Bigger Impact on Wrestling: Heyman or Bischoff?

[Next Big Thing]

Of those two, which guy do you feel left more of a mark in terms of how wrestling is presented today?

In fairness to Bischoff, pretend he is in TNA against his will and don't count that.

[itsmeJD]

I would say Heyman because to be honest, from what I recall, Bischoff jacked most of HIS ideas from either Heyman or Japan. It's not to say he didn't have a big impact on mainsteam wrestling in America, but I don't recall many of his ideas being original. Heyman on the other hand was where the Big 2 got their "attitude" so to speak in the late 90's and completely changed the landscape of professional wrestling. If it had not been for him we would possibly still be stuck with the cartoony shit from the mid 90's where every wrestler had a second job. So I gotta go with Heyman here.

[TazFTW86]

Heyman!

But i will give credit to Eric for getting most of the WWF stars and competing with them, esoecialy witht the nWo, fucckin awesome!

[BigDaddyCool]

Bischoff because he actaully revitalized wrestling in the 90s. Sure he may have stolen ideas and so forth, but it was him that pushed the nWo, built up WCW, started the real Monday night wars, and got Vince McMahon to push his business harder and faster.

Paul Heyman just ran some tiny promotion in Jersey that only wrestling fans heard of, and less actually watched.

[ace3025]

Heyman was by far a better writer. He put the details and week to week development of a story better than anyone!! He could take a crappy storyline and spice it up. He could make you care about a worthless storyline.

However Heyman seemed to needs someone get the ball rolling. That spot is where Eric wins. He saw long term very well and had brilliant ideas that changed and affected the wrestling world. He just didn't know how carry them from week to week and make his plan get the image he saw, tna is proof of this. The storyline start in a tremendous way but keeping the viewers interested enough to enjoy the payoff is not there.

[Xero]

BDC is right in that Bischoff did revitalize wrestling and sent it into its boom period, but Bischoff didn't do much after that. He made Goldberg and Booker T, and that's about it for stars. He did present the "heels are cool" philosophy. Other than that, he hasn't really had a long-term effect on the business, if you don't count WWE being lazy without competition, which isn't a Bischoff concern but other companies in general.

Heyman had more of an indirect but longer lasting impact on mainstream wrestling than Bischoff. While Vince and Bischoff were duking out at the forefront, Heyman was toiling away making new prospects for the big two. Without Heyman, guys like Jericho, Benoit, and Eddie may not have gotten the recognition they needed. He also presented a style (which was stolen, of course) that was eventually taken to the big stage to some extent. He also had major influence in what the indy scene is today, as well as the IWC.

I'd say Heyman wins out in the long run. People still pine for Heyman's booking and his effects are still being felt today. People don't pine for Bischoff's over use of someone else's wallet.

[itsmeJD]

While Bischoff revitalized wrestling from a business standpoint he would have had far less success in my opinion had it not been for Heyman creatively. Vince and Eric both were pulling from ECW and changing THEIR product, not the other way around. I feel Eric had a better grasp of the business end than Heyman, but Heyman had the bigger impact. It's been stated before but, how many WCW reunion shows have we had or people been clamoring for? The era of Heyman improved not only ECW, but wrestling as a whole that to this day people still long for it.

[The MAC]

bischoff for all the reasons above. ECW, like a thread stated, the legend is bigger than the true story.

[Kane Knight]

bischoff for all the reasons above. ECW, like a thread stated, the legend is bigger than the true story.
To be fair, so's Bischoff's legend.

On the other hand, the Bisch still had a bigger influence on wrestling. Just saying, he's not without hype, either.

[Wolfpack423]

Heyman was by far a better writer. He put the details and week to week development of a story better than anyone!! He could take a crappy storyline and spice it up. He could make you care about a worthless storyline.

However Heyman seemed to needs someone get the ball rolling. That spot is where Eric wins. He saw long term very well and had brilliant ideas that changed and affected the wrestling world. He just didn't know how carry them from week to week and make his plan get the image he saw, tna is proof of this. The storyline start in a tremendous way but keeping the viewers interested enough to enjoy the payoff is not there.

I like your analysis as I feel both Bischoff and Heyman helped to revolutionize wrestling. Heyman was a great writer, but I do feel he was a bad judge of talent as we got some awful wrestlers from ECW, we also got great ones like Benoit, RVD, Guerrero, Taz, Awesome. He knew how to get the crowd into things. Eric Bischoff did that as well. WCW was on top for a long time before he forced Vince to change the way he was presenting wrestling, so Bischoff made Monday nights entertaining and then Vince took the ball in summer of 1998, but I have to give credit to all three of the heads of each company as they all are responsible for helping wrestling boom.

