Only one person have ever benefited with Heyman being his manger is Brock Lesnar.

He really didn't help CM Punk. Did jack shit for Ryback, Axel, and Cesaro.

He didnt need to help CM Punk. Plus there wasnt enough time given for Rybaxel or Cesaro.

I agree actually. Not only that, everyone that Heyman has been with has either been someone who is popular with the IWC, or failed.

Ryback - failed
Curtis Axel - failed and semi-popular with IWC
CM Punk - IWC god
Cesaro - beloved by the IWC
Lesnar - beloved in general, but I will say that I give Heyman lots of credit for Lesnar. He's the only one on the list that he was responsible for putting over positively.

If Heyman can take someone who isn't IWC-loved (like Ryback) and make them successful, I will give him more credit. As of right now, his only real bragging-right is Lesnar.

Thing is Heyman is a great mouthpiece, Brock really isn't a great talker, but he ia a asskicking monster. He is a LEGIT FIGHTER. You don't bet against Brock, but he isn't a strong talker. He needs Heyman to do that for him. Punk can beat your ass with a mic. Ryback flopped, Cesaro and Axel didn't get enough time. HELL NO HEYMAN ISN'T OVERRATED!

His client, Paul Heyman, ended the Undertaker's undefeated streak at Wrestlemania.

He certainly helped CM Punk as an advocate during Punk's WWECW days. This is unquestionable IMO, in a non-kayfabe way, using his influence to praise Punk endlessly and to call him up from OVW.

And go back and check out Heyman with the Dangerous Alliance in WCW. Certainly helped a lot of guys there get over.

This is illogical. A manager is a small part of the formula. Mr. Fuji wouldn't have done anything with Yokozuna if Yoko was doing jobs to Rick Martel and only winning matches through countouts or other bullshit....

Point being, Ryback, Curtis Axel, Cesaro, etc, didn't fail because Paul Heyman did a bad job. They failed because the machine didn't want them to be more over than they were, that's why they made no effort on their behalf, and in Cesaro's case, actually went to great lengths to keep him down.

Blaming Paul Heyman doesn't make any god damn sense.

Axel had a lot of time, most of the summer and into the fall of 2013 he was a Heyman guy. Axel got big wins, but in the dumbest ways possible. Like HHH brain injury fucking him up and causing him pass out, Hell they didn't even knowledge the fact he won until the following week.
And pairing Axel with Heyman wasn't even to help Axel, he would just be Heyman's vessel in his feud with Punk. The point of the manger is to get focus and heat on the guy they are managing, not get focus on themselves. Axel was just a prop and a jobber bitch for Punk. Ryback meant the same fate and in a more embarrassing way. Having a nearly gay relationship with Heyman. Again Ryback was just there to get in the way of Punk from getting his hands on Heyman, not helping Ryback get over as a badass monster heel. Instead he was just Punk's bitch...again.
Pairing him with Cesaro was the dumbest thing they could do. WWE fighting against the fact people wanted Cesaro to be face and cheer for him. Instead they keep him heel and pair him with Heyman just to keep heat on Heyman so he can get heat not for Cesaro, but For Brock Lesnar. All this did was kill the momentum Cesaro had before the pairing.

The year before Pairing Punk with Heyman was so fucking stupid and pointless. Just to set up for Punk vs Rock. Once again WWE turning a guy heel who people don't wanna hate and won't hate no matter what they do. Like mocking a man's heart attack. The thing that pissed me off was how they threw Ryback to the wolves in this. Instead of having the Balls and pulling the trigger with Ryback, they instead have one of the way finishes of 2012. Yeah it was to keep the belt on Punk longer so he can continue to state the fact that he was the longest reigning champion in the past 15 same years or so. That's the only thing you can really say about Punk's title reign is the fact it was long. Yeah he had good to great matches, but he only main evented 4 ppvs. his feud with Daniel Bryan was more about AJ then either of the two guys in it. If anything have Ryback win the title, then lose it the following month because of the shield or better yet not have Ryback in the match at all and continue his winning streak.

Maybe if Heyman was actually allowed to get the guys who needed him to get them over (not Punk), maybe it would be a different story. But in character wise Heyman only has one guy he actually helped get over and that was Brock.

Saintpat wrote:

His client, Paul Heyman, ended the Undertaker's undefeated streak at Wrestlemania.

He certainly helped CM Punk as an advocate during Punk's WWECW days. This is unquestionable IMO, in a non-kayfabe way, using his influence to praise Punk endlessly and to call him up from OVW.

And go back and check out Heyman with the Dangerous Alliance in WCW. Certainly helped a lot of guys there get over.

Still was dumb idea then, still a dumb idea now.


This is for him being a manger, not his backstage stuff or his creativity.


Yeah but that was in WCW during the early 90's. It's getting to the mid 2010's.

Ian wrote:

This is illogical. A manager is a small part of the formula. Mr. Fuji wouldn't have done anything with Yokozuna if Yoko was doing jobs to Rick Martel and only winning matches through countouts or other bullshit....

