JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think it's just about booking and protection, not size. Andre was really well protected, Big Show hasn't been since about 97. Once you've seen him jobbed out to Kane, where does he go from there? That isn't about era, it's about wrestling fundamentals. King Kong Bundy was effectively done as a major threat after Wrestlemania 2, he wasn't given the same sort of protection Andre was. As soon as a big man becomes "just another guy on the roster", their mystique as a massive threat is killed. And the WWF/E essentially buried Big Show back in 2001. If they wanted to start booking him again as an Andre-level threat they COULD do it, it would just take time. I'd point to Mark Henry as an example of how it's never too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Even Andre though. He really only wrestled in WWF full time in 1988-1989. The rest of the time he would come in for a few months, usually for a specific feud, and either tour or recover or whatnot. It's hard to book a monster type character over a long period of time. He either eventually beats everyone on the roster, or you beat him and his mystique is done. Mark Henry, yes you can build him up, but eventually he has to come back down again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why does Big Show have to be on TV more than Undertaker is now? Undertaker has stayed protected and only shows up occasionally. Shouldn't they book Show just as strong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Even Andre though. He really only wrestled in WWF full time in 1988-1989. The rest of the time he would come in for a few months, usually for a specific feud, and either tour or recover or whatnot. I always had the impression that Andre was pretty much a full time WWF guy after 1983, with the exception of his trips to Japan, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why does Big Show have to be on TV more than Undertaker is now? Undertaker has stayed protected and only shows up occasionally. Shouldn't they book Show just as strong? Undertaker's been banged up for years. Him only showing up a handfull of times per year is because he simply can't physically work a full or even semi full time schedule anymore. No way they wouldn't have him on every week otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why does Big Show have to be on TV more than Undertaker is now? Undertaker has stayed protected and only shows up occasionally. Shouldn't they book Show just as strong? I'll clarify -- More Undertaker from 2004-2007 or so. He wasn't wrestling every week, but he did occasionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 What's the point of having Big Show on the roster if you aren't going to book him strong? Let's face it, he's on the roster because he's MASSIVE, that's his USP, that's why he's famous. Pointless to treat him as just another guy. Maybe they should run a few invitational battle royales and have him win them. What's stopping stuff like that getting over now? I mean even people who think wrestling is shit will still say "oh THAT's a big guy" when they see Big Show. Why not play to that as an asset? WCW actually did a better job of it in 95-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Fun fact: Vince used to call Dave to criticize how WCW used him, saying that he was on TV too much, took too many bumps, didn't have the aura he should and so on. So Vince gets him and does an even worse job of all of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why does Big Show have to be on TV more than Undertaker is now? Undertaker has stayed protected and only shows up occasionally. Shouldn't they book Show just as strong? I'll clarify -- More Undertaker from 2004-2007 or so. He wasn't wrestling every week, but he did occasionally. Eh, same reason. His knees/hip has been shot since the late 90's/early 00's and there were rumors of retirement going around even back then. Add in a bunch of other injuries he's gathered over the years (broken bones, torn muscles, etc) and him being a big enough star he can get away w taking more time off to heal and you get him not wrestling as much. They protect him yes but only because they know he only has so much time left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Well, even when he was younger, Undertaker was more protected than Show is now. Part of that is a change in TV, but was Undertaker ever a guy who was always on TV at any point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I assume you mean post brand split? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Yes, but even pre-brand split, I don't remember Undertaker every having a match every week like Show usually does. The Attitude era had him on TV quite a bit, but usually doing promos or angles. Not very often he got in the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I did a quick count, and on the first 48 Shows (Raws and Smackdowns) of 2001, he wrestled 25 times. With a lot of run ins as well. So he was basically wrestling once a week. It might be a higher % if you take out May too as he seemed to just be on Smackdown that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 First thing I hated about Big Show when he came to WWF was his name. I always though *The Big Show* was really lame. The Giant was just perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Not like you couldn't find tons of guys in the NBA that big and he's not even the tallest guy in the company. You'll find guys taller but not as big all around. Same thing with Andre, it was not just being tall, it was he was giant in proportion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Not like you couldn't find tons of guys in the NBA that big and he's not even the tallest guy in the company. You'll find guys taller but not as big all around. Same thing with Andre, it was not just being tall, it was he was giant in proportion. But Andre was also around in the 70's and 80's where you didn't see guys as tall so often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 First thing I hated about Big Show when he came to WWF was his name. I always though *The Big Show* was really lame. The Giant was just perfect.It's better than "The Big Nasty,' which was his original nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 First thing I hated about Big Show when he came to WWF was his name. I always though *The Big Show* was really lame. The Giant was just perfect.It's better than "The Big Nasty,' which was his original nickname. Ouch ! Still, his name along with the music theme was the least intimidating stuff one could thought for Paul Wight. He was way more menacing in WCW with the eerie Dungeon of Doom music and green light, or even better, with no music at all, which made him stand out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 have to take into acoount in 99 that Russo was still writing and he's not a fan of the unstoppable monster gimmick in wrestling. It's the first thing he wanted to change about Goldberg when he jumped to WCW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Tommy Dreamer Is this a joke? I wouldn't vote for Dreamer, but I can see why some people might want him on the ballot. If you loved the overbaked ECW style of brawling (and many still do), he was certainly one of the top guys in that niche. For being a mediocre talker and a one-dimensional wrestler without anything even resembling a gimmick (besides "local whipping boy"), he never had any problem connecting with the fans. He generally stayed over wherever he went, and was managing to have surprisingly watchable matches in WWECW when his fragile body was long past its prime. Plus he's done plenty of backstage work in every company that ever employed him, booking and writing and training and merchandise and various other stuff. Admittedly he wasn't a good booker from most reports, but just wearing all those extra hats does strengthen his case a little bit. But the simple lack of ever drawing any crowd bigger than a couple thousand people is probably enough to dismiss him. I suppose if you are a total ECW fanboy Dreamer is a guy you might want on the ballot, but even within ECW he's not one of the five most important guys in the companies history. He also struggled to get over there for the first year or so. I'll grant that Dreamer is a rare case of a guy who always seems to try really hard, but he was never better than average in the ring. He's a substantially worse candidate than say William Regal by just about every metric and I can't imagine people advocating hard for Regal on the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Regal's had more of a Hall of Fame career than a lot of these other guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Not like you couldn't find tons of guys in the NBA that big and he's not even the tallest guy in the company. You'll find guys taller but not as big all around. Same thing with Andre, it was not just being tall, it was he was giant in proportion. But Andre was also around in the 70's and 80's where you didn't see guys as tall so often. Wilt and Kareem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 First thing I hated about Big Show when he came to WWF was his name. I always though *The Big Show* was really lame. The Giant was just perfect.It's better than "The Big Nasty,' which was his original nickname. Wasn't there a rumor he was going to be Titan? (As in, Titan Sports) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I'm trying to recall Show's real height... I know he's billed at 7-0, but recall that he's really in the range of 6-10. There may be 100 players in the NBA that tall. The Lakers have four: Bynum, Gasol, McRoberts and Murphy. The Clippers have four: Griffin, Jordan, Thompkins, and Jones. The Timberwolves have 5. The Mavs have had six play for them this year. Yeah... I thought I was pulling 100 out of my ass, but I think it's a safe number: 100+ guys 6-10 or above will play in the NBA. Tune into any NBA broadcast and you'll likely see 6 guys during the course of it as tall as Show. My recollection is that Andre was 6-9. They just happen to be massive guys in addition to being tall. The also are surrounded by a lot of guys much smaller. Dwight Howard on the court doesn't look huge at 6-10 because he's not especially tall for a center. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I suppose if you are a total ECW fanboy Dreamer is a guy you might want on the ballot, but even within ECW he's not one of the five most important guys in the companies history. Hum, what ? Terry Funk Sabu Sandman Shane Douglas RVD Raven Taz ... ah, you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.