Openly, when I think that the WWE gave a title of world championship to The Great Khali and not to Umaga, I say myself that bookers had really gone off the rails at the time. Umaga former intercontinental champion will have had regrettably never really his hour of glory in the WWE, he had of the talent nevertheless and often took out us of drinkable matches to see very good for some. Especially, he has had amazing debuts : he had defeated clean Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Kane all the same. Then, his rivalry with John Cena for the title of the WWE comes then (which leading to moreover in an exellent Last Man Standing match between 2 in the ppv Royal Rumble 2007). It is after his defeat against Cena to Royal Rumble that he came down again it up-card, then began fighting for the Intercontinental title It is after his defeat against Cena in Royal Rumble that he came down again it up-card, then began fighting for the Intercontinental title (which went to him not at all, him squashed all the time the mid-carders) with some fights against eventers hands but nothing very enormous. Then also, for me it was the only "Big Men" with Brock Lesnar good in ring and that could take out us matches of more than 4 stars (for example his Last Man Standing against Cena and the match in cage against Jeff Hardy to Raw). I may looked I do not understand why the WWE did not want to go up Umaga to the summit. He had everything for (destroyer's gimmick, good on the ring, agile, good grips) contrary to The Great Khali. And you, think you that Umaga was underrated and that he deserved better in the WWE?