I wanted to discuss something with you which seems to draw up a lot of heat in the WWE and with fans. A lot of people draw on Daniel Bryans size as a reason not to like him, yet if youve ever watched MMA, or even been in a real fight, you will know that size doesnt mean anything. You can be the biggest guy in the ring and still get your ass kicked. David Haye is 63 and he faced Nikolay Valuev who is 70. In Wrestling most fans would favour the big guy but David Haye made him cover up like a baby and made him retire after that match. Does size really matter? You can also throw in Manny Pacquiao in that analogy who seems to have metal weights in his gloves when he punches, he hits that hard. Daniel Bryan was able to Wrestle two thiefs into submission after chasing them down after they burgled his home. Hes a submission specialist, Im pretty sure in a real fight once Bryan gets you on the floor itd be hard to out Wrestle him with his physical conditioning and knowledge. Not only that, no one has ever seen him in a real fight or try his hand at MMA, only Lesnar has done that but he wasnt successful due to his size, it was his natural ability and his work rate. If he hadnt trained as hard as he did he would have got his ass kicked at MMA no matter what his size was. So how can anyone say hes too small? It doesnt mean he cant beat someone in a fight. It seems a stereotype in the WWE to judge by size but the irony is in real life size doesnt matter. Whoever you are, if a professional MMA fighter steps in front of you, whether hes 55 or 68, I suggest you run the other way. Its a thing of Vinces to favour the big guys but youve heard that phrase the bigger you are, the harder you fall or in Rybacks case the less intelligence you have and slower you are. What do you guys think? -w33bz
Posted on: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 19:48:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015