Bret Hart Comments on TNA, Bischoff, Hogan

[Optimist Prime]

The following is a quote from a new interview with WWE Hall Of Fame legend Bret "The Hitman" Hart.

The interview comes from the UK Sun website.

"I think TNA is seen as a serious rival by WWE, but not by the actual wrestlers. TNA's more of a wrestling show than a company because of the lighter schedule. We all think that competition is better, but WWE normally stamps all over anybody that thinks about taking them on. TNA's reached out and got Eric Bischoff and Hogan — and that's where I'd take issue with their overall plan.They spent several years building their young stars and, like with what happened to me in WCW, I just sense they don't have enough brains between them to keep all the other guys going where they need to go.I fear TNA simply bought the names and they're going to get the same baloney we all did in WCW. No matter how old he is, or what kind of shape he's in, Hogan believes in his heart that he's the star of the show and he is wrestling. I don't think he gives a damn about anyone else.I'm one to talk considering how old I am, but I think I know my place in wrestling and I'm pretty careful about what I do. I can't even begin to imagine Hogan wrestling somebody like Samoa Joe, who is in his prime right now. I have a lot of friends there and I would never rule out working for the company. But I certainly never see myself there while Hogan or Bischoff are. I think I'd rather not put myself through that again."

Now I know that the majority of wrestling fans today (especially online) don't care for Hogan and, maybe at a lesser level, Bischoff. While they respect the both of them they feel that they should retire forever (or just Hogan) and leave TNA alone.

I also know that Bret Hart's comments sound very partial and almost from a conflict of interest perspective as he seems to be focusing on his one brief moment in time to compare today with...and that time just so happens to be the ultimate climax and downfall of WCW while he was there. While, of course, Bret Hart also worked with Hogan in the WWF back in the late 80's and 90's - these were also the times where not only Hogan was at his prime - but wrestling as a whole was bigger than it ever had been before. The combination of the two would have created an ego for even Ghandi had he been in a similar position.

That being said, Bret Hart can look back and look at things through his perspective all he wants...but Hogan didn't have Bret Hart's perspective. Hogan had his own perspective. This is an issue that common everyday people have as well all of the time. So often do we see things as if everybody else were looking out our same window when that is almost always not the case. People are raised differently, people have had different things happen to them over time, people have grew up in different areas, people are influenced by different things based on several other factors...so it's just strictly not fair to judge somebody to the point where you say you're going to do drastic things like avoid them or not give them any credit whatsoever.

The point I'm trying to make is that everybody looks out their own window. Very rarely do people take the time to try and understand other people's perspectives and why they might have them. Instead, most people just don't understand (while never actually trying to) and jump to conclusions based on their own perspectives instead - which is entirely inaccurate and if you've noticed ever - it never gets anything accomplished and usually ruins relationships.

Anyway, that's my input on the matter. I think we all have our own opinions of where we think Hulk Hogan should be in life right now...but it's not our life to live...it's his life...and he apparently feels otherwise. So instead of pointing fingers and making excuses - why don't we just embrace certain non-malicious decisions of others and understand that if we were raised and lived like Hulk Hogan under the same conditions - odds are that not much would be different.

What do you guys (and girls) think?

- Prime

 

[Wrestling Free Thinker]

So what if things wouldn't be different if we were raised and lived like Hogan? That doesn't justify anything.

Plenty of guys had Hart's perspective in WCW, and they left. They did have a huge feud on their hands with Hart/Hogan but didn't do it. And Hart didn't do anything for 2 years until he won the WCW title, and then he got the kick in his head.

Vince McMahon was right on how WCW wouldn't know what to do with Bret Hart.

So I don't understand this "perspective" thing when we all know about history. How would Bret Hart "understand" better the predicament in WCW of young stars, ready to come up to the main event, by being in Hogan's shoes? Or why he wasn't given anything to do significantly for 2 years.

We all know the answer, they kept them down.

 

[cbear47]

I think you're quite right, many of us would have just the same size ego if we were in Hulkster's shoes.

However, my biggest comment here is a sidenote, in effect, to your "perspective" comment.

I wish I had time to find the quote... but I saw the interview where Hogan claimed that during one of his many comebacks (2003, perhaps) that he was the only draw on the card. That as he "sat in the back and watched on tv" he listened to the cheers, and the arena was blech. But sure enough when he "walked down that aisle" the cheers were tremendous.

How oblivious can the man be to the fact that's the difference between being backstage and being in the center of the arena? That is the primary disconnect here.

And as a Bret Hart fan, I know he's got his ego issues too. But the fact that he held back this well and spoke professionally about the train wreck that was WCW speaks volumes about his understanding of where he is now.

 

[Kaneanite]

TNA just takes whatever scraps from WWE/WWF that they can get, turn them into main eventers or close to it, and think they found gold. Just imagine if a guy like Kofi Kingston or John Morrison went to TNA? They'd be instant Champions. Kevin Nash bashes Miz for being WWE champion but if Miz now went to TNA, after being WWE champion? He'd be TNA champion in no time.

They decide the face of their company and champion just to have one shocking moment at their PPV. It started off nice, but lets face it, Jeff Hardy SUCKS. I bet you can't wait for Matt, right? TNA has a habit of using over-the-hill wrestlers as champions so maybe he can even feud with his brother for the title... oh but wait that's not enough spotlight for Hogan.

Too much great talent is going unused on this terrible show. I hope Vince buys it out so it can be used properly. Bret is right.

 

[FatGuyIan]

If all of the information we have been given over the years on Hogan is even half accurate, I have no problem with Bret's comments. I will admit that I am a HUGE Hart Family mark, but as a kid I loved Hulk. He and Flair suffer from the same unable to retire-itis and it's pretty sad. Hogan was known to refuse to job, changing rules as he went and is so high on himself that he can't see the garbage that he leaves in his wake.

I think Bischoff on his own is a great business mind, but he got sucked into wanting to be in the middle of it all and it changed him.

Hogan still thinks he's the biggest draw and that just isn't the truth. Sometimes old dogs need to be put out to pasture and it's the irresponsibilty of the people making decisions at TNA to push yesterday's stars on us as if they are 10-15 years younger and can still sell. It just isn't the case.

If TNA ever wants to truly contend in this world of "Sports Entertainment", they'll say goodbye to Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Russo, EV 2.0, Jeff Hardy, Sting and ever other star of yesteryear. Offer a product that is something people can get behind instead of a polished turd and you might be able to cut into the 'E machine.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

If all of the information we have been given over the years on Hogan is even half accurate, I have no problem with Bret's comments. I will admit that I am a HUGE Hart Family mark, but as a kid I loved Hulk. He and Flair suffer from the same unable to retire-itis and it's pretty sad. Hogan was known to refuse to job, changing rules as he went and is so high on himself that he can't see the garbage that he leaves in his wake.

I think Bischoff on his own is a great business mind, but he got sucked into wanting to be in the middle of it all and it changed him.

Hogan still thinks he's the biggest draw and that just isn't the truth. Sometimes old dogs need to be put out to pasture and it's the irresponsibilty of the people making decisions at TNA to push yesterday's stars on us as if they are 10-15 years younger and can still sell. It just isn't the case.

]If TNA ever wants to truly contend in this world of "Sports Entertainment", they'll say goodbye to Hogan, Flair, Bischoff, Russo, EV 2.0, Jeff Hardy, Sting and ever other star of yesteryear. Offer a product that is something people can get behind instead of a polished turd and you might be able to cut into the 'E machine.

Fact is, you weren't there, I wasn't there, I got a good feeling that 99.9 percent of the people on these boards that read and post weren't there, I have no doubt that Hulk Hogan does what most people in his position would do and that's look out for himself. But you know what, I got a good feeling that most people that criticize him for this wouldn't do it any differently. The sad thing is that these people we like as characters/personas more likely than not are not going to be people we'd like in real life, but at least for me, that's not why I watch professional wrestling. I've always been a Hogan fan in addition to being a Bret fan, my avatar gives me away on this but I speak more of the personas and not the people themselves. I have met Bret a couple times and have nothing but good things to say about him as someone who interacts positively with his fans and who shows a true appreciation for those who have followed him over the years. At the same time though, I still don't know Bret personally or for that matter of any of these other people, nor were I involved with their business dealings.

Also Bret wasn't in WCW the whole time Hogan was there but I respect his points about personal and professional disagreements with The Hulkster, after all he lived through that not any of us. However, Hogan's ego in wrestling and in particular WCW wasn't the only one that was working behind the scenes in WCW. Think about it, if Hogan was half as bad as most reports did make him out to be, does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that David Arquette or Vince Russo would have been World Champions, I know Russo won the title when Hogan had left the company but he still had an active contract, and that creative control clause if it's to the degree people say it was, should have been enough to null and void many of those title change bookings. At least I would think so. I think we also forget that guys like Roddy Piper, Ric Flair, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Sid Vicious were all in WCW throughout those years Hogan was in the company and the fact Vince Russo got a slice of the power shifting pie says that not even Hogan's own starpower could have done as much as people accuse him of. However, Bret Hart though did know Hogan from the WWF days and I have no doubt that some of those animosities harboring over the original plans for SummerSlam 1993 still existed when Bret jumped ship to WCW. At the same time though, that's another story that I have even heard Bret mention was not necessarily as black and white as many think it was. On an Off The Record interview, Bret did mention how Vince more likely than not played both Hogan and Hart against one another. Another fact is, even though Hogan was the WWF's biggest star for that period of late 83-late 93 when he left the promotion after his Hulkamania run, it was still Vince's show above and beyond everything else. As tired as Hogan's act had gotten, Vince felt the need to rely on him time and again. I think this cost Bret Hart the chance to get the WWF title back much later on, which as a fan of Bret, I would have preferred not to have seen Hogan win the title at WrestleMania IX, but the story worked out well in the end as we got to see Bret get the title back in dramatic fashion the next year at WrestleMania X, and the positive side of things was at least Yoko lost the title to Hogan at WM IX instead of Bret. If they had booked it with Bret losing it to Hogan only to see Hogan lose it to Yoko would have been an even worse booking. As we know Lex Luger's babyface push also shortchanged Bret considering they were trying to make him the next Hogan, and I don't know if we can really blame Hogan for that either, despite Bret's frustrations.

As far as Hogan's refusing to job to other stars, well for one thing, Hogan was the superhero character for so long, even when it got less believable, and I got a good feeling that the promoters like Vince and Bischoff were adamant in keeping that going, so when he finally did lose to certain wrestlers like Warrior, Angle, Lesnar, Goldberg and The Rock, it would actually mean something. As much as I hate to say it, you just don't job guys out like Hogan so easily, because their characters are made a certain way. But the guys Hogan did lose to it's not his fault that the majority of them did not make the best of their opportunities by getting their win over The Hulkster.

While Hogan's TNA stint has been lukewarm in my opinion, and uninspiring, one thing I have to add to his defense is that he is in a managerial role and has only wrestled ONE match in the company and that's going back almost a year ago. Bret himself has wrestled several matches which in light of his stroke I understand wouldn't be classics, but they were not inspiring moments to be honest, in fact Bret even won the United States Title in a nonsense title change in my opinion. There was no need to do any of that, Bret could have gotten his storyline revenge on Vince by just knocking him into next week and slapping on a sharpshooter. There was no need to make that an upper midcard/almost main event at WrestleMania. I have yet to see Hogan win a title in TNA or be a main event wrestler on a pay per view. He has made appearances in main event matches but he has done so as a non wrestler. In fact, didn't Bret even main event a SummerSlam this year, albeit it was a tag match, but still, you're telling me that he couldn't have just been a manager or enforcer. I notice most people never bother to mention that, but it's true, Bret even said he was no one to talk in those comments he made, well points I just mentioned prove that.

I don't think Hogan has been as bad for TNA as he's been made out to be, he hasn't won any of the titles and he's not actively competing, I am sure his injuries are the biggest reason for that, but just the same, I feel many detractors have over exaggerated this aspect of his career at this juncture. I am not accusing you of this, but I think it's imperative that you look at how Bret Hart has been booked in WWE since his return, it really hasn't been all that different in fact if anything just winning the US title alone makes Bret Hart's points not have as much weight and again I HATE saying that too especially considering how huge a fan I am.

 

[MisterRob]

Who cares if some of you would do the same thing if you had been in Hogan's shoes back in WCW.? Who cares if Hogan hasn't been as bad in TNA as some people are saying? Who cares about any of that. All that matters is the present, and the state TNA is in right now. The FACTS are, Hogan and Bischoff haven't done anything to improve TNA since they've been there. They've had plenty of time to make an impact and if they had any kind of real impact it would've already shown in the ratings, in ppv buys, in all sorts of ways which it hasn't.

The ratings are the exact same as they always are, and the same as they've been for YEARS. The ppv buys aren't increasing, because if they were then TNA and Dixie would be praising it and telling the world, just like they rant on about every miniscule thing that happens in TNA. And the product is even shittier then it was years ago, with things centered around Immortal (that would be Hogan and Bischoff by the way) while so many young stars are just in the background or entirely lost in the shuffle.

You'd think that after all this time, and all the signs that are there, the constant stall TNA's in, that people would get a brain and get rid of people like Russo, Hogan and Bischoff. Not because they're dragging the product down but because they're not having any impact in IMPROVING things. There's been no growth. There's been nothing in years. It's unbelievable that these people don't realize that if nothing's changing then you change course and try something else.. something NEW! There's nothing new in any way about Hogan and Bischoff or what they're doing in TNA.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Who cares if some of you would do the same thing if you had been in Hogan's shoes back in WCW.? Who cares if Hogan hasn't been as bad in TNA as some people are saying? Who cares about any of that. All that matters is the present, and the state TNA is in right now. The FACTS are, Hogan and Bischoff haven't done anything to improve TNA since they've been there. They've had plenty of time to make an impact and if they had any kind of real impact it would've already shown in the ratings, in ppv buys, in all sorts of ways which it hasn't.

The ratings are the exact same as they always are, and the same as they've been for YEARS. The ppv buys aren't increasing, because if they were then TNA and Dixie would be praising it and telling the world, just like they rant on about every miniscule thing that happens in TNA. And the product is even shittier then it was years ago, with things centered around Immortal (that would be Hogan and Bischoff by the way) while so many young stars are just in the background or entirely lost in the shuffle.

You'd think that after all this time, and all the signs that are there, the constant stall TNA's in, that people would get a brain and get rid of people like Russo, Hogan and Bischoff. Not because they're dragging the product down but because they're not having any impact in IMPROVING things. There's been no growth. There's been nothing in years. It's unbelievable that these people don't realize that if nothing's changing then you change course and try something else.. something NEW! There's nothing new in any way about Hogan and Bischoff or what they're doing in TNA.

Well the topic at hand had Bret Hart discuss more than TNA. He decided to go very retro with it, as far as Hogan and Bischoff's participation in TNA, yeah I was hoping for more, am I disappointed? No. Because wrestling is what it is right now, it's in the valley phase of the peak and valley. If WWE's business isn't what it was years ago, how do you expect TNA to be any better? Hogan and Bischoff last I heard are not running the financial end of things and what TNA's owners have in assets is private information. So I don't know how many of TNA's financial woes are true.

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of Immortal, I don't like the idea of badly rehashing the nWo storyline, it doesn't have the same resonance for me as it did when I was a kid. I do think Fortune is pretty entertaining and I like Flair in his managerial role more than as a wrestler. He is helping younger and undiscovered talent have the prestige of being associated with him. Plus last I saw with the TNA's champions' list, all their guys are under 40 years old, with Jeff Hardy and AJ Styles being the oldest of that group and even they are still young. It would be nice to see TNA iMPACT tour and give fans outside of Orlando a chance to appreciate the product like the fans in Orlando do. I don't know what TNA's financial situation is that doesn't allow for them to do this, but I won't speculate beyond what I just stated. So I can't entirely agree with the younger guys getting lost in the shuffle. But TNA is not WWE, let's just face facts, and I don't think Hulk Hogan and Bischoff are enough to do it at this point, but I can't blame them either, it's not their capital that they are investing and sadly enough the greatest performers don't always carry out the best managerial or coaching roles. That's why you seldom see SUPERSTAR athletes become coaches or managers it does happen from time to time. But not always, Hogan in my eyes has so far shown himself to be that.

I do know about the ratings breakdowns more or less, but where is your information to support the lack of PPV revenue? However, TNA has been in business for eight years, they might not be setting the world on fire, but they are doing something that other fledgling promotions died doing in their first year. I think that has to speak for something, if you want my opinion.

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

Where is this idea that Hogan looks out for himself?! If someone is looking out for themselves, wouldn't they want to make money? If Hogan wants himself & the wrestling business to make money, he needs to stay off of their cameras.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

Bret Hart is very entitled to his opinion about the two. Very Entitled.

No one during the Monday Night Wars was gifted wrapped to another company like Bret was...

Then to have him do so little with the company while he was there, made me more upset. I was a Bret Hart fan. I saw him do very little in his tenure with WCW. That guy forgot more wrestling then Bischoff knows.

I see Bret's frustrations.

Now, I've heard some people comment that if we were in Hogan's shoes, we would of done the same thing. I don't know about that. Many guys were the big draws and they were the main event. Guys like the Rock. He walked away in his prime for the movies. No one ever had a bad comment to say about that guy when it came to working with him.

John Cena is a main event guy, and a lot of people like working with him. Does as much as possible to help the people around him out.

Chris Jericho would do anything to get another wrestler over. If that's what he was suppose to do, then that's what he did.

Andre The Giant was a truly a nice human being. Very good person. He had the main event draw for years, and just went out there and put on a show.

Now, Hogan may of held a lot of people back, but, not all the blame goes to him. I mean Bischoff, had Guerro, Benoit, Jericho, Booker T, Malekno... Hell Hogan's first 2 years he was there, Austin was there. Regal was there. A lot of good talent. A lot of those guys were much more interesting to watch then Goldberg blasting threw the company.

Hart's right on the money with Bischoff and Hogan. The only way those two could succeed, running a wrestling show in today's age is if they had a knowledgeable filter. Someone to step in and say, now, "let's book things this way, no, the title should be lost this way. That stable is a bad idea."

I'm not blaming Hart for his comments. He was there, he saw it all happen.

 

[ABMorales787]

I feel he was a little off about how TNA would revolve itself around older guys. Right now as far the "old guys" that fit that bill, there's only 3 and only one of them happens to be wrestling. Jarrett, Hogan and Bischoff. Meanwhile there is 4 babyface wrestlers that have yet to reach their prime climbing the rakns. And of course AJ Styles, who's always in the back pocket for when needed. Bret may have a point, but I think he's speaking more for his distant experience than actual analysis. During his time, WCW never had four developing main event babyfaces at once.

 

[shattered dreams]

To me its one of those ego vs ego things. Bret Hart doesn't like Hogan and Bischoff? That isn't exactly old news. Bret Hart blames those guys for a lot of things. Some of which are justified to an extent and some of which are obviously overstated sour grapes. I do not see much of a difference between what bret was doing in WWE and what hogan has been doing recently in TNA. Thus, his comments seem a little hypocritical and just a byproduct of another grudge he is holding onto. Maybe he will bury this one in a few years for another paycheck.

 

[Snap Suplex]

I agree with Hart. TNA spent 8 years building their product and had national tv exposure WITHOUT Hogan and Bischoff and featured a bunch of really nice, young talent before Hogan and Bischoff got there.

I really liked the alternative TNA gave wrestling fans before this year. In my opinion it was a hybrid of todays wrestling culture and aspects of 1990s wcw-tag team wrestling, international stars (x division), and stables.

I really think TNA took a horrible and possible fatal turn about a year ago when Hogan and Bischoff were brought in. Why did TNA have to compete with WWE in terms of making money and ratings?? It wasn't needed. Why go head to head on Mondays? Not needed. TNA had a nice alternative product that in my opinion shouldn't have been about competing directly with WWE. If you think about it, TNA could have gone just as they were over a year ago without the change in direction. From a wrestlers point of view, TNA was/is attractive just from a traveling and work perspective-not being nearly as brutal as a WWE schedule. So talent would never be an issue. They attracted Angle, Jeff Hardy the first time, and others just because of their schedule. It was nice before Hogan and Bischoff because these former WWE guys would get pushes, but not necissarily take over the brand. It was a nice mix of "TNA guys" and outside guys. Good, young talent would actually get over and be put over by the older guys.

This is just my 2 cents, but back on topic, Hart is exactly right in terms of what is best for the TNA product. Guys like Hogan and Bischoff and other old and hell retreads are a waste of time and money for TNA (especially to base their product around) and don't know their role in wrestling these days.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's not as if Bret Hart's opinion of Hulk Hogan or Eric Bischoff has changed over the course of the past 10 years. It's also not as if Hart's comments aren't the same ones that many posters on this forum and others all across the net haven't said before.

Like everyone else, Bret Hart is entitled to his opinion and there are no doubt some that don't agree with Hart's comments and there are some that agree with him word for word. In most cases, fans that love TNA will dismiss his comments while fans that don't love TNA will find a lot of truths to his statement. It's all about perception.

 

[FatGuyIan]

Fact is, you weren't there, I wasn't there, I got a good feeling that 99.9 percent of the people on these boards that read and post weren't there...

You're 100% right. I wasn't there. But that doesn't mean I haven't done things to educate myself on the subject. Is credibility held back from historians because they weren't there? No. Our understanding of history is based on what history has written. True, history is the story of those that won and not always the truth, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to eat Peking Duck.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Bret Hart is very entitled to his opinion about the two. Very Entitled.

No one during the Monday Night Wars was gifted wrapped to another company like Bret was...

Then to have him do so little with the company while he was there, made me more upset. I was a Bret Hart fan. I saw him do very little in his tenure with WCW. That guy forgot more wrestling then Bischoff knows.

I see Bret's frustrations.

As do I, his WCW stint wasn't what it could have been, but he still managed to attain the main titles in the company, albeit two years later to get the top title which he should have vied for to begin with, but all the same, I'm not blaming Hogan for all that, and I'll tell you why later on. Just the same though, Bret was squandered in several respects. I thought him as an instant threat to the World Title would have made the best sense or at least have him just continuously wrestle other main event stars to get him right onto that point. In my opinion, I would have enjoyed a Sting vs Bret Hart program immensely following Sting's title win from Hogan which should never have been booked the way it had at Starrcade. Bret vs Hogan for the title would have been my ideal choice though, it's a shame that never happened, especially with Hogan in his Hollywood persona.

Now, I've heard some people comment that if we were in Hogan's shoes, we would of done the same thing. I don't know about that. Many guys were the big draws and they were the main event. Guys like the Rock. He walked away in his prime for the movies. No one ever had a bad comment to say about that guy when it came to working with him.

We only hear what the yellow journalism of internet wrestling news and guys like Dave Meltzer want the people to hear. I'm a very skeptical individual over anyone and anything in professional wrestling and I think that's the only way you can truly have a clear opinion about what REALLY goes on behind the curtain, which in my opinion is very inconsequential to how we should enjoy professional wrestling. As far as The Rock goes, I have never heard too many negative things about him, and I can't begrudge him for living wrestling to pursue Hollywood, he did his time as a contracted superstar for WWF/E and moved on, some people begrudge that but he never walked out on the company or negotiated an early release, ala Brock Lesnar.

John Cena is a main event guy, and a lot of people like working with him. Does as much as possible to help the people around him out.

He's the matinee idol of professional wrestling, the goldenboy if you will, nothing has come out about him yet, and I've yet to hear anything, not that I am setting out to learn anything about him or assume that he has dirty laundry. But again I don't know the man, plain and simple. So far, so good, but that's I don't use the demeanor that Vince markets him with as a barometer in estimating my feelings about him as a performer and a person, nor do I want to consider locker room testimonials from other workers as admissible evidence. I don't pay a ticket price for admission to know if he's Mr. Congeniality backstage nor do I do that with any of the other performers in this business or any athletic or entertainment endeavor. I'd disappoint myself if I wanted to think that every athlete and entertainer I like was a all out great person.

Chris Jericho would do anything to get another wrestler over. If that's what he was suppose to do, then that's what he did.

I have definitely seen him work great programs with people and he's one of my top favorites, but I don't know the guy.

Andre The Giant was a truly a nice human being. Very good person. He had the main event draw for years, and just went out there and put on a show.

Andre was truly one of a kind, he definitely did do what he had to do with putting guys like Hogan and Warrior over. I can't speak for his personal character, but he's one of the legends, no doubt. However I refuse comment as to who he was an individual but it's sad that his health problems that led to his early death, that would no doubt be a cross to bare, a major one.

Bottom line is, that we don't know these people personally, we don't shadow them 24 hours a day and as much as I'd like their personas to match who they are as people, I can't confidently say that all these people have to be humanitarians because they're not people that I know beyond what has been marketed to me all these years, and I can't put 100 per cent stock into interviews from other wrestlers and backstage rumors to use as my proof. My own eyes and ears need to see and hear this all for myself to know what's really TRUE.

Now, Hogan may of held a lot of people back, but, not all the blame goes to him. I mean Bischoff, had Guerro, Benoit, Jericho, Booker T, Malekno... Hell Hogan's first 2 years he was there, Austin was there. