Adam wilkinson



Should the WWE really push so many of it's Big Men?

News broke out recently that WWE wants to now focus on pushing it's big men rather than guys like Daniel Bryan or CM Punk. That explains why the Big Show is suddenly back in the main event. As well as the Wyatt family being pushed. The WWE has a really huge history when it comes to it's gigantic talent, whether it's good or bad. But is this really a smart strategy to go with? To just forget about talent that you can really benefit from doesn't really sound all that intelligent. The WWE has great talents such Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, The Shield, and many others that they can give some spotlight to. In the last ten years, guys like Rey Mysterio, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Booker T,Eddie Guerrero and many more found much success winning countless titles without being the biggest or the strongest in there times. They had what it takes without all of that.

The days where Vince could pass off his wrestlers as super human fighters and comic book heroes was back in the 80's. People eventually grew out of seeing them as such and grew taste in seeing guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and later on The Rock and Stone Cold in the Attitude Era. If those four legends grew immense legacies for themselves without being big, then i don't see why CM Punk and Daniel Bryan should be pushed aside because they aren't the ones with the greatest physique in the room. The WWE can't really expect us to take Big E Langston or Ryback more seriously as opposed to talent like Dean Ambrose.

The WWE already has a problem right now with pushing the right and wrong people. Daniel Bryan being the biggest example recently. Besides the blame for bad buyrates at SummerSlam, many people within WWE don't believe Daniel has what it takes to be a star largely due to his lack of height. The same thing for how CM Punk began in WWE, as many people especially Vince thought he looked nothing like a guy who could ever succeed in wrestling. I believe that size is not always everything it takes to have a career in this business. Did a guy like King Kong Bundy win countless championships in his career? Do people remember the Great Khali as a truly credible champion? I know those are very rhetorical to ask many wrestling fans out there.

Not every giant in WWE history was a great wrestler like how Undertaker, Kane or Big Show turned out to be. I don't remember Chris Jericho being the strongest during his peak, and he beat The Rock and Stone Cold in the same night. I just wish Vince would go back to caring about the actual abilities of wrestlers instead of there physical appearances. I thought we were headed back into that direction when CM Punk held the WWE title for 434 days, or when Daniel Bryan beat John Cena in clean fashion back at Summerslam. But these mistakes always seem to cost the company real deal mega stars. No disrespect to the Big Show, but the decision to put him against Randy Orton at Survivor Series doesn't really look like a match that will make people order the show, even if it is a major shake-up to this bland rivalry. I thought Daniel Bryan really proved to WWE that he is main event material, but unfortunately that is once again seen in only our eyes and not there's.