Vince is right you know
 

For the most part, the bigger a wrestler is, the less talented he needs to be to get over with a crowd. You smarks need to shut up about how little guys don't get pushed. If they aren't over 6'3" 240 lbs, their name better be Shawn Micheals if they exepct a push.

Nah.

Yeah, for serious.

Explain.

Hogan, Warrior, or Nash indivually could sell more seats than Benoit, Bret Hart, or Dean Malinko could combined.

Ok, but with that said, Dean Malenko and Chris Benoit don't have the charisma Hogan and Warrior had, and Kevin Nash was the worst drawing champion in the history of WWE and Bret drew more as champion than he did.

Size isn't the issue

Kane (6'10'', 323 lbs.)
Khali (7'3'', 430(?)lbs.)
Big Show (7'??'', 530+ lbs. before release)
Snitsky (6'8'', 307lbs.)
Undertaker (7' (approx.), 305lbs.)
Lashley (6'3'', 273lbs.)

...and look at how all those guys have recieved and/or are receiving major pushes these days, exception being Big Show, who even so, albeit after RVD being stripped of the ECW title for good reason, nonetheless "won" the ECW title and held it for a considerable amount of time before his release.

...Right, but Kane is forever stuck in pergatory and living off the fact his old gimmick was cool, Khali is barely over at all, Snitsky - give me a break, there's already a backlash growing against Lashley, Big Show was never the second coming of Andre they wanted, and Taker's size was an issue by only second to the fact his gimmick works so well.

The point wasn't big guys that get pushes, but that the bigger they are the less talented they need to be, which is laughable because size has little to no bearing on success, other than Vince likes it and psuhes it regardless of how well it connects with a crowd.

Nash may have been the worst draw in WWE, but he was the nWo and the nWo was the most over angle in WCW/wrestling.

Absolutely it was the biggest in WCW history, but it was because of the angle, the presentation and the personalities and charisma of the guys involved. No-one can ever point to the nWo and say "that was a success because Nash is big".

It was a success because of Nash and Nash is big. And I honestly believe that it was more so Nash and Hall that caused the angle to get over than Hogan because Hogan was killing WCW before they showed up.

Nash was the attitude of the Kliq, and the whole nWo was about that Kliq attitude. "We are cool. You want to be cool, so be with us." Yeah, Hogan was the leader of the nWo; Nash ran it. The whole nWo dynamic would have been completely different without Nash, and it probably would have failed.

Right, but Nash being big had nothing to do with anything. The personalities of Hall and Nash, combined with the invasion premise, combined with the excellent presentation, combined with the most shocking heel turn ever at the time was what caused it to get over. Bottom line.

Nash wouldn't be who he is if he were a little guy; therefore yes, Nash is who he is (in part) because of his size; Hall and Nash were the nWo, and the nWo saved WCW. By syllogism, Nash being a big man saved WCW.

Wow, now that's reaching.

Nash being big was, at best, a small element in the equation. Nash was big in WWF and he tanked as top guy. But when he displayed his charisma and personality, the nWo changed the company. You do the math of what's important.

You guys need to talk to some marks/casual fans about this, and you might start agreeing with BDC. This guy I work with watches Raw every week, but he doesn't read about wrestling on the internet or give a fuck about what happens backstage, but he loves Khali, Umaga, and Lashley, all based soley on the fact that they're 'big motherfuckers'. Whether you enjoy it or not, there is a lot to be said for being a big man in the business. I'm not going to say size made the nWo popular, but lots of big men have been a staple in the business for a VERY long time now.

Right, and that's perfectly fair to say, but his own opinion doesn't account for the masses, and the masses speak out where it counts - financially. If they care enough to pay to see them, then they're over to them, but strictly being big hasn't been the be all end all to any real indicator of overness or success since 1991.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that it is easier for a big man to get over, which is essentially what BDC is saying that Vince McMahon says. Here's where I think part of that allure lies...as a fan, we tend to view wrestlers as 'larger than life' characters, so to speak. If I'm looking at somebody like Dean Malenko (whom I was a huge fan of, don't get me wrong, I'm just taking the casual perspective), who is what, like 5'6''? If I see him in the ring, being the 6'2'' person that I am, there's a feeling of me thinking that I could kick that guy's ass myself. I'm not saying that I actually could, but you know how I mean? If I see somebody like Khali, that thought does not cross my mind, not even one time. Wrestling is about separating things from reality, and when you have a bunch of guys who are the size of the average fan, I think it's harder for them to stand out in the fan's eyes.

I worded that terribly since I'm going off the cuff here, but I hope that makes sense.

Thank you.

The ironic thing is is that I agree with that, but how many big guys have come and gone on the premise they're big, and because they have no substance to them they're never seen again?

And look at the example you're using - Dean Malenko, not only a small guy, but a guy who never cut promos and never had a standout personality. Eddie Guerrero was smaller than he was, but he had charisma in spades, and that's what gets over and draws money. Size can be part of the allure, but they still need to have the intangible charisma to be anything more than just another big guy, the same as anybody else.

Well of course they do, but it's easier to get over as a big guy with no talent than it is to get over as a little guy with no talent. You definitely need some talent either way, but it helps to be bigger.

He's partially right, you know.

The problem is, Vince isn't right. He thinks the big guy with no Charisma or ring skills will always trump the little guy garnering huge pops. Big guys get a slight bye in charisma simply because their size is impressive (It's a substitution), but Vince employs the practice of ignoring little guys who could be developed into something close to Michaels.

Yes. And THAT is where the problem lies.

I just think it's unfair that some members of the IWC tend to hate big guys right away because they don't do 450 splashes.

