relentless1
G.O.A.T.
WWF horribly misused Paul Wight from day 1.
Having him inadvertently throw Austin through the cage made Giant look like an idiot. Day one.
Having him lose clean to Austin within his first cpl weeks was the height of stupidity.
The Big Show is and was a dumb name for a guy who should've been dominant from day one, his original moniker was supposed to be Titan and thats a lot more akin to the vibe he should've been putting out.
This guy should have been treated as Brock leaner is treated now; rare appearances where he shows up to annihilate anyone he wants and take off again until hes ready to cause more carnage.
He should've been bought by no one including Vince for at least his first cpl years and he should have been World Champ for at least a year; preferably the year that Austin left. In fact, he should have been the reason Austin was out for a year in the first place kayfabe.
At least WCW treated the guy like a genuine threat whenever he showed up on the scene.
Does anybody else agree with this statement? how would you have booked Paul Wight any differently?
Having him inadvertently throw Austin through the cage made Giant look like an idiot. Day one.
Having him lose clean to Austin within his first cpl weeks was the height of stupidity.
The Big Show is and was a dumb name for a guy who should've been dominant from day one, his original moniker was supposed to be Titan and thats a lot more akin to the vibe he should've been putting out.
This guy should have been treated as Brock leaner is treated now; rare appearances where he shows up to annihilate anyone he wants and take off again until hes ready to cause more carnage.
He should've been bought by no one including Vince for at least his first cpl years and he should have been World Champ for at least a year; preferably the year that Austin left. In fact, he should have been the reason Austin was out for a year in the first place kayfabe.
At least WCW treated the guy like a genuine threat whenever he showed up on the scene.
Does anybody else agree with this statement? how would you have booked Paul Wight any differently?