Wrestling Forum banner

Does the size of the wrestler matter in pro-wrestling?

Analyze This: Size Does Matter?

9K views 32 replies 25 participants last post by  hardysno1fan 
#1 ·
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog that matters" - One of my favorite sayings by Mark Twain used in my top favorite sport commonly, Boxing.

When Nash called Benoit/Guerrero Vanilla Midgets it irked a lot of people around the wrestling world for both were well respected and renowned performers. My brother who was averse to wrestling world and was a MMA guy suddenly watched Survivor Series while passing and mocked me for believing "puny" CM Punk for a champion when Ryback or Cena could not beat him, looking as pumped as they were, for a year, even in kayfabe.

The question is simple, Does Size of the wrestler matter and why?
 
#2 ·
Just ask Matt Morgan and Joey Ryan lol
 
#3 ·
No. And it really never has done. Everyone knows they add a few inches to their real height in the billed height, but guys around 5 11 have usually been champion. It doesn't matter how tall someone is, as long as they draw money. I remember Dusty saying a booker once told him, it doesn't matter what colour they are, to me they are all green.

Gorgeous George, Lou Thesz, Buddy Rogers, Argentina Rocca, Bruno Sammartino, Pedro Morales, Randy Savage, Bob Backlund, Ric Flair, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels. None of these guys were that tall, in reality most of them are around 5 10, 5 11 or 6 foot. Not sure where this thinking has come from, that you have to be massive to be a top star, because history shows, that isn't the case.
 
#8 ·
First off. . .Nash is retarded. Most of his opinions, while containing a shred of truth, are usually trolling nonsense. Eddie and Chris really weren't that small, they were just short. . .well, normal height, not short.

When I think of "small" guys, I don't just think of dudes who aren't 6'5" and bigger. Height really isn't that huge of a deal unless you're playing a monster character. And as we all know, there's usually not that many of those floating around at once.


That siad, it does matter (in terms of musclular appearance) because it's a scripted show with power fighting in it. The appearance of being a powerful force is more important than being a good fighrer off camera in a dark alley or something. These guys aren't actually fighting, so what possible MMA or boxing skills they may have don't matter. This is why comparisons to MMA and boxing, where a small guy can win at times, don't matter. It's the perception that matters here. And the common perception is that a dude that looks like Ryback would curb stomp a dude that looks like Punk.

Not to pick on Punk, but just because OP used him as an example, let's compare him to other heroes. Does CM Punk look like any of the following kids' heroes?: Superman, Batman, Incredible Hulk, Thor, any combat-oriented GI Joe, Captain America, Wolverine, Cyclops, NFL players, etc etc etc.

The answer is no. Does John Cena look like them? Yes. He looks more like a hero, therefore, despite being corny, is actually far more believable as a long-term champ. So would Lesnar, or Ryback, or Batista, or The Rock, or whoever.

So size does matter in pro wrestling, because perception is most of the deal. Smaller guys can beat bigger guys in actual fighting irl, but it doesn't happen more often than not. Usually the guy who's noticably stronger kicks his ass.


You guys also need to stop lying about people being "juiced" any time they have more than an average-looking build. Try actually doing work in the gym for once. You can gain very noticable muscle mass easily if you just put in a few hours a week for just half a year.

It's as if you guys think you will look normal even if you hit the weights a lot unless you use roids.




I think you're confusing purely just height for muscle mass and power, which is what the OP is speaking about when he's referring to size. Ryback isn't that tall, yet he's considered "big". It's because of his muscles.

Also, you can't seriously be calling Macho Man and Bruno Sammartino "small". Those guys were swoll as hell.





How are those guys small? Macho Man looks buff as hell, and Sammartino was a huge block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoseDRiveraTCR7
#4 ·
Size matters, but not to the extent that wrestlers on the juice have made out. It really depends on height and weight as well as muscle in my opinion. Stone Cold, The Rock (attitude), Mankind, Undertaker for instance weren't massive compared to some over the years, yet they sold out arenas seperately.

As long as the wrestlers are portrayed in a certain way I don't think it matters. As a kid watching I was drawn in by the storylines and now I'm most bothered about the wrestler's persona's, matches and the storylines to go with them. For me there are three types

- You need the naturally big guys e.g. Viscera, Big Show, Kane, Undertaker, Rikishi, Mark Henry to give off a monstrous impression.
- You need the superstars on the mic and image that can work a crowd to do most for their popularity - Rock, Triple H, Stone Cold, Mankind, Jeff Jarrett, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn for instance
- The naturally smaller athletic guys as underdogs - X-Pac, Rey Mysterio, Hardys

Do you need massive guys? In my eyes no. The wrestlers should have some definition to show their professionalism compared to amateur shows to go with their talent; however there really isn't any need for wrestlers to get stupidly big. Does Cena's size make a difference on how everyone on here perceives how much they like him? I very much doubt it.
 
#6 ·
In the short-term, yes. Long term, not so much.

I was watching WWE not too long ago when a friend came over, he saw Big Show and his instant reaction was "Holy shit", which is exactly the reaction wrestlers should give you, had he seen Daniel Bryan, he wouldn't have made any comment about how impressive he looks and would have just chuckled at his beard.

Over the years so many people have got over on reactions just like that. While it is not all important, size does matter.
 
