Champion was simply a catch phrase.
2) Booker is referred to as one of the most decorated tag team wrestlers to enter the industry, winning the championship of that same nature in mainstream wrestling 15 times... 10 of which stemmed from teaming with his brother Stevie Ray as apart of Harlem Heat. He proved that he was a person to be trusted with the titles and be in programs revolving around tag teams. Knowing this, the WWE was able to create such storylines like Goldust trying to team with Booker, the King's Court, and his numerous partners that he acquired when going for the titles. Yes, yes... the E might have done the same programs, but if you are known for being a tag team specialist, chances are that the inspiration for tag team related storylines would be heavily influenced from the person's previous history (i.e. Harlem Heat's success influenced Booker's tag team reigns in the WWE).
But how often do you hear about Harlem Heat being thrown around as one of the greatest tag teams of all time? Hardly ever. I guarantee we would could at every thread here at WZ that asked the question, "Who are the greatest Tag Teams of all time?" and I GUARANTEE Harlem Heat would hardly get any mentions. Why? Simple, they were a one man tag team (Stevie Ray sucked), and because they don't have any true classic matches under their belt. Seriously, out of all the championship reigns Harlem Heat had, do they have one classic match? Please name it if you can. I would love to hear this.
The bottom line is that Booker's talent is why he got all those opportunities in WWE, not because of what he did in WCW. Sure, being apart of WCW helped him get a contract, but it had absolutely no barring on the success he ended up having in the company.
3) Chris Benoit and Booker T did a best of seven series during WCW to determine who would be granted a championship shot for the company's mid-card title. These two put on a great feud and got the crowd immersed.
As I mentioned in my original post, this may as well be erased from history at this point. Booker T and Chris Benoit did have an incredible series, but how many fans will know about it 10 years from now?
A few years later in the WWE, they decide to re-hash the exact same thing (i.e. Benoit, Booker, mid-card title, best of seven series) for the enjoyment of the crowd. It has been proven that the WWE has rehashed matches/gimmicks/storylines and the like to further sales (recent example: Daniel Bryan vs. Dolph Ziggler from Bragging Rights)... and with the concept doing quite well in WCW, the E gave it a run. If it wasn't for the performances that Booker put on in WCW... would such storylines like this ever occur to the E? No chance in hell, considering that most feud lasts for is about three months.
But what exactly came out of Booker participating in those "Best of 5/7" series in WWE? Nothing. He lost to Cena, and he was losing to Benoit before getting injured. So, WWE bringing that concept did not exactly help Booker's career, since A) he lost and B) hardly any of the matches stand out.
Whilst most of what I'm saying goes to the idea that his work in WCW was a stepping stone to performing in WWE, the principle still retains: if it weren't for his previous accomplishments and the amount of time/effort he exerted in WCW, the name of Booker T would not be appreciated as well as it is today. Knowing what happened to the rest of Booker's colleagues who signed contracts with the E, Booker would have remained in the mid-card or lower... instead of receiving the push to the main event (through a nice, slow push of the midcard/tag team area).
So, if Booker weren't much younger, and actually came up through WWE's developmental system early in the millennium than he wouldn't have had the same success he has had? Seriously, if Booker made his debut as some no name and then go on to feud with The Rock and have the EXACT same career, he wouldn't be as widely known and respected as he currently is? Dude, of course he would have, because the majority of his best work was in WWE, bottom line. There's simply not much you can bring up from his work in WCW that stands out over everything he did in WWE. Promos, matches, feuds, etc... all of them were far more memorable in WWE than they were in WCW.
I remember that he won them, but not how he won them... sure, I'll give you that... but does anyone remember that he won the fifth World Title (in that catch-phrase) in the WWE? No... they remember him winning the title under WCW.
.... yet, I'm sure way more people remember Booker T's King of the Ring victory and then going on to have a long run as World Champion as King Booker (which, yes, I do remember how he won the World Title as King Booker, it was against Rey Mysterio at The Great American Bash) more than ANY of Booker's WCW World Title reigns.
To the average fan, we are going to associate that Booker had a more effective and better run during WCW than WWE by a long shot... considering that he won five titles for WCW compared to won in the WWE (that's if people remember that reign, but I will get to that in a minute).
I don't buy that for a second since the average fan won't have any idea about Booker's run in WCW other than he was a 5 time World Champion. To the average fan of WWE, WCW will be considered the minor leagues of professional wrestling, ESPECIALLY during its dying days where Booker had all those championship reigns.
Another thing that tears this argument down.. The Big Show won the WCW World Title twice during his run in WCW, and twice during his run in WWE. Does that mean people will look at the Big Show's run in WWE as equal to his run in WCW? Of course not, because it doesn't measure up, just as it doesn't measure up for Booker T.
I also remember Harlem Heat, feud with Scott Steiner and his matches with Chris Benoit... funny that, huh? Also funny how the Benoit feud was re-ignited the same way in WWE to attract audiences.
