Booking Ideas

[TDalton]

Just because a few people have PM’ed or asked why and how I was doing certain things, I figured I’d start a thread that goes beyond the “kayfabe” nature of our feds. I hope it provides some ideas we can blatantly steal from one another and provide some insight into why we’ve booked the way we have. Or it may be completely uninteresting and die a quick and painless death.

The following gives the background on how I booked the SUPERBOWL (Card #260) in my fed.

Nick Bockwinkel vs. The Sheik: I just didn’t see any other big match that could headline the show. Bockwinkel against Harley Race could do it, but it was just too soon to pull the trigger on that bout. Steve Williams didn’t have a strong challenger out there, and I don't like the concept of the “champion vs. champion” match. In “real” wrestling, the match can work if properly booked, but dice don’t care about good booking. If Sheik wins, it undermines Williams’ perception as the top guy. If Williams wins, it blows Sheik’s mystique and makes him a second tier guy. So I started thinking that this would be the second year in a row the Wrestler of the Year award came down to Bock and Sheik. Bock had the record setting title reign, but because of the timing, could lose the award both years. That led me to the feud over the award and a main event between the two most dominant forces in NWF history. This was planned in early October (NWF time). I wanted to make it a “one night only” attraction, as I don’t want to tie up the top two heels in my fed in matches against one another. There’s that added intrigue of the non-title stip (you can’t hold two belts concurrently in the NWF) so that fans wouldn’t have a clue what might happen.

Steve Williams vs. Greg Valentine: I really hoped their match on Card #258 would be a DQ or countout so this would mean more. Williams had the clean win already, but every other top contender was already booked in another match. Instead of giving a title shot to someone who hadn’t earned it (wins and losses are very important in my fed) I gave Valentine another shot. If Valentine wins, I have the rematch, if he loses, it wouldn’t hurt anything. With everything else going on, I didn’t need the title match to be the main focus.

Flying Redheads vs. Fabulous Kangaroos: The gimmick of Red Berry constantly delaying the first meeting of these two teams meeting was actually a late addition. Once the Danny Hodge/Yukon Eric injuries were done, I planned on having them in the ring. Then Lyons slaughtered Heffernan in a singles match (putting 8 fatigue on him) and I started thinking that Heffernan shouldn’t be able to compete on the next show. From there I came up with the idea of stringing it out until SB5 and making their first match an even bigger event than originally planned.

Mad Dog Vachon vs. Ivan Koloff: This was in the works for a long time as well, probably around May or June. I booked this feud backward. I started with the Chain Match at SB5, then went backward card by card booking singles and tag bouts to see when the feud should begin. I wanted Valiant and Koloff to do a Chain Match along the way to build to the two chain wielding guys going at it. Thankfully, Koloff beat Valiant. Had he lost, I would have said Vachon interfered or caused some kind of carnage with his Algerian chains to start their angle.

Larry Zbyszko vs. Curt Hennig: This was the old school double turn. I’m not a big fan of Zbyszko as a face, but I wasn’t about to turn Bock or Stevens. I had to do something with Curt, who was floundering after a really good start. This also puts heat between father and son, which is an angle I’ve never played out in the NWF. There was some heat between the DiBiases when Ted returned as a face, but Iron Mike just decided to leave. It also puts the Heenan Family in the spotlight, which is where I want them, even without Bockwinkel as NWF champ. I had this planned even before the Hennigs debuted.

Armstrongs vs. Riviera Playboys: This was the never-ending feud of 2007. They’ve been matched up since around April, but I just really liked the dynamic and the matches were almost always good. Armstrongs were cursed, losing many matches on fluke rolls or unlikely events. They finally turned it around in October. I know I strung this out a long time, but based on where I’m going with the Armstrongs in 2008, it had to be done.

