W h a t i s a c t u a l l y w r o n g w i t h h a v i n g ab i g m a n e t h o s ?In an early <strong>issue</strong> of this very fanzine, we looked at the "WWE style" of wrestling. The positivesand negatives of this, what this meant for cultured veterans of the indy wrestling scenearound the world and the impacts this has on fans. Eight <strong>issue</strong>s later, new boy Neil Rogersdelves a little deeper into the subject, specifically looking the notion that "big is beautiful"before deciding if he agrees with this or not....Let me start by saying that I am a wrestling fanfirst and a WWE fan second. I am critical ofWWE when I feel their content is poor, the sameas I am of TNA, ROH or any other independentorganisation that I have watched or attended inmy 17 years of being a fan of the sport. That’sright; I said sport and I stand by that. Dictionary.comdefines sport as “an athletic activity requiringskill or physical prowess and often of aB y N e i l R o g e r scompetitive nature“, notice that it is often competitivenot that it must be competitive.The reason I want to make it clear that I am notjust a WWE fan boy is that the article I have writtento be my debut piece (other than reviews) inthis fantastic magazine (Editor's note: You alreadyhave the job Neil, the sucking up can stop now) ispotentially quite controversial. For as long as I canremember, WWE has had a reputation for theirVisit CallingSpots.com 18 Twitter @CallingSpots
talent being “larger than life”. The reason I haveused the bunny ears is that this cliché has cometo mean large, body builder types who can’twrestle as well as their independent counterparts.Whether this is true or not will be covered laterbut the point of this article is this; IF the reputationis true, why is it used almost exclusively in anegative context? What is wrong with the WWEwanting their world champion, in a supposedcontact sport, to look the part?Like everyone who will read this article, I knowpeople who, whenever the topic of professionalwrestling is brought up, can’t get over the factthat it’s “fake”. Like many of you I have tried toexplain that the bumps really happen, point toMankind falling from the cell in 1998 as examplesof how “real” the pain these men andwomen endure actually is. I have also comparedit to other forms of entertainment, the easiestexample being that someone who watches CoronationStreet wouldn’t be criticised because it is“fake”. I am always willing to get into a debateabout storylines that are unbelievable, poorlyexecuted angles or sloppy in-ring work and feelthat I am always able to articulate a counter argumentand defend the sport I love. However,trying to explain to change someone’s opinion ofwrestling being “fake” can often be the equivalentof banging your head against a brick wall. Ibelieve one of the reasons for this is that manypeople, rightly or wrongly, believe that wrestlersare, to quote my mam, “soft as clarts”. However,if we go back to pro wrestling’s origins in theearly 20th Century, when it was believed to be agenuine athletic contest, this was almost definitelynot the case. Early champions such asGeorge Hackenschmidt and Frank Gotch wererenowned for being able to hold off anyone whowould try (to use modern lexicon) go into businessfor themselves and attempt to go againstthe agreed finish of the match. This was commonplace until as late as at least the 1970s legendaryhard-men like Harley Race were entrustedto protect the NWA title from those whomay not follow the plan.Now, I appreciate that I have moved slightly offtopic but I can return to my point; I believe thatfor professional wrestling to be taken seriously ithelps if the men who are at the top of a companylook like they could handle themselves in areal brawl. Now ask yourself this question, if youhad to, and I mean HAD TO, who would yourather faced in fight in your local pub Andre theGiant or Daniel Bryan? I am approximately 6” talland 20stone and for me the choice is clear, despitehis reputation for being one of the best in-ringworkers of all time with a history in martial arts,Daniel Bryan please (and if asked “are you sure”my response would “Yes! Yes! Yes!”). I’m notnaïve enough to actually believe I would win in alegitimate contest against the former WorldChampion but I do think the can of whoop assthat would inevitably be opened on me would besignificantly smaller than if I when nose-to-nipplewith the Eighth Wonder of the World. I haveasked several others this question and I am yet tohave anyone give me a different answer. I tookthis a step further and asked which WWE championin history would you most like to face in afight and which would you least? For me, I wouldleast like to face is the Undertaker (Brock Lesnarwas a very close second) and would be significantlyless scared of someone the stature of ReyMysterio. With very few exceptions I received asimilar sort of feedback from the people I askedwith larger or more muscular wrestlers seeminglybeing far scarier than their smaller counterparts.Realistically this comes as little surprise, fundamentallyhuman beings are animals and in theanimal kingdom it is incredibly rare for an animalto attack another that is larger or heavier thanitself. With this in mind why do people criticiseVince McMahon and the WWE for mainly promotingwrestlers who are mainly tall with a largeframe.I’m sure if you ask the average man on the streetFacebook.com/CallingSpots 19 Visit CallingSpots.com
Change language