[Snowden]

Its tough. Without Heyman, the whole edgy, "Attitude" style of wrestling may never have came about, as Vince wouldn't have had the place to pilfer the ideas from. With WCW beating the WWF, Vince would have either have attempted to stay the course, or take a different approach to crafting the product that may or may not have resembled Heyman's work.

With Bisch out of the picture, WCW may very well have never been that ratings challenge to the WWF, therefore maybe never driving Vince to change his booking philosophy at all. Without the nWo or "Attitude," wrestling may not have nearly been as big as it was.

Based on this...I'd say Bischoff.

[The Pope]

Heyman killed the art of wrestling.

[Gertner]

Bischoff. I love ECW but it was a small niche market.

[dexnall]

heymen bigger impact. by letting stars be stars instead of calling them daneil bryan

[The Pope]

heymen bigger impact. by letting stars be stars instead of calling them daneil bryan

Denial Bryan :rofl:

[dronepool]

Heyman.

[bigslimjj]

Paul E.

[ron the dial]

Heyman killed the art of wrestling.
please, elaborate.

[RVDmark]

Vince Mcmahon killed the art of wrestling.

Fixed.

I mean come on, some of the ECW matches were classics, and Heyman may have spiced up the "soap opera" side of things (for want of a better term), but as far as the wrestling goes Vince has thoroughly destroyed it by banning most of the moves which make wrestling good. I watch wrestling for 2 reasons, 1, its a good release to shout at the TV for a few hours each week, 2, to see the athletic movesets, and chain wrestling etc, stuff I couldn't do.

The problem for me at least is that 90% of the moves in WWE I could easilly do myself, and have several times with mates. But the mat wrestling with hold and counter hold I couldnt do for shit, or any of the high flying spinny flippy stuff, and WWE lacks that element for a LOT of the time, wrestlemania is an exception.

But that style was in ECW alongside the hardcore stuff, so I dont see how Heyman could be held responsible for killing the art of wrestling.

But to get back to the thread, Heyman.

[dhellova guy]

Bischoff. Without him, there is no monday night war, Vince stays in his little cloud of cartoon-ery, and I spend my monday nights with a girl instead of watching USA.

[McLegend]

I think BDC and Gertner are short changing ECW and Paul Heyman. Saying it's just a natich market isn't the whole truth.

Now with the said it's Eric Bischoff. He's really the most responsible for making wrestling as lucrative as it has become.

[Jeritron]

Bischoff had more of an immediate effect/influence on the wrestling industry, but overall I think Heyman's influence on the future of wrestling (at least creatively) was equal.

[BigDaddyCool]

I think BDC and Gertner are short changing ECW and Paul Heyman. Saying it's just a natich market isn't the whole truth.

Now with the said it's Eric Bischoff. He's really the most responsible for making wrestling as lucrative as it has become.

No, you are right, it was the biggest promotion in the country.

[McLegend]

No, you are right, it was the biggest promotion in the country.

Now you are just being sarcastic there, bro.

[Emperor Smeat]

I would have to say during the Attitude Era itself it would have been Bischoff or at least him during the early to middle phase of the era. Both of them however did have some help or flaws which explains how either of them were able to be influential.

Bischoff might have not owned WCW but his owner Ted Turner loved wrestling and was willing to give almost anything in money that Bischoff needed. As a result, Bischoff is able to get the wrestlers he needed and help evolve WCW into rival status with WWF. Vince always talks about how it was Bischoff who almost killed WWF and never anyone else.

Heyman was a great promoter and knew how to use wrestlers based on their talent and crowd reactions. His biggest flaw involved money and as a result ECW never could grow beyond an Indy or #3 promotion in the US. As a result, Heyman had to create with less resources while at the same time with less restrictions since he didn't have to worry about networks interfering with his work until the TNN years.

[Aguakate]

This is not even close: BISCHOFF.

[#1-norm-fan]

Heyman killed the art of wrestling.

ECW embraced the art to a fault almost. The style with which they did it was adapted by WWE and WCW in some ways and can be seen now in the way WWE runs business which totally shits on the art of wrestling. But that's just because the current product is horrific. ECW was a fine blend of the "trash TV" with the art still very much on display.