#7 ·
The average wrestling fan for the last 40 years has watched to see people that are larger than life fight one another. That has sorta given guys who are literally larger than most a "sizable" advantage. But that has never meant that you had to be a giant. Up until the 90's most wrestlers who didn't have that advantage bulked up with tons of exercise, they made their bodies as muscle packed as possible, so they could look larger than life. Around the middle of the 80's it started to shift dramatically toward characters. People would use their character along with their entrance attire and other things to seem important, but they still bulked up a lot. Somewhere in the 90's the mix of character and bulked up began to fade away.. you got guys like Michaels, Bret, Jericho, Benoit. Now to look special you work on your wrestling, there are very few good characters.

wow.. i went ramblin there... anyway, no it doesn't really make a difference except for in how much work you have to put into other aspects of your job.
 
#11 ·
The guy is 6ft. I am 5ft 8.

Of course size matters. Can you see someone like hornswaggle, albeit with the talent of Kurt Angle and Benoit combine, win the WWE title without viewers dropping off? There's a reason why some talentless hack called Khali still has a job ans whats more has been a world champ.
 
#19 ·
If you have charisma, you can overcome lack of size. of not, then you will fail.

Vanilla (boring) Midget (small)

The difference is there have been big guys who have drawn that didnt have the mic skills. But how many little guys that didnt have mic skills have been draws?
 
#20 ·
I personally don't think it does. Some of my all time favorite wrestlers were not very big, guys like HBK, Flair, Hart and a lot of the Japanese guys. Talent is talent. On the other hand, there was a time in wrestling when it DID matter and you were not gonna get pushed unless you were big. I think that has changed a bit now but Vince still gets a hard on for giant men.
 
#21 ·
It definitely matters. I really do not believe Rey is beating huge guys like Taker, etc in a legit fight. Of course pro wrestling isn't a legit fight, but you gotta have an air of believability to it.

That said, having bigger guys as your heavyweight division gives you the space to elevate the smaller guys on an individual basis.
 
#22 ·
Not anymore, just look at punk.

Size only matters if your the face of the wwe. You NEED to be really built to be the face of the company
 
#23 ·
Like in all sports size shouldn't matter but it does to the people in charge. If you got the talent you should get a fair crack. My only problem is Mysterio beating the likes of Kane and Big Show clean with moves like 619 and that thing he does after, it just does not look credible to me and shouldn't happen.
 
#24 ·
Of course size matters. It isn't the be all and end all, but it can be a very useful asset to have. In wrestling, your look is a very important thing. As people have mentioned, it's about believability. It's all well and good to say you're a badass, but if you don't look like a badass, people won't buy it. You don't have to be jacked to convince people your a badass, Harley Race for example. But as there aren't many Harley Races about it really helps if a guy is 6'4 and full of muscle before he thinks people will buy him as a badass.
 
#25 ·



you tell me
 
#26 ·
Wrestling has reached a point where size isn't the be-all-end-all of everything, which is how it should be tbh. Although if an aspiring wrestler doesn't look like they know what the inside of a gym looks like, that's kinda crossing the line imo.
 
#29 ·
It matters to a certain degree and bigger guys will have an easier time becoming big draws than guys with smaller builds.

That being said, it's not the be all end all like some would have you believe.
 
#30 ·
Bigger guys draw more attention, smaller guys provide more action. In the grand scheme of things size doesn't matter that much. A small guy with a unique look and style can be a big star (I.E. Rey Mysterio) and a generic big guy won't make it (I.E. Albert, Test etc).
.
The company (the E) prefers big guys because the lions share of the work is done. Its a good visual and its an attention grabber. The rest comes naturally, get a few smaller guys to bump crazy for him and you have a potential star. With a smaller guy a little more work is needed. They usually are booked as underdogs or as masterful technicians that have so much style they baffle the big guys with skills. That takes a little more time to get established.
 
#31 ·
Good discussion valid points on both sides.

I believe huge guys do have an advantage in a few ways. They are given opprotunity their talent does not often match. Guys like Giant Gonzaelz should have never been in the ring, but he was so big he made some money. Why? Because he was a frekin giant. Guys like the McGuire twins, who were a novelty were able to pack buildings because their size was the attraction. There will always be a place in the sport for "Goliaths". Like it or not they have some advantage. It is up to them whether they have the talent to be a lasting star. There are hundreds of guys 5'10 but only a few 7'0 footers.

However the bottom line is the talent. If a guy has all the tools is credible, and he gets some breaks, he will have the chance to break through. If a huge guy is untalented that will manifest eventually as well.
 
#33 ·
I sort of agree. Smaller guys have to be twice as better as taller/stronger guys to stand a chance. However, I think even then it's a barrier. Mysterio gets a lot of criticism, admittedly from myself too, for being unrealistic and making it difficult to suspend disbelief. A lot of his moves for example, are like bally dancing with his opponent putting effort into the moves. And he is only a 1 time world champion which was forgettable.

I also dont think you can compare somebody who is below the average hight with brackets of those who are well above. For example:

bracket A 5ft '8---- 5ft '12

bracket B 6ft '5----- 6ft '9

You could say that the guy who is 6ft 5 is equally disadvantaged as the guy who is 5ft 8 because they are both 4 inches shorter than their counter part. However, the average height for a male in the western world is 5ft 10. In short bracket B isn't as significant as bracket A. If you are significantly shorter than the average height of 5ft 10 or only slightly above that, then you are signifiantly disadvantaged than somebody who moans about being 6ft 5 because his counter part is 6ft 9.

Sorry for the hypertherical but I think it is important to not treat height differences as all the same because bracket A, aka the shorter guys, are more disadvantaged than the tall guy who just isn't quite as tall as the giant.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top