Quote:
Originally Posted by XL
Elaboration: I thought the thread would be about guys knowing their place on the roster I.e. A Zack Ryder won't ever be a top contender and should be content as an unused bit part player.
Instead, it's a thread comparing people based on character traits and wrestling style.
Just an observation.
|
Oh, okay. Well I meant the title to be a direct statement to the reader: "(You) know their roles"
The subtitle was meant to enforce that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rogerer
1999/2000 Fat Big Show is some of the worst stuff he's ever done.
I think your list shows that we have much a roster of much better health and agility than in 2000. However this doesn't help a product that tries to deny it's about wrestling. If they somehow trick people into watching their show with storylines or celebrity appearances, then those people better enjoy wrestling because they're going to be seeing a lot of it.
Embrace wrestling and have more promos.
The other thing about today's roster is that it's a lot more experienced. A lot of those attitude era guys were in their twenties.
|
Definitely agree with that. Big Show in the WWE was just horrible. All of his matches were boring outside of occasional chokeslams. WCW used him so much better in my opinion and I think he realized that fact. Everything from his debut to his first title reign was terrible. I remember Big Show as champ opening Raws against mid-carders.
It's like they were just trying to get back at WCW by making him look lame. I hear he had a bad attitude coming in though, so that might have had something to do with it.