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

[Larry]

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.

You didn't read everything I wrote did you? That fact makes you the idiot.

I made it clear that guys like the ones you mentioned of average stature all had things that made them successful despite that. In the case of Guerrero and Benoit, they were both great wrestlers in the literal sense pertaining to what they did in the ring, but outside of that they didn't possess the additional contributing factors that Flair, Hart, Michaels, Austin, etc... possessed. They were mid-card guys for the majority of their careers for a reason, they didn't have everything it took to be the top guys, they weren't really marketable, they didn't have natural charisma, they weren't good mic workers, and while their technical prowess may have been exceptional, their in ring ability stopped there. There's a lot more to wrestling than "Technical Wrestling" and they didn't have much outside of that either.

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.

That's purely your own baseless opinion. I think the numbers would tell a different story.

Your logic is as flawed as Kevin Nash's.

That too is purely your own baseless opinion, and I think many others would tell a different story.

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.

True, no one wants to see a big guy who can't perform, which is what you're essentially saying here. That's why guys like Chris Masters, Ezekiel Jackson, etc.... aren't around. Still, those guys are more believable in what they do due to their stature, and are more impressive to see which is something that can not really be refuted.

As for Nash and his ability to wrestle or lack thereof as well as his time as champion being the worst in history, there's a lot more that went into that than it simply being because Nash was the champion. He was actually very over, very popular, and did have some good matches. Nothing that you would hold up as a masterpiece of technical ability, but once again, there's a lot more that goes into making a good wrestling match besides the moves that are being performed. The WWE itself was in a bad spot at the time, but you can't lay the blame at the feet of Kevin Nash. They were in an equally bad spot with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels as champion and that's the truth. It was simply a transitional time in wrestling and it effected everyone until the changes were made and we went into the MNW and the AE went in full swing. BTW, Kevin Nash was a big part of making THAT happen.

What did I just read? CM Punk & DB more charismatic than Eddie?! And better wrestler than Benoit?

Ahhhh, be careful now, your putting words in my mouth. I said that Punk and Bryan get by with being average looking because on top of being great wrestlers, they also have more natural charisma and do better work on the mic, they have more intangibles than Guerrero or Benoit had.

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.

I'm not kissing anyone's ass, I'm just making the valid point on what sets them apart and I am accurate in those assessments. Pointing out one match where you SAY that Punk didn't execute well doesn't lend much credibility to your statements when there are loads of other matches to point to the ladder.

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.

So are you suggesting that because Benoit was efficient in 1 aspect of being a professional wrestler that he was better than the well rounded guys that were around him then and precede him now, and thus was a better choice to be champion? I don't but that one bit. And as for Eddie Guerrero and his mic work, he may have done the best with what he had, but by no means by any standard was he as brilliant on the mic as you try to make him out to be. I could be as passionate, emotional, and enthusiastic about trying to be Michael Jordan as I want, but if I don't possess the skills to be that good it doesn't matter, case and point. He was cheesy at best, and embarrassing at worst. It was ridiculous watching him out there acting like a caricature of a bad stereotype and frankly I thought it was demeaning. I didn't think too highly of him promoting "Lying, Cheating, and Stealing" either.

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

Get back to me when someone besides yourself agrees with those calculations. That's purely your opinion, you are entitled to it, but I don't agree by a long shot.

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.

Yet he was at the top of the two biggest wrestling promotions on the planet back-to-back, was a key member of the faction that changed wrestling (The NWO), was a major star in WCW the whole time despite his deficiencies as you note them to be, and he's still going and everyone is talking about him right now. Yeah, what a joke. The joke is on you, as you are still sitting here and who are you talking about primarily? Kevin Nash.

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.

I didn't say they make for poor champions, but the fact of the matter is that size does matter quite a bit, and unless you possess a lot of skills that make up for it, it does harbor success. Appearance is everything, if you don't look the part, it's a hard sell. You bring up Shawn Michaels. Well, Shawn Michaels was SO good in the ring and outside of it in every way that it didn't matter that he wasn't a big guy, and even though he wasn't he was still in amazing shape, he was a lot more built than Punk or Bryan and looked the part which is part of what made it believable that he could go one on one with bigger guys.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

Ahhhh, be careful now, your putting words in my mouth. I said that Punk and Bryan get by with being average looking because on top of being great wrestlers, they also have more natural charisma and do better work on the mic, they have more intangibles than Guerrero or Benoit had.

You said That puts him above Guerrero and Benoit automatically in my book which is stating that Punk is better than Benoit and Eddie. In wrestling capacity, Benoit is much better than Punk. He is one of the best technical wrestlers ever and on the mic Eddie guerrero was more well rounded than Punk who can be very one dimensional.

Pointing out one match where you SAY that Punk didn't execute well doesn't lend much credibility to your statements when there are loads of other matches to point to the ladder.

Okay then, I'll name more than one.

Cm Punk vs Big Show
Cm Punk v Miz
CM Punk v Kane
Cm Punk v Khali - 10/07/09

There four matches from the top of my head. You watch those matches and you'll see that not only are the matches mediocre, but Punk's execution of basics suck. Now please dont say it's because of the opponent because if Punk is so damn good as IWC claim him to be, then he'll be able to bring the best out of his opponents. Compare those matches to,
Randy Orton/Triple H/Edge v Kane
Lesnar/Angle/Flair/Eddie v Big Show
UT/Triple H v Khali
DB/Rey/Orton v Miz

So are you suggesting that because Benoit was efficient in 1 aspect of being a professional wrestler that he was better than the well rounded guys that were around him then and precede him now, and thus was a better choice to be champion? I don't but that one bit. And as for Eddie Guerrero and his mic work, he may have done the best with what he had, but by no means by any standard was he as brilliant on the mic as you try to make him out to be. I could be as passionate, emotional, and enthusiastic about trying to be Michael Jordan as I want, but if I don't possess the skills to be that good it doesn't matter, case and point. He was cheesy at best, and embarrassing at worst. It was ridiculous watching him out there acting like a caricature of a bad stereotype and frankly I thought it was demeaning. I didn't think too highly of him promoting "Lying, Cheating, and Stealing" either.

See post number 55. I have put the ratings Benoit and Eddie drew as champions. In Eddie's case, it include post WM 20 ratings when Kurt was 'injured', Brock left, UT started wrestling 'rarely' (remember how Booker T vs UT was supposed to be a rare treat) All Eddie had was a mid card JBL - who himself admitted that Eddie is the reason he became a maineventer, got nuclear heat and went on to become a successful WWE champ because of that heat. He himself said people started taking him seriously only after Eddie and Chavo suggest the keyfabe 'heart attack' angle and JBL's win. And of course he had an upper-midcard John Cena.

You say Eddie was cheesy at best, but lemme tell you. People clinged on to every word Eddie said. People laughed with Eddie and hated the hell out of him when he was heel. That is a trait of a good wrestler. You get a huge pop as a face and must be talented enough to get nuclear heat as a heel something Punk is unable to accomplish

If you say that Punk has more emotion and passion than Eddie in his promos you're nothing but a blind Punk mark who thinks Punk is it and others are shit.

The joke is on you, as you are still sitting here and who are you talking about primarily? Kevin Nash.

The last time I checked the thread was about Nash's comment. Am I supposed to talk about how oh so great Punk is here. And yeah joke on Roddy, Jericho too

Watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPV-rRdCAv0


That is how you make a heel promo and get nuclear heat not by saying the generic - I'll sick of people disrespecting me, I'm not gonna suck up to people blah blah blah

 

[Nikkolas]

Fingerpoke of Doom killed an entire company, and he's blaming Benoit and Guerrero for killing... wrestling? Seriously?

A smark myth easily proven false by cold, hard facts.


The "Fingerpoke of Doom" took place on January 4th, 1999.
http://www.prowrestling.com/index.php?section=almanac&id=ratings&year=1999

Notice something? The ratings are just fine for months after.

