Scratching My 7-Year Itch

[smathis]

Put Your Own Ass in a Seat
A promoter would say "Booking is all about putting asses in seats". Well, booking an LOW fed is about putting your OWN ass in a seat. If you wouldn't sit down to roll up a match, the short advice is to not book it.

That was one of the failings of my self-perpetuating schedule. It could go on forever. But guys with terrible stroke were not getting cycled out. And fresh matchups just weren't happening. For every awesome match between the Love Brothers and Arik Cannon & Amish Roadkill or Adrian Street against Superstar Graham, there were three or more total duds. Matches that just didn't inspire on any level.

I think that's because the schedule was just doing its job. It was booking matches according to the schedule.

Not because it was trying to put my ass in a seat.

And I guess this is the key to this whole booking thing that I had been missing.

I needed the drama of sports and competition. But I needed Win-Loss and Parity. Not a robotic scheduling system.

I needed exciting matches. But I needed to book to the results and I needed a way to track stroke. Not to pigeonhole myself in with pre-match push and booking to the match.

Ultimately, if you can put your own ass in that seat, you're doing it right.

Keep those dice rollin'.

[wildfire]

I agree with much of what you said here... I definitely am one of those guys that re-start things alot... while I love history and stats, I tend to lose steam and get bored, or get really excited about some OTHER time period/set of wrestlers. The ring is always bouncier on the other side of the meadow, I guess.

Thanks for sharing

[smathis]

Sept 7, 2011 9:58:54 GMT -5 wildfire said:

I agree with much of what you said here... I definitely am one of those guys that re-start things alot... while I love history and stats, I tend to lose steam and get bored, or get really excited about some OTHER time period/set of wrestlers. The ring is always bouncier on the other side of the meadow, I guess.

Thanks for sharing

No problem, WF.

I've done a pretty good job about not rebooting my fed. It's been 7 years. And I admittedly gimped myself at the onset. I was still learning a lot. That's why I felt it was important to share my observations. So maybe those people who are just starting out or just coming back to LOW can avoid some of my early mistakes.

I have no doubt my approach will continue to evolve over time with my interests and time constraints. But those typically don't tempt me to reboot.

The reason for the abandonment of the old fed had more to do with me stepping on the toes of the history with things I wanted to do. And not having access to historical Win-Loss records.

I think malaise will have a hard time setting in if someone books to the results, stays mindful of Parity and that Starting-Continuing-Ending trifecta and consistently books cards with the intent of generating enough personal interest to make you want to play the thing right now.

I often read other people's feds and think "Man, I'd like to give something like that a try". 99% of the time it's something I can give a whack without rebooting my fed. My tendency is to drift my existing fed instead of restart it.

I suspect my current fed will get rebooted one day. Or maybe I'll just recycle it once it reaches the end of its timeline. But I have at least 7 years of wrasslin ahead of me. Maybe more.

[chewey]

Wow, there's a lot here to comment on, and the fact that you broke it down into various subchapters makes it easier for me to comment on many of these musings at different points.

The first post that caught my eye was the "parity vs. push" phenomenon. I haven't run an LOW fed in years, but when I did I always built my fed up with mostly mid to low carders. I'd have one or two legit main eventers, and the rest of the roster would be chasing the champion. This allowed me to develop the personalities of the lower card guys, push the hell out of the top guys, and rotate new challengers into the territory on an as-needed basis.

Sometimes the dice don't cooperate, and sometimes they hand you gifts. However, just as there is a skill for a boxing promoter or MMA promoter to promote the best fights, I believe there is a skill involved in LOW too.

I obviously book things completely opposite of what you were advocating in embracing the unexpectedness of parity, but I think my thoughts are also relevant to the discussion that you've opened up. Great topic!

[smathis]

Sept 8, 2011 22:53:38 GMT -5 chewey said:

I obviously book things completely opposite of what you were advocating in embracing the unexpectedness of parity, but I think my thoughts are also relevant to the discussion that you've opened up. Great topic!

Thanks, chewey. My thoughts on "push" in LOW as being the defacto means of building a wrestler up to a title shot are centered around not trusting it.

That has a lot to do with the dice and the movesets on the cards.

When i'd bring some guys in a while back, I'd put them up against prelim guys, maybe even align them against mid-card guys I knew they could beat and then, wham, right into a title shot. Classic push, right?

But it didn't pay off. Many times the resultant title matches were dull. The cards weren't all that compatible or the dice were cold or something. That can happen in any match.

The reason I prefer Parity is that it doesn't seem to lend itself as greatly to this. And if done well, you get a preview of how these cards would interact in a "real" match.

In the example of the Gilbert-Street-McGuinness triangle. I got a sense that Gilbert and McGuinness would have a good match together. And that Street would probably not beat Gilbert. Street had already beaten McGuinness a couple of times in fairly bland affairs.

So it's nice to have that option (and that "preview") because throwing Gilbert into the mix (were I to have continued that fed) would've breathed new life into Street's title reign. He wouldn't have been greatly involved -- other than being champion -- but watching McGuinness and Gilbert go at it would've been entertaining. And moreso if McGuinness could beat Gilbert cleanly.

I hope this is making sense.

I suppose the biggest difference is the "push" builds a guy up to face another guy, usually sight unseen. But capitalizing on "parity" gives you the opportunity to set multiple guys against each other -- with a bit of a preview as to where you might want to focus your booking.

IME, there's less risk in a shoddy payoff with parity. But there's always risk.

[du5tin]

This really helped me scratch my six-seven year itch.

[johnandryan]

Smathis,

I agree with much of what you say above and in this thread. I think a lot of us, who have played as long as you have (I date back to around 2003) go through a time where we need a break for a variety of reasons - the dice are not cooperating, plans are not moving foward as we thought, etc.

there is nothing wrong with stepping back and recharging mentally before moving forward. I myself am coming off an extended break with more enthusiasm that once previously had. There was a stretch where I played every day for 2 years. I used LOW to escape some major emotional upheaval in my life, but I found myself playing, to just well, play. my roster had not turned over, my champs had become dull and uninteresting, my storyline predictable.

Now I am playing about once/twice a week - my shows are crisper, I love my roster, and now I look forward to playing.

Ultimately, as you note and I agree with, you need to find the formula that works best for you as a booker and fan and run with it.

-J

[smathis]

Oct 21, 2011 19:05:53 GMT -5 @du5tin said:

This really helped me scratch my six-seven year itch.

That's great to hear, Dustin. Thanks!

[smathis]

Oct 27, 2011 5:36:27 GMT -5 johnandryan said:

Smathis,

I agree with much of what you say above and in this thread. I think a lot of us, who have played as long as you have (I date back to around 2003) go through a time where we need a break for a variety of reasons - the dice are not cooperating, plans are not moving foward as we thought, etc.

there is nothing wrong with stepping back and recharging mentally before moving forward. I myself am coming off an extended break with more enthusiasm that once previously had. There was a stretch where I played every day for 2 years. I used LOW to escape some major emotional upheaval in my life, but I found myself playing, to just well, play. my roster had not turned over, my champs had become dull and uninteresting, my storyline predictable.

Now I am playing about once/twice a week - my shows are crisper, I love my roster, and now I look forward to playing.

Ultimately, as you note and I agree with, you need to find the formula that works best for you as a booker and fan and run with it.

-J

Absolutely, J. My musings here were more a documentation of where I am (at the moment) in regards to what works for me.

I wasn't trying to promote any One True Way. Instead, I was getting down what I'd experienced so that others could compare and contrast what works for them and maybe take some of my own conclusions under consideration at some time in the future.

It's like the "parity" thing. I picked that up from the book "Drawing the Hard Heat". And it made so much sense. I also studied Sam Muchnick's booking from his years in St. Louis. And I got it. I see what he was doing and some of the formulas he applied successfully over the years.

For those who aren't interested in pursuing this sort of academic research into booking a wrestling promotion, I think these musings can be a helpful distillation of what I learned through the years.

If it works for someone else, awesome. I've saved them a lot of work. If it doesn't, no big. It's here in case they want to revisit it some day down the road.

Happy Holidays. And keep those dice rolling.

Smathis is back in 2012. Hide yo' valets!