Airfixx pretty much hit the nail on the head. Many people around here think they understand good booking, but when you ask them to actually deliver a competent long-term angle, their booking is so full of holes and logic it's ridiculous to even entertain their ideas.
Second of all, and what people on the Internet don't understand, is that what appeals to THEM does not necessarily appeal to everyone else. At the end of the day, one person's opinion is worth as much as a blade of grass. The WWE (and TNA too I'm sure) hires TEAMS of people to see which angle is going over well, and more importantly, which workers fans want to see. For example:
That right there is what I'm talking about. It's a proven fact that wrestling fans in America want larger than life characters, not midgets who look like they could be taken out by your daughter. Bring in a guy like Alex Shelley over The Big Show? That'd be nuts. The Big Show is FAR more interesting to the majority of wrestling fans than Alex Shelley is. Don't get me wrong, I like Alex Shelley, but right now, he's not even close to being in the same world as The Big Show.
Which brings me to my next point. So many of these Internet Expert Bookers do many of their ideas on the basis of a "good match". Their whole angle relies on great matches. The problem is, most of these people don't have the first clue as to what having a good match is. And thus, they want to put people like, say, Elix Skipper ahead of someone like Batista, because they think Skipper is a better worker. Which is completely stupid, as Skipper isn't fit to shine Batista's boots, when it comes to in-ring work.
And so, basically, the biggest problem with Internet Bookers if their own ignorance. Do the WWE and TNA writing teams get it? Sometimes they do...and sometimes they don't. But, more often than not, what TNA and WWE produces is FAR more riveting TV than anything the majority of people on the Internet could come up.
Second of all, and what people on the Internet don't understand, is that what appeals to THEM does not necessarily appeal to everyone else. At the end of the day, one person's opinion is worth as much as a blade of grass. The WWE (and TNA too I'm sure) hires TEAMS of people to see which angle is going over well, and more importantly, which workers fans want to see. For example:
That right there is what I'm talking about. It's a proven fact that wrestling fans in America want larger than life characters, not midgets who look like they could be taken out by your daughter. Bring in a guy like Alex Shelley over The Big Show? That'd be nuts. The Big Show is FAR more interesting to the majority of wrestling fans than Alex Shelley is. Don't get me wrong, I like Alex Shelley, but right now, he's not even close to being in the same world as The Big Show.
Which brings me to my next point. So many of these Internet Expert Bookers do many of their ideas on the basis of a "good match". Their whole angle relies on great matches. The problem is, most of these people don't have the first clue as to what having a good match is. And thus, they want to put people like, say, Elix Skipper ahead of someone like Batista, because they think Skipper is a better worker. Which is completely stupid, as Skipper isn't fit to shine Batista's boots, when it comes to in-ring work.
And so, basically, the biggest problem with Internet Bookers if their own ignorance. Do the WWE and TNA writing teams get it? Sometimes they do...and sometimes they don't. But, more often than not, what TNA and WWE produces is FAR more riveting TV than anything the majority of people on the Internet could come up.