Moreover, let's look at the results for Bash at the Beach '99 which took place 7 months after all that.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-07-16/entertainment/9907140630_1_bash-wcw-monday-nitro-ratings

Bash drew a sellout crowd of 13,624 fans (11,397 paid) for a live gate of $444,737 at the National Car Rental Center in Sunrise. Merchandise sales also were strong, with WCW generating an additional $71,115.

Moving on, I was tempted to quote and refute a lot of the bile puked up in this thread but I'll settle for just saying something generally.

First of all, did anyone actually read the article? Nash is painted as the second most hated guy by the IWC and that's probably true. More importantly, it's noted in the article right before Kev goes on to blast the smark favorites.

Coupled with the fact he praised Punk not too long ago, I am guessing Nash was trolling everyone.
It seems to have worked masterfully.

And that brings me to my second point. All the smarks hating on him in here (and elsewhere) who call him an idiot are just factually wrong. Nash is one of the smartest guys in the business and has been acknowledged as such by many of his peers. DDP in the article in question comments on it and I've also seen Mick Foley praise him.

Let's look to what Good Ol' JR had to say on all this:
"Nash is a brilliant guy...love him or hate him. He's a survivor and by any means necessary"

You people call him an idiot who only got anywhere through politicking - but that is practically an oxymoron. Despite his self-admitted lack of in-ring ability, Kevin Nash is richer than 99% of the wrestlers ever, more well-known than 99% of the wrestlers ever, and is in better shape than most of the old pros his age.

The man is a complete and total success in every meaning of the word. He parlayed his average carpentry skills into being a millionaire with a good hom and family. Calling him an ass-kisser isn't really fair either; the man is one of the best manipulators and players in modern pro-wrestling history.

Where did Benoit busting his ass get him? Brain-damaged into doing something horrible.

Also, since his track record as WWF Champion is the favorite insult potato the smarks like to kick around, I'll just leave these lists here:

Dave Meltzer - Greatest Draws Year-By-Year

Spoiler

1997 - 1. Shinya Hashimoto; 2. Undertaker; 3. Shawn Michaels; 4. Bret Hart; 5. Naoya Ogawa; 6. Lex Luger and Keiji Muto; 8. Steve Austin; 9. Hulk Hogan; 10. Riki Choshu, Kevin Nash and Mick Foley

1998 - 1. Steve Austin (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. Undertaker; 3. Kane; 4. Mick Foley; 5. The Rock; 6. Bill Goldberg; 7. Hulk Hogan; 8. HHH; 9. Sting; 10. Randy Savage

1999 - 1. The Rock (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. Steve Austin; 3. HHH; 4. Big Show; 5. Kane; 6. Undertaker; 7. Keiji Muto; 8. Bill Goldberg; 9. Ric Flair; 10. Kevin Nash

This is from the Wrestling Observer in 2008

I was honestly surprised at this. I figured '98 was Nah's peak year. After all, he had the Wolfpac by then and was headlining the biggest PPV with the hottest star.
Regardless, it finally kills the beloved myth that Nash was only successful (or that the nWo was only successful) because of Hogan.

How about Meltzer on the Biggest Draws Of All Time in the WWE?

Spoiler

Dave Meltzer has compiled a lost of the top 54 biggest draws in WWE history based on gates/ratings the wrestlers drew as main eventers.


1. BRUNO SAMMARTINO

2. HULK HOGAN

3. BOB BACKLUND

4. ARGENTINA ROCCA

5. HHH

6. UNDERTAKER

7. STEVE AUSTIN (Undertaker and HHH have passed him in recent years since he finished his career in 2003. Had he not retired at the age of 38 due to injuries, as well as missed what probably would have been his biggest drawing year in 1999 with neck surgery, he would have been No. 2 on this list by now. Nobody ever in company history was a bigger drawing card or merchandise seller then he was at his peak.)

8. THE ROCK

9. PEDRO MORALES

10. SHAWN MICHAELS

11. SUPERSTAR BILLY GRAHAM

12. MIGUEL PEREZ

13. BRET HART

14. BUDDY ROGERS

15. RANDY SAVAGE

16. JOHN CENA

17. KURT ANGLE

18. MICK FOLEY aka CACTUS JACK, DUDE LOVE, MANKIND

19. ANDRE THE GIANT

20. DR. JERRY GRAHAM

(TIE) JOHNNY VALENTINE

22. RODDY PIPER

23. IVAN KOLOFF

24. ULTIMATE WARRIOR

(TIE) RANDY ORTON

(TIE) BATISTA

27. GREG VALENTINE

(TIE) YOKOZUNA

(TIE) SGT. SLAUGHTER

30. GEORGE STEELE

(TIE) CHRIS JERICHO

(TIE) KANE

(TIE) KEVIN NASH aka DIESEL

34. RIC FLAIR

(TIE) BIG SHOW aka PAUL WRIGHT

(TIE) STAN HANSEN

(TIE) GORILLA MONSOON

(TIE) KEN PATERA

39. FRED BLASSIE

(TIE) BOB ORTON SR. aka ROCKY FITZPATRICK

(TIE) BROCK LESNAR

42. EDDIE GRAHAM

(TIE) KILLER KOWALSKI

(TIE) PROFESSOR TORU TANAKA

(TIE) DON MURACO

(TIE) DAVEY BOY SMITH aka BRITISH BULLDOG

(TIE) EDGE

(TIE) CHRIS BENOIT

49. LARRY ZBYSZKO

(TIE) PAUL ORNDORFF

(TIE) IRON SHEIK aka GREAT HOSSEIN ARAB aka COL. MUSTAFA

(TIE) NIKOLAI VOLKOFF aka BEPO MONGOL

(TIE) WALDO VON ERICH

(TIE) BOOKER T aka KING BOOKER

I respect the hell out of Nash. He's a cool dude who does everything for his family and friends.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

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?

Would any of them had those particular gimmicks if they weren't the size they were?

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.

You're listing some of the bigger merchandise movers the WWE's seen, which in a WWE that sells based off of its own name recognition, and has had little to do with who the actual talent on a given show is, that is more telling. You're also mentioning names that, arguably to a man, are more famous than Kevin Nash to the world at large as well as names that the majority of ticket buyers if given the choice, would choose to see over Kevin Nash.

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.

Haha. You're trolling is as obvious as Nash's trolling of the IWC.

No, it really didn't. The Fingerpoke of Doom is one of the worst moments in WCW history, certainly, but it didn't "kill" the company. That's just an asinine notion.

Just as asinine a notion as the one Nash is suggesting.

they didn't have natural charisma, they weren't good mic workers, and while their technical prowess may have been exceptional, their in ring ability stopped there.

Eddie Guerrero didn't have charisma? EDDIE GUERRERO?
You might not personally have liked his WWE gimmick, but you cannot say Guerrero wasn't charismatic. Benoit I'll give you absolutely. Eddie? Never.
BTW, it's been reported before that had Eddie not passed, the level of push that went to John Cena... was going to Eddie. The guy had everything.

A smark myth easily proven false by cold, hard facts.


The "Fingerpoke of Doom" took place on January 4th, 1999.
http://www.prowrestling.com/index.php?section=almanac&id=ratings&year=1999

Notice something? The ratings are just fine for months after.

You know what I noticed there? That the ratings aren't just fine for months after. They hold for a couple of weeks, and then start a steady descent to the point that by the end of the year, they're doing from 5.0 to 2.9. Not all due to the Finger Poke of Doom, but that bit of Nash booking definitely helps get the ball rolling on that descent. Plus keep in mind that in 1999, Kevin Nash had the book in WCW.

This whole thing is funny though. Nash is obviously trolling and wanted to get his name out there again. He makes outlandish statements that he knows will get people riled up, as well as get people to actually defend those outlandish, baseless statements. He succeeded on both accounts.
He only talks about size. He doesn't qualify that with anything else, like others here have done for him, so going by his actual words, you have to guess that he feels that Jackson Andrews as champ instead of CM Punk would be better for business (for everyone asking who, Jackson Andrews is 7 foot tall, and a bit of a Nash clone in the ring... aka, he's pretty bad).

