Paul Heyman Wasn’t Happy w/Idea Of WWE DVD About Him, Fires Back At Lesnar Critics

Scott Fishman of The Miami Herald has an outstanding article online to promote Paul Heyman’s WWE DVD ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, My Name is Paul Heyman’ featuring quotes from the man himself. In the piece, Heyman talks about the success his daughter has had in marketing herself on Instagram his reluctance to have WWE do a DVD on him and he fred back at critics of Brock Lesnar’s part-time status.

Below are some highlights:

Hesitant about a WWE DVD:

“I was not happy about it,” Heyman said. “I had no idea what take WWE was going to have on a look back on what I’ve done so far. You never know the story that they want to tell. It’s a deeply personal issue to me because it’s me. I wasn’t sure what direction it was going to take. So being a control freak that had no control over, the creative content involved, I was apprehensive to say the very least. Plus, it puts me in a position where I have to talk about stuff from 20, 30 years ago, and I hate spending time looking back.”

Criticism about Brock Lesnar’s status:

“I don’t know if any of those critics of privy to an agreement Brock Lesnar may or may not have with WWE,” he said. “So I don’t understand how anybody can credibly say this is what Brock Lesnar’s schedule is going to be when he becomes the WWE champion. Second, I think the WWE championship is the defended too often and lost some of the prestige because of the beast of monthly pay-per-views. The champion having to defend on every single pay-per-view, let alone at every single arena, has taken away from the special event that is when a champion defends the title.

“Here is the best example I can give you. Why don’t we just do 12 WrestleMania events a year? I mean it’s the brand name in pay-per-view. You know people understand that WrestleMania means it’s something special and unique and doesn’t happen all the time. It’s can’t miss. Well, you can’t do 12 WrestleMania events a year because then you water-down WrestleMania, and it won’t mean as much on the rare occasion you present the brand name WrestleMania.

“It’s the same with Brock Lesnar. If you present Brock Lesnar 52 weeks a year and you have Brock Lesnar defend the title 12 times a year, you’re losing money. You’re not making money because you are watering down the unique opportunity that the audience can have to see an once-in-a-lifetime athlete on the rare occasion that he dons the tights and laces up the boots and goes into the ring to beat people within an inch of their lives.

“Plus, here is one more thing to consider. If Brock Lesnar were to work a full-time schedule he would wipe out the roster at once. There would be nobody left for him to fight. So how can people be clamoring for Brock Lesnar to be work a full-time schedule? Then you’ll have three hours of Brock and Paul Heyman sitting alone in a ring talking to each other because there would be nobody left for Brock Lesnar to conquer.”

Click here to read the piece in its entirety.

WNW’s FREE Smartphone App! Dirt Sheet for iPhone, Android and iPad.

Connect With WNW

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn!

  • The Shockmaster

    Paul Heyman is a genius.

  • Mysterion

    Hang on. Was this is character or not? I’m not being funny here but WWE Title matches are the main sale point of a WWE PPV. Is he saying here that we shouldn’t expect Brock to be defending it with an frequency? If that’s the case why the hell was Bryan even stripped anyway? Just saying.

    • Moose

      Very good point! Granted, DB’s injury put him out for longer than a PPV or two.

    • Snap

      I agree, to an extent. The defense of the WWE championship is not a necessity for PPVs, as it used to actually be rare for it to be defended at a PPV which was not WrestleMania. The first two SummerSlam events featured the champion in a tag team match, the champion was involved in the Royal Rumble match for the first two of those PPV events, while the Survivor Series didn’t feature any singles matches on PPV (let alone title matches) for the first four years.

      No disrespect to anyone who may feel otherwise, as this is just my own personal opinion, I don’t buy into the idea that the champion MUST be present on RAW week in and week out in order to build up a PPV match. When people became WWF champion prior to the Attitude Era, their appearances, let alone matches, on free TV became less frequent and it made the times when they did compete on TV feel special. Fast forward to today and we have guys like John Cena regularly getting booed out of the building because he has been ridiculously over-exposed. There’s nothing special about a Cena match because they happen all the time, but a Lesnar match or an Undertaker match?

