|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Apr 22, 2013 5:39:57 GMT -5
I think that nowadays they actually use actual billings. Wasn't there a story a year or so ago about WWE changing things to reflect real life heights and weights. That would make his homeboy HBK even smaller. Either way, Nash is just full of it for most of the time, and intentionally says "ridiculous" thing just to create buzz. I think Nash just enjoys stirring the pot and watching the resulting chaos, knowing that it keeps him semi-relevant long after he has stopping being able to offer anything in the ring full time. What was it he called it... a double-work?
|
|
|
Post by mike2789 on Apr 22, 2013 5:45:13 GMT -5
I have a huge Nash mark. But he often does say some stuff which is stupid. I think he was just talking about it in a general sense. And for the most part small guys don't do well besides for the one or two that do. Rey would be one, Michaels would be another. It also depends on how you are looking at it from as well. From a marketing stand point the smaller guys have a greater ability to sell merchandise because they are usually faces and are laced with interesting gimmicks. For example, Big Show is a decent guy when it comes to selling merchandise but there is nothing really that cool or interesting. He can go only go in so many ways. Mark Henry is similar, but since the Hall of Pain it has been up. (what I notice when I am at stores or at shows)
Overall he is right. You can sell matches to the general public with height and weight. Information like that is interesting and it gets the general person interested. If someone told me a five foot seven was taking on a six foot one guy, I would be like, that doesn't sound interesting, reminds me of a drunk college fight.
But if you throw in someone that is seven foot, I am invested. Because I would find it interesting.
Also from what I have read heights are growing with each generation. I missed the boat on height, I am 5'6 or 5'7 on a good day, while all my dad, brothers, uncles are 5'10 to 6'5
Mailman baby I bet
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Apr 22, 2013 5:50:27 GMT -5
I know Nash said that just to piss fans off and get some attention but this whole size makes money is just dumb. As there have been numerous huge guys who touted as the next big thing only turn out as gigantic flops,Nash himself was lowest drawing champion in WWE history and before he was a star had several awful gimmicks that didn't drawl anything but flies on shit.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Apr 22, 2013 6:32:34 GMT -5
And Nash was 7ft tall and couldn't draw. Does he qualify as a small guy? I'm not entirely sure if you're joking or not but Nash drew A LOT of money in his career.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 22, 2013 6:38:54 GMT -5
Nash talks bollocks. Almost anyone of any size can be successful if booked properly.
|
|
|
Post by cool guy on Apr 22, 2013 6:43:12 GMT -5
Memorable and exciting characters draw, regardless of size.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 8:44:58 GMT -5
And Nash was 7ft tall and couldn't draw. Does he qualify as a small guy? I'm not entirely sure if you're joking or not but Nash drew A LOT of money in his career. As part of the nWo, yeah. His single pushes when he didn't have the nWo name attached to him? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by dicecasden on Apr 22, 2013 8:48:42 GMT -5
I do love how defensive people get over things Kevin Nash says when in fact what he says its true, even though he said it poorly. You want proof that he is right, just look at SmackDown, the 'small man's' wrestling show... if the little guys drew viewer, SmackDown would be getting the same ratings as RAW
|
|
mrbananagrabber
King Koopa
Paul Heyman's unofficial joke writer
Posts: 11,809
|
Post by mrbananagrabber on Apr 22, 2013 9:00:42 GMT -5
2012 edition of WWE was, is and always will be completely forgettable. This one image renders your comment invalid.
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway. Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 62,188
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Apr 22, 2013 9:02:04 GMT -5
I do love how defensive people get over things Kevin Nash says when in fact what he says its true, even though he said it poorly. You want proof that he is right, just look at SmackDown, the 'small man's' wrestling show... if the little guys drew viewer, SmackDown would be getting the same ratings as RAW Not necessarily, Smackdown is taped spoilers leak out which influence a person to either watch or not watch. Also not every home can get SYFY so there is the availability issue as well. Also what your telling me is guys like The Big Show, Sheamus, Randy Orton, Jack Swagger are small guys I don't think they are.
|
|
|
Post by Ganon83 on Apr 22, 2013 9:02:56 GMT -5
Didn't Nash almost bankrupt the WWE with his 1 year championship run? Also, Smackdown takes place on Friday nights........ most people are out doing things.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 22, 2013 9:10:43 GMT -5
Ratings have become rather unreliable as a sense of what people actually watch, just due to changing technology. Not to mention the fact that most people aren't likely to buy a ticket for one person. Drawing has always been based on the strength of the roster as a whole and the writing.
|
|
|
Post by Thunderbolt on Apr 22, 2013 9:37:48 GMT -5
Austin was a brick house. I can't believe anyone would call Stone Cold "small".
|
|
|
Post by Djm Doesn't Find You Funny on Apr 22, 2013 9:42:44 GMT -5
I want to congratulate the OP on a successfully executed Nash Troll.
