In the Glory Days of wrestling, promoters would sell the power of their massive giants (like Big John Studd) by showing them defeat two jobbers at once. The implication was that the beast must have the strength of at least three men if he can dominate two men at a time. And how — oh how — could our poor young heroes like Tito Santana or Barry Windham ever stand a chance against such a monster with the strength of more than two men?!?
Here is a match I recently saw on YouTube featuring a classic Evil Giant — Big John Studd — easily beating up two jobbers. I didn’t bother trying to figure out the jobbers’ names — let’s just call them Scrub in White and Scrub in Black.
The Scrubs try to attack Big John while he’s still in his robe, but he fends them off and removes the robe to display his huge, hairy body bursting out of those bulging white tights. That sudden bold display of Big John’s massive beefy flesh, that shameless exposure of the male physique, can cause the viewers to swoon. As a young fan of wrestling, I’d find myself wishing they had invented some recording device that would let you pause and rewind live television…
To lose a wrestling match is humiliating enough. To have a partner helping you, to be permitted to team up two-against-one and still lose, is doubly degrading! I would always picture a wimpy jobber like Scrub in White returning home after the match and his father shaking his head in shame and disbelief: “You’re telling me you had a two-on-one advantage? And you LOST!? How is that possible, son?…. HOW??” (I had an active imagination back then, which is part of the reason I enjoy pro wrestling so much…)
Big John Studd simply overflowed the television screen — and a young wrestling fan’s fantasies — with his size and power. He was so deliciously punishing, impressively strong, and he couldn’t be dominated by even two men. He was the epitome of masculinity — the ideal of size and strength that every young man ponders and, in some part, craves to become. He was a man’s man — that big bare chest, that flowing hair and full beard, and those tall red boots…
Another reason Big John Studd caught my attention (and my imagination) as a young wrestling fan was his name. “Big John” is a slang term for a penis (especially a really large penis). Are they hinting to us that this Studd is well-hung in those bulging white tights? Having the last name of “Studd” further sexualizes his name. A “stud”, after all, is either a really good looking dude, or a male horse that is kept for breeding. Every time they say the name “Big John Studd,” the listener gets a subliminal message to think about sex.
Now that I’m older and (perhaps) wiser, I’m wondering if Big John Studd’s entire body and costume was meant to symbolize a big stiff cock, pounding on and subduing his pussy opponents… This may be why they dressed him in plain white tights, so he looks phallic. Over the years, we’ve seen other examples of this gimmick in pro wrestling, where a wrestler’s name is a slang term for a cock, and he’s dressed to resemble a penis: the Dicks, the Johnsons, and the Ding Dongs to name a few. Of course, the most blatant, literal example of the Big Wrestling Phallus gimmick was seen in yesterday’s posting where Tiger Mask beat Mr. No.
So maybe Big John’s long robe that he wears to the ring symbolizes the covering up of the male private parts, the modesty that society demands. Later, when he suddenly strips his robe, his body (symbolically phallic) is proudly revealed and displayed without shame. Maybe the fact that the Scrubs tried to subdue him before he removed his robe was symbolic of society’s efforts to restrain and stifle manhood and masculinity– to prevent him from whipping it out. But Big John won’t be denied.