Harley Race & Larry Hennig vs. Ray Stevens & Bobby Heenan: Originally, this was going to Race & L Hennig against Bockwinkel & Stevens. The draw there was that it would be the first time Bockwinkel and Race (long-time rivals from NWF inception in January 2003 through April 2006) faced off since Harley’s return. Once I decided on the main event, this match had to be re-tooled. On the whole, it works out for the best, as the Race vs. Bockwinkel storyline can now take center stage in early 2008.

DDP & Dennis Condrey vs. Rick Rude & King Kong Bundy: This was another one where I had to string things out longer than I would have liked. I knew they had to meet at SB5 to set some future plans in motion. It hurt Rude & Bundy, as they had a great record, but I couldn’t have them tied up in the tag title picture for things to work out. Luckily, I had a lot of hot tag-teams at the end of the year to be title contenders.

That’s about it. It’s not perfect, but for the most part it makes sense. It was a really fun year, and I’m still working on my timing. I felt some guys left too abruptly, but I really knew where I wanted to be at year-end, and didn’t feel it was worth keeping some guys around if they had no purpose. SUPERBOWL results will be up soon. Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting. Hopefully, the 2008 year will be even better!

[Stu]

Great idea Tim. I think an area of the board where we can discuss, dissect, and debate booking is welcome.

I really liked your logic in deciding to go with Bock vs. The Sheik as your Main Event, instead of Williams. Champion vs. Champion matches just don't work with dice involved, and having a headline bout to settle the WOTY award is a great idea. While a title match would be better as you know, this bout has a lot of backstory to it, and is a novel idea.

Here’s a question for you (and anyone else who would like to chime in), regarding the title. Do you ever hold non-title matches with a champion against a prospective future opponent to build heat?

I held the first one I’ve had of these in some time last night. My current world champ is Jack Brisco (while I keep my bootlegs at a maximum of 3 at any given time, I do use bootlegs from time to time, and I’m using the Brisco version made by LOW Bootlegs on Yahoo…yes, that’s a cheap plug! ). Brisco is an ally of Giant Baba in my world, who is involved in a fairly heated teacher vs. student battle with Rikidozan.

Only, Brisco and Rikidozan have never met. Rikidozan is on one of those magical unbeaten runs since entering the WWA (my fed name), and is currently a juggernaut at 8-0 in WWA competition. So, he is the #1 contender for the World Heavyweight title.

But, other than the fact that Brisco is an ally of Baba’s, there is no real “heat” between Riki and Brisco. Add to that fact that Brisco is coming off a year-long war, and I mean “Feud of the Year” war with real life foe Dory Funk, Jr. (also available from LOW Bootlegs on Yahoo!), and I thought I wanted to have Brisco’s first opponent after finally wresting the strap away from Funk have a bit more story to it than just “he’s the #1 contender, so he gets the shot”.

Well, last night, I headlined the card with this non-title match of Brisco vs. Rikidozan, with the stip that if Riki won, he gets the World Title shot. Riki did in fact win, as he’s done nothing else since entering the WWA, and now gets the title shot.

He won rather handily too. By having this occur, have I in essence “weakened” in the money-paying public’s eyes the champ, since he’s technically already lost a bout to Rikidozan? Or, did I in effect create a revenge motive for Brisco going into their World Title match?

I tend to not like non-title matches for the reason that if the champ loses, it just seems like it has devalued everything a bit, including the title. But, I can be convinced otherwise, and I throw this topic out for debate.

-Stu

P.S.: I read "Brody" over the holidays. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone interested in this time period in wrestling!

[Chad Olson]

tdalton said:

Just because a few people have PM’ed or asked why and how I was doing certain things, I figured I’d start a thread that goes beyond the “kayfabe” nature of our feds. I hope it provides some ideas we can blatantly steal from one another and provide some insight into why we’ve booked the way we have. Or it may be completely uninteresting and die a quick and painless death.

