WWE: The Correct and Stupid Ways of Using Big Show
Not a surprise to many, Big Show appeared at the Over The Limit pay-per-view helping John Laurinaitis to victory against John Cena.
Big Show, while reluctantly helping Laurinaitis, seems be having a heel turn. The lack of excitement for this is all you need to know. I don't mind something more surprising, such as a Batista return, but that didn't take place at the PPV because Big Show is the most logical choice. For all the complaining about WWE creative, you can't fault them when they're being logical.
On paper, this makes sense. In the history books, it's the beginning of boredom.
It was a very similar situation when Big Show made his 1999 debut in WWE when he came to the aid of the authority figure in Mr. McMahon against Stone Cold Steve Austin. The trouble is, WWE never followed through with his push.
If you want to make Big Show relevant, have him take the title in a surprise match with the champion. As of now, nobody ever puts legitimate stock in Big Show winning a match like that because he never does. The match could be announced at the beginning of RAW for the night's main event. It isn't a match you need to try and draw PPV buys for.
Big Show takes the title. Many people are surprised he was put in the match and won the title and on RAW, of all places. Now the big man is portrayed more true to stature. He is never going to be Andre, but he is 7'2" and should be an attraction where you pay to see who can beat him.
You make him dominant, carry the title and now there is a draw for people to see which of their favorite babyfaces can take him down.
The theory works, but it should have been done years ago. I wouldn't want this to happen now. Don't take the title off of CM Punk in that manner, especially after the match he had with Daniel Bryan and its ending. I think there is serious intrigue in where that story goes.
Big Show being dominant and holding the title should have been done when he came to WWE. We got a taste of it in the WWE version of ECW when he was managed by Paul Heyman. People were shocked at the alliance and he came over as the attraction he should be.
A bulk of his time is spent smiling in mid-level matches with the ever-so-often emotional tears. Go back in the WWE history of Big Show's career, and it is amazing how many storylines he's been put in where he cries.
Look, real men can cry; in real life he's an emotional sweet guy, but this isn't real life. This is an entertainment and wrestling show; he should be the big bad giant.
It's ironic that WWE treats the biggest guy who can actually wrestle like this over time given the infatuation they often have with big-bodied ex-football players.
I hope I'm wrong. We are supposed to learn from history. WWE hasn't yet learned from history the right and wrong way of using Big Show as a heel. I have learned from history to not put faith in it and hope it's as quick and painless as possible.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?