Point being, Ryback, Curtis Axel, Cesaro, etc, didn't fail because Paul Heyman did a bad job. They failed because the machine didn't want them to be more over than they were, that's why they made no effort on their behald, and in Cesaro's case, actually went to great lengths to keep him down.

Blaming Paul Heyman doesn't make any god damn sense.

As a manger in WWE he is 1-4. Yes maybe if he was allowed to get them actually over (not Punk) maybe things would be different.

Like Ian said you can't get a jobber over with a manager.

Penguin wrote:

Like Ian said you can't get a jobber over with a manager.

Of course not if they continue to be booked as a jobber and when they do win it's in a joke fashion. Heyman was meant to be a mouth piece for Axel. If WWE actually was doing things the smart way and giving Axel big wins and big feuds instead of having him get bitch smacked by triple h and being punk's bitch I think Axel would be a bigger star.

if you are saying because he got slapped with the jobber label before getting paired with Heyman and so he was going to fail anyways because of that. Then in that logic HHH and Edge should have never made it.

I'm not blaming Paul at all nor am I saying he's a bad manager, I think he's a great manager (although I agree with Bull that he's overrated, even just a little.)

He's paired with people that either fail or are already popular to begin with. That's my complaint. If he's so good of a manager, he should be able to get someone like Ryback over.

Isn't it enough that he made a bunch of useless wrestlers over in ECW? (Not as a manager but still )

Heyman is great creatively and as an on screen GM and character all together. However the fact is the people Heyman has manged in the WWE only one had made it big. So the propaganda of him being the greatest manger of all time is bullshit.

Penguin wrote:

Isn't it enough that he made a bunch of useless wrestlers over in ECW? (Not as a manager but still )

Nope.

I don't get how only making one guy in the WWE big means he's not one of (if not the greatest) managers of all time. WWE isn't the only company to ever exist. Heyman has spent a lot of time as a manager outside of WWE and done amazing things with the people he managed, including Steve Austin. I don't know if he's the greatest manager of all time, but he's definitely up there, and he's my personal favorite.

A manager can't be expected to initially get the ball rolling, then keep pushing it forever. The fact that Curtis Axel, Ryback, or (maybe by some people's estimation) Cesaro have "failed" is irrelevant, because without Paul Heyman, they wouldn't have had the chance to fail. Those three in particular needed Paul Heyman to kick the door open for them, but that's all that should be expected of him.

In my opinion, Brock Lesnar was a standout talent with or without Paul Heyman, but the man was in desperate need of a mouthpiece. Heyman picked up on Lesnar's biggest weakness, but Lesnar was able to back himself up in every other category. The others have yet to do that.

And by Paul Heyman's account, he was given specific orders in OVW to fire CM Punk, but obviously that did not happen and Heyman was instrumental in CM Punk's emergence into WWE. Heyman managed a guy who would become one of the biggest stars of the new millennium without anyone even knowing about it; I'd say he's a bit underrated as a manager.

^ He never got the ball rolling for neither Ryback nor Axel really. Ryback and Axel where just vessels to wrestle in Heyman's place during his feud with Punk. Cesaro didn't need Heyman, but he got stuck with him because WWE wanted to keep heat on him for Brock. 

overall he has done an amazing job, but in the WWE not so much. (not his fault yes) But in the past really he was a launching pad more then a manger that would take you to the top.

A lot of you are pointing out his backstage stuff. Yes he helped a lot of guys get looked at and given changes. He's done amazing stuff and helped guys that way. If this said "is Paul Heyman overrated?" then you all would have great arguments...but...

This topic is about him being a on screen manger!

I love Paul as an on screen manager and I'd even say he's my favorite manager character. I used him as an outline for Eric Bull when I used him as a manager and I somewhat used him as an outline for Eric Goodman too.

Bull, making a thread saying he's overrated, and then agreeing over and over with people's reasons why he isn't overrated, trying to make it seem like you're defending your point the whole time.

This makes jack all sense.

The fact that he is one of the best managers on screen managers shouldn't even be a debate. You're trying to tell us he isn't because creative couldn't be bothered trying to push Ryback. It's everything but that Ryback isn't all the great in the ring. Sure five minutes with a guy and he looks great. But when he tries to go 20 minutes you can see his flaws.

Bull, do you think Vickie Guerrero > Heyman in WWE?

^ it's a good character, it's just a shame what WWE has done with it. Maybe if WWE wouldn't have their heads in their asses maybe Heyman could have done wonders for Axel and Ryback. For that fact it's made me sick of seeing Heyman really, not his fault mind you. Using him to shove down the fact WWE made a dumb mistake with having Brock go over Taker. It was either all about Heyman or someone else like Punk or Brock other then the guy they are currently managing. Almost like a male version of Vickie. Vickie an amazing character, but is seem to be more about her then whoever she was managing at most points. 
And Also the fact most people seem to jizz over him and believe he is the greatest thing to happen to wrestling. Tho I am sure the people who got bounced checks and lies from him can say other wise.