Kevin Nash Comments On Benoit, Guerrero, Punk & Bryan's Title Runs

[barclayteo]

I find it funny about 2 of the wrestlers he called out. Both of whom are dead, i think he only called those 2 out because they couldnt respond. I may be a fan of kevin nash but what he said pisses me off I think he let his ego get the best of him.

What he said is coming from a guy who has to be in a group to thrive, look at his career. He got his most recognizable momnents from others. He was shawn micheals muscle, he was a part of the clique, and then he was a member of the wolfpack.

Then he jumped ship to wcw with scott hall and they helped form the nwo, then when when he went to tna he joined up with the main event mafia until that story line ended, the he was a part of a small group of tna wrestlefs trying to show them how to be better.

Face it kevin the only reason you got so far is because of others and you wish you could have had eddies charisma, and chris's in ring skills. Jericho called you out and showed you that you arent as good as you think you are.

All you are kevin nash is a big guy who can barely work a match without getting injured, or throwing some wrestler under the bus. Go cry to scott hall and maybe he can help you make some comeback to jericho.

Because its only a matter of time before he joins in and tries to get another 10 seconds in the spotlight.

 

[TheHorndogSays]

While I think Nash may have been harsh with "wrestling died", his point may be closer to correct then some want to realize. Ask anyone what their favorite Wrestlemania match is and at least 75 if not 90% will say Hogan/Andre. Two big iconic guys staring at each other with Gorilla saying "the unstoppable force meets the immovable object". Look to this past Wrestlemania, what was deemed the "bigger match": Jericho/Punk or Cena/Rock? Now I am a huge fan of Guerrero, Benoit, Punk, and Bryan but I'll admit that none of their characters are "Iconic", at least not yet.

To those who say "wrestling died with the finger poke of doom", I really do think the finger poke of doom gets a bad rep. Wrestling 101 says get the fans to love the good guys and get them to cheer the bad guys. Nash and Hogan got BOOED OUT THE BUILDING after that night. It worked. To those who said it "devalued" the title, how is that any different than Hogan spray-painting NWO on the WCW title, Dibiase trying to buy the title from Andre, or Shawn "screwing" Bret out of the title in '97? Those acts of "treason" got them booed. Yes the titles should be important but they should also be used effectively to get appropriate responses for the wrestlers. If your heel is standing tall at the end of a show with the audience throwing garbage at them then you are doing something right.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I find it funny about 2 of the wrestlers he called out. Both of whom are dead, i think he only called those 2 out because they couldnt respond. I may be a fan of kevin nash but what he said pisses me off I think he let his ego get the best of him.

I don't think it has anything to do with them being dead; he may be arrogant but he's not that much of a piece of shit.

I don't agree with the idea that the business died then and there, that day, but I won't deny that WrestleMania 20 was a big deal, and a huge changing of the business. For Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero - 2 former WCW mid-card workers - to walk out of the 20th Mania with the two World Championships, was almost unreal. With guys like Brock Lesnar, Goldberg, Triple H, Shawn Michaels (you get the point; huge attractions in the industry), having two "workers" on top of the business was a bold move.

Like I said, I don't agree with Nash's opinion, but I don't disagree with his logic.

 

[New Hot Fed]

Here's the thing: it goes above and beyond size. I agree with him that wrestling died that night not completly related but somewhat related to what he said.

My view is this, wrestling died but the illusion, the wrestling kayfabe whatever you call it is what was damaged. In that instead of believing in the characters and the storylines, people wanted these guys to win because they were Eddy and Chris, two guys they admired. It was the night the smarks won. It was the night where Vince, the Top Dog in wrestling said, I don't care about money, let's give it to these two guys because they deserve it, never believing for a second that he would ever push them as the top guys of his promotion. They made their biggest night on not what people wanted to see but what the smarks wanted to see.

