Discussion: does the lack of size in today's wrestler effect the viewership?

**#BROKEN Hasney** · 01-03-2013, 11:35 AM

I think for the overall point of viewership, I don't think it's the biggest deal. Austin and The Rock were not the biggest. An entertaining product with good characters and writing is better for the overall viewership I feel.

From a personal standpoint, I was never into the 80's/early 90's wrestling because I thought it was too slow and lumbering. I was the same way with boxing, rather watching the lightweights rather than the heavyweights apart from the Tyson era. WCW is what got me into wrestling with the cruiserweights and then I got into ECW overall.

That said, I like the big men that can move. I will never understand the talents that WWE let slip through their fingers in Mike Awesome, Jindrak and O' Hare. It is fucking madness how they didn't give Awesome a mouthpiece and pushed him to the moon.

01-03-2013, 11:35 AM	#8
#BROKEN Hasney BAY BAY Posts: 36,524	I think for the overall point of viewership, I don't think it's the biggest deal. Austin and The Rock were not the biggest. An entertaining product with good characters and writing is better for the overall viewership I feel. From a personal standpoint, I was never into the 80's/early 90's wrestling because I thought it was too slow and lumbering. I was the same way with boxing, rather watching the lightweights rather than the heavyweights apart from the Tyson era. WCW is what got me into wrestling with the cruiserweights and then I got into ECW overall. That said, I like the big men that can move. I will never understand the talents that WWE let slip through their fingers in Mike Awesome, Jindrak and O' Hare. It is fucking madness how they didn't give Awesome a mouthpiece and pushed him to the moon.