In Defense Of Kevin Nash Being The Lowest-Drawing

[Guest azzblaster]

While Kevin Nash's reign wasn't that great financially compared to other WWE Champions, in defense of him, people always seem to call Nash out on being the worst drawing WWE Champion of all time but yet these same people seem to "forget" that current WWE Champion Brock Lesnar hasn't fared that much better (if he even has), but yet, no one calls him out on it. What gives?

 

Let's see, at the MCI Center in Washington DC about a 3 weeks for a houseshow, Brock Lesnar managed to draw a WHOPPING crowd of 16,000 ...... empty seats. Ok, ok, sorry, but Brock managed to draw about 2000 to 3000 fans. Hey, I'll give Brock some credit. At the very most, the arena was 1/6 full!!! Granted, Brock didn't make the show because he had an injury from I believe a boating accident the previous weekend, but then again, the fans would not have known that Brock would've missed the show until they got to the arena when Finkel said himself that Brock Lesnar wasn't in the building. But Brock was advertised though, and despite that, he only managed to bring in about 2000-3000 people.

 

Everytime I read house show results, it almost always reads how few people went to the events and how much of the arena was empty, rather than how full it was, not to mention that these house shows seems to be drawing between 2000-4000 people. Yeah, Brock Lesnar is doing so much better than Kevin Nash in his prime. But yet, no calls Brock Lesnar out on it, despite the fact that he may be the lowest drawing WWE Champion of alltime, or at least tied with Kevin Nash. I don't think that's fair.

 

As a draw, I think it's safe to say that Brock Lesnar is a failure as a champion. He's been pushed to the moon and he's barely made a dent or spark in overall WWE business. Brock just doesn't put butts in seats, nor does he really draw PPV buys/ratings. Wrestlemania drew the lowest buyrate in quite sometime, and guess what was the main event? BROCK LESNAR vs. Kurt Angle. I rest my case, well not really, I have more. Also.....

 

Quite frankly, I can't blame the fans because who wants to see some boring country bumpkin hillybilly farm boy anyways? Maybe SOME people, but not a sufficient amount. Suffice to say, Brock Lesnar is not "The Next Big Thing" and I doubt he ever will be. For as long as he is champion, WWE will just continue drawing flies to their shows. Making Brock Lesnar the poster boy of the WWE is like the NBA making "Big Country" Bryant Reeves the poster boy of the NBA, providing he didn't retire so prematurely. It just doesn't work on a national scale. Maybe in like Arkansas or North Dakota where milking cows and hauling hay around is prevelant and, but not nationally, if I do say so.

 

Anywho, just to correct people. Next time you say who is the lowest drawing champion, if you must say Kevin Nash, also include "/Brock Lesnar" next to Nash's name as well. It's only fair.

[Guest CanadianChick]

Excuse me, but is Brock Lesner almost bankrupting the company?

 

No?

 

Then Nash is still the undisputed lowest drawing champion ever. Sorry.

[LooseCannon25 0]

Plain and simple.................NOONE draws right now in WWE. Not Goldberg, Austin, Angle, Brock,HHH, Nash, HBK, Rvd, Big Show.....noone IT's not fair to point the finger at Brock

[Guest JHawk]

In fairness to Brock Lesnar, a lot of marks for some stupid reason think Raw is the better show because it has the "bigger names", and thus would rather go to Raw house shows rather than SmackDown house shows.

 

It doesn't help that some of these SD house shows take place on Monday nights and lots of people stay home to watch Raw.

 

But the reason we don't all jump down Brock's throat about this is because Brock's matches don't suck nearly as bad, and that has to count for something.

 

My biggest problem with Diesel's reign wasn't even Kevin Nash, but his opponents. Why the fuck would I want to pay my hard earned money to go to house shows where Jean Pierre LaFitte and Mabel were main eventing?

 

That could be the problem with Brock's reign, where people don't mind Brock but would rather than stay home than see Brock-Show for the 2033th time.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Brock just doesn't put butts in seats, nor does he really draw PPV buys/ratings. Wrestlemania drew the lowest buyrate in quite sometime, and guess what was the main event? BROCK LESNAR vs. Kurt Angle. I rest my case...

The fault with this statement? The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY match hyped for WM 19, really, was Vince McMahon vs. Hulk Hogan.

[Guest Just call me Dan]

Difference here is also Nash held the belt for a year. Brock's run is WAY too fresh for this kind of persecution.

[Guest azzblaster]

Also, in defense of Nash again, he had a weak set of supporting characters whereas that's not really the case with Brock. Ok, sure there was Bret and Shawn, but there was also guys like Mantaur, Kwang, and Man Mountain Rock. Brock has guys like Eddie Guerrero. Rhyno and Rey Mysterio Jr. The superstars aren't as pathetic as they were before. Nash seems to have done more with what was given to him than Brock.

 

Wrestling was just not cool in 1995. I mean, with the exception of arena events, I saw ONE PERSON wear a wrestling shirt (an Undertaker shirt) in public throughout 1995. I think that shows you how popular wrestling was then. In 2003, while WWE business is down a bit, it can still be considered "cool". Kevin "Diesel" Nash had to work against all the people who thought how lame wrestling was then whereas Brock doesn't. So I give the tiebreaker to Nash and label Brock as the lowest drawing WWE Champion of all-time.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

First off, what does Lesnar's reign this year have anything to do with Nash's reign from eight years ago?

 

Next, from the Observer, 2002 and 2003 PPV money drawing figures:

 

No, I don't think I shall be adding any "/Brock Lesnar"s anytime soon. Unless you want to try and rationalize the numbers.

 

However, I will sort of agree with the house show thing, because I hear all the time how bigger = better, bigger = mainstream appeal, blah blah blah, and that's the most important thing in the WWE world, yet they draw pitifully in house shows today using that rationale.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

This is the best thread ever. Nash will always be a better champ then Brock will ever hope to be!

 

PREACH ON BROTHER azzblaster!

[Guest The Czech Republic]

Who is this new azzblaster guy? If he says that the reason Brock doesn't draw is because he's not in his prim of 28-32, I'll freak out

[Guest azzblaster]

Those PPV figures are from 2002-2003 though, not 1995. Also, Nash is quite the negative figure now, but then again, he's not champion now nor is he in his prime. Also, I doubt that PPV number figure has included the money made from No Way Out, where the NWO which included Nash was the main draw of that PPV, but since they didn't wrestle in the main event of that PPV, it's not included, thus making Nash look worse than he really is.

[Guest JHawk]

I'm waiting for one of the HHH marks to explain how HHH is a draw when he's in the negative in that list.

[Guest Just call me Dan]

Those 2002 figure also prove he DID draw just as well as most of the top drawers in the fed.

[Guest Anglesault]

So I give the tiebreaker to Nash and label Brock as the lowest drawing WWE Champion of all-time.

Problem is, we don't have exact final numbers on Lesnar's reign to compare to Nash's worst numbers ever.

[Guest CaseyJones]

azz strikes again!

 

Is Brock a failure as a champion? Yes, he is. Not because he's a bad wrestler, or he gets bad buyrates or any of that shit, but because Brock and his opponents cannot get me interested in a match that theyre going to have (except Kurt Angle, and that's because he's Kurt Angle). Now I agree that the Big show isnt really the best opponent to test Brock's drawing skills, but he should be able to get people at least a little interested.

 

I dunno, maybe it is the Big Show's fault. It's not that I HATE his matches, its just that they bore me beyond belief.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

Nash was entertaining as champ, Brock isn't.

 

End of story.

[Guest JRE]

That list...like, makes no sense. Shouldn't it factor in the number of PPVs the person has been on. Like, it says- Foley has a big number because he was on one show.

[Guest JHawk]

Nash was a better promo guy. The argument could be made that Nash had better title defenses than Brock, but Brock hasn't exactly been defending the title on PPV against Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels.

 

Has Brock had a PPV title defense that didn't have somebody larger than him in it? Outside of Cena, who wasn't ready for that spot yet, I don't think so.

[Guest Korgath]

I believe wrestling has come to a point when the draw isn't the champion anymore. After all, we realise that Major Title Belts don't change on non-PPV shows anymore. Any belt that changes on a non-PPV show (Women's belt, IC title) simply loses the respect of the audience. It's come to that. Titles don't mean jackshit, despite the history, despite the legacy.

 

The draws should be the people in the main event. The workers with a large mark fanbase. The talent with the biggest merchandise sales.

 

Neither Nash nor Brock have ever had either, although, admittedly, many marks here in Singapore still remember Nash as being one of the greatest champions of all time.

 

Second only to the Ultimate Warrior, of course.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Those PPV figures are from 2002-2003 though, not 1995.  Also, Nash is quite the negative figure now, but then again, he's not champion now nor is he in his prime. Also, I doubt that PPV number figure has included the money made from No Way Out, where the NWO which included Nash was the main draw of that PPV, but since they didn't wrestle in the main event of that PPV, it's not included, thus making Nash look worse than he really is.

-I'm starting to think you outed yourself with that 'prime' comment.

 

-Delve up some 1995 figures for me then. How about the 0.5s from the In Your Houses from that year? I can do it for you.

 

-Well, *I* doubt the NWO 2002 figure would drag him out of the negative side. That's a pretty big figure.

 

-Finally, while we're on the subject, anyone here not really 'get' Brock's character? I guess he's supposed to be a badass, but every week we see him flirting with Kurt Angle, and

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

getting thrown out of arenas by Vince McMahon. Austin in his heyday would have given a big F U to that. Even HHH last year put up more of a fight.

Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

That list...like, makes no sense. Shouldn't it factor in the number of PPVs the person has been on. Like, it says- Foley has a big number because he was on one show.

Well, you can get out a calculator and do it yourself. Meltzer just didn't list how many PPV main events they had.

[Guest azzblaster]

Problem is, we don't have exact final numbers on Lesnar's reign to compare to Nash's worst numbers ever.

 

 

Brock's reign has been about as long as Nash, so I think it's fair to compare the two. Unless all of a sudden people WANT to see Brock Lesnar, I don't think the numbers are going to change much with him being the leader of the herd. If and when business does go up, it will be because of some other concept or wrestler, but obviously not him.

[Guest The Czech Republic]

damn dem double dposts

[Guest The Czech Republic]

Those PPV figures are from 2002-2003 though, not 1995.  Also, Nash is quite the negative figure now, but then again, he's not champion now nor is he in his prime. Also, I doubt that PPV number figure has included the money made from No Way Out, where the NWO which included Nash was the main draw of that PPV, but since they didn't wrestle in the main event of that PPV, it's not included, thus making Nash look worse than he really is.

-I'm starting to think you outed yourself with that 'prime' comment.

Azzblaster acknowledges Prime, ban him!

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Four months = twelve months?

[Guest JHawk]

Brock's reign has been about as long as Nash, so I think it's fair to compare the two.

 

Nash: 11/26/1994-11/19/1995

 

Lesnar: 8/25/2002-11/17/2002 and 3/30/2003-present (7/15/2003)

 

BOTH of Lesnar's reigns are barely half of Nash's.

[Guest Army Eye]

Brock's large number is due to Summerslam 2002 vs. Rock.. that's it. All his other buyrates have been low, Wrestlemania was low, and house show business is abysmal. If you wanna say 'nobody in WWE draws now'? what about in '95? Same deal. Wrestling was in the tank more than it is now. But Nash still gets shit on all the time for that.

 

Neither are very good champs in my opinion.

[Guest Anglesault]

Problem is, we don't have exact final numbers on Lesnar's reign to compare to Nash's worst numbers ever.

 

 

Brock's reign has been about as long as Nash, so I think it's fair to compare the two. Unless all of a sudden people WANT to see Brock Lesnar, I don't think the numbers are going to change much with him being the leader of the herd. If and when business does go up, it will be because of some other concept or wrestler, but obviously not him.

Nash's reign lasted a year.

 

Both Brock's reigns together are in the seven month range.

 

And what I mean is you won't be able to compare unles you can present exact numbers for both reigns. Not just "Well, Brock is doing bad, so he must be the worst of all time"

[Guest azzblaster]

Fine, Brock's reigns have all added up to 6 1/2 months compared to Nash, but even when he wasn't champion, he was still the focal point of his show or premiere star, which will be a a whole year next month. Throughout this whole time, Brock has been the only guy who can't lose unless it's by cheating.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

I think it's unfair to compare house show numbers because alot of people (marks) dont go because they never change titles/do any angle worth seeing, but 1/6 of an arena is WCW-bad