Paid Members Ron Simmons Posted July 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2011 I've never heard of this either, Ron. Do you mean the general trend towards hiring bigger wrestlers? You're not making yourself clear. No, there was a specific guideline issued. It was a few years ago, but it was during John Laurinitus's time in the hiring seat. It was possibly during 2004 or 2005, there's posts about it on this forum thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted July 22, 2011 Is 6'2 even that big? It's wrestling. It's not like it was a hiring spree saying everyone had to be 6'7". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Is 6'2 even that big? It's wrestling. It's not like it was a hiring spree saying everyone had to be 6'7". Â I bet Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels are both below that legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vito Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 They just taken Husky Harris off television because his look (i.e. his addiction to cream buns). Aw, that sucks. Harris' unique look (read: fat) was what made him stand out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted July 22, 2011 I bet Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels are both below that legit. Â Well, they quite fucking obviously are below that, that goes without saying. But is 6'2" big for a wrestler? I'd wager it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Well, they quite fucking obviously are below that, that goes without saying. But is 6'2" big for a wrestler? I'd wager it's not. No, it's not particularly big for a wrestler, especially in America. Â That doesn't alter the fact that a rule like that being enforced would lose out on some top talent. Â Michaels Angle Benoit Eddie Pillman Rey Arn Anderson (who's surprisingly listed as 6'1) Jerry Lawler Bret & Owen Hart ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted July 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2011 What's Cenas legit height? He's ripped but he's a bit of a short arse really (in wrestler terms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Well, they quite fucking obviously are below that, that goes without saying. But is 6'2" big for a wrestler? I'd wager it's not. Â Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted July 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2011 Just read the post dates on that thread, and I thought it was from 2005. This was during the period when Vince asked WWE to find larger talent, hense your Chris Masters and the like being called up. WWE was filled with mosters like Snitsky and Heidenreich in 2005. But they never had a rule against hiring people under 6'2". They signed CM Punk, Mr Kennedy and a few others in 2005 who's legit height is under 6'2". Christ, they even signed Juventud Guerrera, Psicosis and Super Crazy in 2005. Its completely different to the current youth movement. The "over 6'2"" thing was Vince scouting for a certain type of talent that he wanted on television at that moment. He wasnt planning on exclusively using wrestlers over 6'2". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted July 22, 2011 No, it's not particularly big for a wrestler, especially in America. That doesn't alter the fact that a rule like that being enforced would lose out on some top talent.  Michaels Angle Benoit Eddie Pillman Rey Arn Anderson (who's surprisingly listed as 6'1) Jerry Lawler Bret & Owen Hart ...  And which of those were hired at the time of this supposed rule change? None.  That isn't my point though, whether the ins and outs of a 6'2" rule is right. The point I am making is that it's not that big for a wrestler. And anyway, a 6'2" rule forever dating back to year zip would have saved us the following.  Billy Kidman, The Dicks (Who I think were signed when Ace was in charge), Dino Bravo, Dangerous Danny Davis, Justin Credible, Danny Doring, Slyvain Grenier, Virgil, Lord Mo, And Many Many More.  You can prove anything in wrestling with lists of people dating back 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Billy Kidman was class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 And which of those were hired at the time of this supposed rule change? None. That isn't my point though, whether the ins and outs of a 6'2" rule is right. The point I am making is that it's not that big for a wrestler. And anyway, a 6'2" rule forever dating back to year zip would have saved us the following.  Billy Kidman, The Dicks (Who I think were signed when Ace was in charge), Dino Bravo, Dangerous Danny Davis, Justin Credible, Danny Doring, Slyvain Grenier, Virgil, Lord Mo, And Many Many More.  You can prove anything in wrestling with lists of people dating back 40 years.  I wasn't saying any of them were hired at the time, obviously. I wasn't looking for an argument. I was just saying that (while not really being that big - to your point) it's still enough of a limit to have precluded a lot of good wrestlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 And a load of bad ones. But it's irrelevant when it's just bollocks gossip anyway, unless someone here can pick out a time when WWE didn't have any shortarses either on the roster or in development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gmoney Posted July 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2011 Billy Kidman was class. Â No. No he wasn't. He was useless in WWE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted July 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2011 "He couldnt draw flies in a fleamarket, brother." Kidman was mostly always shit. He had a good team with Rey Mysterio but that isnt saying much. He had by far the most ever one night tournament hard sell push in the history of the business. Really, it was the worst ever example of someone doing jobs the week before suddenly pushed as the next man. He beat Malenko, Saturn and put up a "great effort" (Schiavone's words, not mine) against The Wall. All three matches were shit, and the one against Malenko was memorable because the rules were the person who touches the floor loses, and they didnt tell Malenko before the match and he left the ring in the first tnree minutes to do the "gasping for air" spot and ended up losing. Needless to say Malenko never wrestled for WCW again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.