 

[Arcade]

I don't have any hate at all for Kevin Nash, but his comments that he made today made me like him a little bit less. Nash is basically saying that the only way you can make it to the top and become the main champion in wrestling is to be 6 foot 5 270 pounder powerhouse or bigger. Today, Daniel Bryan and CM Punk proves that you don't need to have the "look" to get to the top. What gets you to the top is great mic skills/promo work, great in ring skills, and charisma. The "look" is just a bonus. As for the people who are trying to defend Nash, I see your points about top draws, but give it a couple of yeara, and someone like Punk will be the top draw for the WWE. It's omly been about 4 or 5 years where you see smaller guys main event or carry a show.Today in Boxing, the most interesting division isn't the heavyweight division. It's the lightweight division, with Pacaquio and Mayweather being the most popular boxers that are currently fighting today. Nash is probably frustrated how much wrestling has changed, and would like to see how things used to be. In the past, the "look" and the larger than life mainframe was required to mainevent and carry the show. Today and in the future, that isn't needed.

 

[Low_Ki]

As a wrestling fan from the era in which Kevin Nash was such a huge 'draw', I would quite like to ask him what is it about Guerrero and Benoit, who had busted their asses for years because guys like Nash didn't know when to take a back seat, that seems to be eating him up?

Is it that both of those men could out-wrestle him with their little fingers, is it the fact that he has the charisma of a mop, or is it simply that he wasn't in the spotlight at the 20th Anniversary of the event that he only wished he could be a part of?

The man is dilusional and not only has he pissed me off, he has damn near disrespected the legacy of Eddie. Benoit, well, as a pro wrestler, he has done the same. You don't have to be big to draw. That is a very old philosophy that dates back to when McMahon was first running the WWF. Sure it worked. But he cannot stand there and tell everyone that Punk and Bryan can't draw. Bryan is the most entertaining thing on WWE TV, and Punk has been, in my estimation, a very solid champion this last nine months.

You disrespect the business by believing that you are better than two men who, professionally, could carry your overloaded, bloated ass to a half decent match. And you would still have the nuts to say that you made it that great because in the worped world of Kevin Nash, you are emperor and can do no wrong.

Kevin Nash...go fudge yourself.

Rant over.

 

[DethMetal]

Punk said it best; Nash doesn't know what makes a champion in this day and age. Not only does he bring up the dead, which was completely uncalled for, but when someone throws his crap back at him, he finds a problem. Nash just sounds bitter and full of himself. Jericho rules for defending the so called "vanilla midgets" from Nash. I don't get why he's so stuck in the giant mentality when guys like his buddy Shawn Michaels, and guys like Bret Hart have clearly proved this mindset to be garbage.

 

[Dilligaf]

Im thinking he's just pissed off that his career has ended, and no-one wants to pay him the top dollar (that he thinks he's worth) for doing fuck all.

He knows he wouldnt be able to hang with the stars of today, and he still thinks he's in the 1990's when he was a little relevant when nWo were on top, and he thinks nWo are as popular today then they were back in the day.

He needs to let go, realize its 2012 and move on, but the only problem is he still thinks (as stated above), but only problem is whats he gonna do now outside of wrestling.

Maybe a remake of Turtles and he could re-play Super Shredder, or become an over-the-hill porn star......IDK.

 

[Larry]

Nash is right on the money and most of you are too blind with your Nash hate to see it.

Guys like Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena appear to be larger than life because they are. You list all these smaller guys to try to prove your point but they prove Nash's point more. Benoit was never a big draw. Guerrero was never a big draw. HBK was never a big draw. Jericho was never a big draw. Mysterio was never a big draw. I heard people wishing that it was someone like Punk to go against Lesnar instead of HHH. Do any of you actually think that Punk has a better chance to beat Lesnar than someone of similar build to Lesnar in HHH? If you do, you're lying to yourselves. You may think that the list of small guys disproves the theory that you have to be big to be champion, but them not being big draws sort of validates it.

Agreed. I was never a fan of Eddie or Benoit, I never thought either man was Championship material, and it felt like a slight against fans like myself who had been watching for years and years and an insult to our intelligence when they were suddenly trying to tell me these two are supposedly the two best guys to be champion. No fucking way. For me, It completely ruined that years WrestleMania, it was a giant let down, and BTW, How has the WWE been doing since then? Last I checked their only worth about half what they were before that.

Nash is right, but it goes beyond size. Size isn't entirely the issue, the fact that these two were blown up cruiserweight's supposedly capable of beating guys who logic says would fold them up like fresh laundry was one thing, but they were glorified mid-carders who simply lacked the charisma, the mic skills, and the personality to really be touted as the best the company has to offer. Not by a long shot. When you go from two dynamic guys like Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar, two REAL superstars, to two guys who have little more than solid in ring skills, not the best even in their own company at that, I'd say it's a slap in the face to all the guys who did have all the tools they lacked and were as good of wrestlers.

A lot of people may not like it, but it's time to face reality: Size Matters, whether you like it or not. Only when the superstar possesses something extraordinary does size become less relevant, and that's when you get to your Bret Hart's, Shawn Michaels', Mick Foley, Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, etc... Each one of those guys had something special about them, Guerrero and Benoit had none of what those guys possessed. Guerrero had one of the most deplorable gimmicks I've ever seen, and Benoit was not just undersized and blown up, but he had all the personality of a cardboard box.

Getting to guys like Punk and Bryan, Punk has something that makes up for his average look, he does have some natural charisma, he's a master on the mic, AND he's a great wrestler. That puts him above Guerrero and Benoit automatically in my book. Bryan also has a bit of natural charisma, great wrestling ability, and is a good mic worker. The trend here is that they have more than simple wrestling ability and stand as more complete packages which is the only reason their size doesn't count them out. Nash is right, they look like average people, no one would really think either one were two of the biggest superstars in the world if they just saw them in public, and that is a detriment to the WWE and the Wrestling business in general, when most people would look at them and think "Yeah right, I could kick that guys ass. And THAT'S supposed to be the "World Champion"?" Not by a long shot.

Getting back to "Size Matters" just tell me this; Would Batista have been believable as "The Animal" is were no bigger than CM Punk? Not a chance. Would Hulk Hogan have seemed like much of a Hulk if he were the size of Chris Benoit? Even someone like Lord Tensai, would he be nearly as intimidating if he were an average sized guy with no real unique look about him? No. What about Bam Bam Bigelow? Would he have been believable as "The Beast from the East" if he were no bigger than Eddie Guerrero? Not at all. Is it even believable in any way for someone the size of an Eddie Guerrero to beat a monster like Brock Lesnar? No, it's not. Just the same as how it's nowhere near believable for Rey Mysterio to beat Kevin Nash or The Big Show.

There is a truth to what Nash is saying, and while people who more easily relate to their average appearing idols may resent that, I say tough shit. Yeah, I'm sure it's comforting to you to see a guy who looks more like you in there so you can live vicariously through them, fulfilling your personal fantasies of being them and making it as an average person without having to be larger than life. I'd say that's the exception more than the rule, and the facts support what Little Jerry Lawler is saying, and what Kevin Nash was saying.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I find very amusing the fact that Kevin Nash called Daniel Bryan and CM Punk Internet Darlings, and that we are ranting on him here. We the Internet are obviously defending our darlings, thus making Kevin Nash win a point.

Second, I do agree at some point about what he said. Not everything, but I can see what he was coming from. Just compare Ultimate Warrior to Daniel Bryan. Ultimate Warrior was horrible in the ring, but back in the days that didn't matter. People loved the Warrior, people would fill a venue to watch him. Daniel Bryan is a terrific wrestler, he does every move smoothly and perfectly no doubt about that, but if you are off the IWC and you just ran into him at some vegie restaurant you would be like "Oh some random guy wants to buy some food". If that man was some freaking big guy you would be "OMFG what a beast. I'll go on a diet too!"

In the end of the day you would remember Ezekiel Jackson and not Daniel Bryan.

However nowadays, we just want good matches. The storyline can be as godly awful as Mae Young's Son, but if that "hand" can give us good matches, we are bond to love him. Kevin Nash gave his opinion, and it's a well lot more worthy than ours and he has a point at some extent.

 

[something]

It's all nonsense really. For all we know, this could be a Nash 'work' to try to get a rivalry (or ignite interest in him/start a twitter feud).

If he is just being a bit of a meatball head about this then its all a bit simple minded of how Wrestling has changed over the past few years.

 

[MisterRob]

Agreed. I was never a fan of Eddie or Benoit, I never thought either man was Championship material, and it felt like a slight against fans like myself who had been watching for years and years and an insult to our intelligence when they were suddenly trying to tell me these two are supposedly the two best guys to be champion. No fucking way. For me, It completely ruined that years WrestleMania, it was a giant let down, and BTW, How has the WWE been doing since then? Last I checked their only worth about half what they were before that.

Nash is right, but it goes beyond size. Size isn't entirely the issue, the fact that these two were blown up cruiserweight's supposedly capable of beating guys who logic says would fold them up like fresh laundry was one thing, but they were glorified mid-carders who simply lacked the charisma, the mic skills, and the personality to really be touted as the best the company has to offer. Not by a long shot. When you go from two dynamic guys like Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar, two REAL superstars, to two guys who have little more than solid in ring skills, not the best even in their own company at that, I'd say it's a slap in the face to all the guys who did have all the tools they lacked and were as good of wrestlers.

A lot of people may not like it, but it's time to face reality: Size Matters, whether you like it or not. Only when the superstar possesses something extraordinary does size become less relevant, and that's when you get to your Bret Hart's, Shawn Michaels', Mick Foley, Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, etc... Each one of those guys had something special about them, Guerrero and Benoit had none of what those guys possessed. Guerrero had one of the most deplorable gimmicks I've ever seen, and Benoit was not just undersized and blown up, but he had all the personality of a cardboard box.

Getting to guys like Punk and Bryan, Punk has something that makes up for his average look, he does have some natural charisma, he's a master on the mic, AND he's a great wrestler. That puts him above Guerrero and Benoit automatically in my book. Bryan also has a bit of natural charisma, great wrestling ability, and is a good mic worker. The trend here is that they have more than simple wrestling ability and stand as more complete packages which is the only reason their size doesn't count them out. Nash is right, they look like average people, no one would really think either one were two of the biggest superstars in the world if they just saw them in public, and that is a detriment to the WWE and the Wrestling business in general, when most people would look at them and think "Yeah right, I could kick that guys ass. And THAT'S supposed to be the "World Champion"?" Not by a long shot.

Getting back to "Size Matters" just tell me this; Would Batista have been believable as "The Animal" is were no bigger than CM Punk? Not a chance. Would Hulk Hogan have seemed like much of a Hulk if he were the size of Chris Benoit? Even someone like Lord Tensai, would he be nearly as intimidating if he were an average sized guy with no real unique look about him? No. What about Bam Bam Bigelow? Would he have been believable as "The Beast from the East" if he were no bigger than Eddie Guerrero? Not at all. Is it even believable in any way for someone the size of an Eddie Guerrero to beat a monster like Brock Lesnar? No, it's not. Just the same as how it's nowhere near believable for Rey Mysterio to beat Kevin Nash or The Big Show.

There is a truth to what Nash is saying, and while people who more easily relate to their average appearing idols may resent that, I say tough shit. Yeah, I'm sure it's comforting to you to see a guy who looks more like you in there so you can live vicariously through them, fulfilling your personal fantasies of being them and making it as an average person without having to be larger than life. I'd say that's the exception more than the rule, and the facts support what Little Jerry Lawler is saying, and what Kevin Nash was saying.