I hope it's option #1, I think this is a great idea!

tdalton said:

Nick Bockwinkel vs. The Sheik:

I like this match a lot, because it would be rare for me to headline a card without the world title on top. I think this shows the importance of this match in your fed, with it's "one time only" type status.

tdalton said:

Steve Williams vs. Greg Valentine:

I've discussed this with Stu in the past, how sometimes it sucks when you can't get the result you want leading up to the "big match". In your case, you had a clean pinfall and didn't get the screw job finish. That would kind of kill the steam leading to this match, but you've done a good job of keeping it rolling through the tag match at the pre-show for the Super Bowl. Stu & I had a lengthy discussion where he even *gasp* mentioned the idea of getting rid of supercards because it can lessen the significance of your house shows. I often find myself stalling in the cards leading up to a supercard, because you don't want to damage your lineup or mess up your booking. But I've always found the fun part of this game is making lemonade out of the lemons you get handed when the dice don't work out how you wanted them to.

That might be a booking discussion for another day.

tdalton said:

Flying Redheads vs. Fabulous Kangaroos:

To be perfectly honest, I thought this one went on a little too long. I really want to see this match! I guess I'll be buying my ticket to see what happens!

I really like the backwards booking approach on MDV vs. Koloff and Page/Condrey vs. Bundy/Rude. I know where you're going with both feuds and I think folks will be surprised with what happens next.

tdalton said:

[Armstrongs vs. Riviera Playboys:

For some reason, even though this has been going on much longer than the Reds vs. Kangaroos, it doesn't have the dragging on feeling to it. Maybe it's because they're actually meeting in the ring! I like how the Armstrongs started out pretty clean cut, but resorted to classic Southern style babyface brawling to turn the tide. I'm also looking forward to your plans with the Armstrongs in 2008.

tdalton said:

That’s about it. It’s not perfect, but for the most part it makes sense. It was a really fun year, and I’m still working on my timing. I felt some guys left too abruptly, but I really knew where I wanted to be at year-end, and didn’t feel it was worth keeping some guys around if they had no purpose.

Timing is a tough one. I keep my booking sheets for the AWA, like yours for the NWF, and I often find myself deviating from them, because it's not quite the right time for a guy to enter or leave. In one case this spring/summer, one wrestler was going to jump into a main event feud following WrestleRock instead hasn't debuted yet because of some injuries at the big show (you'll see who gets injured when I post the results in a few days).

Keep up the great work! The NWF is one of my favorite LOW feds out there.

[Chad Olson]

stubucco said:

Here’s a question for you (and anyone else who would like to chime in), regarding the title. Do you ever hold non-title matches with a champion against a prospective future opponent to build heat?

It's funny, but I usually see the non-title matches as a "heel tactic". In the AWA, the heel champs would always drop non-title matches to set up endless face challenges.

stubucco said:

But, other than the fact that Brisco is an ally of Baba’s, there is no real “heat” between Riki and Brisco...... and I thought I wanted to have Brisco’s first opponent after finally wresting the strap away from Funk have a bit more story to it than just “he’s the #1 contender, so he gets the shot”.

Like I mentioned above, I wouldn't see a face champion defending in a non-title match, unless the challenger is a controversial rulebreaker, who may not deserve his title match until he pins the champion clean. I would see Brisco wanting to fight Riki because's he's the new guy in town on a hot streak. Brisco's competitive nature would demand that he fight Riki and put the title on the line.

stubucco said:

He won rather handily too. By having this occur, have I in essence “weakened” in the money-paying public’s eyes the champ, since he’s technically already lost a bout to Rikidozan? Or, did I in effect create a revenge motive for Brisco going into their World Title match?

I think Brisco has something to prove now. He wants to avenge his non-title loss and be the first person to hand Riki a loss in the WWA area.

Keep us posted on what happens!

[Cory Olson]

Great thread, guys. I liked how Tim did Bock-Sheik as kind of a "rare" main event. Rather than do it with just the "dream match" feel behind it, there was actual a storyline behind it, with both battling for the Wrestler of the Year award.