I think it's true that you have to be better than great, at least in Vince's eyes, to be a world champion if you're small.

Some of it is true in terms of getting over, but in a lot of ways it's dogmatic and has become overemphazized by Vince.

It's no suprise that the only guys to win the WWE title that weren't big or above average size, were Jericho HBK and Eddie. And even they are bigger than people think. Eddie was quite short, but Jericho and HBK were around 6 feet. That's pretty average. The "small" Shawn Michaels was 6'1".

Also, as much as I like him, don't bring Nash up in the same sentence as selling seats. Sure I hate Hogan and Warrior and love Nash, but to include him with them in your examples is unfair to their drawing ability and his lack thereof

I don't really discriminate. I judge talent for what they are. Brock was great. Lashley is underrated. Kane and Taker are among my all time favorites. I like Nash.

However it often sickens me when I see a lazy or untalented fuck get the push just cuz he's big. It should be all about who's talented for what they are and how over they can get based on their abilities, look, skills and strengths.
It's not like I'd be biased enough against one type to argue that CM Punk deserves to be pushed like Goldberg. Or to say that Mark Henry deserves to be pushed over Kennedy.
It's all about the individual case and not just size grouping.

As an example, Undertaker. He is a big guy, and he never spoke, and has a very rigid, no selling, rather uncharismatic (at first) got over like mad crazy. Now imagine if instead of using Mark Calaway they used Dean "Stinko" Malenko. The character would have never gotten over.

YOU WILL REST...in one of my hundreds of holds!

:lol:

Chris Jericho could have pulled it off, because he had 1004 holds.

Yes that's true. It's easier for them to get over in the sense that they don't have to be the same type of character.

A Goldberg, or a Lesnar or a Lashley can come in and be a dominant force to be reckoned with. They can have that unstoppable momentum and imposing look, and they get over as so. They don't need to be overly flashy or captivating on the microphone, and their character doesn't have to endure through a conventional push.
However, they need to have charisma, a great look, and talent in the ring for a guy their size. They need to have intangibles that allow them to be entertaining and remain so, otherwise they just go into the pile of guys like Heidenreich, Test, A train, Mark Henry and others.

That's what makes the Undertaker so special. He didn't get over just for being big and intimidating. It certainly helped immensely because of how his character called for it. But he got over as well as he did, and stayed over for having "it" and being a tremendously skilled worker and talent.

Come on, don't group Test with those guys.

I was aprehensive when I did. I'll subtract him since he was decent for a short stretch there. He is talented as well. But he lacked what it took to stay over or get over big.
Which is walking proof that a big guy isn't over by default, even if they do have talent. While he was floundering guys like Jericho, Angle, Benoit and RVD were gettting pushed and having PPV title shots, whether you feel they were buried or not.

Here's the thing though BDC, the two example you used, Nash and Taker prove why you're theory is flawed - they only became big successes when the other circumstances suited them - Mean Mark Callous and Oz didn't get over or impress on a major league level at all, despite them being the same size as when The Undertaker and Kevin Nash did - being big is simply a backdrop to whether or not the guy has an interesting gimmick/personality and the right charisma to pull it off. It's why there's plenty of small high-flyers that won't get over but a Rey Mysterio who is. It's all about the right package and the right presentation, and I don't think being "big" is that important. Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin and Ric Flair wouldn't be any more successful if they were 6'5", and big guys with nothing are the same as small guys without nothing - just another guy.

It's just EASIER to be bigger and shittier is I think all he's saying.

If you look at the list of WWE champions, especially since 1995, you'll find that only a handful of actual "big men" have held the belt. Everyone who has held the title, or had actual consitant pushed in the main event and uppermidcard in the past 10 or so years has been average sized.

Is Mark Henry over at all? I mean, I really don't feel he is, but they sure act like he is.

Nash never reached his full potential in WWF. He was constantly booked as a secondary player. He was either Michaels's stooge, or else Michaels's stooge turned against him, or some guy to be afraid of the Undertaker. He was never a THREAT. His title run smacked of transition, but it took a year to actually do it. He won the belt with almost no buildup, as a fill-in for Bret Hart, in a match that lasted less time than it takes any of us to take a shit. His entire run seemed to consist of him TRYING to give it away. When you look back at his run, how can you see him as anything but a strap-warmer for then-golden boy Bret? And he still managed to stay decently over, even if he wasn't drawing the huge money. And even that was a combination of poor storytelling and the fact that the business was just at a low ebb. Am I saying that he could have pulled the WWF out of the slump it was in? No, because who knows. Am I saying that WCW couldn't have had the huge success it did with the nWo without him? Yes I am, because the nWo was about attitude, and moreover, it was about HIS attitude.

And his attitude is centered on the fact that he was BIG Sexy, BIG Daddy Cool.

Any time I've ever watched wrestling with anyone who doesn't watch it normally (people who watch it if it's on at a social event or something) the only person any of them has ever remembered was Big Show. And why? Because the guys is so fucking big. He is instantly over with any crowd of people, he doesn't need a promo, he doesn't need a good match, he's memorable just being that big. For that reason alone, it's very easy to push big men, which is why McMahon so often does it. And suprise, it works.

I think that's true. But like I said I only belive that is momentary, upon their initial debut. I think big men like Brock, Taker and Kane have set the bar pretty high. That's why guys like Heidenreich and Khali that Vince could have forced on us at one time are nothing now. In the early 90s, that would have been shoved down fans throats and they would have taken it. But after seeing the caliber of entertainment and athleticism they've seen from all the average size compettitors, and the talent that Kane and Taker have shown, bland and stale big men with little skill quickly get negative reactions or none at all.