The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[bigtplaystew]

<p>So basically DJ dont like DY because he thinks he can beat him up lol. </p><p> </p><p>

I respect that.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So basically DJ dont like DY because he thinks he can beat him up lol. <p> </p><p> I respect that.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I could very well be wrong, but I don't dislike him. I like the whole team, and I've always like A.W. from before when he was Abraham Washington.</p><p> </p><p> But come on.. Is there a sole on here that legitimately thinks Cody Rhodes would be able to beat them (anyone over 16 anyways)?</p><p> </p><p> Realize that as far as I'm concerned, who is "legit" tough doesn't mean a hill of beans in who I want to succeed. I'm still going to root for Rey Mysterio making a huge comeback before his days are over completely... I'm still going to root for Daniel Bryan.. In fact, IF I WERE IN CHARGE, I would have Nash start messing with him and a feud where Daniels goes over Nash, just because I want to see that happen. I still believe Nash has one or two halfway decent match's left in him, and I think he's a better actor then anyone has ever gave him credit for... I think he could make it work even though he feels it "ruined" wrestling.</p>

[Self]

<p>I'd have to see Cody in person to decide. I'm not much of a fighter.</p><p> </p><p>

I have no problem with smaller wrestlers being on the show. I think you should fill the card with the best performers you can get. I don't even have a problem with smaller guys main eventing. I do however see the point of having a bigger guy in that World Champion "Best Fighter In The World" role. If you were casting it in a Hollywood blockbuster, you wouldn't go 'best actor' you choose someone with the physicality to match. And if you did cast a smaller guy, surely you'd cast around him to create the illusion of size. Taller referees and interviewers (hi ROH) are an issue. Tom Cruise is rather canny at not making his stature obvious in his action roles.</p><p> </p><p>

I love the smaller guys. As a small bloke I relate to them. Without small guys on the show, I'd have no one to root for. I just see Nash's point, and somewhat agree.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd have to see Cody in person to decide. I'm not much of a fighter.<p> </p><p> I have no problem with smaller wrestlers being on the show. I think you should fill the card with the best performers you can get. I don't even have a problem with smaller guys main eventing. I do however see the point of having a bigger guy in that World Champion "Best Fighter In The World" role. If you were casting it in a Hollywood blockbuster, you wouldn't go 'best actor' you choose someone with the physicality to match. And if you did cast a smaller guy, surely you'd cast around him to create the illusion of size. Taller referees and interviewers (hi ROH) are an issue. Tom Cruise is rather canny at not making his stature obvious in his action roles.</p><p> </p><p> I love the smaller guys. As a small bloke I relate to them. Without small guys on the show, I'd have no one to root for. I just see Nash's point, and somewhat agree.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, I would too.... I would get giants like Sylvester Stallone 5'10", Jason Statham 5'9", Bruce Lee 5'7" or Jet Li 5'6" for my films!</p>

[Fantabulous]

<p>What gets over is what gets over. Height? Sure, that can get over, but if that's all you have, you're not over for very long before people see through you. Getting people's attention is one thing, and pretty easy to do given the reaction Nash has gotten, and height tends to get attention more easily than anything else, but keeping it? Or keeping it and getting people to come back so they can keep giving it? Height can't help you with that. Height for wrestlers is like creativity with bookers; a hugely overrated concept. </p><p> </p><p>

And if we really want to get into a debate about big guys drawing against small guys drawing , let's go check the PPV numbers for Boxing or MMA in recent years and see who has done stronger and more consistent business. Occasional Heavyweight attraction aside, it's been the smaller guys year in and year out that mean the most business. Being considered tough is one thing, and great if you're just comparing your johnson with someone else's to prove yours is bigger, but drawing money and making money is a whole different game.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What gets over is what gets over. Height? Sure, that can get over, but if that's all you have, you're not over for very long before people see through you. Getting people's attention is one thing, and pretty easy to do given the reaction Nash has gotten, and height tends to get attention more easily than anything else, but keeping it? Or keeping it and getting people to come back so they can keep giving it? Height can't help you with that. Height for wrestlers is like creativity with bookers; a hugely overrated concept. <p> </p><p> And if we really want to get into a debate about big guys drawing against small guys drawing , let's go check the PPV numbers for Boxing or MMA in recent years and see who has done stronger and more consistent business. Occasional Heavyweight attraction aside, it's been the smaller guys year in and year out that mean the most business. Being considered tough is one thing, and great if you're just comparing your johnson with someone else's to prove yours is bigger, but drawing money and making money is a whole different game.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think "drawing" had anything to do with the conversation at all, really... or at least I hope not. We were talking about Nash's semi-interview (while drinking), and the comments he made. At least I hope he wasn't talking about drawing, comparing him to his peers during the time he was champ.</p>

[shawn michaels]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I respect that. But TO ME, the idea of someone actually thinking that Nash is right and that what he says is the real reason why Pro Wrestling is in a slum currently, is a travesty. It has nothing to do with it. Wrestling had small guys succeeding before Benoit and Eddie and it never hurt the business before. Au contraire, Michaels and Hart were two of the more successful stars ever. Did anyone care with their size? I don't think so.