I think the Armstrongs-Playboys feud is one of the best mid-card feuds. You expect that the more "established" team in the Armstrongs would win, but then the Playboys win, often by sneaky ways. Yet, it infuriates the Armstrongs to get nasty when needed.

I actually think you did a good job with holding off on Redheads-Kangaroos. As a fan, I would be pissed! But I think the excuses you came up with worked well.

Stu, I think a non-title match is fine, even if the face is the champ. I had Inoki do that a few times in the USWA this year, where there may have been a personal feud, but the opponent wasn't really worthy of a title shot. But had the opponent beaten Inoki, (which he didn't), I would have given him a shot.

In my USWA, I had Bock-Strangler as second from the top for the New Year's Knockout (see my thread--cheap plug!) For the first three NYK's, the top three titles were always the last three matches. But I decided in fall, that I wanted Bock-Strangler to be on this card, since by that point, they hadn't met. I figured it would be a great build to have them wrestle for the first time a year after they first crossed paths (NYK III, when Strangler was special ref for Bock's title match against Race). Whether or not one of them had the belt, I wanted them to meet. I decided that such a long-awaited match should go on as the second most important match on the card, after the World title match.

Let's keep this thread going!

[TDalton]

I've had mixed results with non-title matches. When the champ wins a one-sided match, you're kind of screwed if you were trying to build to a big title bout.

As far as my Redheads/Kangaroos, I think it dragged. I was getting tired of playing it, but had committed to the SB5 match. At least it gives me something to really kick off 2008 with.

One of the biggest problems in my fed is that most times there is no real "heat" on the title matches. I'm trying to do more of a St. Louis style thing where the title is the focus. Bockwinkel vs. Williams played out well as a feud, but most times it will just be a top contender going for the gold.

I'm doing a little better in "timing" my supercard feuds. I know Chad and I have talked about having a supercard that settles a bunch of ongoing issues, only to be left with nothing afterward. I think some long range planning helps. As of SUPERBOWL (December 2007), I have a good idea what my STEEL BELT CLASH (April 2008) main event will be, and know at least one key match on SUMMER SHOWDOWN (August 2008). I've really been working on the "backward booking" to get the timing down.

[Stu]

Tim, I have the same problem sometimes, where there is no real heat for the title matches.

Like you, I too am leaning more and more towards a St. Louis-style booking model, which would put the real focus upon the title(s). Chad and I have discussed St. Louis a bit. I think I speak for both us in that we wonder if Matysik is looking back in time at St. Louis through rose-colored glasses, if ever so slightly.

But...even if he is, I strongly prefer the St. Louis model, where wrestling is presented as sport, perhaps above all else, and the title is that which is valued above everything.

This can, however, make it more difficult to build heat for title matches, if in fact you are picking your title challengers based purely on their record/ranking. A lot of times in the past, I haven't really done this that strictly, preferring instead to go with a feud match with the title at stake, as long as the challenger wasn't a complete bum.

So, that now while I'm moving in a St. Louis direction (figuratively speaking of course ), I'm thinking I'll really want to keep open the possibility that title matches certainly don't always have to be about rankings and challengers deserving of shots. They can also involve feuds.

The best title matches occur when the challenger is white hot record-wise, and is a feuding opponent. That doesn't happen often for me, but when it does, its golden!

[daytondave]

Great work, Tim.

What interests me is the question of how the experts book their feds BETWEEN supercards.

Do you plan a few supercards per year and direct your booking to build up those events? Or, do you hold regular cards and book the Supercards when the storylines call for it?

How do you keep title matches "special" without making them too rare?

I like to play my fed twice a week. I have 36 active wrestlers, including 8 tag teams in any given cycle. I book four cards at a time, which gives each single and tag team one match per cycle. I try to book a "Main Event" for each card - a title defense, #1 contender match, or a grudge match. After 8 cycles (one month) I hold a pay-per-view.

