|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-28-2015, 11:53 AM | #41 |
Over Like Rover
Posts: 38,444
|
that last post was so touching I almost choked up
|
01-28-2015, 01:37 PM | #42 |
Curtis
Posts: 3,890
|
Because vanilla midgets don't make the world work.
Its much more interesting to see a guy like Undertaker in the ring than it is to see a guy who looks like he just came out of the deli section in Shop-Rite like Daniel Bryan. |
03-30-2015, 01:33 AM | #43 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Vince just put the title on a guy with leather pants and a blond streak in his hair who looks like a gay porn star that Seth82 would post pictures of. Let's re-open the homoeroticism discussion.
|
03-30-2015, 01:46 AM | #44 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
I think Narc said it best, that the diversity of different sizes helps tell a greater amount of stories in the ring. I do think the majority of the roster should be larger size wrestlers with a moderate portion of smaller and average size guys mixed in. That said, none of those smaller guys should be prohibited from competing with larger ones on an even level.
As long as the match makes sense, i.e. the smaller guy using his quickness and technical ability to get in shots in when he can, then I'm fine with it. |
03-30-2015, 01:47 AM | #45 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
Honestly, all the people here saying "why would I want to watch a guy my own size?" are definitely coming off a bit homoerotic.
|
03-30-2015, 01:54 AM | #46 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
I think calling "homo" when bigger wrestlers get favored over smaller ones is a bit homoerotic. Seems like a weird place for a straight dude's mind to go to. "I like smaller wrestlers." "Nah. I prefer bigger wrestlers." "IS THAT BECAUSE BIG WRESTLERS ARE SUPER HOT AND BONER-INDUCING, YOU HOMO?"
|
03-30-2015, 02:16 AM | #47 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
Whatever, poofter.
|
03-30-2015, 02:32 AM | #48 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
What's this word mean? It sounds like the homosexual slang but I'm not familiar with the homosexual slang as I spend too much time using the heterosexual slang.
|
03-30-2015, 02:39 AM | #49 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
Ah, apologies.
I was inferring that you enjoy the taste of other men's penises, as well as the feel of being rectally penetrated. I hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks for replying! |
03-30-2015, 02:45 AM | #50 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
[/quote]Heyman
|
03-30-2015, 02:45 AM | #51 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Fuck you.
... I'm a top. |
03-30-2015, 02:50 AM | #52 |
The Champ is Here!
Posts: 13,614
|
Professional wrestling is couched in heteronormative homoeroticism. This has been the case for a long time.
|
03-30-2015, 02:57 AM | #53 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
I really don't even get why he's asking. I mean this is obviously another stale, pointless big guy vs small guy debate.
It's like Narc threw in the homoeroticism twist just to febreeze it up a bit. |
03-30-2015, 03:05 AM | #54 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
I think he wanted to guilt people who prefer bigger guys into liking smaller guys by casually bringing up the thought that it probably means they're gay and therefore horrible people who will burn in hell for eternity.
|
03-30-2015, 02:10 PM | #55 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,417
|
|
03-30-2015, 02:13 PM | #56 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,417
|
|
03-30-2015, 02:20 PM | #57 | |
Father of Hinduship
Posts: 21,083
|
Quote:
I think it revolves around credibility and realism. I think that's why the WWE has reservations about having a guy like Daniel Bryan being "the face" of the WWE. In Vince's eyes, it makes the WWE look weak by having a small guy being billed as 'better' than everyone else. It also makes the WWE look even more 'fake' by doing so (i.e. Daniel Bryan can 'beat up' guys like Big Show, Kane, Rusev, and Lesnar). |
|
03-30-2015, 02:38 PM | #58 |
Soundly Defeated Wadding
Posts: 40,590
|
Something about it seems inhumane. Like when people are like "he isn't quite tall/strong enough" like they are evaluating cattle for purchase or something. Or like they are examining slaves to work in their cotton fields.
"This one is a strong fast runner and she'll breed well for ya, I reckon." Searching for certain physical traits weirds me out. Probably necessary. Personally, I think anybody can be valuable in this business. Looks are apart of it, but not as much a part of it as the WWE seems to think. |
03-30-2015, 04:39 PM | #59 |
Celestia's Left Hand
Posts: 17,359
|
Oh defiantly Vince loves his big muscular daddies.
Which is why A Ryback super push is inevitable and why Bryan will NEVER hold the WWE title again and why Samoa Joe,Kevin Owens and Finn Balor will be treated like complete jokes when/if they get to the main roster. |
03-30-2015, 04:41 PM | #60 | |
Best Poster
Posts: 56,901
|
Quote:
|
|
03-30-2015, 04:54 PM | #61 | |
That Entenbrot, The Mask
Posts: 56,852
|
Quote:
|
|
03-30-2015, 05:23 PM | #62 |
Soundly Defeated Wadding
Posts: 40,590
|
Athletics is always about who performs better. The NFL does not give a fuck what you look like if you are outperforming everybody.
I understand that wrestling is a bit different, I'm just responding to your statement. |
03-30-2015, 05:46 PM | #63 |
Best Poster
Posts: 56,901
|
There's sports where if you are too small you won't even get a shot unless you have out of this world skill level. Look at the NHL. There's countless skilled players who were 5"8 170 who didn't even get a chance. Size and look still matters greatly, whether it's right or wrong. I made tons of teams based on the fact that I was 6"6. Actual sports and wrestling view size the same way : wow he's 6"6, if we could develop his talents he'd be a monster, as opposed to someone 5"8 with equal talent
|
03-30-2015, 06:10 PM | #64 |
wekasauce
Posts: 106,735
|
Yeah Gertner is 100% right. Guys in the NFL like Drew Brees are the VAST minority
|