A big man can be larger than life, but it has to be the right big man... just like a little guy can be larger than life as well. But you have to PROMOTE those people as larger than life, and the actual individual has to be able to project that aura as well. Physical size has nothing to do with that. Hell, I've personally witnessed Jimmy Hart get mobbed in a McDonalds. That was one character who absolutely was larger than life, but that was because of who he was, and obviously not because of how big he was (the guy probably weighed a buck fifty in his heyday).

I saw this quote on Nash that I just have to share:

" Kevin's one of those guy's who makes absolutely perfect sense until he's given the chance to prove his theories and can't.

Nothing more needs to be said. Just remember, to those getting upset by what he said, and those trying to agree with him... we're talking about a guy who claims to have an IQ of 161, yet worked as a bouncer at a strip club.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

You said That puts him above Guerrero and Benoit automatically in my book which is stating that Punk is better than Benoit and Eddie. In wrestling capacity, Benoit is much better than Punk. He is one of the best technical wrestlers ever and on the mic Eddie guerrero was more well rounded than Punk who can be very one dimensional.

I'll take Punk every day over the mic than Eddie. I cringed almost every time Eddie picked up a mic.

Okay then, I'll name more than one.

Cm Punk vs Big Show
Cm Punk v Miz
CM Punk v Kane
Cm Punk v Khali - 10/07/09

Out of his four opponents, three outweigh him by more than 100 pounds and two are twice his weight. I'm not surprised.

There four matches from the top of my head. You watch those matches and you'll see that not only are the matches mediocre, but Punk's execution of basics suck. Now please dont say it's because of the opponent because if Punk is so damn good as IWC claim him to be, then he'll be able to bring the best out of his opponents. Compare those matches to,
Randy Orton/Triple H/Edge v Kane
Lesnar/Angle/Flair/Eddie v Big Show
UT/Triple H v Khali
DB/Rey/Orton v Miz

1. HHH/Kane matches have always sucked. See 2002 and 2003 for evidence of that. Edge vs. Kane matches have been awful as well. See 2004, 2005, and 2010.

2. You really want to say that Lesnar vs. Show was great. No, it was not. That big oaf injured Lesnar in 2002 so they had to put the title on him and thank the Lord Angle took it off of him. Their Royal Rumble match was pathetic and their stretcher match was average. Kurt Angle couldn't even pull a good match out of him in Armageddon. Angle was working by himself in that match and don't get me started on Eddie vs. Big Show. Piss poor example on that one. You should be embarrassed. I know I would be.

3. Undertaker/Khali was terrible but I contribute that some to the Undertaker being average in 2006. HHH actually got a better match out of Khali two years later than Taker.

4. The Miz is average in everything he does. That's all the words he deserves from me.

See post number 55. I have put the ratings Benoit and Eddie drew as champions. In Eddie's case, it include post WM 20 ratings when Kurt was 'injured', Brock left, UT started wrestling 'rarely' (remember how Booker T vs UT was supposed to be a rare treat) All Eddie had was a mid card JBL - who himself admitted that Eddie is the reason he became a maineventer, got nuclear heat and went on to become a successful WWE champ because of that heat. He himself said people started taking him seriously only after Eddie and Chavo suggest the keyfabe 'heart attack' angle and JBL's win. And of course he had an upper-midcard John Cena.

Boo hoo.

You say Eddie was cheesy at best, but lemme tell you. People clinged on to every word Eddie said. People laughed with Eddie and hated the hell out of him when he was heel. That is a trait of a good wrestler. You get a huge pop as a face and must be talented enough to get nuclear heat as a heel something Punk is unable to accomplish

I could swear Punk was getting heat during his feud with Hardy in 2009. Must have imagined that.

 

[Nikkolas]

High IQ translates into finding high-class jobs? I've never heard that one.

Also Nash has talked about this exact matter in the past.

Keller: If size is so important, then how do you explain Ric Flair and
Shawn Michaels? They're a lot smaller than you, Hulk, Scott Hall. Do
they hit a threshold for size that Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit
don't?

Nash: Right, I just think their charisma made them bigger than life.
The thing was with Shawn, Shawn was a buzzsaw. Shawn had real good intensity. When he was a heel he was able to kick it into gear. He made what Scott Hall and I liked to call Southern white meat babyface comeback. That Tommy Rich, punch, punch. That's the biggest problem babyfaces have in this business now. Most of the f---in' babyfaces can't throw a f---in' punch. You look at the old Southern babyfaces, the Ricky Mortons - those guys could sell their asses off and make you cry, and when it comes time for a comeback, they can throw it down. I watched Marty Jannetty the other night on Smackdown, and f---in' he was throwing a better punch than I've seen the last ten weeks on the show.He stood out because if you can work, you can work. I guarantee he wasblown sky high and felt like a fish out of water when he went throughthe curtain in the back. I was so happy for him, man. I heard he got acontract, they signed him. F--- yeah. Way to go, Marty. That to me is the business right there. That's what it's about. If you know and can go, there's always a spot for you. Another thing you learn early inyour career, if you ain't afraid to put somebody over, you'll always have a job. You'll always have a job. I'm 0-5 in TNA. I haven't won a PPV (match) since I came back. It don't matter none to me. My biggest problem is that there isn't any interjection between the young and old talent.

 

[Wald]

Nash is pulling some god awful work to try and get himself a job, that is literally all this is.

12 months ago he was talking about how great Punk is and how he'd love to come back and be his bodyguard as part of the Voice of the Voiceless angle. Now he wants to start more 90s reality crap with a flame war where he hopes Vince will see dollar signs in a Daniel Bryan or CM punk vs Nash feud. He;s using Benoit and Eddie to stoke those fan flames and make himself the most talked about topic in wrestling this week.

The guy is one of those wrestlers that doesn't know when to stop, he thinks everything has to be a work, even putting some gas in a car.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

I'll take Punk every day over the mic than Eddie. I cringed almost every time Eddie picked up a mic.

LOL I have seen guys like you on WZ and IWC. Those who think Ziggker, DB & Punk are the best on the mic and the highest draws and people like Cena & Randy suck. Whatever, your opinion

Out of his four opponents, three outweigh him by more than 100 pounds and two are twice his weight. I'm not surprised.

So, Big Show, Kane, Khali are taller and outweigh almost everyone in the roster. Stupid argument

1. HHH/Kane matches have always sucked. See 2002 and 2003 for evidence of that. Edge vs. Kane matches have been awful as well. See 2004, 2005, and 2010.

2. You really want to say that Lesnar vs. Show was great. No, it was not. That big oaf injured Lesnar in 2002 so they had to put the title on him and thank the Lord Angle took it off of him. Their Royal Rumble match was pathetic and their stretcher match was average. Kurt Angle couldn't even pull a good match out of him in Armageddon. Angle was working by himself in that match and don't get me started on Eddie vs. Big Show. Piss poor example on that one. You should be embarrassed. I know I would be.

3. Undertaker/Khali was terrible but I contribute that some to the Undertaker being average in 2006. HHH actually got a better match out of Khali two years later than Taker.

4. The Miz is average in everything he does. That's all the words he deserves from me.

Poor comprehension. i never said they had 5 star matches. I said the aforementioned wrestlers almost brought the best out of them and their basic moves werent sloppy against them

Boo hoo.

I see you've no counter argument. Thank You

I could swear Punk was getting heat during his feud with Hardy in 2009. Must have imagined that.

I never said Punk was a bad heel did I? In fact I found him very entertaining during his first heel turn. We were talking about how Eddie was articulate and charismatic enough to make crowd either boo him or cheer him with just one promo. Watch Eddie's heel promo and compare it to Punk's promo last Monday. Eddie was able to successfully make a transition from a hot crowd favorite to a hated heel (proper heel) something Punk is yet to do. As for Punk getting heat, yeah Matt Hardy got lot of Heat in his feud against Jeff because Jeff was freaking over those days. Does that make Matt golden on the mic?

I know anything I say wouldnt change your opinion since you seems to be a typical IWC fan boy. So keep thinking Punk and Ziggler are the best wrestlers (they are not) and the best mic workers (again, no)

Here you go fanboy. Remember this???