It seems like the monthly pay-per-view holds some excitement, but not the "Superbowl" feel. How do you guys keep your feds fresh between big events, while maintaining the excitement of the supercards?

[TDalton]

Dave –

I’m not sure any of us are “experts” – we just do our own thing.

As far as supercard timing, mine are set for mid-April, mid-August and the last show in December. I do a lot of long range planning to determine when guys enter / exit to keep things moving along. At some point I may add another big show, but when I hit landmark cards like #200 or #250 I try to make them mini-supercards.

The problem is you need to be flexible when everything hits the fan (i.e. someone was supposed to leave but holds a title; guy you wanted to push as top contender is 0-7, etc). The Sheik was originally scheduled for a 9 or10 month stay in the NWF. That was November of 2005 and I'm finishing 2007 with him still here and going strong!

One problem I have, somewhat like my perception of current WWE, is that my stories get tighter around supercard time, then seem to lose focus. I'm still working on that. Again, a lot comes down to planning. Obviously you can't use strictly conventional wrestling booking, because the dice will have Cousin Luke upset your champion at the least convenient time. I try to set things up so there are feuds ending, starting and continuing on each big show. If a big match happens at a “regular” show, I just let it happen. I’ve started doing a lot of what I’ve referred to as “backward booking.” For example, if I want Vachon and Koloff in a blowoff chain match in late December, I start there and set up matches backwards to see when the feud should start based upon my fed’s schedule.

As far as monthly PPV's or supercards, you’re a better man than I. I'm old, and I like the slow developing angles and feuds that I grew up watching. For example, when I did the Snuka – Muraco feud in my fed, it took months. They didn’t get into the steel cage until the twelfth or thirteenth match (including tags). Some people don’t have that kind of patience. I do because it’s based on my experience.

Remember, in the grand scheme of things, this is just a card & dice wrestling game. There isn’t a right or wrong answer, and if you’re happy with your fed, that’s all that matters.

Damn, that was a long-winded answer. Did I address your concerns?

[Stu]

Dave:

Like Chad mentioned, I've even thought about doing away with Supercards entirely. One of the things I've enjoyed about ROH is that, well at least through 2006, each card felt special on its own merit. I tend to personally prefer this, and it helps my simple brain maintain a better creative flow to book almost purely card-to-card.

I run two small feds, one with the Legends, and the other is my version of the GWF, using fictional characters. I'm tending to book each the same way now, with a slight nod towards the outlandish in the GWF. But, basically, I'm going card to card, letting the dice dictate mostly what happens.

Now, with that said, I tend to have one or two big themes/feuds going on in each fed at any given time. For example, during all of 2007, the headline feud was Brisco vs. Funk, and their assorted allies, in my Legends fed. I had predetermined that this is what I wanted. I did make sure to keep this relevant, and, quite honestly, the dice complied with this wish. But, I still went card to card, and let the dice tell the story, determining other feuds and match-ups based upon results from the previous card, while keeping Brisco-Funk the spotlight feud.

For me, this works well. I still have one Supercard at the end of the year, but I've moved away from the Supercards over the last couple of years just because its easier for me creatively.

Like Tim said, do what works for you. There is no one-size-fits-all model, which is a very good thing!

[Knapik]

Some very enlightening and interesting stuff. Very impressive!

[ThePunisher]

Damn good thread guys

A read like that makes me want to roll the dice in a bad way even though I never developed a LOW fed.

[Cory Olson]

On the subject of "super"cards, I do try to make every card mean something. But following the year-end card (New Year's Knockout in my fed), I notice that I go through this "What's next?" feeling for the new year. Sometimes each new year, I have a plan of new feuds and storylines I want to run. Other times, the dice rolls come up with things for me.

Tim mentioned the example of Cousin Luke upsetting the champion and ironically that's happening for me right now in the USWA, as Luke beat Buddy Rose (a two-time former champ in my fed). This match was "intended" for Rose to get a win, as he himself was just coming off an upset over Inoki. But Luke ended up dominating and I'm now planning to build a little feud and storyline off of it.

