Why Is WWE Acting As Though Big Show/Mark Henry Breaking The Ring Is Historic?

[terrylee]

As most of us know, Brock Lesnar did the same thing to Big Show, on Smackdown (I believe), to boot. He superplexed the Big Show causing the ring to implode.

Why are all the superstars, WWE personalities & commentators acting and saying that it's the first time it's ever happened? It's not like Brock Lesnar's been erased from the history books (he's even in WWE '12), and the Big Show's still here in the WWE, and it happened less than a decade ago.

I guess they're trying to make it seem bigger an event than it really is, but it's a bit of a stretch to me. Is it to anyone else?

On top of that, how serious could their (kayfabe) injuries have been? If that were the case, any superplex would seriously injure those involved. I guess the ring collapsing added "extra damage", but come on. I get that you have to suspend belief, but they were acting like they were dying.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

The WWE is marketed towards kids and if you have your commentators hyping the ring breaking like there's no tomorrow then the kids will believe it more.

As for acting like Brock never did it again it goes back to the kids who (more than likely) didn't see Big show and Brock do the exact same thing on an episode of Smackdown.

As for their kayfabe injuries the wrestlers need to hype it up as well to get the kids to believe. It all comes back to getting your target audience to believe in this case the kids. Most older fans know it not real and that it happened before but then again we aren't the target audience for the WWE.

 

[#hamler]

If you're watching me bench press 500 pounds, you're going to be amazed. You're not going to say "well a hundred-million other people on the World could too," it's still an amazing feat. Just like with Big Show/Mark Henry, you don't want to down play it like plenty of other guys could do it too, that wouldn't help much. It's fine with how they're handling the situation. Although I'm pretty sure Big Show alluded to the fact on Smackdown that this wasn't the first time he and another opponent had collapsed the ring. But, like I said, whether it's been done before or not, it's still an amazing accomplishment. I could see your point had the WWE done it multiple times throughout their history; however, they haven't... just twice.

 

[TheSammichEater]

I agree with Hamlertainment on the fact that Big Show alluded to it so it really isn't as big of a deal that you're making it out to be with the first time it has happened. It is amazingly nonetheless even if it was staged.

What I hate about it is how the ref sold it! Sure, the ring collapsing would probably cause you to fall down...but hurt you so bad you can't get back up!? That's hard for me to believe. That's pretty much saying that refs are the biggest *****es in the world where I guarantee they can take more bumps than a lot of people

 

[xoxo French Kiss xoxo]

If it happened more than 6 months ago in the WWE, the WWE wants you to forget happen.

But Big Show said something along the lines of "Whoops I did it again" when he cut a promo about the ring breaking. They had to do something to keep this feud going, I was bored with it the minute it started. Big Show has never been good in feuds

 

[TheTruNoLimit]

Well, frankly, it is historic. This isn't something that happens everyday. It's certainly much more historic than your standard WWE title match which WWE every month hypes up as bigger than the previous month... BUT... that being said, Big Show alluded to it on Smackdown! previously happening and heck, if you ordered the PPV you heard Jerry Lawler actually say he remembers it happening once before with Brock Lesnar coming to mind. They aren't pretending this hasn't happened before at all. I've seen it happen before but I was still damn shocked when it did. I mean, that was 8 years ago. This wasn't like a shot with the ring steps ha ha.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it is somewhat historic. Aside from what happened with Lesnar and The Big Show, when's the last time you saw it happen in a WWE ring or in any other wrestling ring in any other company for that matter? The WWE isn't denying that it hasn't happened before, it's the usual IWC crap in which they have to criticize and complain about everything. Other American Presidents made memorable, moving speeches before Abe Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but that doesn't render Lincoln's speech any less historic.

Also, having the ring collapse creates a view that these two men are larger than life in terms of their size and physical strength. Remember, these aren't supposed to be just two other guys. Big Show is a legitimate 7 feet tall and weighs about 400 lbs. He's huge and he is pretty damn strong himself. Mark Henry is literally one of the strongest human beings on Earth. Having the ring collapse gave both guys an out so as to keep the feud going for a bit longer, to heighten the crowds' perception of these two guys as physical giants and it was a legit surprise and a memorable one.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

When the ring collapses you don't' down play it by stating the obvious. Imagine if a casual fan was watching in amazement and Micheal Cole blurts out "well john Cena can lift both men like that too". It would ruin the moment for them. WWE is like a story book, keep the obvious away and focus and entertaining those who believe in your story. By the way I don't think bench pressing 500 lbs is that impressive Hamler.

Like others have said this has only happened twice in the history of WWE. So there is no reason to downplay it just like that. Big Show and Mark Henry are guys that their entire character's are based on their sized. Therefore story-line wise it would be smart to allude to their size by pulling off that spot. The selling point to the story-line is

1. that Henry has caused Show to become obsessed with vengeance.

2. they are both huge men!

Everyone selling it is to make kids and even some adults believe this is important and to stay tuned to see what happens next.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Why are they making such a big deal about the ring collapse?