As previously reported, Monday’s WWE RAW Supershow drew a low 2.92 cable rating and averaged 4.29 million viewers for the two-hour broadcast.
A closer look at the ratings on a segment-by-segment basis does not bode well for the drawing power of CM Punk, Daniel Bryan and Zack Ryder.The RAW six-man main event with CM Punk, Daniel Bryan & Zack Ryder vs. Alberto Del Rio, The Miz & Dolph Ziggler drew a very low 2.67 rating – making it one of the lowest-rated RAW main events of the year.This is almost impossible as people tune into USA to see the next TV show. This means wrestling fans were tuning out in large numbers.

AND One from May. Dont worry there's plenty. If so called Supercena wasnt around and Punk was the main focus as he and fanboys like you want him to be - then it will be godbless WWE

May 28 Raw: Punk vs. Daniel Bryan lost 30,000 viewers for a 2.79 quarter-hour rating in the 10pm timeslot - which is a bad number for that point in the show.

LOL Yeah Cm Punk is good at one thing Eddie isnt in. That is losing ratings.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

LOL I have seen guys like you on WZ and IWC. Those who think Ziggker, DB & Punk are the best on the mic and the highest draws and people like Cena & Randy suck. Whatever, your opinion

I never said Ziggler or Bryan were the best on the mic. I sure do think Punk is better than Randy Orton.

Poor comprehension. i never said they had 5 star matches. I said the aforementioned wrestlers almost brought the best out of them and their basic moves werent sloppy against them

Did I say they had 5 star matches? Put some glasses on and focus. Kane probably had one or two decent matches in his career and it was against none of the guys you listed. Same goes with Big Show.

I know anything I say wouldnt change your opinion since you seems to be a typical IWC fan boy. So keep thinking Punk and Ziggler are the best wrestlers (they are not) and the best mic workers (again, no)

Are you this damn stupid? Did you mother drop you on your fragile skull as a child? Did I even mention Ziggler in my other post? I know you at least have half a brain.

AND One from May. Dont worry there's plenty. If so called Supercena wasnt around and Punk was the main focus as he and fanboys like you want him to be - then it will be godbless WWE

I hope you're in high school because I would be ashamed of the people that let you graduate. I never said that I liked Punk. I just said that I liked him more on the mic than Eddie.

LOL Yeah Cm Punk is good at one thing Eddie isnt in. That is losing ratings.

They were doing 3.5's up until WM 20 and they dropped to the low 3's when Guerrero was champion. Want to try that again?

 

[MrMojoRisin]

High IQ translates into finding high-class jobs? I've never heard that one.

Also Nash has talked about this exact matter in the past.

Keller: If size is so important, then how do you explain Ric Flair and
Shawn Michaels? They're a lot smaller than you, Hulk, Scott Hall. Do
they hit a threshold for size that Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit
don't?

Nash: Right, I just think their charisma made them bigger than life.
The thing was with Shawn, Shawn was a buzzsaw. Shawn had real good intensity. When he was a heel he was able to kick it into gear. He made what Scott Hall and I liked to call Southern white meat babyface comeback. That Tommy Rich, punch, punch. That's the biggest problem babyfaces have in this business now. Most of the f---in' babyfaces can't throw a f---in' punch. You look at the old Southern babyfaces, the Ricky Mortons - those guys could sell their asses off and make you cry, and when it comes time for a comeback, they can throw it down. I watched Marty Jannetty the other night on Smackdown, and f---in' he was throwing a better punch than I've seen the last ten weeks on the show.He stood out because if you can work, you can work. I guarantee he wasblown sky high and felt like a fish out of water when he went throughthe curtain in the back. I was so happy for him, man. I heard he got acontract, they signed him. F--- yeah. Way to go, Marty. That to me is the business right there. That's what it's about. If you know and can go, there's always a spot for you. Another thing you learn early inyour career, if you ain't afraid to put somebody over, you'll always have a job. You'll always have a job. I'm 0-5 in TNA. I haven't won a PPV (match) since I came back. It don't matter none to me. My biggest problem is that there isn't any interjection between the young and old talent.

Majority of the time, yeah people with high IQ's, especially genius level IQ's like Nash claimed tend to be able to find better work than bouncing.

And that quote from Nash is all fine and good... it tells me especially he a typical old guy that thinks everything back in his day was better... but he isn't saying a thing about Ricky Morton, Marty Jannetty, Tommy Rich or anyone actually working on top. Just that he wishes more of the newer guys could actually work like those guys did.

Plus Nash really isn't one to talk about never being afraid to put people over. When he was coming up he did because he was lower mid card and he wouldn't have had a job if he didn't. Once he made his name, if he was putting anyone over, it was usually one of his friends. Later in his career (the TNA reference), he did because if he wasn't, no one would hire him. He's not wrong in what he said... but I'd listen to that advice more from guys like Bret Hart, Chris Jericho and the Rock... all guys who weren't afraid to put people over WHILE they were on top, not just during the times in their careers where they didn't have a choice.

 

[cult_of_icecream_bar]

Yes,nash does has a point.I wont watch a porn with a guy having a 3 inch dick.That's it.But rest of it doesn't hold much water.Yes big guys drew in the past but there was one thing that was bigger than size,charisma.SCSA,The Rock(in his prime),HBK,Flair,hart,sting-none were huge guys.Even Cena,though he is strong,isn't a larger than life figure.But all of 'em drew.People would be at the airport till 5a.m just to get a autograph.Size matters,but if you have the charisma you'll overcome it.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

Did I say they had 5 star matches? Put some glasses on and focus. Kane probably had one or two decent matches in his career and it was against none of the guys you listed. Same goes with Big Show.

Again, my point was that the matches I listed were better than Punk's and more importantly, the wrestlers didnt screw up the basic moves.

They were doing 3.5's up until WM 20 and they dropped to the low 3's when Guerrero was champion. Want to try that again?

Pretty sure you're some kid who started watching after Ezekiel Jackson started wrestling then. Eddie was champ before WM idiot. He went into WM as champion. And ratings dropped about 0.2% from Brocks after Eddie became champion but he constantly hit 3.2-3.4 during his 19 weeks as champion. Considering SD is the taped B show, he was able to gain ratings that Cm Punk can dream of having.

Your last post disappoints me. I hoped you would make some valid arguments and we can have a good debate since I'm open to good debates. But turns out you're some doofus who resorts to making kindergarten jokes like half-a-brain, fragile skull jokes. I just pointed out that CM Punk is not as good as you think and that he is certainly not better than Eddie. And if you're not a Punk fan, why did you suddenly get butthurt and started making baseless, inane arguments to defend Punk??? So bro if you've got some valid arguments please bring it to the table. If not, admit you made baseless arguments while my arguments/points hold substance and just shut up. No need to make this personal bro.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Pretty sure you're some kid who started watching after Ezekiel Jackson started wrestling then. Eddie was champ before WM idiot. He went into WM as champion. And ratings dropped about 0.2% from Brocks after Eddie became champion but he constantly hit 3.2-3.4 during his 19 weeks as champion. Considering SD is the taped B show, he was able to gain ratings that Cm Punk can dream of having.

Ignoramus, I know Eddie was champion before WM 20. Did I say he became champion at WM 20? He won the title a month before WM and the majority of his reign, the ratings barely got above a 3. In the 19 weeks he was champion, there were only 6 times where it was between a 3. 2 and a 3.4 when Smackdown not getting that rating for two straight months so throw that constantly shit out the window.

Your last post disappoints me. I hoped you would make some valid arguments and we can have a good debate since I'm open to good debates. But turns out you're some doofus who resorts to making kindergarten jokes like half-a-brain, fragile skull jokes. I just pointed out that CM Punk is not as good as you think and that he is certainly not better than Eddie. Fine lemme tell you this, the guy in your avatar is as much of a joke as you. My post was directed towards another person, And if you're not a Punk fan, why did you suddenly get butthurt and started making baseless, inane arguments to defend Punk?

Your existence disappoints me. I've made valid debates up and down this thread. I'm sorry that you don't have the mental capacity to understand them. I'm going to say this next sentence very slowly so even you can comprehend it.