The one thing I like about running a territory-type fed, as opposed to a national fed, is that I try to do some history in each city. The Road Warriors and Midnight Express had three battles (one a year for three years) over the USWA Tag titles all in Chattanooga. I'm not perfect at remembering these things for each city, but I try to check all my records for long-running feuds and see when and where they wrestled, and if an upcoming city held a big match in their feud.

[mwjergs]

First, this is a great idea for a thread. You always have ideas for where you want things to go and the dice can change things quickly.

I ran a LWF "national" type fed for about one game year and then with so many new sets out and LOW boots I wanted to restart.
I must say that I have liked the idea much better of getting together with other promoters and doing a territory. It forces you to shorten your roster and develop the talent you have. One thing I hated about the national fed is that you had so many to choose from and I didn't want to hotshot too much and just bring guys in for whatever reason.
Right now I have the Continental Area working and I'm real pleased with the results.
Once I get back from vacation my "supercard" is a big Xmas clash that should either end some feuds or keep a few going. I like the feel of trying to go for an "old school" territory feel.

Love to hear more ideas.

[majorbludd]

I thibk its great how you have everything so well thought out and planned in advance. What sort of system do use to plan things out so far ahead of time?. For example if you were going to start from scratch how would you go about it?

[Chad Olson]

majorbludd said:

For example if you were going to start from scratch how would you go about it?

That's a very good question! When I started my fed, I had my tournaments drawn up over the first 6 cards or so. I also had a couple of the big feuds that I wanted to use in mind, like Sheik & Volkoff against Bobo, Destroyer & Red. Most of the other stuff, I let develop. I experimented with a couple of teams like Harley Race & King Kong Bundy, and Killer Kowalski & Ox Baker. After 12 cards or so (and a few LONG layoffs), I put together booking sheets that list everyone on my roster and who they my be feuding with. (This goes back to the GWF days, when Tom would put together the little sheet that matched up all the wrestlers. Think he started that in Invasion 2088.)

I'll book out a year or so at a time, month by month, but I do everything in pencil, so I can change things as needed. Injuries, long title reigns, or just plain other ideas can change what's going on in the AWA. It's a framework and gives me direction, but it's not the be all end all. Without it, I tend to ramble from card to card with no clear direction.

[Chad Olson]

daytondave said:

Great work, Tim.

What interests me is the question of how the experts book their feds BETWEEN supercards.

I'm not an expert either, but if you're looking for more input...

In 2007, I held my first supercard for the AWA, WrestleRock. (Results posted tomorrow, cheap plug!) Up until that point, I had only done a couple of holiday spectaculars at Thanksgiving and Christmas in the AWA. That's what I remember watching as a youth, so that's what appeals to me. I also did a "tour" of the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico in game year 2006, based on cards I actually did in the DR while visiting Cory. In 2007, I'm going to have a tour in December of the Hawaiian islands, as the AWA champ would defend there against locals in the mid to late 70s.

So, the rest of my shows are old fashioned house shows. I don't run TV shows or PPVs. I enjoy reading the results of those who do that, but it's just not for me. I envision AWA fans traveling from around the country to attend WrestleRock live in person, because it's not going to be shown on PPV. I book 2 shows a month for now, because I'm a couple months behind in game time vs. real time.

I generally book my shows in sets of 3, with one title being defended on each card. I have my main arenas that I run in, plus all the cool little spot show venues that I remember as a kid. I actually attended cards at the North Iowa Ice Arena and Southwest Junior High! The main arenas are scheduled to be hit 2-3 times per year in 2008, with 1 spot show per building.