Lol... please name one good match Booker T had against Scott Steiner?
How about WarGames at Fall Brawl?
Uhh... Booker T was never in WarGames at Fall Brawl, man. He had a shitty steel cage match with Kevin Nash in 2000 at Fall Brawl, but it wasn't WarGames, and nothing about that match is memorable.
Gimmicks, aye? Well... there was one where Booker became a member of a stable of M.I.A. and completely revamped his look due to a storyline. Although it wasn't the best of groups, it proved that Booker was capable of dropping his old schtick of being himself (yeah, that gets old apparently) and becoming something completely different... kind of reminiscent of that King gimmick.
How so? Dude, those two gimmicks have NOTHING in common. You seriously think WWE looked at that M.I.A. crap and then came to the conclusion that Booker T would make a good King in WWE? Of course not, man. Hardly anybody remembers that M.I.A. garbage and the only people who do only remember how shitty it was.
But without the success that he achieved in WCW, nothing would have culminated for Booker in the E at all.
Dude, the same goes for ANYONE who worked in WCW before going to WWE. Is Chris Jericho's career in WCW more effective than his career in WWE just because he worked in WCW first? What about Eddie Guerrero? Rey Mysterio? Hell, even the fucking Undertaker got his first big break in WCW... does WCW deserve credit for 'Taker's success? Of course not, man.
Do you think the WWE had the brain-power to establish seven matches between Booker T and Chris Benoit for the mid-card title? They wouldn't invest that much time in the mid-card area as the money-making is at the top. Thanks to WCW and the effectiveness that was pulled off during Booker's time there, he was able to replicate the results with Benoit.
You say this like the Best of series in WWE was this great success. Booker T got injured during it, man, and it was Randy Orton who ultimately got put over by being Book's replacement.
So, essentially, how Booker went in WCW = how he went in WWE... which leads to the fact that the effect of his WCW's career decided how the effect of his WWE career went.
So, just because WWE copied one thing Booker had partaken in WCW means that everything else he did in WWE was a carbon copy of everything he did in WCW? No man, that's not how professional wrestling works.
If he had less success in WCW, he would have failed much worse in WWE... leading to the fact that WCW would have still been more effective for his career.
That's a baseless assumption. Booker could have been a zero time World Champion by the time he reached WWE and would have been the same success story, because the guy is and always has been an incredible talent. His past accomplishments had nothing to do with what he did in WWE. It was nothing but talent why he got over, and why he stayed over for as long as he did, because the fact of the matter is, after a while, that WCW novelty wore off and he simply became Booker T/King Booker. As a heel fans hated him, and as a face fans loved him. That was all because of talent, not past accomplishments.
Ric Flair achieved most of his 16 World Championships outside of the WWE. People don't remember where or how, but people knew that it wasn't with the company and that he is considered a legend for winning the unprecedented amount. If he didn't have that on his resume, do you think the run(s) that Flair had with the company would have been as successful as it was? No... they wouldn't have employed someone of his age if he didn't prove how effective he was during his heyday... if anything, he would have been relegated to the curtain jerking areas. Ric Flair didn't need the WWE to make Ric Flair remembered... he proved how effective he was outside of the company... so did Shane Douglas and Sting... they didn't need the machine to become effective during their runs. On the same subject, you don't need the WWE to become a star and show how effective your career can be if you were employed.
I'm not saying Ric Flair needed WWE to make him remembered; I'm saying it's because of his run in WWE that his career ended up being as lauded as it is. Hardly anybody was throwing that "Greatest of all time" shit around before he went to WWE. However, when guys like HHH and HBK started saying it under the WWE banner, on national television, that's when people started believing it, and that's when the Flair book, DVDs, etc. all came out.
My point is to show what someone can accomplish under the WWE marketing scheme. WWE does an absolutely tremendous job putting their stars over, and they did/do so more than WCW ever could have. However, WWE is arrogant about it... they want their product to be the most heavily regarded out of it all, which is why Booker T's run in WWE will triumph his run in WCW at the end of the day, since WWE and WWE fans will undoubtedly focus more on his WWE run than his WCW run, as they should since his WWE run was more memorable anyway.
Booker T is like Flair... didn't need the WWE to prove his worth to professional wrestling as the amount that he achieved in non-WWE companies already was effective enough to consider him an excellent wrestler.
I never said Booker T needed WWE to prove his worth, but it is a fact that his run in WWE made his "worth" that much more effective than his run in WCW ever could have.
WWE makes and breaks people. Look at Diamond Dallas Page. His run in WCW was MUCH more accomplished than Booker's run, however he was trashed in WWE and because of that his legacy got severely damaged. But it's just the opposite for Booker T, isn't it? Why is that? Because once WWE bought WCW and became THE wrestling company, they decide what's what when it comes to the business. It's sad, but it's true.
