Who Is More Successful: Kane or Big Show?

[#hamler]

Big Show going to OVW is a part of his career.

Lol, but it has nothing to do with success.

Kane may have jobbed a bit but he wasn’t sent to the minors.

Doesn't matter, Kane jobbed for more then a few years and there is no denying that hurt his credibility. Big Show was sent to OVW, big whoop. That has nothing to do with success in the WWE buddy.

If you want to look at the last 3 weeks, Big Show is more relevant but if you want to look at both WWE careers, Kane wins.

No. Kane has put over very few superstars while Big Show has put over some of the biggest stars around today. That list includes John Cena and Brock Lesnar – two of the biggest stars in the last decade. Putting over talent = success.

 

[Jeff]

Big Show going to OVW is a part of his career. Kane may have jobbed a bit but he wasnt sent to the minors. If you want to look at the last 3 weeks, Big Show is more relevant but if you want to look at both WWE careers, Kane wins.
As far as the before the car accident, Im not talking about two months. Im talking the last few years. He was in tag teams while Kane wrestled Edge and Taker. Big Show is close but Kane wins.

Big Show moving down to OVW for the time was the best thing for him. The thing is you can't Job a guy like Show because of how big he is especially at the time (he was a big boy).

If you job Big Show you take away everything from his character. You can't bring in this guy, say he is 500LB beast and then have him job. A guy like Big Show, the fans remember who beats him, especially early on. You need to get him off the air to train him.

Now a guy like Kane, granted he is big but he isn't so big where if he loses people are going to be shocked, so the WWE was able to keep him on the air while he developed his character.

If anything Big Show in this sense had it more difficult because when he was on the WWE programing, he HAD to bring it because of his size, where Kane because he isn't the same size was given that little bit of leeway where he could lose or win and the fans wouldn't really care.

 

[GameOver]

No. Kane has put over very few superstars while Big Show has put over some of the biggest stars around today. That list includes John Cena and Brock Lesnar – two of the biggest stars in the last decade. Putting over talent = success.

Everyone puts Cena over i might add so that's not an argument, and if you want to be picky, Kurt Angle put Cena over not Big Show, Angle was the first to face Cena and put him over as someone who was an up and coming star, and the he went to his whole Dr of thuganomics which put him over big time, including facing The Undertaker and eventually they turned him face and put him against the Big Show at a WrestleMania. which is kinda similar to how Hulk Hogan was built..
Big Show was just Cena's first title win and ofcourse the Hoganesque slam not what put him over IMO.

Kane hasn't put over many stars are u kidding me?? Austin, Triple H, Mankind to name 3 big names of all time and he just put Christian over the other night.
where they already big names? well yes they were already known but he put them over none the less.

Regardless, do you even watch the product, that's what his whole career was, losing to everyone else while still being presented as a monster and always near the title picture .

Just cause they aren't all huge names means nothing, he's still trying to get them some push, saying they beat one half of The Brothers of Destruction

Big Show is no different. he loses far more often then he wins
he has more title reigns but that doesn't mean he's successfull in the eyes of fans, and WWE just let him run with the ball temporarily so someone else could beat him.
Meanwhile Big Show is not even on TV as often as Kane was

In the fake world where those things matter, Big Show is far more successfull.
Kane had all the tools but they left him hanging post his mask removal.
Big Show is more entertaining when he decides to be

to me they are both on par, scraping the barrel of being considered top names. and not just stale characters that exist there only cause of there size, reliability and ability to cut something decent once in a blue moon.

 

[Inittowinit]

Big Show moving down to OVW for the time was the best thing for him. The thing is you can't Job a guy like Show because of how big he is especially at the time (he was a big boy).

If you job Big Show you take away everything from his character. You can't bring in this guy, say he is 500LB beast and then have him job. A guy like Big Show, the fans remember who beats him, especially early on. You need to get him off the air to train him.

Now a guy like Kane, granted he is big but he isn't so big where if he loses people are going to be shocked, so the WWE was able to keep him on the air while he developed his character.

If anything Big Show in this sense had it more difficult because when he was on the WWE programing, he HAD to bring it because of his size, where Kane because he isn't the same size was given that little bit of leeway where he could lose or win and the fans wouldn't really care.

I agree with your point but that cant not be considered. Its similar to the steriods scandal in baseball. The hitters had a great career but that is still mentioned in the overall career. He wasnt in a position to be a vital piece for the company so they sent him to the minors. Nothing wrong with that but it shouldnt be dismissed.

 

[Pedigree1]

Very tough call but i gotta give the edge to Kane!! Mainly due to the fact that at the hell in the cell in 97 when he ripped the door off the hinges and destroyed the undertaker i was thinking who the hell is this guy!! Hes bigger than taker!!! Big show was and still is a very good wrestler but Kane is the big red monster!! Eliminated 11 men at i believe was the 2001 royal rumble i wish he still had his mask though!! Yah for me its Kane!! Big show was amazing in his day but age and weight gain have slowed him down alot and Kane to me hasnt lost a step!! Hes most definitely the more talented of the two!

 

[Jeff]

I agree with your point but that cant not be considered. Its similar to the steriods scandal in baseball. The hitters had a great career but that is still mentioned in the overall career. He wasnt in a position to be a vital piece for the company so they sent him to the minors. Nothing wrong with that but it shouldnt be dismissed.

I agree, it still a point to mention in the argument of "success". The big problem is what does success mean in wrestling. Does it mean Championships? Does it mean in ring ability? Does it mean who was in the most main event story lines?

Regardless both men have been very successful in the WWE and deserve everything they have earned.

 

[#hamler]

Kane hasn't put over many stars are u kidding me?? Austin, Triple H, Mankind to name 3 big names of all time and he just put Christian over the other night.

All those guys were significantly over before Kane even touched them.

do you even watch the product,

Um, yes.

that's what his whole career was, losing to everyone else while still being presented as a monster and always near the title picture.

You mean like Kane? Kane was presented as a monster while still losing to guys half his size. What's the difference?

Just cause they aren't all huge names means nothing,

Sure it does. Big Show has put over bigger names.

he's still trying to get them some push, saying they beat one half of The Brothers of Destruction

What?

Big Show is no different. he loses far more often then he wins
he has more title reigns but that doesn't mean he's successfull in the eyes of fans, and WWE just let him run with the ball temporarily so someone else could beat him.

That's putting someone over dude. Big Show is a big guy, if you have someone like Brock Lesnar or John Cena come in and fireman's carry the guy, they're gonna be put over as someone huge.

In the fake world where those things matter, Big Show is far more successfull.

Wait what? Putting someone over means you are far more successful.

I agree with your point but that cant not be considered. Its similar to the steriods scandal in baseball. The hitters had a great career but that is still mentioned in the overall career. He wasnt in a position to be a vital piece for the company so they sent him to the minors. Nothing wrong with that but it shouldnt be dismissed.

Dude, he was there for 6 months. Being sent to OVW has nothing to do with success in the WWE. How do you not understand that? Yes, he wasn't there for 6 months. When he returned, he did put alot of guys over.

 

[EastCoastFan]

Tough call. The two are very similar: big guys who were near the top of the roster but THE top spot. Both won championships and also had to put up with silly gimmicks at times.

For me, I give the edge to the Big Show. He won more championships, he main-evented WrestleMania, and he (technically) won the Royal Rumble - all things Kane has never done.

 

[Crypt Keeper]

Kane, no doubt. The impact he made is iconic! I can look back in wwe history and remember all the things he's done, I look back at Big Show's history and...meh. He never has been much in my eyes. The only thing that stands out for him is his size, other than that I have no interest in the Big Show whatsoever. But Kane has brought so much to the fans. He is very athletic while the Big Show is slow and overused. If I had it my way, Kane would be exposed more than Big Show nowadays. Sadly, that isn't the case, and now he's back to where he was before he won the world heavyweight title. But nonetheless, Kane's career overall has been a success. Future HOFamer, unfortunately Show will be too, due to his size basically. But oh well.

 

[dizzle1119]

I'm going with Big Show. The man, quite simply, is the most truly gifted "giant" in the history of the business. When Big Show was a young man he could go in the ring like no other competitor even close to his size. I realize that name dropping The Undertaker is the easiest rebuttal to what I've said here, but I don't see Show and Taker as equals as far as being "big man" competitors. Big Show is truly a giant....by all accounts. Taker is a large individual himself, this is true, and he was an outstanding competitor for many years no matter his size, but he is relatively small in comparison to Show.

I have seen Big Show in person on numerous occasions over the years as well. He is, basically, the most intimidating human being I've ever stood next to. To put this into perspective, I'm 6'-4"/290 lbs myself, and Show makes me look like a middle school kid...

 

[Suviluer]

its "the giant" his time at WCW makes him better!... sure Kane is one of my faves but Big Show was just bigger and hes had bigger matches and personally hes more of a draw in my opinion...

 

[Jack-Hammer]

From an all around perspective, I'm going with Kane.

There are some similarities in the careers of both guys. They both started off as near unbeatable, dominant monster heels, both were put into feuds with some of the top guys in their respective companies starting out, both their first World Championship runs weren't exactly the stuff legends are made of, etc.

Both of them have had peaks and valleys in their careers. They've been been largely irrelevant at times, have had horrible feuds with the likes of The Great Khali, Big Daddy V and even each other, both have seen a lot of success as tag team wrestlers and in the mid-card scene. Big Show can always have the bragging rights of being a former 5 time World Champion to Kane's 2. However, none of Show's title runs have been particularly all that memorable and Kane had a pretty strong run last year as WHC.

What ultimately sets Kane apart, however, is that I just think he's always been a better all around wrestler than Show. I think Kane's better on the mic and he's infinitely better inside the ring. Kane has also managed to do something that Show has always struggled with: he's kept himself in shape. Kane's always kept himself in really good physical condition while Show's had consistent problems with his weight ever since coming to the WWE. The first year or so in WCW, Big Show was in great shape. He had size, strength, speed and some legit athletic ability. It just seemed that, with each year that went by, Show steadily and slowly got further and further out of shape. By the time he won the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, he was legitimately over 500 pounds. Show's poor condition is a big reason why there haven't been all that many good matches involving him. It's hard to have good matches with a guy that's so heavy & out of shape that he blows up within 5 minutes.

There are a lotta ways to measure success I suppose. Kane's someone that's won a lot of titles, been in a lot of big match situations, had some memorable feuds and has been mostly relevant in WWE for well over a decade. The same can be said of Show, but Kane's always been someone that you've been more likely to get a solid, enjoyable match out of than Show.