Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums - View Single Post - Analyze This: Size Does Matter?

View Single Post

Old 12-06-2012, 07:55 PM   #28 (permalink)
SinJackal
Lacing SCOTT STEINER's boots
 
SinJackal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,247
SinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missedSinJackal probably won't be missed
Default Re: Analyze This: Size Does Matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gorgeous One View Post
At no point did the OP specify, also Nash called them "vanilla midgets", implying that it is due to their height.

Also I wouldn't call Benoit or Eddie small in muscular stature, those guys were roided up. Therefore I took it to mean height. Paul Orndorff also said that guys like Savage and Flair hurt the business because they were small.
Alright then I'll rephrase. Other than you, nobody's talking purely about height in this thread. It's about the whole package, not about being a tall, skinny beanpole with no body mass or charisma. No one's going to give a shit about someone like that.

Again, Ryback is 6'2". Goldberg is 6'2". Batista is 6'31/2". They're considered "big" because of their muscles. Height isn't the only, or even main factor when people are discussing whether size matters or not.

A guy who's 6'2" and extremely swoll like Ryback will be considered a hell of a lot "bigger" than someone who's 6'5" and has a build like Spike Dudely.
SinJackal is offline   Reply With Quote