Post by Angusdacat on Sept 23, 2020 17:08:25 GMT -5
I've been watching a lot of Andre the Giant WWF matches lately which made me want to look back at other famous big men in the industry and how they were booked in comparison, and no other big man gets hate on the internet like the Great Khali.
Khali is constantly considered the worst World Heavyweight Champion in WWE, if not one of the worst world champions in general, but was he really that bad? Hear me out for a second...
In conclusion, I wanted to restate that yes, Khali wasn't a great wrestler, but he wasn't awful and... it didn't matter. Khali defied the rules of workrate much like big men of the 80's and 70's did before him and it made complete sense to have him as champion, which is something I can't believe it's taken me this long to realize.
Khali is constantly considered the worst World Heavyweight Champion in WWE, if not one of the worst world champions in general, but was he really that bad? Hear me out for a second...
- The Great Khali had immense presence in the ring that is still talked about to this day. He still ranks high on any list of tall WWE Wrestlers and had a believable enough appearance to go over the Undertaker clean in his debut match. The man was built too, with giant arms and sharp facial features. You could tell that the dude actually worked out, unlike some of his competition. The only reason to not book him to win a title would be if he was absolute garbage in the ring.... which brings me to #2
- In-ring ability. Yes, Khali wasn't a five-star wrestler or even a four-star wrestler, but does that always matter? Andre the Giant was far worse in the ring in his last 4 years with the WWF but was still someone you wanted to see and could believe in because of his size and spectacle. Khali got more people talking about his size and spectacle than any other wrestler in the past 20 years and that's got to mean something right? Of course, the argument could be made that size doesn't mean anything if you don't have charisma and popularity to back it up... which brings me to #3
- Popularity. The Great Khali WAS popular, like it or not. Kids who like the WWE today still talk about the guy. Youtube videos that feature Khali get huge amounts of views and discussion. For the causal fan, Khali was interesting to see regardless of his in ring ability and was marketable. And that's just in the US. In India? Don't even get me started. The dude is an ICON to India in wrestling at "Bret Hart in Canada" levels. And for those who don't know, India has over 3 TIMES the population of the U.S.A, so this isn't a nonfactor by any means.
In conclusion, I wanted to restate that yes, Khali wasn't a great wrestler, but he wasn't awful and... it didn't matter. Khali defied the rules of workrate much like big men of the 80's and 70's did before him and it made complete sense to have him as champion, which is something I can't believe it's taken me this long to realize.