When. Did. I. Ever. Say. That. I. Thought. CM. Punk. Was. Good.

See, you take me saying that I think Punk is better on the mic than Eddie and you go off on some delusionial trip about me claiming to like Punk. It's fine if you think that. Keep on thinking and maybe some brain cells will appear.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

Ignoramus, I know Eddie was champion before WM 20. Did I say he became champion at WM 20? He won the title a month before WM and the majority of his reign, the ratings barely got above a 3. In the 19 weeks he was champion, there were only 6 times where it was between a 3. 2 and a 3.4 when Smackdown not getting that rating for two straight months so throw that constantly shit out the window.

Oh yeah here's what you typed - ''They were doing 3.5's up until WM 20 and they dropped to the low 3's when Guerrero was champion'' read what you typed. You said ratings were good till WM20 and dropped low when Eddie was champ (not after WM) Eddie was champ before WM. Hahaha... He got above 3 constantly except for 3 freaking weeks. I never said Eddie was the biggest draw. I just said wasnt a failure as champ and is a better draw than Punk. End of argument.

Your existence disappoints me. I've made valid debates up and down this thread. I'm sorry that you don't have the mental capacity to understand them. I'm going to say this next sentence very slowly so even you can comprehend it.

When. Did. I. Ever. Say. That. I. Thought. CM. Punk. Was. Good.

So you say that Punk is better than Eddie, Benoit and Orton but he sucks? Yeah that makes you even more stupid... Orton who people in the industry considers the best of the current generation? Even Paul freaking Heyman marked out for Orton. If you mean mic skills, although Orton is not bad on the mic as IWC think he is, I agree Punk is better. If you mean overrall, you're a bigger joke than I thought you are.

My point is, you made some inane baseless arguments to defend Punk when my original post wasnt directed at you. Do you usually get butthurt and poke your nose into other people's business and make inane comments. It's not as if you raised any valid points. You said something like a pro, I counter argued it and you in an attempt to conceal for foolishness, changed the subject to saying I dont like Punk blah blah blah and started making some 3rd grade jokes. Anyway since you dont have the ability to raise any valid counter arguments I'm gonna give it a rest. i dont want to stoop to your level and take personal jabs although your posts show your immaturity. Anyway peace out bro!

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

So you say that Punk is better than Eddie, Benoit and Orton but he sucks? Yeah that makes you even more stupid... Orton who people in the industry considers the best of the current generation? Even Paul freaking Heyman marked out for Orton. If you mean mic skills, although Orton is not bad on the mic as IWC think he is, I agree Punk is better. If you mean overrall, you're a bigger joke than I thought you are.

How moronic and idiotic can you possibly be? Where did I say that Punk was better than Benoit? When the fuck did I say that Punk was better than Eddie? All I said was that I think Punk is better than Eddie and Orton on the mic. That's it, simpleton. Go back to elementary school and learn how to read or get Hooked on Phonics. Also, I never said Punk sucks either.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

How moronic and idiotic can you possibly be? Where did I say that Punk was better than Benoit? When the fuck did I say that Punk was better than Eddie? All I said was that I think Punk is better than Eddie and Orton on the mic. That's it, simpleton. Go back to elementary school and learn how to read or get Hooked on Phonics. Also, I never said Punk sucks either.

Ooh Yeah, then why did you make idiotic comments like this

Quote:
Okay then, I'll name more than one.

Cm Punk vs Big Show
Cm Punk v Miz
CM Punk v Kane
Cm Punk v Khali - 10/07/09

Out of his four opponents, three outweigh him by more than 100 pounds and two are twice his weight. I'm not surprised.

Quote:
There four matches from the top of my head. You watch those matches and you'll see that not only are the matches mediocre, but Punk's execution of basics suck. Now please dont say it's because of the opponent because if Punk is so damn good as IWC claim him to be, then he'll be able to bring the best out of his opponents. Compare those matches to,
Randy Orton/Triple H/Edge v Kane
Lesnar/Angle/Flair/Eddie v Big Show
UT/Triple H v Khali
DB/Rey/Orton v Miz
1. HHH/Kane matches have always sucked. See 2002 and 2003 for evidence of that. Edge vs. Kane matches have been awful as well. See 2004, 2005, and 2010.

2. You really want to say that Lesnar vs. Show was great. No, it was not. That big oaf injured Lesnar in 2002 so they had to put the title on him and thank the Lord Angle took it off of him. Their Royal Rumble match was pathetic and their stretcher match was average. Kurt Angle couldn't even pull a good match out of him in Armageddon. Angle was working by himself in that match and don't get me started on Eddie vs. Big Show. Piss poor example on that one. You should be embarrassed. I know I would be.

3. Undertaker/Khali was terrible but I contribute that some to the Undertaker being average in 2006. HHH actually got a better match out of Khali two years later than Taker.

4. The Miz is average in everything he does. That's all the words he deserves from me.



Quote:
See post number 55. I have put the ratings Benoit and Eddie drew as champions. In Eddie's case, it include post WM 20 ratings when Kurt was 'injured', Brock left, UT started wrestling 'rarely' (remember how Booker T vs UT was supposed to be a rare treat) All Eddie had was a mid card JBL - who himself admitted that Eddie is the reason he became a maineventer, got nuclear heat and went on to become a successful WWE champ because of that heat. He himself said people started taking him seriously only after Eddie and Chavo suggest the keyfabe 'heart attack' angle and JBL's win. And of course he had an upper-midcard John Cena.

Boo hoo.

Quote:
You say Eddie was cheesy at best, but lemme tell you. People clinged on to every word Eddie said. People laughed with Eddie and hated the hell out of him when he was heel. That is a trait of a good wrestler. You get a huge pop as a face and must be talented enough to get nuclear heat as a heel something Punk is unable to accomplish
I could swear Punk was getting heat during his feud with Hardy in 2009. Must have imagined that.

I'm pretty sure we werent talking about mic skills there. Were you? Seriously dude. You're one big joke just like the guy in your avatar. OR you're suffering from dementia...Idiot

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Ooh Yeah, then why did you make idiotic comments like this




I'm pretty sure we werent talking about mic skills there. Were you? Seriously dude. You're one big joke just like the guy in your avatar. OR you're suffering from dementia...Idiot

1. Look at the first sentence of post #84. You may need an hour to read it clearly. Don't worry. I have plenty of time.

2. I said all that other stuff to explain why those matches weren't as good as you think they were, which they weren't. Stop while you're behind. I beg of you.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

Why do you think I didnt quote the first sentence?

And the boo hoo comment? Did somewhere in your body start to itch?

I said all that other stuff to explain why those matches weren't as good as you think they were, which they weren't.

For the third time, i freaking mentioned them to make the point that the wrestlers didnt screw up basic moves against them and that the matches were better than Punks. I never said they were 4 or 5 star matches. Bro either you,

1.Misunderstood what I typed
2.lacks basic level of comprehension

I know you suck at making valid points/arguments but apart from that which one of the top 2 is it?

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

The following are highlights from a recent interview with Kevin Nash:

Nash on his comments about the size of top guys in WWE today: "I’m talking about them as wrestlers, I’m talking about them as their wrestling persona as far as visual. I’m not talking about anything [else]. I’ve stated before, these guys are incredibly great technical wrestlers. All of them. But there’s a reason why Christian Bale in Batman has armor on and is bigger than life. There’s a reason why in all these Marvel movies if [the guys] don’t have gigantic muscles and aren’t oversized, they’re CGIs. I don’t remember Stan Lee when he started Marvel Comics making a 5-foot-7 guy."

Nash on HBK being an exception to the rule: "Shawn Michaels was 6-foot-1 and a half and weighed 225 pounds in his prime. That’s a big difference between 5-foot-7. That’s a difference between a 6-foot-8 power forward and a 7-foot-1 center. CM Punk doesn’t have Shawn Michaels’ physical ability. I mean, Vince Carter and [Michael] Jordan are the same size."

Nash on the PG Era in WWE and CM Punk: "I think the number one thing that hurts still is the fact that they’re PG. I’m a huge fan of Punk’s [but] I’m sorry, it’s hard for me to watch two grown men say they’re going to beat the crap out of each other. That’s my personal opinion.

