Post by TheXtremisT on Sept 28, 2020 8:46:44 GMT -5
Been watching a lot of WWF and WCW from 1997/8 lately and keep noticing billed weights for guys seeming way off compared to others.
Yes, we all know their announced weights can be all over the place and exaggerated, but what I'm getting at is the most obvious and ridiculous over-embellishing that went on and in spite of other guys looking larger but somehow being billed as lighter if you use other guys' height:weight size ratio.
Let me give a few examples:
Lex Luger being billed as 261 lbs in January 1998's Souled Out. But DDP was repeatedly referred to as 270lbs by Tony Schiavone and Bobby Heenan in 1997. DDP was supposedly 1 inch shorter than Luger, so although height sometimes factors in, it couldn't do here.
DDP has been billed in the past as 250lbs-ish. But even that seems a bit much. He is tall and very lean. Similar to Scott Hall.
Now Hall has a lot more mass, but at 6'7, he's billed at 287lbs. Again, it doesn't seem right based on his size. Especially since Hollywood Hogan is billed at 6'7 (maybe a shoot 6'5/6'6), and only 275lbs, but looks very slightly bigger than Hall.
There are many examples of this throughout wrestling. But where's the consistency? Is it just made up on a guess and stuck with? Obviously it usually is done with respect to other wrestlers. From what I can tell, sometimes the billed weights are around 20lbs more than what the guy legit weighs.
I believe Shawn Michaels is commonly referred to as 210lbs soaking wet by many ex-wrestlers. But his billed weight was 227lbs. Which is actually believable. But it brings into question other guys for me.
Ken Shamrock was billed as 235lbs. But so was Bret Hart and yet Shamrock is one inch taller and looks way bigger due to his muscle mass. Then later in 1998 Shamrock was billed at 241lbs, despite looking no different.
So my questions are: What do you guys think classic wrestlers' weights actually were or should have been?
Yes, we all know their announced weights can be all over the place and exaggerated, but what I'm getting at is the most obvious and ridiculous over-embellishing that went on and in spite of other guys looking larger but somehow being billed as lighter if you use other guys' height:weight size ratio.
Let me give a few examples:
Lex Luger being billed as 261 lbs in January 1998's Souled Out. But DDP was repeatedly referred to as 270lbs by Tony Schiavone and Bobby Heenan in 1997. DDP was supposedly 1 inch shorter than Luger, so although height sometimes factors in, it couldn't do here.
DDP has been billed in the past as 250lbs-ish. But even that seems a bit much. He is tall and very lean. Similar to Scott Hall.
Now Hall has a lot more mass, but at 6'7, he's billed at 287lbs. Again, it doesn't seem right based on his size. Especially since Hollywood Hogan is billed at 6'7 (maybe a shoot 6'5/6'6), and only 275lbs, but looks very slightly bigger than Hall.
There are many examples of this throughout wrestling. But where's the consistency? Is it just made up on a guess and stuck with? Obviously it usually is done with respect to other wrestlers. From what I can tell, sometimes the billed weights are around 20lbs more than what the guy legit weighs.
I believe Shawn Michaels is commonly referred to as 210lbs soaking wet by many ex-wrestlers. But his billed weight was 227lbs. Which is actually believable. But it brings into question other guys for me.
Ken Shamrock was billed as 235lbs. But so was Bret Hart and yet Shamrock is one inch taller and looks way bigger due to his muscle mass. Then later in 1998 Shamrock was billed at 241lbs, despite looking no different.
So my questions are: What do you guys think classic wrestlers' weights actually were or should have been?
"