[Rone Rivendale]

I guess in Nash's world, The Great Khali would be a 10 time World Champion by now. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />

[Jaysin]

http://www.prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/article10026711.shtml

 

Nash discusses the interview everyone is talking about

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I respect that. But TO ME, the idea of someone actually thinking that Nash is right and that what he says is the real reason why Pro Wrestling is in a slum currently, is a travesty. It has nothing to do with it. Wrestling had small guys succeeding before Benoit and Eddie and it never hurt the business before. Au contraire, Michaels and Hart were two of the more successful stars ever. Did anyone care with their size? I don't think so.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Historically, at least from my point of view, Big Men have always been the threat to the title, not the title holder... Look at Andre for a good example of earlier days in WWE/F... Held it once for a very short period, although that "Main Event" show was the highest rated show (15.2).... ever for them. Hogan is one of the biggest champions ever, but they needed Andre and various other even bigger guys, to threaten his hold on it. Hogan was iconic though, and shouldn't be viewed as "Just a big guy". Big guys in the past was the normal way to go, or at least the normal way most went. The smaller guys that made it (Pedro Morales, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels), were unusual, not like there were a ton of them.</p><p> </p><p> Over the past 15 years or so, we have seen many people not exceptional in size win it. People like Jericho, The Miz, Mysterio, RVD, Jeff Hardy, Punk, Daniel Bryan, Eddie Guerrero, etc. This has been the Norm in todays WWE, but I can't really say it was like that back then... Sure, they had BIGGER guys not win, but they were the threat to their Big Guy winners.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><a href="http://www.prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/article10026711.shtml" rel="external nofollow">http://www.prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/article10026711.shtml</a><p> </p><p> Nash discusses the interview everyone is talking about</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> His opinion isn't unlike many others. Myself, I have a different opinion. However, there are many parts to that link I really liked. I liked the way he talked about Punk for the most part. I liked how he says he wanted to put Punk over in a match. I liked quite a bit of that interview, and that is why I still like Kevin Nash when it's the un-cool thing to do. Most of these guys that's been around that long, aren't the spot-light greedy people that they are thought of being at this time in their carreers. Some have totally changed, other's haven't. Some have quite a bit of their belief's left in them, but are willing to bend anyway that is needed, to do their part. </p><p> </p><p> In my opinion, half these guys that are still around and actually working or are getting paid for being part of the wheel, have had to of changed to actually be there now. IF not, it will be short lived or not happen at all.... because whatever we know, the powers in question no even more.</p>

[Linsolv]

http://www.prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/article10026711.shtml

 

Nash discusses the interview everyone is talking about

 

I am surprised to say that I basically agree with the concepts he's referring to. Pro wrestling seems to me to have very few stories, in the long run, for faces. You've got:

Comeuppance (cocky youth, bad guy gets his, revenge),

Physical Imbalance (overcoming injury, david v goliath, etc), and

Going for the Gold.

 

Most motivations I have seen really come back to some interpretation of those 3. There might be some that I've forgotten. But while you always want to have something going on with the title, you don't want that as your Wrestlemania main event, even though the title should be on the line. As I've learned from a lot of people who are much smarter than I am, you want the conflict to build. Maybe you start with a title shot, but then you want to introduce some other elements. Maybe you have someone come in and cost the face his shot. Then you have a different story about Comeuppance, which you then roll into the title shot for WM.

 

The problem being that everyone is about the same size in the WWE right now. You fundamentally can't have, say, Miz-Punk as a David versus Goliath setup. They're the same size.

 

Now, I wouldn't agree that this would cause a slump, it just limits your options slightly.

[Makhai]

I don’t remember Stan Lee when he started Marvel Comics making a 5-foot-7 guy." - Kevin Nash.

 

What's the biggest grossing money maker in Marvel's catalog? Oh yeah! Spiderman! That dorky kid with the radioactive spider gimmick.

[JackKnifed72]

I don’t remember Stan Lee when he started Marvel Comics making a 5-foot-7 guy." - Kevin Nash.

