Report: WWE feels they don't have enough BIG GUYS

[MayorMcCheese]

- Regarding signing new talents, there is no hard and fast rule but there's a belief within WWE that they have enough "small guys" and the problem with business is there are already too many and not enough "big guys." Unless someone is really good, WWE is not looking to sign small guys right now. They also don't want to sign ROH guys right now but that doesn't mean Eddie Edwards and Davey Richards won't get picked up.

There's a feeling that guys who work independents and travel and have somewhat of a name already have bad habits, and if they are at the higher level, if WWE signs them and even if they agree to take the pay cut to WWE entry level, that the talent won’t be happy over the long haul. It was also said WWE doesn't want talents who know they can get fired, go back to the indies and be successful without WWE. They want guys with the impression that their careers in wrestling depend on making it in WWE.

Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

So just like so many of us thought, they're blaming the small guys for business being down. no idiots, business is down because your writing and booking are SHITTY! the fans of today do not give a rats ass about size, that's why they took to CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, fans of today care about whether you can WRESTLE and have good matches, and if you have an entertaining personality. You pushed Shemeaus down our throats, he's a big muscular freak and nobody gave a shit about him.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I feel the same. Get some steroids in them boys.

Mason Ryan might be awful and Ezekiel Jackson might be incredibly blah, but they're physically imposing dudes. The WWE would benefit from featuring them prominently.

It also only helps the smaller guys if they beat them. Everybody wins.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

They already have quite a few big guys although in comparison to the past their roster has got A LOT smaller. I will always prefer a guy with talent over size but to have some more bigger guys and have them featured more prominently isn't a bad idea by any stretch.

It's just easier as a fan to buy into a big, imposing guy. Smaller guys have to work at a much higher level in order become stars because of that and the fact is most of their smaller guys aren't good enough to really be seen as to a casual audience. When you got a big, imposing guy on RAW you're gonna stop and look at television, much more than you will if Justin Gabriel is wrestling. The truth is a big guy with a good look will always get noticed by the average fan.

 

[Jstrike]

Big guy's not enough?
Brodus clay
Sweet T
Ezekial Jackson
Big E
Ryback
Roman Reigns
Mark Henry
Big Show
The Great Khali
Brock Lesnar
This list goes on and on..
why does wwe want more big guy's?
big guy's don't make it anymore, don't believe me name me one big guy that's in the main event in tna or wwe other than brock lesnar?
we wrestling fans would rather see someone who loves the business and is really fantastic at wrestling, then seeing a big guy who can't wrestle at all.
this is the problem with wwe, they push people cause their size, well hey Big E is a good wrestler push him! ryback is good push him. push the one's you have not get more, ezekial jackson and mason ryan was pushed down our throat's! now what happen to jackson and ryan? are they still employed?
why should wwe want big guy's anymore? wwe don't make any money on big guy's unless you consider john cena as big, cena's big but there meaning big as far as 300 pounds at least.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

Pretty much what the original poster said...

The problem is Daniel Bryan and CM Punk are combined for a total 3 Main Event PPV wins... MAYBE... over the course of their careers.

Yet they've been viewed as the top guys for 2-3 years now...

I think this is Vince just being a dick and pretty much wanting to prove himself right by making small people look bad and doing anything he can to get over a big muscular freak. He won't let the 1000s of people chanting "Yes!" at him in an arena be made to look like the better folk...

 

[GeneralKarim]

I think in terms of today's standards, Roman Reigns might have the best look and build. Hes a big buy, but not completely huge, yet he is strong , fast and good in the ring and his ring trashtalks and mannerisms are pretty decent aswell.

I think they have enough big buys, but they dont know how to use them.Noone of the big guys have excelent mic skils, and one would say that's not the point when it comes to big guys but again, they dont know how to use them and as Mark Madden said , they dont know how to keep a guy hot for more than 6 months, usually after that they start to give the guy shit angles.

Whatever people might say , I personally feel Ryback from his interviews and the way he speaks, is a more deep guy that thinks about life and shit like that and the dude has immense amount of passion for the bussines and is a true fan.

I think Ryback could've been huge had they dont backed themselves into a corner with giving him a WWE shot at that Hell in a Cell where he clearly couldn't win, not to mention the ending spot was underwhelming, might aswell do the spot on the mat outside the ring.

I do agree that I think they have enough "small" guys at this point, but they have to build them up and actually use them.They have no clue what to do with anybody, they dont know how to close an angle they dont know shit atm.

Even their biggest angle with the whole Corporation has lost some steam with DB constantly losing and being made fun of.But that's just how I see things.Someone more positive might think its the best angle and that I should stop being an armchair-booker or w/e.

I think they are missusing most of their talent atm.Nobody is doing almost anything relevant and very interesting.Besides CM punk and Paul Heyman ( though paul proposing to ryback for shock value was just ******ed sorry, that's not shock value that's comedy, plus wasnt he a Paul Heyman guy already having helped Heyman? ).

And I dunno about everyone but I'm genuinely over Big Show.I think his act has gonne stale and them thrusting him in the corporation angle and having him be the one to take down the boss is just completely stupid and overshadows w/e Bryan does.

They already have Triple H and Randy Orton as veterans to put over the talent in the angle, why cant they build around Bryan and Cody+Goldust, I just see no point in making Big Show be the one in the spotlight when that spotlight is much needed for someone else.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter So just like so many of us thought, they're blaming the small guys for business being down.

Yeah, that's not what the report said at all in any way, shape or form. Rather, it looks like you're misstating the report as a means of shitting all over WWE. If someone wants to shit all over WWE, that's all well and good, but don't intentionally misrepresent what an article is saying to support your own conclusions. Nowhere in that article, which I read about earlier today, does it say that WWE officials hold any wrestler or wrestlers, big or small, responsible for business being down. It doesn't even provide the slightest hint of that mentality among WWE executives.

The article stated that "there is no hard and fast rule" when it comes to signing someone based on their size. As far as the "belief" that WWE feels they have enough small guys, it's possible that's genuinely a consensus of opinion among the WWE brass. There are a lot of wrestlers on the WWE roster right now who are under the 225 pound mark. At the same time, this "belief" could also be just the opinion of whomever it was that gave Dave Meltzer this information to begin with rather than genuinely how the WWE officials feel.

Ultimately, WWE is going to go with whomever they feel has the talent, whether it's a big or a small guy. Just because a wrestler is a big mountain of muscle doesn't automatically mean that he'll be lousy. I know that some are of the opinion that being well over 6 feet tall and in the 250-300 pound range is some automatic indicator that they can't wrestle for some reason, but it's crap. It's true that some big guys have gotten by, for the most part, because of their look and size, but being 5'9" and 170 pounds doesn't automatically rate someone as being talented either. The article further states that the "belief" is that there are enough smaller guys on the roster doesn't mean that they're not going to sign anymore smaller wrestlers. So if this information is correct, then WWE isn't closing the door on hiring smaller guys at all, only they're currently looking for larger talent more at the moment.

 

[ASKane]

This story annoys me because WWE has plenty of big superstars and the only one who they haven't made a mockery of is Roman Reigns. I'll explain my point. Ryback (Cryback), Big Show (Worlds largest cry baby), Tensai and Brodus Clay (Tons of Funk), Mark Henry (sells out his family), Khali (Punjabi Playboy), Big E (jobbing to Ziggler after losing 3-2 to Del Rio) and Kane (Hugging Bryan in Therapy). They have good quality big men but they are just using them wrong. Henry, Tensai and Clay could be repackaged as dominant heels maybe for the Authority. Big E is going after the IC title now, Ryback is after Punk, Show is going against HHH and Khali should be fired

 

[Headman]

I could tell from the title that the IWC was not going to like this report. There may be something to it though. The WWE does suffer from a lack of good big men. Everybody keeps mentioning guys like Tons of Funk and Mason Ryan as if the fact that WWE sometimes misses doesn't change the fact that the WWE's has major success with the prototypical superstars in the past.

 

[The Eighties]

WWE doesn't lack big guys, it lacks big guys that have that intangible presence that gets them really over, the exception being Roman Reigns but we'll have to see how he fares as a singles wrestler.

Personally I'd love for WWE to find a new monster heel to build up as a Vader or Lesnar type of fearsome destroyer who is both menacing and capable of having good matches.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

The year CM Punk and Daniel Bryan take over WWE programming, the Raw ratings and pay-per-view buys drop down to a near all-time low. It may not be their fault, but it's a correlation at least worth looking into from their end (aka the business end).

I'm still not convinced Bryan OR THE WRITING is the reason ratings are low right now. And if they are, I also don't think they need to rush into changing things to compensate. Because personally, my favorite things abotu WWE right now are: 1) Cody Rhodes and Goldust, 2) Triple H as the major management heel, 3) Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton's program, and 4) the fact that it interweaves all the different divisions under the same umbrella.