"I’m also saying that it doesn’t look to me like he spends a lot of time in the weight room. I just think it would enhance his look and everything. We were all drug free and drug tested for years at the WWE, and there were a lot of guys that had great physiques. I think that comes with it."

Nash on the reaction to his comments: "You guys aren’t backstage, you guys aren’t around when the brass makes decisions. You guys aren’t around when they all say, ‘God, I wish he was bigger,’ [or] ‘God yeah, but the guy just doesn’t have enough size.’ It’s their opinion. I’m just stating my opinion. I’m not saying I’m right. But am I not allowed my opinion? I pay taxes, I’m allowed my opinion. In my opinion, that’s how I feel. That doesn’t mean anybody else has to jump aboard and say I have to agree with him because he says so.

"Number one, I’ve always been an Internet darling and always will be and if I were to say something and was just somebody that didn’t have an opinion, you wouldn’t be calling me. It’s just because Kevin Nash said it. Oh my God, Kevin Nash said it. Oh my God, Jericho rebutted.

"For Eddie [Guerrero] and Chris [Benoit], Eddie was a friend [and] Chris was a friend. When the tragedy went down with Benoit I think I was one of the few guys that went on TV and tried to make some sense of it. These people that think I’m desecrating deceased wrestlers; I’m talking about them as [wrestlers] and not the person. Sometimes I look at it and I just go you know what, don’t even have an opinion, be a sheep like everybody else."

Source : http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/259...s-critical-comments-reaction-to-them-hbk-more

I think most of what Kevin Nash said is right. Pro-Wrestling nowadays lacks "Larger than Life" personalities.

What do you guys think ? Discuss.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

But does larger than life mean they have to be big muscular men? That is my question. I think it has to do with how you are built up and how you perform both in the ring on the mic and outside the ring. He mentioned Batman and Avengers but what about the most popular marvel superhero - Spiderman? Spidey is supposed to be this nerdy, highschool geek and is nowhere as big as other marvel superheroes like Thor, Iron Man, Hulk etc. But in my opinion he's the most popular Marvel superhero. Toby McGuire is 5'7 and Andrew Garfield is 5' 10. Even in comics Spidey seems to be average height not tall.

The thing is in Kevin's defense, size and look does take you far. When they first called up Orton to the main roster, the reason they did so was becaause, (1) He was incredibly talented (2) He had the look - Good looking, Tall, Lean etc. Cena is Vince's dream wrestler (1)Good Looking (2)Head full of hair (3)Muscular

Nash on the PG Era in WWE and CM Punk: "I think the number one thing that hurts still is the fact that they’re PG. I’m a huge fan of Punk’s [but] I’m sorry, it’s hard for me to watch two grown men say they’re going to beat the crap out of each other. That’s my personal opinion.

"I’m also saying that it doesn’t look to me like he spends a lot of time in the weight room. I just think it would enhance his look and everything. We were all drug free and drug tested for years at the WWE, and there were a lot of guys that had great physiques. I think that comes with it."

Bashing Pg era will earn some points with the IWC to Nash but to be honest you can have good storylines even in the PG era. eg: Randy Orton v Triple H WM 25, Brock v Cena (yes it didnt look too PG-ish but still...) PG doesnt mean it's all talk. just no swearing and no blood.

The thing is with Benoit, I was about 12/13 years old when Benoit won the title and the guy looked unstoppable to me because of his wrestling ability and how he was built as champion. I desperately wanted triple H to win back the title, but in my eyes Benoit seemed too superior. That is what Randy's victory over him made it all too sweet.

Eddie never looked nor was he built to be the unstoppable force. He was the underdog champ who did everything possible to keep the title around his waist. That was his gimmick. Were they larger than life? No. Eddie to a certain extent. But the thing is they didnt't kill wrestling as Nash said.

Like I said before, Making Hornswoggle the focal point of Raw (Midget court, Anonymous GM) and Lack of storylines killed wrestling - etc. You just pit Orton with kane and expect them to feud at WM with no real reason. The Test v Steiner feud had a 10x better storyline than the current WWE/WHC one. I really found Punk stale and boring after he won the title from Del Rio way back in 2011 but I was invested in the DB v Punk feud. Why? because of the good storyline with AJ and Kane in the mix. It shows what you is a good storyline to keep people invested.

I’m not saying I’m right. But am I not allowed my opinion? I pay taxes, I’m allowed my opinion. In my opinion, that’s how I feel. That doesn’t mean anybody else has to jump aboard and say I have to agree with him because he says so.

He should've expected some backlash when he mentioned two dead guys and one of whom is one of the most beloved superstars even today (Eddie) Anyway true enough, like Lance Storm said let him say what he wants.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Source : http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/259...s-critical-comments-reaction-to-them-hbk-more

I think most of what Kevin Nash said is right. Pro-Wrestling nowadays lacks "Larger than Life" personalities.

What do you guys think ? Discuss.

Problem is that he is changing his definition of "Larger than Life". First he criticizes Bryan/Punk/Guerreo/Benoit because of their size. Now he defines "larger than life" with a personalities (aka Shawn Michaels).

Punk and Bryan are in the early stages in defining their character. However so far they both have done really well with their merchandise selling very well and crowd signs and chants of "Yes"/"No", only time will tell how far they can go. Eddie was super over before he passed away but his "Lie Cheat Steal" gimmick was really over whether he was a face or a heel. As for Benoit it's hard to view his legacy due to the murder-suicide thing but, if he was still alive, people would say that he was a guy that did the match do all the talking and if charisma is measured by crowd reaction Royal Rumble 2003 and how fans reacted when he beat Orlando Jordan in record time 4 times are just a few examples of his success.

 

[Larry]

You said That puts him above Guerrero and Benoit automatically in my book which is stating that Punk is better than Benoit and Eddie. In wrestling capacity, Benoit is much better than Punk. He is one of the best technical wrestlers ever and on the mic Eddie guerrero was more well rounded than Punk who can be very one dimensional.

Well you split up what I was saying and applied it to two different things when my statement was more broad and generalized. My point was that while both Guerrero and Benoit were great technical wrestlers, Punk and Bryan are both more well rounded and possess intangible traits and qualities that neither of the ladder did, which does put them above both Guerrero and Benoit. I'll grant you that Benoit was a better "Technical Wrestler" than Punk, but that's where it stops on the checklist. Comparing Eddie Guerrero to CM Punk on the mic is a rather lopsided affair as well, and I fail to see how you can even attempt to say Punk is "One Dimentional". Your memory of Punks mic work seems to extend no further than the last year or so, because if you go back further it's clear there are many dimensions of Punk as a worker on the mic.


Getting to Daniel Bryan as well, he is as good a technical wrestler as anyone you'd care to mention. Maybe you haven't got to see the full catalog in the WWE, but his career existed before the WWE and for years he's been regarded as arguably the best wrestlers in the world, period. He's also no slouch on the mic, and I and well as others would argue that he is in fact better on the mic even, than your beloved Guerrero. I know you don't like to hear that and chalk it up as anyone who says as much being some IWC fanboy but as it pertains to me that couldn't be further from the truth. These are simple observable truths. If you can't come to terms with them, I'd say you are the bias fanboy.

Okay then, I'll name more than one.

Cm Punk vs Big Show
Cm Punk v Miz
CM Punk v Kane
Cm Punk v Khali - 10/07/09

There four matches from the top of my head. You watch those matches and you'll see that not only are the matches mediocre, but Punk's execution of basics suck. Now please dont say it's because of the opponent because if Punk is so damn good as IWC claim him to be, then he'll be able to bring the best out of his opponents. Compare those matches to,
Randy Orton/Triple H/Edge v Kane
Lesnar/Angle/Flair/Eddie v Big Show
UT/Triple H v Khali
DB/Rey/Orton v Miz

That really amounts to nothing, pure conjecture. I think is is also worth noting as Little Jerry Lawler did that Kane, Show, and Khali are all much bigger than him and that creates an issue in delivering a good match because their styles simply don't mesh well because those bigger guys aren't capable of doing as much in the ring WITH him. Isn't it a two way street as well? Does no blame fall at the feet of the people he has to work with, or is your inexplicable personal vendetta clouding your judgment?

