Is there an element of homoeroticism to WWE's odd obsession with big men?
 

I know we've all joked about it before and it has been all in good fun but lately I'm wondering. What, do you think, is WWE's obsession with big men all about? I understand that in the 70's and 80s, being bulked was part of the business. Since then, there have been many high profile main event guys that haven't fit the big guy mold. Yet, they still go out of their way to push the big muscular guys to the moon. Honest discussion, why do you think this is? Is it more spectacular looking when a big guy is mauling people? Has the idea just been grandfathered in? Does Vince McMahon have some odd sexual obsession with big men?

What are your thoughts on big men in wrestling?

Why would I want to see someone who is just as muscular as me and is my height wrestling for the world heavyweight title? Serious question.

World Heavyweight Title its in the damn name of the title. A 170 lb champion just doesn't make since.

The problem isn't so much the obsession with big men in general, it's the fact that most of 'em are shit.

<iframe src="http://gfycat.com/ifr/FoolhardyHandmadeBorderterrier" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="226" height="170" style="-webkit-backface-visibility: hidden;-webkit-transform: scale(1);" ></iframe>

wrestling has massive undercurrents of homoeroticism regardless of the size of the guy. but yeah, vince loves thick muscle cock.

Because they're characters on a television show. Couldn't care less what they look like if the story is good.

I thought for sure this was a Heyman thread

Exactly

Exactly

Dreaming about little shits forcing their way on top of me just doesn't do it.

Walter White wasn't 6'5, wasn't believable to me.

You need to go to your local wrestling show if you want to see 170 lb men fighting for a Heavyweight title.

Because old fappits die hard.

Vince like big men

http://media.kayfabenews.com/wp-cont...BF-Network.jpg

Vince also likes big old fatties too. Like Big Show.

If you will engage in such talk, I will have you know that Vince hasn't kept it a secret about his quest to partake in a business acumen of buying big men to do battle in the arena. His concupiscent activity is obviously being parodied throughout some of these fine poster's unparagoned offerings.

It's hard to hide the big gasconade event of Wrestlemania, a showcase of his current talent. Today we are experiencing perfidious behavior from the fanbase. Should Vince venture to win them back or remain unencumbered? How long can people as diehard as myself remain ebullient when the pudding is not even ready?

Continue to excogitate.

Wrestling works best when it's larger than life. A huge superhero-like guy fits that more than a guy who looks like the homeless dude who hangs out outside my house or a fry cook at McDonalds.

that's simply a matter of preference. if i'm entertained, i don't care what the guy looks like. ultimately, that's what it's all about.

It's all a matter of preference. I'm just speaking on what has always worked best as far as drawing people in. And in wrestling, "larger than life" works better than just some guy who looks like he could get his ass kicked by half the people in the crowd. And that's what Vince sees. Thus his "obsession" with that type.

That's why Sid was a better world champion than Ric Flair. And Khali was better than Savage. And Yokozuna > Hart.

When did I say that was the ONLY thing that factored into it? At no point did I say "a guy like Khali will always be better than a guy like Savage" based on size alone. First of all, Flair and Savage's personalities made them fit the larger than life role. They worked in their own ways. If Khali didn't move in a way that made him completely unbelievable as a threat despite his size and maybe was able to be intimidating even if it was just with his facial expressions while someone else did the talking then he'd have probably been able to draw more.

Also, Bret Hart was probably not someone you wanna use as an example of "average joe" type guys being great champions. Just sayin'.

:lol: valid. Withdrawn.

It was more directed at the people who inherently associate "larger than life" with being the draw of wrestling. It certainly CAN be. And, if done right, frequently IS. But history has given us 50 years of Daniel Bryans (Flair, Michaels, Savage, et al) who were every bit as great - frequently better - than their larger-than-life Roman Reigns counterparts.

I don't count Roman Reigns as part of the discussion though because I just think his personality hinders him. Reigns is actually a great example of a guy, like Khali (though not nearly as bad, of course) who fits the bill physically but doesn't have it elsewhere.

I also wouldn't put Bryan in the same field as Flair or Savage though. Flair and Savage had the personalities to make them come off as larger than life. Daniel Bryan is nowhere near that level.

This is where I'm at. If you're putting out a solid entertaining product with compelling characters, I don't think it matters what the characters look like, per say. I mean, they have to at least look like athletes of some kind, but other than that I don't think it matters what their dimensions are.

On the flip side I will say, having a diversity of physical appearances does help tell a story. I'm a bit torn.

The big guy obsession that Vince has is really weird though. Like oddly sexual.

Because there aren't any other belts with weight classifications and sometimes undersized guys are incredible?

Yokozuna was friggen awesome.

lol

https://whatistheexcel.com/wooobooru...air%20wwe.png?

All of whom were unique and exceptional talents not only by their in-ring skills but also larger than life personas.

Wrestling hasn't always been about "the big guy" you just have to look at the entire history of the business to appreciate that. But to an extent fans do enjoy watching "big guys" beat each other up whether in the wresting ring or in heavyweight boxing etc. Average Joes (and Josephines) like to admire people "better" than themselves. It's exciting and enthralling

Bret Hart was the best rassler ever. Even in spite of his Canadian handicap, he overcame that. Never speak ill of the Hitman.

Main reason, why would you have the champion of your company look like a guy, that any normal person would have a shot at kicking the shit out of them?

Hogan, Andre, Austin, Undertaker, Lesnar, all big, larger than life characters.

Then you age Daniel Bryan.... Hell CM Punk was a guy that looked like anyone off the street could legitimately kick his ass.

Hogan was THE guy that put WWE on the map, and delivered an unprecedented run for the company that gave them sustained mainstream appeal for the first time. They've been trying to recreate this for 30 years. Hogan was a big guy, so they need big guy to replicate it.

Given Vinces odd psyche I wouldn't be shocked if some of it was sexual ala Mac from Its always Sunny.

Floyd Mayweather would defeat most, if not all, of those guys in a legitimate fight and he can almost fit in my pocket. I'll never get that logic. I think people generally understand that that size and toughness have little to do with each other

Mayweather's a pussy. Scared Of manny

Finally?

THE ROCK

HAS COME BACK


to NORTH DAKOTA

WASHED AWAY LIKE FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND

http://oldcatholic.us/wp-content/upl...sInTheSand.jpg

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.

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.

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.

Honestly, all the people here saying "why would I want to watch a guy my own size?" are definitely coming off a bit homoerotic.

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?"

Whatever, poofter.

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.

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!

[/quote]Heyman

Fuck you.

... I'm a top.

Professional wrestling is couched in heteronormative homoeroticism. This has been the case for a long time.

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.

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.

Which is why Rey Mysterio never should've won the belt.

Disagree? COME AT ME.

Not true. He would even kick Rocky Marciano's ass if he were still alive and you damn well know it.

Yes, he beat Show @ WM XXIV with a cheap shot, but a) it wasn't a boxing match, b) obviously it was planned out that way.

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).

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.

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.

You can say that about any athlete in any sport

Pretty much. I think you'd have to make a small guy more wily in order to give credibility. A small face is hard to accept whereas a small heel can cheat 2 win.

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.

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

Yeah Gertner is 100% right. Guys in the NFL like Drew Brees are the VAST minority