Well done.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Apr 22, 2013 9:43:31 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure if you're joking or not but Nash drew A LOT of money in his career. As part of the nWo, yeah. His single pushes when he didn't have the nWo name attached to him? Not so much. Well he drew for WCW on top in 99. They were getting solid ratings during his reign at the top and the Hogan/Nash match on January 4th 1999 almost beat RAW in the ratings for the first time in 3 months. One could make the argument that nWo in the WWE was a draw as well at least until around Judgement Day. Nash's feud with Triple H did decent money and Nash was a big star in TNA too. He drew. He was a pretty poor WWF Champion but the entire business was down at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 9:46:26 GMT -5
As part of the nWo, yeah. His single pushes when he didn't have the nWo name attached to him? Not so much. Well he drew for WCW on top in 99. They were getting solid ratings during his reign at the top and the Hogan/Nash match on January 4th 1999 almost beat RAW in the ratings for the first time in 3 months. One could make the argument that nWo in the WWE was a draw as well at least until around Judgement Day. Nash's feud with Triple H did decent money and Nash was a big star in TNA too. He drew. He was a pretty poor WWF Champion but the entire business was down at that time. "Drawing" is hard to measure though. What's to say that Diesel drew as WWF Champion but Chris Benoit or Eddie Guerrero or CM Punk (or any of the other "vanilla midgets") didn't when they were on top?
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Apr 22, 2013 10:10:09 GMT -5
Well he drew for WCW on top in 99. They were getting solid ratings during his reign at the top and the Hogan/Nash match on January 4th 1999 almost beat RAW in the ratings for the first time in 3 months. One could make the argument that nWo in the WWE was a draw as well at least until around Judgement Day. Nash's feud with Triple H did decent money and Nash was a big star in TNA too. He drew. He was a pretty poor WWF Champion but the entire business was down at that time. "Drawing" is hard to measure though. What's to say that Diesel drew as WWF Champion but Chris Benoit or Eddie Guerrero or CM Punk (or any of the other "vanilla midgets") didn't when they were on top? Usually the guy on top is drawing the money. Obviously it's a team effort to draw a crowd but the guy on top is usually getting the most people in. Nash was that guy. Nash even draws to this day in the indies. He's a decent draw. Not a Hogan or Flair but he's good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 10:13:06 GMT -5
"Drawing" is hard to measure though. What's to say that Diesel drew as WWF Champion but Chris Benoit or Eddie Guerrero or CM Punk (or any of the other "vanilla midgets") didn't when they were on top? Usually the guy on top is drawing the money. Obviously it's a team effort to draw a crowd but the guy on top is usually getting the most people in. Nash was that guy. Nash even draws to this day in the indies. He's a decent draw. Not a Hogan or Flair but he's good. WWE wasn't exactly dying with Benoit and Eddie on top though was it? They did just fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 10:13:49 GMT -5
2012 edition of WWE was, is and always will be completely forgettable. This one image renders your comment invalid. I don't really see where a stable that basically has no direction, no clear purpose, no real establishment, and only a small handful matches to its credit five months in is really something likely to be terribly memorable. Maybe something will happen with them along the line, but for now they seem to be pretty easy to forget given even WWE has most of what they do get no follow-up whatsoever. Usually the guy on top is drawing the money. Obviously it's a team effort to draw a crowd but the guy on top is usually getting the most people in. Nash was that guy. Nash even draws to this day in the indies. He's a decent draw. Not a Hogan or Flair but he's good. WWE wasn't exactly dying with Benoit and Eddie on top though was it? They did just fine. Eddie was pretty much a bust as champion, though under Benoit ratings stayed pretty consistent. Granted, outside of his first month with the title and his brief feud with Orton, Benoit was usually playing second-fiddle to Triple H and Shawn Michaels. Though Michaels being part of that still goes against Nash's point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 10:19:01 GMT -5
This one image renders your comment invalid. I don't really see where a stable that basically has no direction, no clear purpose, no real establishment, and only a small handful matches to its credit five months in is really something likely to be terribly memorable. Maybe something will happen with them along the line, but for now they seem to be pretty easy to forget given even WWE has most of what they do get no follow-up whatsoever. WWE wasn't exactly dying with Benoit and Eddie on top though was it? They did just fine. Eddie was pretty much a bust as champion, though under Benoit ratings stayed pretty consistent. Granted, outside of his first month with the title and his brief feud with Orton, Benoit was usually playing second-fiddle to Triple H and Shawn Michaels. Though Michaels being part of that still goes against Nash's point. In which way was Eddie a bust? Only negative I've ever heard about Eddie's title reign is that he didn't really want to be champion.
|
|