The facts make you look like an idiot.

Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero were not much smaller in height then a Ric Flair, a Steve Austin, a Shawn Michaels, or a Bret Hart. All of those names are legends, and all of them are proven stars. Ric Flair was a draw back in the day, despite being small. He certainly didn't have the build that either Benoit or Guerrero had. So shouldn't the business have died when he became champion for that entire decade or more?

Steve Austin is only 6'1". But yet he's the biggest draw in wrestling history.

Not only that, but Smackdown's best years were when Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero, along with Kurt Angle (who is not any bigger) were the center of the show.

Your logic is as flawed as Kevin Nash's.

No one wants to see some "larger then life" fool, if all he can do is lumber around the ring, unable to even put on a good match. The reason Hulk Hogan set the standard for "larger then life" stars, and is the only real example of Kevin Nash's theory is because Hogan could work a match and entertain the audience IN THE RING. The Undertaker is another.

But guys like Kevin Nash COULDN'T wrestle, and they couldn't perform like Hogan, which is exactly why his time as champion is the worst in WWE history.

 

[ryanmclfc]

Nash has always been a Jealous, crying SOB.
He wasn't happy that smaller guys were being pushed in WWE so he left for a pay day,

He hated that Goldberg (Who fit's Nash's idea of a champion) was becoming this unstoppable force so he wrote it in for himself to be on the one to end the streak.

He wasn't happy with Punk being champion

Now this stupid analogy between Wrestlers and porn stars, what a tool.

The only wrestler I've ever had a problem with being champion was Rey Mysterio, I don't and will never believe in giving some one a belt out of sympathy even if it is kayfabe. Comes close with Russo giving Arquete the belt in WCW!
This is the world WRESTLING entertainment, is Punk not THE MOST entertaining guy or atleast top 2/3 in the business? And as well as entertaining, highly skilled at WRESTLING? So why shouldn't he be champ??

 

[something]

No one wants to see some "larger then life" fool, if all he can do is lumber around the ring, unable to even put on a good match. The reason Hulk Hogan set the standard for "larger then life" stars, and is the only real example of Kevin Nash's theory is because Hogan could work a match and entertain the audience IN THE RING. The Undertaker is another.

I think the thing is nowadays - i much rather watching 'smaller guys' (punk, bryan, AJ styles, Aries) as i feel its actually a bit more believable. These are regular guys who had a dream and followed it.. not like giants who were cast for a role because of their size and build (e.g. Ultimate Warrior, Lex Lugar)

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

Getting to guys like Punk and Bryan, Punk has something that makes up for his average look, he does have some natural charisma, he's a master on the mic, AND he's a great wrestler. That puts him above Guerrero and Benoit automatically in my book. Bryan also has a bit of natural charisma, great wrestling ability, and is a good mic worker.

What did I just read? CM Punk & DB more charismatic than Eddie?! And better wrestler than Benoit? Now I know IWC has the tendency to kiss Cm Punk's ass but please dont make a fool out of yourself. CM Punk despite his 'vast' moveset as the IWC likes to think, cannot even execute basic moves properly eg: Watch Punk v Kane and compare it to Orton vs Kane or Benoit vs Kane. Chris Benoit is one of the best if not the best technical wrestlers of all time. As for Charisma, yes Benoit was not golden on the mic but Eddie?? Eddie had passion, enthusiasm and emotion whether it was about a bitter heel trying to destroy his former friend's life or taking us on a ride on how to lie, cheat & steal. Cm Punk is pretty one dimensional on the mic and when he is not dropping a 'pipebomb' he is boring to listen to.