See post number 55. I have put the ratings Benoit and Eddie drew as champions. In Eddie's case, it include post WM 20 ratings when Kurt was 'injured', Brock left, UT started wrestling 'rarely' (remember how Booker T vs UT was supposed to be a rare treat) All Eddie had was a mid card JBL - who himself admitted that Eddie is the reason he became a maineventer, got nuclear heat and went on to become a successful WWE champ because of that heat. He himself said people started taking him seriously only after Eddie and Chavo suggest the keyfabe 'heart attack' angle and JBL's win. And of course he had an upper-midcard John Cena.

Let's make it clear, it was the storyline and what occurred within it that made JBL a major heel, along with his work as a heel to embolden that storyline. The reason Eddie gets the credit is because he was the other party in the storyline, and none of this does anything to refute the points I made that this is in response to.

You say Eddie was cheesy at best, but lemme tell you. People clinged on to every word Eddie said. People laughed with Eddie and hated the hell out of him when he was heel. That is a trait of a good wrestler. You get a huge pop as a face and must be talented enough to get nuclear heat as a heel something Punk is unable to accomplish

It was very cheesy, and your personal recollections of how receptive people were to that is just that, your recollections. My recollections are that his mic work was horrible, and even though he was able to get over as a face or a heel, that had more to do with the WWE machine that was behind him than his own merits, because before that he never was able to get over. It was only after the WWE force-fucked him down our throats as a major face that he got over as such, and getting over as a heel is one of the easiest things in wrestling to do so that's not exactly astonishing.

It's rather short sighted or short memory'd of you to try and purport the idea that Punk has never been talented enough to get over as a face or a heel. Did you forget about him being over as a face when he won 2 MITB's, held the IC title, then the WHC, and then his major heel turn which saw him lead the SES and Nexus, or the promo that shocked the world last year and turned him face instantly and kept him there ever since? I suppose now none of that counts?

If you say that Punk has more emotion and passion than Eddie in his promos you're nothing but a blind Punk mark who thinks Punk is it and others are shit.

Clearly, that explains all the facts away. I'm not even a big Punk fan, but I know what I know about who's made of what and who possesses what skills, and even though I'm not much of a Punk fan I'm not going to sit here and act like you, and try to shit all over him and refute all his skills and talent.

The last time I checked the thread was about Nash's comment. Am I supposed to talk about how oh so great Punk is here. And yeah joke on Roddy, Jericho too

That's the point, the joke is on you because here we are, or here you are all heated about this whole thing and as much as you try to talk shit about him, you are still talking about him, and it's because he made it so, because he is smart and he knows how to get people talking, or get all eyes on him if he wants which to me at least show that he's still smarter than the smarks, and can still draw heat or fandom at will as he has done here. Here I am and I fully support him (fandom) and you have nothing but hateful scathing comments to make about him (heat). You make it too easy.

Watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPV-rRdCAv0

That is how you make a heel promo and get nuclear heat not by saying the generic - I'll sick of people disrespecting me, I'm not gonna suck up to people blah blah blah

[/QUOTE]

Well, I did you the justice of watching the video. Uhhh, so what? THAT is how you say you make a heel promo huh? Well, it wasn't a great heel promo at all. First of all, he got the heat he did because not only was it an unexpected turn (if you can call it that because generally they give little hints of distention before the actual turn) but it came from turning on one of the biggest legit babyfaces in the company, Rey Mystetio. Not hard to get heat when you've got Rey as the victim. Then he went on to take the cheap heat by blaming the fans. Meanwhile it was as cheesy and generic as anything else I've ever seen.

Ya know, you've just detracted and derailed this whole conversation with this penchant of hate you've shown for guys we've been trying to give credit to, for being acception's to the statements made my Kevin Nash. Obviously you're entitled to saying whatever it is you want, but you've really missed the point that folks like myself have been making and went the complete opposite direction of the conversation here, trying to discredit these modern wrestlers that DO overcome size and appearance with talent that even Guerrero and Benoit did not possess. Rather than acknowledging the quality of these guys that we have putting forth some of the best wrestling in the world, and the best work outside of purely wrestling, you choose to try and tear them down with the ghosts of guys who even in their primes, didn't possess all the talent and skills some of these newer guys possess, and even others who were around while they were alive. I think it's pretty ridiculous, and I think you're acting like a moron. You've taken shit a little too seriously it seems, and can't handle the truths that have been put right in front of your face. For that, and in those actions, you prove to be the very thing you accuse me and others of being, a blind mark.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

Well you split up what I was saying and applied it to two different things when my statement was more broad and generalized. My point was that while both Guerrero and Benoit were great technical wrestlers, Punk and Bryan are both more well rounded and possess intangible traits and qualities that neither of the ladder did, which does put them above both Guerrero and Benoit. I'll grant you that Benoit was a better "Technical Wrestler" than Punk, but that's where it stops on the checklist. Comparing Eddie Guerrero to CM Punk on the mic is a rather lopsided affair as well, and I fail to see how you can even attempt to say Punk is "One Dimentional". Your memory of Punks mic work seems to extend no further than the last year or so, because if you go back further it's clear there are many dimensions of Punk as a worker on the mic.


Getting to Daniel Bryan as well, he is as good a technical wrestler as anyone you'd care to mention. Maybe you haven't got to see the full catalog in the WWE, but his career existed before the WWE and for years he's been regarded as arguably the best wrestlers in the world, period. He's also no slouch on the mic, and I and well as others would argue that he is in fact better on the mic even, than your beloved Guerrero. I know you don't like to hear that and chalk it up as anyone who says as much being some IWC fanboy but as it pertains to me that couldn't be further from the truth. These are simple observable truths. If you can't come to terms with them, I'd say you are the bias fanboy.

If I was a blind mark, i would have said that Benoit was golden on the mic and that Eddie is a better technical wrestler than Bryan similar to the way many IWC marks think Ziggler is HBK-esque and that CM Punk is legitimately the best wrestler in the WWE, and I wont admit that I was fully invested in CM Punk's first heel turn. I never said Eddie was a better wrestler than DB did I? I just said he's better on the mic than Punk and is more well rounded than both Punk and DB (although DB is improving rapidly and at this pace will be someone much bigger)

That really amounts to nothing, pure conjecture. I think is is also worth noting as Little Jerry Lawler did that Kane, Show, and Khali are all much bigger than him and that creates an issue in delivering a good match because their styles simply don't mesh well because those bigger guys aren't capable of doing as much in the ring WITH him. Isn't it a two way street as well? Does no blame fall at the feet of the people he has to work with, or is your inexplicable personal vendetta clouding your judgment?

Like your buddy, you lack comprehension. My post was about how CM Punk despite being so great, is not very good in executing basic moves properly. I gave him one example and he asked me to give more than one. As for being bigger than Punk, Please!!! Big Show, Khali, kane are bigger than most of the roster and i'll even say that Show had a much better match with Bryan

Let's make it clear, it was the storyline and what occurred within it that made JBL a major heel, along with his work as a heel to embolden that storyline. The reason Eddie gets the credit is because he was the other party in the storyline, and none of this does anything to refute the points I made that this is in response to.

Yeah, think about it this way. If say, a career mid carder is about to turn heel (say Alex Riley) and we are about to take him seriously as a maineventer, which would be more effective - Turning his back on Santino, Kofi etc or Randy, Cena, Sheamus etc. The purpose of my comment was to show how much nuclear heat he got because he went against Eddie and how Eddie put over JBL big time. Plus the storyline was Eddie's idea.

It was very cheesy, and your personal recollections of how receptive people were to that is just that, your recollections. My recollections are that his mic work was horrible, and even though he was able to get over as a face or a heel, that had more to do with the WWE machine that was behind him than his own merits, because before that he never was able to get over. It was only after the WWE force-fucked him down our throats as a major face that he got over as such, and getting over as a heel is one of the easiest things in wrestling to do so that's not exactly astonishing.