For the past 8-12 months, Raw has seen a transition to longer more frequent quality wrestling matches. Remember when we used to constantly complain, "oh, WWE hates wrestling, I'm so sick of all these crappy squash matches". And yeah, they still have some of them. But there are usually 15-20 minute matches between mid-to-top stars every single week on both Raw and Smackdown.

Another big complaint is that Raw doesn't have enough big stories. Well now they do. They have a huge interweaving story that brings in upper management, the WWE title contenders, the tag team champions, the united states champion, a 500 pound giant, and about half the mid-card players. I tune out for 90% of the other shit on Raw and Smackdown, but this whole program to me has been enjoyable. So I don't think, even if all this is the reason for the low ratings, WWE should just immediately shotgun to something different to try and pop the viewership back. At least wait until the MLB playoffs are over, and the premiere TV ratings have neutralized.

My opinion? There could be more of a variety in WWE. Big Show is a spectacle, and the only real legit big man they have. Plus Kane when he's actually around again. Hopefully Big E Langston becomes a great babyface in the coming weeks, as I think he has a ton to offer. Khali is a comedy joke. So really they have three big guys, and I don't think that brings enough variety to the product. There's a TON of guys that all look the same, or wrestle the same, or have exactly the same gimmicks, and I could stand to see some more variety is all. And really all the reports were saying is they wanted to limit the amount of small wrestlers they hired. There's already 75 people in developmental right now, and a LOT of them are medium or average build. It's really not a problem that they want to bring in more big guys.

 

[H33LTurn]

Its not that WWE is lacking big guys, its that at some point WWE genuinely thought that they were going to improve their business by exclusively signing some popular indy stars, most of which are small. I think WWE needs, and probably will, start signing in terms of charisma and in ring psychology than size in general. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the exception to the rule. The majority of WWE's top stars over the years have had a credible look and fighting background. Theres something about the physique of guys like Brock Lesnar and The Rock that adds a different element to their matches. The fans need to be able to believe that a superstar is capable of beating the most challenging opponent on the roster for them to get behind that person completely. Thats not to say that there haven't been big guys who are a waste of space, but that an even balance of big and small contributes to the dynamic of the wrestling industry that has made it successful all these years. At the end of the day size is becoming pretty irrelevant in the discussion and I think thats a good thing.

 

[Sweettre15]

Hopefully WWE is doing because they want more variety...They don't need an assembly line of small guys or an assembly line of big guys. Having guys with different types of looks, physiques, and gimmick types is the ideal approach. If WWE continues with that approach then it'll keep things from coming off as plain.

I remember when at one point a lot of wrestlers looked like they came off a Randy Orton assembly line and my god was that boring...so to make my point clear if I haven't already WWE should know not to create a John Cena, CM Punk or Randy Orton assembly line and expect successful results.

 

[thebarber]

Exactly, give these shit house storylines to Cena and watch ratings bomb. Imagine Underrtaker or Kane or HBK or HHH being asked to act out the current storylines as main event active talent??? CM Punk was over huge, and what they do, have him lay down for a simple elbow drop after 434 days on top. Bryan has been over ridciulously, and they are doing their best to overshadow him with Big Show. All this just so when Cena comes back and these shit storylines have culminated they can justify their slight upturn in ratings to Cena's involvement. Size doesnt matter, Ezeikel Jackson will testify to that, Khali will also. Its WWE 's rubbish inadequate nonsensical booking that has led to millions of fans turning this shit off. Give Bryan the win this weekend at HIAC and have him run with the belt. Have Punk finally get his hands on Heyman. Have Bryan GO OVER CLEAN on Triple H instead of Big Showe being lumbered in to put over the boss at Survivor Series.

 

[Redemption-2012]

They do have a few talented big guys on the roster but the majority of them absolutely suck. They have attempted to push the "wrong" big guys who had no talent such as Ezekiel Jackson who cannot wrestle. The WWE is supposed to be about larger than life figures and two of their most popular stars are indy guys in CM Punk and Daniel Bryan.

A list of my personal favorite big guys:
Roman Reigns (such a beast and huge potential IMO) he has the special look that comes around once in 10 years. Maybe we can see where he goes after The Shield split.

Drew McIntyre IMO is very talented and if given the chance to shine again, I think he could become World Champion in no time. One of the best theme songs in history, theme songs are a big reason for a superstar getting over in the WWE as seen with other top stars among WWE's roster. (Past and present).

Sheamus. I personally love this guy, I think his intensity along with his size and unique look make the perfect WWE superstar, the problem with Sheamus is that they pushed him as a babyface in a fashion that not organic. This resulted in him not getting over, remember Sheamus as a heel? he had great matches, better promo's and better feuds with the top stars among the WWE.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

They do have a few talented big guys on the roster but the majority of them absolutely suck.

Let's say, for fun, that "big guy" means around 300 pounds or more, or taller than 6'4". Because why not. So let's take a look at the big guys on WWE's roster right now.

-Big E Langston: Definitely does not suck. He's barely wrestled enough notable matches to really have an informed opinion on, unless you watched NXT. His personality is hilarious, and he's been a babyface for negative one day.

-Bray Wyatt: Polarizing television. He's also barely a big guy, but the totally arbitrary standards I just set.

-Erick Rowan/Luke Harper: Too new to judge, but from what I've seen they're really solid performers. The Wyatt Family gimmick is awesome.

-Great Khali: So there's one guy that sucks.

-Jack Swagger: An excellent in-ring performer that has very little charisma. His current gimmick with Cesaro has been pretty solid.

-Kane: I dare you to tell me Kane sucks.

-Mark Henry: Awesome. He used to suck. Now he's awesome.

-Brodus Clay & Tensai: Ok, so they're comedy workers, but both of thse guys are actually very talented performers. They DO NOT suck. Yeah, their gimmicks are meant to make children happy. Get over it. You've got 40 other people to like.

-Ryback: I could maybe add him to the list of people that sucks. But he's at least still a main event player that's been pushed to the moon for the last year.

-The Undertaker: Not really an active performer. But uh...yeah.

So out of all the big guys on WWE's roster, one and half of them suck. If you're rounding up, that's like a 14% failure rating. Which means the WWE big men have a solid B rating. Definitely not the "majority" as you were saying.

 

[roipdh123]

WWE has the greatest big man in the market this days - Roman Reigns they don't need anyone else.

 

[rge2010]

WWE's most successful years were based around big guys.

The Golden Generation - Hogan and Warrior.
The Attitude Era - Rock, Austin, Taker.
Ruthless Era - Lesnar, Batista, Cena.

WWE may have a point. The only legit main eventer in WWE now that you could class as a 'big guy' is Brock Lesnar and we only see him at 3 PPV's a year. And of course Cena.

 

[Sweettre15]

WWE's most successful years were based around big guys.

The Golden Generation - Hogan and Warrior.
The Attitude Era - Rock, Austin, Taker.
Ruthless Era - Lesnar, Batista, Cena.

WWE may have a point. The only legit main eventer in WWE now that you could class as a 'big guy' is Brock Lesnar and we only see him at 3 PPV's a year. And of course Cena.

In terms of Muscle mass though, Stone Cold and The Rock weren't the biggest guys in comparison to the usual guys WWE preferred. Plus Stone Cold was only 6 ft 2(or atleast it was his billed height) and while Rock was 6 ft 5 he didnt have "greek god" attriubutes he has now.

 

[#tamale]

I'm just going to quote this again for all the people who didn't see what the agenda of the OP is.

Yeah, that's not what the report said at all in any way, shape or form. Rather, it looks like you're misstating the report as a means of shitting all over WWE. If someone wants to shit all over WWE, that's all well and good, but don't intentionally misrepresent what an article is saying to support your own conclusions. Nowhere in that article, which I read about earlier today, does it say that WWE officials hold any wrestler or wrestlers, big or small, responsible for business being down. It doesn't even provide the slightest hint of that mentality among WWE executives.

The article stated that "there is no hard and fast rule" when it comes to signing someone based on their size. As far as the "belief" that WWE feels they have enough small guys, it's possible that's genuinely a consensus of opinion among the WWE brass. There are a lot of wrestlers on the WWE roster right now who are under the 225 pound mark. At the same time, this "belief" could also be just the opinion of whomever it was that gave Dave Meltzer this information to begin with rather than genuinely how the WWE officials feel.

Ultimately, WWE is going to go with whomever they feel has the talent, whether it's a big or a small guy. Just because a wrestler is a big mountain of muscle doesn't automatically mean that he'll be lousy. I know that some are of the opinion that being well over 6 feet tall and in the 250-300 pound range is some automatic indicator that they can't wrestle for some reason, but it's crap. It's true that some big guys have gotten by, for the most part, because of their look and size, but being 5'9" and 170 pounds doesn't automatically rate someone as being talented either. The article further states that the "belief" is that there are enough smaller guys on the roster doesn't mean that they're not going to sign anymore smaller wrestlers. So if this information is correct, then WWE isn't closing the door on hiring smaller guys at all, only they're currently looking for larger talent more at the moment.

As far as big guys go; they don't have any credible big guys outside of Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar. Talented performers like Big E and Ryback have been fucked over by terrible booking in the past year. In the world of pro wrestling, you need to have the big guys because they are dominant and when the smaller guy overcomes them, it's a great story. Tried and true.

This whole shtick of "big guys suck, we love small guys" is predictable and baseless. It baffles me to see that people still use that. Outside of Roman Reigns, which big guy has even had great booking in the past year?

 

[ASKane]

The problem WWE has with big guys is there movement in the ring Khali, Big Show, Kane and Mark Henry are really slow and ruin matches by there lack of movement. Big E, Bray Wyatt, Roman Reigns and Conor O'Brien(NXT) are the powerhouse/big guys they should build around. Giants are just not good for business they are too slow

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I agree that there aren't enough big guys on the roster. The problem is that the IWC is obsessed with the indy guys that are great technical wrestlers but typically smaller in stature. The WWE has gradually started moving towards those guys as that is what the IWC and a portion of the fans wanted. It has worked: CM Punk, Daniel Bryan.

In most cases, the "big" guys aren't as good in the ring or aren't high flyers so people say "this guy sucks" even if he's decent. There's more to it than simply being a good technical wrestler as we all know.

I'm not opposed to more big guys that can wrestle decently and talk. But if they just bring in big guys that do 2 moves and can't talk, then what's the point?

There has to be a good balance of "big" and smaller or "average" size guys on the roster for sure. But not just for the hell of it. Look at a guy like Khali. He is an absolute monstrosity. That's called having a big guy just for the hell of it.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

The problem WWE has with big guys is there movement in the ring Khali, Big Show, Kane and Mark Henry are really slow and ruin matches by there lack of movement. Big E, Bray Wyatt, Roman Reigns and Conor O'Brien(NXT) are the powerhouse/big guys they should build around. Giants are just not good for business they are too slow

Khali is horrible, I agree but Big Show, Kane and Henry are all entertaining, IMO and have had better feuds than most of the "smaller" guys on the roster. Just because they "can't move" doesn't mean they are not good for business if they can talk and tell a story with their gimmick. Look at the fast guys like Bourne. He sucks. I'd rather watch Kane, Big Show or Mark Henry, any day of the week.

 

[MCMG]

The problem isn't quantity it is quality. There are several "big guys" who are just bland, with very little to offer. Pair that with unimaginative booking then we have a problem. The only good thing they have done is with Tensai and Clay - at least they aren't monster heels strictly being used on TV against faces as an act of punishment yet always seem to lose.

There is considerable talent in Big E and Roman Reigns. They can fill the void left by The Big Show, Kane, Henry, Taker and well Batista. Throw in Ryback and I suppose Mason Ryan and Bray Wyatt then that is plenty of talent from bigger guys. I don't care of how "big" someone is. There is a perception that Vince is fixated on that which may or may not be true. I would personally rather see good wrestling and stroylines than The Great Khali.

 

[SkyCommanderWinky]

LOL @ under 225 is "small". The problem is this statement is an example of body dysmorphia.

Healthy males aged 20 - 40 tend to weigh between 160 - 190. Both Daniel Bryan and CM Punk weigh more than that. I understand that wrestlers are supposed to be larger than life but labeling someone who is 225 pounds as small is laughable. Males who weigh between 225 and 250 are in the 95th percentile (laymans: its rare in life to weigh this much). Expecting the majority of wrestlers on the roster to not only weigh that much but to exceed it is ludicrous. People who weigh more than 250 are oddities. You don't just run into guys like Kane, Big Show, Undertaker, or Khali in everyday life. The problem is that, on TV, they put people's expectations out of balance. For instance, stand The Rock next to Big Show and he looks small. Now stand The Rock beside Vin Diesel and Vin Diesel looks small. Most people consider Vin Diesel a big guy so what does that make The Rock? What does it make Big Show?

The reason why there are so many "small guys" in WWE is because in reality they are average and as such make up more of the population. The only time that the WWE roster had more big guys was the Attitude era and that's because their roster was considerably smaller than it is now. Also WCW and ECW were an option where "small guys" experienced more success.