Nash Says Wrestling Died When Benoit and Guerrero Became World Champions

[Snowman1]

Kevin Nash, shut up. I understand "being a draw", but as Cornette said you knew 5 moves. You always came off lazy in the ring even from the WCW clips I've seen, and you looked like Moses in your last TNA run. How on earth could this noob draw?

 

[Aids Johnson]

Scott hall is why. 1:

 

[Rysenberg]

Here's Y2J response to Kevin Nash

Lmao gotta love Jericho, surprised he mentioned Benoit though.

 

[Stopspot]

Lmao gotta love Jericho, surprised he mentioned Benoit though.

WWE still does mention Benoit. All his wins on PPV are still listed on their website. They are just distancing themselves from his image.

 

[Lockard 23]

Kevin Nash does have a point. It is indeed the bigger, 'larger than life' characters that draw the most money in wrestling. That's not to say that all big guys are good draws.There have been some big guys (a lot, actually) who were not the best draws. Diesel was the worst drawing WWF Champion in history. Brock Lesnar, as much as I love him, was an average draw. Show and Khali wouldn't draw a dime if you constantly put them in main events. And there have certainly been smaller guys who have drawn more than a lot of individual bigger guys. And this logic counts even when comparing big guys to bigger guys. Austin (despite being a 'big' guy, as in over six feet and not small or puny by any means) wasn't as big as Big Show or Great Khali, but drew a shitload more money than they ever will. However, the point is that 99% of the biggest draws in wrestling have always been the bigger, larger than life type of characters. Especially when it comes to drawing industry-changing money like Hogan or Austin or Rock. That's what the casuals (including people who otherwise wouldn't give wrestling any time of the day) want to see the most. And unless the mentality of the entire North American wrestling audience changes and they start wanting to see great, in-ring wrestling over anything else, then you'll never see a boom period with guys like Punk or Bryan or Aries or whoever at the top.

That said. his comments about the business going down in 2004 don't make any sense. The AE boom ended in 2001, and I'm pretty sure 2004 was an improvement in business over 2003 and maybe even 2002, and at least a few years since then, certainly. It's also funny that John Cena, their biggest star since Austin and Rock, has been at the top since 2005 and he doesn't mention that he isn't a small guy at all. Don't forget Batista as well, who is also a big guy. If business hasn't been as as good, then blame these guys (or the overall product) for not being as good in general, not just the fact that two smaller guys were given one world title reign each almost ten years ago and somehow that's brought business down ever since.

 

[Mr Cobalt]

Kevin Nash, shut up. I understand "being a draw", but as Cornette said you knew 5 moves. You always came off lazy in the ring even from the WCW clips I've seen, and you looked like Moses in your last TNA run. How on earth could this noob draw?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fob4r2N-upg&feature=relmfu

He provided WWE a bunch of cash actually. You can't argue with that statistical proof.

 

[Matt]

He's right (

 

[Aids Johnson]

Kevin Nash does have a point. It is indeed the bigger, 'larger than life' characters that draw the most money in wrestling. That's not to say that all big guys are good draws.There have been some big guys (a lot, actually) who were not the best draws. Diesel was the worst drawing WWF Champion in history. Brock Lesnar, as much as I love him, was an average draw. Show and Khali wouldn't draw a dime if you constantly put them in main events. And there have certainly been smaller guys who have drawn more than a lot of individual bigger guys. And this logic counts even when comparing big guys to bigger guys. Austin (despite being a 'big' guy, as in over six feet and not small or puny by any means) wasn't as big as Big Show or Great Khali, but drew a shitload more money than they ever will. However, the point is that 99% of the biggest draws in wrestling have always been the bigger, larger than life type of characters. Especially when it comes to drawing industry-changing money like Hogan or Austin or Rock. That's what the casuals (including people who otherwise wouldn't give wrestling any time of the day) want to see the most. And unless the mentality of the entire North American wrestling audience changes and they start wanting to see great, in-ring wrestling over anything else, then you'll never see a boom period with guys like Punk or Bryan or Aries or whoever at the top.

That said. his comments about the business going down in 2004 don't make any sense. The AE boom ended in 2001, and I'm pretty sure 2004 was an improvement in business over 2003 and maybe even 2002, and at least a few years since then, certainly. It's also funny that John Cena, their biggest star since Austin and Rock, has been at the top since 2005 and he doesn't mention that he isn't a small guy at all. Don't forget Batista as well, who is also a big guy. If business hasn't been as as good, then blame these guys (or the overall product) for not being as good in general, not just the fact that two smaller guys were given one world title reign each almost ten years ago and somehow that's brought business down ever since.

:win: Nice post.

 

[Leo C]

Loved Jericho's reply, not much else to add. 1: