I was watching the ECW exposed show - where Paul Heyman and Joey Styles talked about ECW - and all I could think about was Heyman. That might be natural. Heyman is an important part of the current programming and has been for the last few years. His promos are just wonderful so him being at the forefront of my mind isn't a massive shock.
If we look, however, at ECW more broadly and what it represented then it is obvious it was the alternative; it was edgy; it was hardcore but it was wrestling too. I don't need to go into all the details (you've heard it all before) or all the wrestlers but guys like Jericho, Guerrero, Mysterio, Benoit, Foley and Austin all got breaks there. It was a big, pretty successful promotion.
Despite all this success, I can't help but feel ECW wasn't just a wonderful wrestling promotion: it was PAUL HEYMAN's promotion. HE was the genius. So when someone says that ECW was amazing because someone as limited as Sandman could get over; that is the genius of Paul Heyman. Austin owes a lot to ECW? No, he owes everything to Paul Heyman.
So when it was going on in the 90's and early 2000's I'm guessing there was the idea that ECW was this special, special place. Maybe in a few decades when Heyman is out the spotlight that feeling might return but, right now, ECW is firmly the baby of Paul Heyman. Of course, Heyman has an ego so he is hardly going to downplay this. I get WCW has had various owners and whatnot and lasted a lot longer but there is a massive list of influential people involved in that company. Moreover, to this day not one man can fully take credit for the rise and fall of WCW.
This is an intentional narrative from WWE. They have Heyman so they might as well promote him as this genius. Indeed, they did (and will continue to) build WCW guys in a similar way; whichever may be in the door at that particular time. So yes, the WWE say it but it doesn't mean it is true (especially in pro wrestling) but I'm starting to think that, yes, Heyman really is ECW and ECW is Heyman.
Is it kind off like: Paul Bearer... great manager...managed amazing talent like Taker, Foley, Kane etc.. Bobby Heenan.... wonerful manager.... managed the likes of Bockwinkel, Andre, Flair etc. Paul Heyman...amazing manager; managed the likes of the Dangerous Alliance, CM Punk, ECW, Brock Lesnar etc.
I've rambled a bit. The above might not be all that coherent (I apologise) but simply: Is Paul Heyman (and his brand) bigger than ECW?
If we look, however, at ECW more broadly and what it represented then it is obvious it was the alternative; it was edgy; it was hardcore but it was wrestling too. I don't need to go into all the details (you've heard it all before) or all the wrestlers but guys like Jericho, Guerrero, Mysterio, Benoit, Foley and Austin all got breaks there. It was a big, pretty successful promotion.
Despite all this success, I can't help but feel ECW wasn't just a wonderful wrestling promotion: it was PAUL HEYMAN's promotion. HE was the genius. So when someone says that ECW was amazing because someone as limited as Sandman could get over; that is the genius of Paul Heyman. Austin owes a lot to ECW? No, he owes everything to Paul Heyman.
So when it was going on in the 90's and early 2000's I'm guessing there was the idea that ECW was this special, special place. Maybe in a few decades when Heyman is out the spotlight that feeling might return but, right now, ECW is firmly the baby of Paul Heyman. Of course, Heyman has an ego so he is hardly going to downplay this. I get WCW has had various owners and whatnot and lasted a lot longer but there is a massive list of influential people involved in that company. Moreover, to this day not one man can fully take credit for the rise and fall of WCW.
This is an intentional narrative from WWE. They have Heyman so they might as well promote him as this genius. Indeed, they did (and will continue to) build WCW guys in a similar way; whichever may be in the door at that particular time. So yes, the WWE say it but it doesn't mean it is true (especially in pro wrestling) but I'm starting to think that, yes, Heyman really is ECW and ECW is Heyman.
Is it kind off like: Paul Bearer... great manager...managed amazing talent like Taker, Foley, Kane etc.. Bobby Heenan.... wonerful manager.... managed the likes of Bockwinkel, Andre, Flair etc. Paul Heyman...amazing manager; managed the likes of the Dangerous Alliance, CM Punk, ECW, Brock Lesnar etc.
I've rambled a bit. The above might not be all that coherent (I apologise) but simply: Is Paul Heyman (and his brand) bigger than ECW?