Re: Are you against the big guy philosophy?
You need a mix of shapes and sizes to get the right balance for your show. You need Mark Henry's and Big Show's because they are legitimate freaks of nature and when people see them for the first time, it's genuinely something to behold. When you see a Brock Lesnar and then you see him jumping around and flying off the top rope it makes you stop what you're doing and watch. At the same time, you also need the Rey Mysterio's and Evan Bourne's. You need the small guys because they can take all that jumping around a step further and almost defy gravity. You need to have both so that the Henry's of the world can look so much bigger when standing next to the Mysterio's and so that the Mysterio's can look like real underdogs when pitted against them. If WWE only had big men it would suck. If WWE only had smaller guys it would suck. The variation of styles and sizes is what makes it fun.
The problem all comes down to the presentation of said guys and their portrayal in certain scenarios, especially heels. You can't take a guy like Miz or Punk and make them physical threats who destroy everybody in their path because it just isn't believable and it doesn't work. It's just like in a movie. You don't pick a smaller guy to be this physically domineering evil character when you have a 6'5 250lbs guy to choose instead of him. You play to their strengths which is something WWE doesn't or can't do. They have one type of heel these days no matter their size; the cowardly whiner, and that's what we're stuck with. Combine that with the fact that they book their heels as underdogs and into situations where people would naturally root for that person and is it any wonder that they're all getting cheered.
I personally enjoy a mix of small guys and bigger ones. I think it would be boring if they were all the same. But some people get caught up in the simple fact that not everybody can be a face of the company or company standard bearer and so they whine and bitch and complain when their guy, most likely a smaller guy, isn't put into that position when they think they should be. That's the part that also causes a lot of trouble. People aren't thinking of what WWE as a company want to represent them and fair enough, why should they? But if you're going to debate this topic you sort of have to put yourself in their shoes. They want to appeal to the widest audience possible, they want that one guy who can hit the most demographics at once, they want somebody they can send out to represent them at whatever function and not have people turn their noses up at him. That's why the Hogan's, Rock's, Cena's and generally larger guys get put into the spots they do. Take away from the fact that they're entertaining and charismatic etc. They're simply what you want to represent your company over somebody standing at 5'11 covered in tattoos who looks like he's never been in a gym before. They want somebody who when you see him, you immediately think wrestler instead of scratching your head wondering who the hell this guy is. That's the part that causes all this friction between so called indy marks and meathead marks or whatever the fuck they're called. A lot of folks aren't getting or aren't able to understand the bigger picture. Some of the greatest talents on the roster can never be what John Cena is because they don't look like John Cena. It may be harsh but it's reality.