For the same reason they made a big deal about how fast Sheamus made it to his first world title. The first ring collapse had Lesnar involved. WWE have successfully replaced yet another piece of Lesnar from their history. They act as though the original incident never happened, but it did. They want to ignore it like they do with many other things from the past they try to convince fans to "forget". Sheamus climbed up from debut to world champion in the same amount of time Brock did, and now Henry has caused a ring collapse similar to what Brock did to Big Show the last time it happened. They make such a big deal about it because they want fans to remember this ring collapse rather than the older one.

 

[The Future Rises]

Maybe it's because it was something that you rarely see in the WWE? Yeah that's it.

This is only the second time this type of "accident" happened and the first one was 8 years ago. Do you honestly expect them to just shut up about it or act like it's not a big deal? The freaking ring collapsed before their eyes of course they're gonna sell it and act like it was unexpected. It's not a big deal anyway, they could have reacted poorly to it and never mention it again and I wouldn't have cared enough to make a thread about it.

 

[rocksaviour]

The WWE dictates what 'history' it gives out. For me I know that it happened in 2003 with Show and Lesnar and I haven't lost any sleep over the fact that it apparently didn't happen because I know it did.

For me the fact that the show carried on and they had another match in that ring afterwards is kind of a big/cool thing. Whereas when it happened before 8 years ago the show of course ended. That outcome sets up for the feud to continue, I didn't honestly see Show winning the title but then again I didn't see Henry winning clean here over Show in his return match on PPV and this sort of finish makes sense, of course in 6 months if a Bryan/Punk match finished this way it wouldn't make sense so I don't expect to see it again until then, the rematch could be sold that whenever someone goes up to the top rope its a case of "OMG!!! Are we going to have another broken ring?", that would add to this match and feud and it has prolonged it. It has done its job but I don't expect we will get another one of those finishes for quite some time.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Well the first thing I'm going to say is WWE often bills big moments as historic whether or not they have actually happened before.

When a big moment happens you want to build it to the audience as a big deal, why would they say the ring broke but who cares, Lesnar and Show already did that. That sounds like plain ass dumb business to me.

The moment itself was still pretty awesome to see and watch, even if it did happen in 2003. Just because it happened before doesn't make it any less big.

For example, when anyone has a 50 goal season in the NHL they always treat as a big moment and a big deal even though it has happened hundreds of times because its still a tremendous feat to accomplish. When Ovechkin scores 50 they don't say "Well Gretzky scored 92 in a season so who gives a shit?", they say "A great showing this season by Ovechkin, he is now in an elite class with greats like Gretzky, Richard and Neely". Even though it happened they still treated like it was historic.

When Kobe scored 81 against the Raptors they treated that like a HUGE fucking deal, even though Wilt did 100. Its still an amazing thing to do and Wilt's 100 points never took away from Kobe's 81, so why should Show and Lesnar breaking the ring take away from Show and Henry doing it?

 

[Alastor]

They make a big deal about it to sell the product. Complaining about a promotion for hyping up their current product is moronic. Even if it did occur before, that doesn't make it any less of a feat. The complain here seem to be if it happened before then there is no merit in admiring the feat. Seem similar to people saying Dirk playing sick and contributing in the NBA finals was no big deal because Jordan did it before in a worse off condition producing a better performance. Both were strong performances and one being superior than the other doesn't take away the accomplishment of it.

 

[Skinsley]

Big show came out and said "I did it again" so it has not been erased.
I do think that the commentairy team should at some point brought up "this is the first time this has happend since Brock Lesnar and Big show in 2003 (2003?)"

They need to Hype up the worlds strongest man as the only person who could pull off such a feat, so it does kind of make sense that they tried not to reference that it had happend once before.

Who knows... maybe this is the angle that means Brock Lesnar will return as an angry character who feels he has been forgotten ?,......... Yeah like shite...but you can dream.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I understand that when you're calling a match you want to make it seem hella important when anything awesome happens. But that's the difference between guys like Jim Ross, Bobby Heenan, and Gorilla Monsoon, versus guys like Michael Cole, Don West, and Jerry Lawler... You can make a match or event interesting by calling it like it is and putting into perspective, feeding your own passion into every word...or you can be a giant ball of blah and read off a piece of paper all the things your boss wants you to say, pretending like every punch and kick is the first time you've ever seen a pro wrestling match...

Every single week, something like this happens. "I've never seen anything like that!" is the most common phrase used by Jerry Lawler, and it makes me want to blow him up.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

Because they want to. That's about it. They'll make anything seem like it's the biggest thing in the world even if it's happened tons of times before. Another example of this is Rey Mysterios mask. How many times have we seen him without his mask...even in WWE...and they still make it like he's never had it off.

I am not a fan of either Mark Henry or The Big Show. I respect their work, but I just think they're boring (actually I think Henry is awesome when he's in comedy pieces). So for people who don't like them, it's intended to show how monstrous they are. For people that do like them, it only reinforces that fact.

 

[Big Papa Santo]

Because, half of the kids watching aren't old enough to remember Lesnar Vs. Show, and no that wasn't a shot at the kids who watch WWE but alot of kids have just started watching WWE in the past 2-3 Years with all of the mainstream attention that it has gotten.