 

Wolverine is 5'3"

 

I guess Stan Lee didn't like tall lumbering talentless....superheroes

[Makhai]

Wolverine is 5'3"

 

I guess Stan Lee didn't like tall lumbering talentless....superheroes

 

 

It's a really funny quote considering Marvel's success is based entirely around the humanization of it's characters. Everybody has real problems, are people. Wolverine is trying to remember who he is, Spiderman has a crush on a girl he can't bring himself to ask out, Rogue can't connect with people, because she's frightened to touch them etc. etc...

 

If you're going to use the comic analogy, Pro Wrestling is DC in the 90s. A bunch of tired philosophies and a roster of iconic characters that they can't write stories for; have to make contrivances (the Lazarus pit) to sell comics without rocking the boat. Sound familiar?

[Self]

Yeah, I would too.... I would get giants like Sylvester Stallone 5'10", Jason Statham 5'9", Bruce Lee 5'7" or Jet Li 5'6" for my films!

 

Given I had no idea Stallone or Statham were that small, I'd put it in the Tom Cruise camp of canny casting around the heights of your stars. With the exception of the occasional giant obstacle, I don't recall many instances of thinking "Ooh. The Stath looks short" in his movies. Which is where I like Nash's point about Referees being the same height/taller than the top stars.

 

Bruce Lee & Jet Li are more interesting arguments. I'll concede there. Their stature is reflected in their films, yet they make sense as great fighters.

[Moe Hunter]

Wolverine is 5'3"

 

I guess Stan Lee didn't like tall lumbering talentless....superheroes

 

Not created by Stan Lee, nor at the start of Marvel, but still a very valid point.

[juggaloninjalee]

I am surprised to say that I basically agree with the concepts he's referring to. Pro wrestling seems to me to have very few stories, in the long run, for faces. You've got:

Comeuppance (cocky youth, bad guy gets his, revenge),

Physical Imbalance (overcoming injury, david v goliath, etc), and

Going for the Gold.

 

Most motivations I have seen really come back to some interpretation of those 3. There might be some that I've forgotten. But while you always want to have something going on with the title, you don't want that as your Wrestlemania main event, even though the title should be on the line. As I've learned from a lot of people who are much smarter than I am, you want the conflict to build. Maybe you start with a title shot, but then you want to introduce some other elements. Maybe you have someone come in and cost the face his shot. Then you have a different story about Comeuppance, which you then roll into the title shot for WM.

 

The problem being that everyone is about the same size in the WWE right now. You fundamentally can't have, say, Miz-Punk as a David versus Goliath setup. They're the same size.

 

Now, I wouldn't agree that this would cause a slump, it just limits your options slightly.

 

Couldn't you do David vs Goliath based on reputation? Take a guy who busts thru everyone for 9 months then goes up against a guy who never truly dominates the same competition and even loses now and then. Have them face each other and the flawed guy somehow pulls off the win. That is sort of a David vs Goliath encounter because nobody would give the flawed guy a chance.

[djthefunkchris]

Couldn't you do David vs Goliath based on reputation? Take a guy who busts thru everyone for 9 months then goes up against a guy who never truly dominates the same competition and even loses now and then. Have them face each other and the flawed guy somehow pulls off the win. That is sort of a David vs Goliath encounter because nobody would give the flawed guy a chance.

 

They do that all the time... Umaga, Khali, lately Big Show and Mark Henry, but interestingly enough there is Ryback and Damien Sandow. Ryback, I'm not exactly sure where they are going with, but he is an interesting route.

 

They could do an opposite, where Goliath is the good guy, and David is the bad guy. Bad guy goes over by cheating a win out of the undefeated Ryback... and this could happen over and over again. He could tear through the roster again, only to be stopped by... and I know people might hate me, but I would use Heath Slater to overcome him/get his number. Him and Slater could have a huge rivalry spanning a few years if they invest in them.

 

 

I knew I heard those Goldberg chants before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWGBNBP6f3g go to around the 3 minute mark.

[Jaysin]

Slater has charisma, but he really needs to work on his mic skills/acting. He still comes across as phony to me and not really believable.

 

I like Slater though and I enjoyed his run against the legends.

[Teh_Showtime]

How could anyone hate Slater?

 

I liked him dating back to the split between him and Gabriel

[shawn michaels]

What i think is that Nash tries to save his face with these new comment. It seems to me he was talking iof height, the rest is a cheap excuse. Even if it isn't, i'll still comment on it, saying it's ridiculous to think that the wrestler's height is the current problem in pro wrestling right now. If WWE had a roster full of Rey Mysterio's that would be open to discussion, but it doesn't. Even if it did, if they performed well, with good storylines and gimmicks, people would pay to see. In one thing Nash is right, excuse or not, wrestling need larget then life right now, but not in size.

