Kevin Nash - Is there a point to what he's said?

Kevin Nash's recent rant on Twitter regarding the 'end of wrestling' has garnered the attention of fans and sports-entertainers alike. Some are genuinely outraged by his opinions, some agree, others see it as him 'working' everybody and others are content to let him have his say.

This would be by no means the first time that Kevin Nash has raised eyebrows or caused controversy through social media

For those who are unaware of Nash's Twitter remarks, this is the Nash-bomb:

"When Benoit and Guerrero hugged [at WrestleMania XX], that was the end of the business," said Nash. "Has business been the same since that WrestleMania? Has it come close to the Austin era? Has it come close to the nWo or the Hogan era? You put two f--king guys that were great workers that were the same height as the f--king referees, and I'm sorry, man. Are you going to watch a porno movie with a guy with a three-inch dick? Even if you're not gay, you will not watch a porno movie with a guy with a three-inch dick. That's not the standard in porno films. So you put a 5-foot-7 guy as your world champion."

He also took a jab at Daniel Bryan and CM Punk (saying they wouldn't stand out in a crowd as a wrestler to your average passerby), took credit towards the blueprint for the Stone Cold Steve Austin persona and details how he and the Kliq changed WWE payouts. Isn't he a card?

Chris Jericho has been the most outspoken and vocal of those to reply to the comments, and a Twitter war has erupted between the two, egged on by ego and a knack with words and insults. Jericho even reminded Nash that WWE's lowest point was in 1995, when Nash himself was champion after the Diesel moniker.

I think former WWE Superstar, Lance Storm, said it best in his response to it all:

"Everyone flipping out over what Kevin Nash said are being worked. Nash says thing to get people talking, he is a very smart worker. Someone saying something doesn't make it true, so relax and quit being pavlovion dogs. Have faith in your own observations. If a tree falls in the forest... Or better yet "If a remark is made and no one reacts, does anyone care? #NotWorthTheEnergy."

However, one can look at this from the other approach. Let's take onboard what the former WWE Champion has said. Is there any truth to it? Has WWE and sports-entertainment as a whole found another mountain of popularity and resurgence as it had several times before March 14th 2004?

Is this really where it all went wrong for the WWE product or is there something else that isn't sitting right?

I don't know if it really has. Sure, the emergence of stars such as John Cena, Randy Orton, Batista, Edge and Rey Mysterio into fan favourites and household names has definitely helped the global image and fan-friendly nature of WWE, but are they really able to hold a candle to the superstars and events that preceeded them? If you ask me, I think the WWE product has been the most hit-and-miss it has ever been in the years following 2004 (I can't speculate or comment on TNA as I don't watch any of their product at all). There have been months of greatness produced and then months of absolute garbage and tripe. Pay-per-view after pay-per-view are seen as potential snorers and it has been a risk parting with your money to buy them (at least, that's how I've seen it). ECW December to Dismember marks probably one of the lowest points in my time as a fan of WWE.

This could be down to a lot of things, the changing demands of an ever-hungry and organic audience, financial restraints that have meant cuts to talent or product, the list could go on. I don't personally believe it has anything to do with those two individuals becoming 'top guys' and being recognised as leaders for the global leader in professional wrestling. The entire product hasn't suffered because one of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time and one of the most charismatic and natural men to ever step through the ropes, although being acknowledged as champions, were below a certain height.

At events like Raw 1000, the WWE Legends are much-needed and a welcome addition. However, using Legends too often or at the wrong time can damage the credibility and pushes of younger talent which definitely need it.

I'm a big lover of the old-school crew and yes, their gradual retirements and stepping out of the limelight has cost WWE in terms of what it's putting out there because there was always so much emphasis on them over the newer, younger and, at times, hungrier talent. Undertaker, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin. The names are a veritable who's who of the wrestling heirachy but they are either retired or on a severely reduced schedule. WWE spends it's time building up talent the likes of Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Alex Riley, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Sheamus, Daniel Bryan etc to becoming believable, credible main event players but fails to take the gamble when it needs to be taken: at the big events. They resort to bringing in the Legends and allowing them to take centre-stage, so that the audience completely gets caught up in nostalgia and forgets that come the following night on Raw, they are going to be left with the new breed. The cycle of trying to build the young guns up begins all over again and the same outcome occurs. Call me over-critical or cynical, or full of crap, but that's how I see it. If fans are not allowed to fully immerse and buy-into this cluster of talent (and let's face it, there is some very, very able-bodied talent in the mix at the moment, even on NXT as well), then WWE will be constantly at odds with itself. By all means, revel in the glory and nostalgia of what put you on the map, but also realise that there will be a time where the knights in shining armour won't be available to be called upon and your 'next generation' had better be ready and accepted by a no-nonsense audience.

Personally I disagree with Kevin Nash's comments (if they were meant to hold any shred of truth to them).

I believe that if WWE's product has had moments of failure and the reason that there hasn't been a proper wrestling 'boom period' for a long time, lies in reasons other than Guerrero and Benoit holding aloft the gold. If Nash's argument was that the main event spotlight and torch-carrying in wrestling was going to be big man's sport, then he's shot himself in the foot simply by being friends with perhaps one of the most successful smaller guys in the history of sports-entertainment, fellow Kliq member and WWE Hall of Famer, HBK: Shawn Michaels. I don't even need to write or elaborate any further on this point as the hypocritical nature of Nash's comments would become very clear, very quickly.

If there was any truth to Kevin Nash's opinion and it isn't a work, surely he's insulting long-time best buddy, Shawn Michaels?

So there were my two cents on something that may have a lot more behind it than at first glance. I'd love to know what you thought of this quite spur-of-the-moment article by either leaving me a comment or following/tweeting me on Twitter @markabraham89