Eddie Guerrero - Ring work - 8/10
Mic work - 9/10

Chris Benoit - Ring work - 10/10
Mic work - 5.5/10

Cm Punk - Ring Work - 7.5/10
Mic work - 8/10

DB - Ring Work - 10/10
Mic Work - 7.5/10


As for the question, Kevin Nash is a joke. The guy cant walk 100 meters without tearing his quads and Eddie, CB, DB & Punk can all outwrestle him with their hands tied behind their back. As for small men being sucky champions/ non draws, his best bud Shawn Michaels is one of the best in ring performers ever and was a major draw.

For the people who say that it would be a joke to Punk in the ring vs Lesnar, I agree. But it is not because of the size. Remember, Chris benoit v Lesnar - everyone knew/though benoit was better because of his superior technical ability and how he was built. Hence, it did seem believable when Benoit made Brock tap out.

Ps: Didnt Nash wanted to start NWO 2.0 with the small guy Cm Punk?

 

[d_henderson1810]

While I think Nash may have been harsh with "wrestling died", his point may be closer to correct then some want to realize. Ask anyone what their favorite Wrestlemania match is and at least 75 if not 90% will say Hogan/Andre. Two big iconic guys staring at each other with Gorilla saying "the unstoppable force meets the immovable object". Look to this past Wrestlemania, what was deemed the "bigger match": Jericho/Punk or Cena/Rock? Now I am a huge fan of Guerrero, Benoit, Punk, and Bryan but I'll admit that none of their characters are "Iconic", at least not yet.

To those who say "wrestling died with the finger poke of doom", I really do think the finger poke of doom gets a bad rep. Wrestling 101 says get the fans to love the good guys and get them to cheer the bad guys. Nash and Hogan got BOOED OUT THE BUILDING after that night. It worked. To those who said it "devalued" the title, how is that any different than Hogan spray-painting NWO on the WCW title, Dibiase trying to buy the title from Andre, or Shawn "screwing" Bret out of the title in '97? Those acts of "treason" got them booed. Yes the titles should be important but they should also be used effectively to get appropriate responses for the wrestlers. If your heel is standing tall at the end of a show with the audience throwing garbage at them then you are doing something right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say that most people would say that their favourite Wrestlemania match was Hogan-Andre?

Well, a lot of surveys I have seen over the years seem to have one match listed consistently in the "best WM matches"- and that happened on the same night as Hogan-Andre- RICKY STEAMBOAT V RANDY SAVAGE!

In Ricky Steamboat's DVD, he says that WM3 got record numbers based on the promotion for Hogan v Andre, and that spurred him and "Macho Man" to put on an incredible match. He said that, the next week, there was a lot of people talking about "The Dragon" vs "The Macho Man" match, more than Hogan vs Andre.

I ask other people on this thread to say whether you considered Hogan v Andre or Steamboat v Savage to have been a more entertaining match at Wrestlemania 3. I think that the answer may surprise you, TheHorndog Says)

 

[President Evil]

Its unfortunate the way Benoit and Eddie's death went down, but having them end WM 20 both with World titles was WWE's way of saying "We're going now with smaller, technical guys who can really wrestle" instead of just 7 footers who just have a look.

Small technical guys in wrestling are nothing new. It was done 10 years before that in the mid 90's when Michaels had the IC title and Bret the wwe championship. Austin and Rock were also on the short side compared to the 7 footers, but the entertainment they put in their programs inside and outside the ring overshadowed that fact.

 

[Ding_Dong_#2]

I admire and respect Kevin Nash and what he's done for the business but I don't think he understands that physical stature has very little to do with whether the company makes money.

Nash's run as Diesel was abysmal. It was WWE's worst time financially and with good reason - was Diesel v Mabel, or anyone for that matter going to put bums on seats? He is big, he is great on the mic but very limited in the ring and most of his matches have been pretty forgettable in all honesty.

Benoit/Guerrero/Bryan aren't of the quality to carry a federation, that much is true but there are plenty of smaller guys who can, Lou Thesz, Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund, Bret Hart and many more who could have been at the very top but never really got the chance because of their size.

A 5ft 5 inch The Rock or Steve Austin would have still drawn. Times have changed, big men are all well and good but the time where you have lumbering, overblown athletes in dire matches has passed. People just aren't that bothered about size - if you are going to be a Goldberg/Hogan/Vader/Ryback character, then yes, size plays a part naturally because that is part of the character but extremely few big men make it to the upper levels of the business - it's no guarantee Big Kev.

 

[Pedigree1]

Thank you Jack Hammer for posting this. Now on to kevin nash.

Kevin Nash is a bitter old washed up wrestler who clearly has no fucking clue what he is talking about. When Eddie and Chris won the titles at WM20 that wasnt the end that was on of the greatest moments in wrestling history. Two guys who busted their asses for years and years finally won the big one at the biggest stage in history.

Where they as tall as Kevin no hardly anyone is. Kevin is a master ass kisser and politician thats why he succeeded the way he did. He had a good look about him and was a good mic worker,but his main skill set was kissing ass and being a mark. Eddie and chris could wrestler circles around this jackass with both arms tied behind their back and feet tied together.

Eddie winning the big one against brock lesnar at no way out 04 was the culmination of hard work and overcoming his demons which are well documented. Chris winning the big one at WM was the result of 18 years in the business busting his ass. Yah chris wasnt the best personality wise but didnt change the fact.

When they embraced at the end of WM it was just two guys who busted their asses were very good friends and just hugged because their dreams came true.

As far as D bryan and CM punk go sorry Kev im sure alot of people would recognize those two at an airport or anywhere else. Your talking about two of the most talented wrestlers on the fucking planet today. Damn Kevin its sad to see you result to this just a behind the times bitter and quite frankly a jackass of a person

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The facts make you look like an idiot.

Quite wrong.

Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero were not much smaller in height then a Ric Flair, a Steve Austin, a Shawn Michaels, or a Bret Hart.

What did Ric Flair and Steve Austin have more of than Benoit and Guerrero? Charisma and a gimmick that people can relate to and appear larger than life. Ric Flair was the limousine riding, jet flying, kiss stealing, etc. Austin was the rebel who fought against his boss and did things that we wish we could do to our superiors. Those are larger than life characters and people flock to see them.

All of those names are legends, and all of them are proven stars. Ric Flair was a draw back in the day, despite being small. He certainly didn't have the build that either Benoit or Guerrero had. So shouldn't the business have died when he became champion for that entire decade or more?

See my above post. If Austin had no personality, he wouldn't have been a big draw. If he had the charisma of Chris Benoit, do you think he would have been as huge as he was? He would not.

Steve Austin is only 6'1". But yet he's the biggest draw in wrestling history.

I wonder why that is so.

Not only that, but Smackdown's best years were when Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero, along with Kurt Angle (who is not any bigger) were the center of the show.

If we're talking about 2003, you seem to be forgetting that Lesnar guy and to a lesser extent, the Undertaker. Benoit and Guerrero were in a tag team match at Wrestlemania 19. I don't think Benoit made the card at Backlash. Guerrero was mainly a tag team wrestler and Cena made his U.S. Title reign more interesting than anything Guerrero did. Don't forget about Vince and Stephanie. They were more the center of the show than Chris and Eddie.

Your logic is as flawed as Kevin Nash's.

I have seen nothing from you that disproves what Nash, I, and Ba-Bomb have been saying.

No one wants to see some "larger then life" fool, if all he can do is lumber around the ring, unable to even put on a good match. The reason Hulk Hogan set the standard for "larger then life" stars, and is the only real example of Kevin Nash's theory is because Hogan could work a match and entertain the audience IN THE RING. The Undertaker is another.

I guarantee you the fans would take a second look more at a guy like Batista than someone like Dean Malenko. Larger than life stars come every so often. Guys like Benoit and Guerrero are a dime a dozen.

But guys like Kevin Nash COULDN'T wrestle, and they couldn't perform like Hogan, which is exactly why his time as champion is the worst in WWE history.