With a spring supercard, plus a holiday show in November and December, I try to have all the titles defended, plus a couple of special attractions to make them more than a regular house show. I run 8 matches on a house show, but usually increase it to 12 for a supercard. I'll probably add a battle royale to either the November or December holiday show to make it more special, because I don't run battle royales at house shows. And like Tim does in the NWF, I might use our LOW bootlegs against each other on a supercard or holiday show as a special attraction match. I will also bring in official LOW guys as competitors from other territories. This might be a one shot deal or might lead to a full time gig with the AWA down the road.

[TDalton]

majorbludd said:

I thibk its great how you have everything so well thought out and planned in advance. What sort of system do use to plan things out so far ahead of time?. For example if you were going to start from scratch how would you go about it?

Excel spreadsheets work best for me. I list the feuding teams/groups and have columns by month, up to a year ahead. When I think a feud will be played out, I switch things up. Of course, this never works out completely. Some feuds wind up one-sided from the first match, so I'll change things around earlier. Some are just hitting their stride when I had planned them to end, so I keep it going. A good example was when I had Bockwinkel feuding with the Mike & Ted DiBiase. It was supposed to be a 2-3 month transition until Destroyer came back as "Dr. X" to feud with Bock. The DiBiase thing worked so well, I kept it going and the Dr. X idea got scrapped.

I use the sheet as a guideline to give me some sort of big picture. Other people really like random events and unplanned wrestlers coming in or leaving. I'm not big on random events, but that's my personality.

As far as starting from scratch, when I had just the original 24 guys (plus Virgil & Nikita Breznikov) there was more of an "everyone fights everyone else" kind of flow due to the limited wrestlers. Now, with about 100 to choose from, it's a lot easier to run a territory-style promotion where people come and go.

[majorbludd]

tdalton said:

majorbludd said:

I thibk its great how you have everything so well thought out and planned in advance. What sort of system do use to plan things out so far ahead of time?. For example if you were going to start from scratch how would you go about it?

Excel spreadsheets work best for me. I list the feuding teams/groups and have columns by month, up to a year ahead. When I think a feud will be played out, I switch things up. Of course, this never works out completely. Some feuds wind up one-sided from the first match, so I'll change things around earlier. Some are just hitting their stride when I had planned them to end, so I keep it going. A good example was when I had Bockwinkel feuding with the Mike & Ted DiBiase. It was supposed to be a 2-3 month transition until Destroyer came back as "Dr. X" to feud with Bock. The DiBiase thing worked so well, I kept it going and the Dr. X idea got scrapped.

I use the sheet as a guideline to give me some sort of big picture. Other people really like random events and unplanned wrestlers coming in or leaving. I'm not big on random events, but that's my personality.

As far as starting from scratch, when I had just the original 24 guys (plus Virgil & Nikita Breznikov) there was more of an "everyone fights everyone else" kind of flow due to the limited wrestlers. Now, with about 100 to choose from, it's a lot easier to run a territory-style promotion where people come and go.

Thanks

[majorbludd]

isuchado said:

majorbludd said:

For example if you were going to start from scratch how would you go about it?

That's a very good question! When I started my fed, I had my tournaments drawn up over the first 6 cards or so. I also had a couple of the big feuds that I wanted to use in mind, like Sheik & Volkoff against Bobo, Destroyer & Red. Most of the other stuff, I let develop. I experimented with a couple of teams like Harley Race & King Kong Bundy, and Killer Kowalski & Ox Baker. After 12 cards or so (and a few LONG layoffs), I put together booking sheets that list everyone on my roster and who they my be feuding with. (This goes back to the GWF days, when Tom would put together the little sheet that matched up all the wrestlers. Think he started that in Invasion 2088.)

I'll book out a year or so at a time, month by month, but I do everything in pencil, so I can change things as needed. Injuries, long title reigns, or just plain other ideas can change what's going on in the AWA. It's a framework and gives me direction, but it's not the be all end all. Without it, I tend to ramble from card to card with no clear direction.

I always go good for a while until I get in the 30-40 card range. That seems to be the point where I get frustrated and either quit or start over. I like the idea of keeping booking sheets and will give it a try. Thanks