[djthefunkchris]

What i think is that Nash tries to save his face with these new comment. It seems to me he was talking iof height, the rest is a cheap excuse. Even if it isn't, i'll still comment on it, saying it's ridiculous to think that the wrestler's height is the current problem in pro wrestling right now. If WWE had a roster full of Rey Mysterio's that would be open to discussion, but it doesn't. Even if it did, if they performed well, with good storylines and gimmicks, people would pay to see. In one thing Nash is right, excuse or not, wrestling need larget then life right now, but not in size.

 

The whole problem with people "reporting" on comments made, is that we don't get the benefit of knowing exactly where he is coming from at all... Not even a little bit. What we tend to do is go by what we do know he meant in the past, or what little we know about his backstage politics (See Tara/Victoria comments on what Politics mean to her).

 

For one example, Hogan claims (and this claim hasn't been disputed by the powers that be) that he only used his clause one time, to not lay down for someone. Weather or not that is true or not, I will never know without "proof" from people that directly made the decisions (not other wrestlers viewpoints) and had to change them because of him. He claims that, and no one in power has said different, at least that I know of. However, I PERSONALLY do not believe him. He claims he uses the fact that I don't believe him (everyone don't), to get real heat from crowds.... purposely making it look like he is hogging the spotlight to get genuine heat that he can use to get over other talent. I don't know that he actually did that on TNA (as this is recent interviews with him, after he's become religious/changed man).

 

Back on topic. I don't think he was trying to save "face" with that interview, because nothing he says in it conflicts with his original statement. I really believe that he is talking bigger then life characters and not necessarily the size of the characters *although size matters in that aspect as well, so he is talking about size AND characters*... As someone pointed out though, it would make sense to have refs and other "staff" members visible on camera, to NOT tower over the talent. It would help... that's what they do in the movies (as I was pointing out with an earlier post).

 

You can see his points and not agree with him... but it's pretty ridiculous for me to take an interview that admits to alcohol being a product of the interview, as opposed to reasonably thought out responses where he elaborates on the comments made, but doesn't apologize for them, as he feels they are "His Opinion" on the matter. All he's saying really is "Hey look... It's just an opinion, your entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. I know these guys are hugely gifted talents, and anyone would be crazy not to utilize those talents. I'm not saying I'm right, your wrong, I'm just stating an opinion. I have huge respect for those guys." Basically, that's all he's saying, at least that is what I got out of that part of it.

[djthefunkchris]

How could anyone hate Slater?

 

I liked him dating back to the split between him and Gabriel

I'll have to admit to liking him more and more as time goes on, then right from the start. I just see something in him that seems to shine brighter every time I see him (on the mic, or in action).

Slater has charisma, but he really needs to work on his mic skills/acting. He still comes across as phony to me and not really believable.

 

I like Slater though and I enjoyed his run against the legends.

I think his mic skills are off the chain. His timing is even good. His acting could use some help, which is strange because to me it looks as though he is connecting with the crowd. I can't exactly put my finger on what is off there?

 

When he talks, to me it almost feels like he is looking for something that doesn't really go with the talking he's doing... It could be looking to see which camera is running, or something else I don't know. It does physically look like he is thinking something entirely different then what is coming out of his mouth... but what is coming out sounds incredible, and his body language and movements are pretty much spot on. As a heel, I can see a world champion in him, making good guys look great... with that exact character. As a face, I can see a solid midcard champion. Doesn't make any sense, but that's what I see. He should be in the US or IC title picture right now.

[Makhai]

I'll have to admit to liking him more and more as time goes on, then right from the start. I just see something in him that seems to shine brighter every time I see him (on the mic, or in action).

 

I think his mic skills are off the chain. His timing is even good. His acting could use some help, which is strange because to me it looks as though he is connecting with the crowd. I can't exactly put my finger on what is off there?

 

When he talks, to me it almost feels like he is looking for something that doesn't really go with the talking he's doing... It could be looking to see which camera is running, or something else I don't know. It does physically look like he is thinking something entirely different then what is coming out of his mouth... but what is coming out sounds incredible, and his body language and movements are pretty much spot on. As a heel, I can see a world champion in him, making good guys look great... with that exact character. As a face, I can see a solid midcard champion. Doesn't make any sense, but that's what I see. He should be in the US or IC title picture right now.

 

You're insane. Heath sells well, his mic skills are just offensive enough to make people want to see him get smashed, AND most of all, he has absolutely zero potential. He's the perfect jobber. And that's ok, not everybody can hold the strap.