I do love it when people try to discredit wrestlers' opinions based on how that certain wrestler did or didn't do in the WWE. So I guess if Nash was a 10-time world champion, you would agree with him?

 

[Down_Where?Down_Here.]

If Kevin Nash and Scott Hall had both died instead on Benoit and Guerrero at that time, wrestling would be alot better off. Its amazing how two amazing technical wrestlers get shit on STILL because of their size. Not one Kevin Nash match could hold a candle, entertainment, and skill wise, to any Benoit or Guerrero match. I love Scott Hall. Kevin Nash has always been a "Main-event-Mafia" bitch. I think what's really needed to be said is this. If the KLIQ were never around, wrestling would be a lot better off.
The KLIQ killed wrestling. Strongarming your boss so you and your meagerly talented friends could run the show. Then running away when things stopped going your way. The whole "curtain call" incident. Fact is, while Kevin Nash might deserve some respect now, in his mind, he's deserved it since '94. Nash is no where near the best of wrestlers.

Although, I have to admit, your roles in The Punisher, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2:Secret of the Ooze, and Grandma's Boy, were all Oscar quality.

 

[Down_Where?Down_Here.]

I guarantee you the fans would take a second look more at a guy like Batista than someone like Dean Malenko. Larger than life stars come every so often. Guys like Benoit and Guerrero are a dime a dozen.

Now this is complete horseshit. To say Benoit and Guerrero were a dime a dozen, I', 100% certain you've discredited yourself from any argument. You obviously can't understand how truly amazing these two were technical, physically, and mentally.

Hopefully, one day if ever, we'll be able to see amazing technical wrestling again. Daniel Bryan can get there. But other than that, I challenge you to name 10 guys wrestling today who can be or are as good as Benoit or Guerrero, or even fucking Dean Malenko. You're an idiot. <3

 

[Down_Where?Down_Here.]

Because everyone LOVES Tensei and LOVES Ryback and LOVE khali, of man these enormous guys are great, I can't get enough of them chanting theirs names, "GOOOOOLLLLLDBERRRG" and "Alllberrrrt".

Yes, definitely, guys take a second look and bigger guys than smaller ones, yes, to see who they can compare them too from the past, because big guys are one tricks ponies. Maybe the 5 and 6 year olds will be into it, as big guys to them are HUGE. But no, you're wrong. Vince McMahon may have a preference. The fans don't. Look at Brodus, Ryback and Tensai to see how the big guys are doing lately.

 

[James]

Wrestling died when,
Vince started going public with it.
The finger poke of death.
WCW leaking WWF events.
Brock and Angle.
There are a lot of factors that can contribute to that statement.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I'm not gonna comment on what I think of Nash and his career in general I'm here to comment solely on his comments, and although some people take it hard he has a point.

He made mention that both guys were great, technical wrestlers but what he's really saying is looks are everything. It's damn near impossible to be a big draw in wrestling when you are of small stature, even guys like Bret Hart and Shawn Michael's had issue drawing lots of fans because of this, even they are arguably the 2 best in ring performer's ever. It's not about skill, its about being larger than life and when you aren't a big person it makes it much more difficult to pull that off. It can be done but you need to have some serious charisma, mic skills and character to pull it off.

Austin may not have been tall but he was a bigger guy, but he also had a character that was larger than life so he drew. Hogan was a big guy with a larger than life character, so he drew. Guys like Eddie Guerrero and Benoit were great in the ring, Eddie was a great entertainer outside the ring but to be fair how many fans did either guy bring in? Same with Punk and Bryan, I will never take anything away from their skills and how good they are, they are my 2 favorite guy's currently but it doesn't change the fact they are no where near larger than life.

Say what you want about Nash, it doesn't change the fact that he made a good point in saying what he said. As much as people may detest it in ring performances don't draw people in, having a character people want to see is what draws.