Shawn Daivari dispels major misconception in TNA

[It's Damn Real!]

"Well, a common misconception is that the veterans in TNA may demand management to put them over, which in reality isn't the case at all. I never witnessed that during my entire stay with TNA. If a veteran goes over it's because of creative. I remember when Kevin Nash was doing an angle with Samoa Joe and really wanted to put Joe over. Creative kept booking it wrong and Nash eventually went over, despite what he wanted."

So what's all that angst-ridden nonsense about how Kevin Nash is "holding down" all the young guys in the company again?

Funny, when the companys own stars say something about this kind of thing, so many of you dismiss it as politically correct bullshit and desperately try to read between the lines looking for chaos and unhappiness (as though it's impossible for anyone to be happy in TNA because some dirt sheet somewhere says otherwise), but I'm curious what you'll have to say now that one of the guys who was actually released from the company has said the very same — what's his motive? Certainly can't be to keep his job like I was told was the motive of anyone else backing TNA at any point over the last year since Hogan & Bischoff have joined the company, so what does it mean?

Thoughts? Concerns? Non sequitur insults?

 

[shattered dreams]

I am not sure this necessarily negates all the comments some have made. Some people simply said his presence as an active wrestler took a spot that an up and coming talent could have benefited from. I think that still is consistent in spite of the misconception here. If you are going to have Kevin Nash on the active roster, getting paid to be an in-ring competitor, of course you have to book him to protect his character that the company invested in. It may be true that creative probably deserves more blame than Nash does for him failing to put people over but that does not change the fact that he hasn't been able to. Thus, the investment is likely to be seen as a poor one. It seems like there is a double standard in wrestling. Often when something succeeds it is predominantly due to the talent of the wrestlers. When something fails it is due predominantly to the lack of talent for the writers. Something has to give one way or the other IMO.

It is still a tricky situation because I bet Nash spikes the ratings more than most up and comers. Do you book for ratings or for quality? Specifically on Nash and Joe, that was a tough situation. Many would likely argue what does Joe gain by having to have a back and forth program with old man Nash that he eventually goes over in? I would tend to agree with those people. To be fair we did not get to see the whole thing play out. We never really got to see the end of the MEM and Joe story because of some of the older guys being pricks and having contract issues. Most notably Booker T essentially refusing to put AJ over. So maybe Nash wanted to put Joe over but there clearly were other guys that did not want to put people over and did want to get paid in TNAs history. Hopefully most of the bad eggs have been weeded out at this point but it is easy to see why people might be skeptical.

 

[klunderbunker]

So what's all that angst-ridden nonsense about how Kevin Nash is "holding down" all the young guys in the company again?

Funny, when the companys own stars say something about this kind of thing, so many of you dismiss it as politically correct bullshit and desperately try to read between the lines looking for chaos and unhappiness (as though it's impossible for anyone to be happy in TNA because some dirt sheet somewhere says otherwise), but I'm curious what you'll have to say now that one of the guys who was actually released from the company has said the very same — what's his motive? Certainly can't be to keep his job like I was told was the motive of anyone else backing TNA at any point over the last year since Hogan & Bischoff have joined the company, so what does it mean?

Thoughts? Concerns? Non sequitur insults?

I think this does mean something, sure. Does it completely disprove the theory of the older talent holding people down? Not at all. Does it mean the theory of older talent holding people down is true? Not at all. This is one case where the theory is said to be inaccurate. Is Daivari telling the truth? Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. I don't know as I don't know Daivari and I don't know if he'd have any reason to tell the truth or lie about it. It doesn't prove things one way or another really but it does say that maybe it's not all one sided to the older guys, which may or may not have been true in the first place.

In short, it doesn't prove things one way or another as it's one person saying one thing. It isn't something to brush off but it doesn't prove everything either if that makes sense.

 

[realdealasshole]

It's pretty clear that anyone who downplays Nash's ability to put people over have to pick and choose what situations they want to look at. For instance, if you look at the matchups with Joe, sure, he didn't put him over because of creative. However, look at what he did with Jay Lethal. Before Nash got a hold of him with those tryout american idol spoofs they did to turn him into black machismo, Jay Lethal was nothing. Same goes for a guy like Flair. Just his presence in a match with Lethal made Lethal more legit to most fans. I have nothing against the old guys in TNA. They help tremendously.

 

[ABMorales787]

I hate to say it, but that just says TNA was being controlled by a bunch of idiots back then. Probably still there today. Whoever's dumb enough to turn down advice by a guy like Nash, who's got a good idea about booking himself, really shouldn't be kept around for booking. I never really doubted Nash or any other veteran to abuse his power in TNA. If the were the case Kurt Angle, Sting and Christian wouldn't be the only TNA Champions with bigger outside careers.

Jeff Jarrett is the only guy who can't defend himself from this. He was the owner, and passed up on the AJ/Daniels/Joe conflict to headline and would rather book himself as World Champion.

 

[a0161613]

Whoever turned down Nash's request needs to be shot and never allowed to work in the business again.

I don't know if it is Russo or Dixie but it is frankly ridiculous that in an era where your vets are getting criticised, why would you refuse this suggestion.

Nash never had the greatest rep as a booker - rightly so - but he has a mind for the business and his experience should be respected. Joe going over would have been the right call.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I also think that shows how bad booking was then and controlled by a bunch of idiots. If Nash wanted to put Joe over why wouldn't they let him. You always hear complain that old guys don't help put anyone over but this shows that the old guys like Nash want to put over the young guys put they are not being allowed to.