It's rather short sighted or short memory'd of you to try and purport the idea that Punk has never been talented enough to get over as a face or a heel. Did you forget about him being over as a face when he won 2 MITB's, held the IC title, then the WHC, and then his major heel turn which saw him lead the SES and Nexus, or the promo that shocked the world last year and turned him face instantly and kept him there ever since? I suppose now none of that counts?

Like I said I have seen guys who even think Cena is not a draw and guys like Ziggler, Punk are a bigger draw than the Rock If your opinion is that Eddie sucked on the mic, well whatever. But judging by how I got positive rep, I'm pretty sure even people here agree with me

my point in posting that was to show how Eddie was able to make an effective heel turn from being a huge fan favourite with just one promo (maybe 2-3 vignettes before that) You mentioned CM Punk's promo. It was groundbreaking and perhaps better than anything Eddie did but what was the purpose of it. It was not made to turn face He was still a heel in that promo. Yes, fans did cheer for him and made him a face but that wasnt the point of it. He cut a promo last Monday about his heel turn and what did he say - I'm tired of people disrespecting me, I'm not gonna suck up etc. generic comments. Thing is Eddie was talented on the mic to do that Punk isnt. Being a good heel means you get heat. You dont get cheered. One reason why gorgeous George, ted DiBiase, Mcmahon etc. will go down as the best heels in the business. Look at Vince, he's talented enough to make people either love him or hate him with just one segment or promo. Not everyone can do that. Eddie could. Punk can't. Look at the post above yours. Even he agrees that Eddie was super over.

Clearly, that explains all the facts away. I'm not even a big Punk fan, but I know what I know about who's made of what and who possesses what skills, and event though I'm not much of a Punk fan I'm not going to sit here and act like you, and try to shit all over him and refute all his skills and talent.

I've mentioned earlier in this forum how I was a big fan of his first heel turn/SES. I'm not gonna shit over him. The thing is he is good in the ring (not the best as people claim to be) and good on the mic (not the best as people claim him to be) As a draw he sucks (atleast at present. maybe it will change in the future...maybe) I called a spade a spade

but it came from turning on one of the biggest legit babyfaces in the company, Rey Mystetio. Not hard to get heat when you've got Rey as the victim.

Remember Rey Rey was still a midcarder then and isnt as superover as he is now. (although yes, he was over with the fans) As for being easy to get heat with rey as victim, Kane (I'm a huge Kane fan) and Ziggler says hi. People didnt care about the Kane feud neither did they care about Ziggler (oh wait IWC fanboys like you do nah?)

Then he went on to take the cheap heat by blaming the fans. Meanwhile it was as cheesy and generic as anything else I've ever seen.

That was the icing in the cake in Eddie's promo. Not the main point. It was the main point in CM Punk's promo.

Ya know, you've just detracted and derailed this whole conversation with this penchant of hate you've shown for guys we've been trying to give credit to, for being acception's to the statements made my Kevin Nash. Obviously you're entitled to saying whatever it is you want, but you've really missed the point that folks like myself have been making and went the complete opposite direction of the conversation here, trying to discredit these modern wrestlers that DO overcome size and appearance with talent that even Guerrero and Benoit did not possess. Rather than acknowledging the quality of these guys that we have putting forth some of the best wrestling in the world, and the best work outside of purely wrestling, you choose to try and tear them down with the ghosts of guys who even in their primes, didn't possess all the talent and skills some of these newer guys possess, and even others who were around while they were alive. I think it's pretty ridiculous, and I think you're acting like a moron. You've taken shit a little too seriously it seems, and can't handle the truths that have been put right in front of your face. For that, and in those actions, you prove to be the very thing you accuse me and others of being, a blind mark.

You too either have dementia or doesnt read other posts. (1) I'm not inclined to support small sized talent. Just because you follow your IWC superiors and do that was is popular I dont. (2) Read post number 95. I've defended smaller wrestlers including Punk.

In conclusion - You like your buddy lacks basic comprehension. I'm sorry but being a blind mark in my opinion is following what's popular in the IWC and going with the flow thinking everything that wrestler does is golden because other say it is. I see people like you on the internet everyday. IWC think Orton is cool. You cheer him. IWC says Orton is uncool and Ziggler and Punk is golden. You think the same. I made a comment which I knew would make me unpopular but stuck to it. I dont hate Punk and he does have talent and I'm glad to see how far he has come since his debut. But the difference between you and me is that just because I think he's talented doesnt mean I would blindly follow others and say he's the best. Sure you're entitled to your opinion and I cant change it. But in my opinion, Punk cant lace Benoit's boots in the ring and Eddie's on the mic (btw I've never liked Benoit so much. Even before his double murder suicide. But I give credit where it's due)

you choose to try and tear them down with the ghosts of guys who even in their primes, didn't possess all the talent and skills some of these newer guys possess,

New guys. in 2004, when Kurt was 'injured', UT started making wrestling matches for a while and face of SD left, Eddie carried SD with an upper-midcard Cena, Big Show and JBL. Nowadays, you take Cena out of Raw, ratings hit very low. Suppose Cena and Orton get injured and Trips stops making appearances. You think Punk, DB and Ziggler (I'm mentioning them because I mentioned them in my previous posts) or even the other new guys like say McIntyre, Sheamus etc can carry Raw? (forget about the B show. let's talk about the A-Show) You can teach people to wrestle, but you cant teach them how to get a reaction/draw/speak on the mic. For you to say that they have talent and skill Eddie never had in his prime what the new guys have is a joke and you seem to be a bigger joke than LJL

I think MisterRob said it best about you

The facts make you look like an idiot.

 

[Pegusus Fill_T]

**New guys. In 2004, when Kurt was 'injured', UT started making wrestling matches rarely for a while and face of SD, Lesnar, left, Eddie carried SD with an upper-midcard Cena, Big Show and JBL.

Continuation of the above post...


Btw watch Eddie Guerrero v Rey Mysterio at Halloween havoc 1997, His promo with Lesnar going into NWO, Read the following article at the bottom. It is about JBL talking about how Eddie got him over

http://www.prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/article10026438.shtml

''If it hadn’t been for Eddie I don’t think the JBL character would have ever worked."

 - JBL

Eddie worked hard, was dedicated even at times when he didnt get the opportunity he deserved. When he got the opportunity, he made the best out of it. He never whined about lack of opportunity (like someone else I know) nor did he put his nose into other people's business just to stay relevant outside the WWE (Chris Brown, Jon Jones, Dwayne Johnson) and bash a much bigger superstar and draw - talking crap about taking a current guy's spot at WM all the while pushing for a match against another retired superstar and now at present pushing for a match against the same superstar.

Thing is I respect hard work & loyalty. I respect Cena. I'll be the one to admit, that he despite currently being WWE's best mic worker after Jericho, can be corny on the mic and can never have a match the likes of DB, Orton, Punk can. But i respect the guy nonetheless. He was given a joke of a gimmick and Vince McMahon hated him. Only Steph and Jericho had faith in him. He took the opporunity, made the gimmick successful and took the ball home.

Similarly, when Paul Heyman gave Eddie the opportunity, we wowed the fans and made a stand. Sure he didnt hit the heights Cena did but he became good enough to attract WCW and WWF nonetheless.

The thing about Punk is that I have always acknowledged his talent. Just that he's not as good as people make him to be and for me will always be a whiner. Respect is earned. Call me mark or a moron or whatever, but for me I respect the hell out of Eddie but not Punk. So dont think I hate Punk. I like Sheamus and if Sheamus was mentioned here intead of Punk, I wouldve said the same thing (that Eddie is better than him on the mic)

So next time you make a joke of a comment saying Eddie wasnt good, wasnt over (which you seem to imply) remember people in the industry and millions of WWE fans disagree with you. #idiot

 

[BigThunder]

I was glad to see Nash's clarification/retraction, however one thing strikes me as it relates to the "larger than life" comment.

Kevin is civvies doesn't look like a wrestler to me. He has a decent build, but his body doesn't have the classic wrestler shape -- he looks more like a basketball player, as opposed to, say, Scott Hall.