      Under ordinary conditions, I would agree wholeheartedly with the situation about Daniel Bryan being stripped but, unfortunately, as his injury was worse than anticipated it was ultimately the right call. Had his recovery time enabled a return for SummerSlam, then I would have certainly been against him being stripped though I do believe Lesnar should potentially defend the WWE championship at the major PPVs such as Night of Champions, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble in the lead up to WresleMania. Use the B-shows to have challengers earn the right to vie for the championship and build new stars in the process.

      • michael foulds

        Those 3 are exactly the 3 Pay Per View’s I expect him to defend it at, but what about Elimination Chamber? Do you think he will defend it in the Chamber?

        • Snap

          It is a distinct possibility, as WWE likes to throw in all their chips on the Road to WrestleMania, but Elimination Chamber has really become the odd event out with the unification of the WWE and World Heavyweight championships. There’s no longer a need to find a number one contender now that the Rumble determines the definitive challenger for WrestleMania and it really doesn’t make sense for the Rumble winner to challenge at Elimination Chamber

          Unless they are forced to make a significant change to storylines, there’s no reason for the champion to drop the title in the chamber or, in Lesnar’s case, have a meaningless match for the sake of having a title defense. In the end, I have a feeling Lesnar will ultimately defend to justify having a chamber match.

      • Mysterion

        But the issue here is that this isn’t the 1980s anymore. I remember the days with roaming champions and rare defences. But times have changed now. People have moved into an expectant scenario the title will be defended with some frequency. And what about the long lost, sometimes reaffirmed 30 day rule WWE think they have?

        • Snap

          Times have changed, yeah, and they will continue to change, but the current model is a liability for WWE and the injury to Daniel Bryan puts a giant spotlight on it. People can expect to see title defenses all they want, but that doesn’t mean WWE is obligated to give it to them. The audience may have developed an “entitlement complex” as a result of the Attitude Era, but they can be trained over time to accept a new (or old) way of doing things.

          The only answer I can give to the 30 day rule is WWE uses and forgets it when it is convenient.

          Now here’s the thing, ever since the brand extension and the existence of two top championships, the brand’s champion has appeared at live events. The Brock, as far as I know, doesn’t do live events so if his run were to last until WrestleMania, the people who buy tickets to live events wouldn’t see the WWE champion nor see a title defense. Of course, it’s nothing new as Cena hasn’t been at a whole lot of live events since becoming champion, thus I think the times are already beginning to change from the era of frequent title defenses.

          It’s not a bad thing, but people can be frightened (or resistant) to change.

  • Kleck

    Paul Heyman needs to: Sleep, think, speak, repeat.

    His promos are absolutely amazing and here again, he shines.

  • Xavier

    Uh oh, Heyman is attacking the very same fans who worship the ground he walks on lol. What sill smarks do now? Lol

  • David F

    Heyman made some great points here but with struggles of WWE network WWE needs to have the champion defend every single PPV in fall and if Brock is champ he needs defend every single ppv until Wrestlemania when he will probably drop it.

    • Avalanchian

      Or they need to make the other titles become meaningful. They don’t really create storylines for the most part outside of the world championship that are to be taken seriously. They upped their Diva storylines of late which is good.

  • rudy

    Paul is a genius, but a genius who is defending Brocks schedule against what is right. The championship DOES have to be defended at every ppv and the champion DOES have to be around to promote the bouts. Silly heyman tricks are for kids.

  • Avalanchian

    Just think though if the title wasn’t defended every night and at every pay per view then Cena might not be shoved down our throats so much. That would make some of you happy I would think.

  • K!NG

    Honestly he is right. I would be fine if the WWE title wasn’t defended at every PPV because i am only paying 9.99 for it.

    • Jack ‘Tristeza’ Hughes

      NINE NINTY NINE

  • Gary Robert

    lol absolutely love the last quote!

  • Guest

    Isn’t this going against everything he was saying when cm punk was champ