Nash and Foley on Raw vs Nitro 1/4/99

[CH Punk]

www.wwe.com/classics/foley-nash-jan-4-1999-26081539

Nash says Smarks (edited to Know-it-all fans) about 750,000 times.

[kidglov3s]

That graph is pretty obnoxious, they way they've angled it you'd have the impression that Raw was basically ahead the whole time, especially with how the box for Jan. 4th obscures most of the months before it. I just noticed they started it at 1998 too.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2013 13:41:37 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

That graph is pretty obnoxious, they way they've angled it you'd have the impression that Raw was basically ahead the whole time, especially with how the box for Jan. 4th obscures most of the years before it.

At this point it's just a waste of breath to try to call out the WWE for exaggerations like this.

[PKO]

I must be the only person who isn't irritated by WWE's boasting over WCW's demise. Let 'em boast I say.

Kevin Nash seems a bit clueless over the Fingerpoke of Doom.

[BigWill]

I'm not exactly irritated by the WWE boasting over winning the Monday Night Wars, but it all just makes them look a bit pathetic at this point.

[Allie Kitsune]

Angling a graph like that is pointless if you're not actually doing a full rotatable 3D model for it.

[Citizen Snips Has Left]

Jan 5, 2013 13:49:26 GMT -5 PKO said:

I must be the only person who isn't irritated by WWE's boasting over WCW's demise. Let 'em boast I say.

Kevin Nash seems a bit clueless over the Fingerpoke of Doom.

Boasting for almost 12 years is a bit of being a bad winner.

[molson5]

Jan 5, 2013 14:15:03 GMT -5 Citizen Snips Has Left said:

Jan 5, 2013 13:49:26 GMT -5 PKO said:

I must be the only person who isn't irritated by WWE's boasting over WCW's demise. Let 'em boast I say.

Kevin Nash seems a bit clueless over the Fingerpoke of Doom.

Boasting for almost 12 years is a bit of being a bad winner.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. It comes up on the website some but it's hard to talk about the 90s at all without bringing it up. And the website has all kinds of fluff content about wrestling history that's of course going to focus a lot (but not exclusively), on the most successful promotion ever, which is company that runs the website. It's not like WCW is talked about on every TV show.

Also, I wouldn't go to WWE.com expecting graphs and charts that comply with the prevailing scientific standards.

At some level, as the last man standing, the WWE does see itself as something of a custodian of wrestling history, which is kind of cool, but it's not their responsibility to do that at all, let alone do it in a perfectly neutral way. (And if some organization DID do it in a perfectly neutral way - the WWE beating the WCW would still have to be one of the primary themes of a huge era of wrestling history.

[Legion]

History is always written by the winners

[Gerard Gerard]

Jan 5, 2013 14:38:34 GMT -5 Legion said:

History is always written by the winners

Well, they try to, at least. I don't really see WWE's version of events having any traction due to the fact that they're not a totalitarian government that impede independent research and observation.

[ronin705]

Of course Nash is gonna say something that involves one of his buddies is what changed wrestling. The Klique needs to get off its' own D sometimes smh.

[Deleted]

I imagine it would be the same had WCW brought WWE.
It doesn't bother me much.

[stevieboy]

Kevin Nash's whole attitude in that article is one that needs to disappear from wrestling before it can recover from it's current slump. Nash, those [know-it-alls] buy merch, tickets and were probably the only ones left watching WCW at the very end and the only ones who still have any clue who you are. Deal with it.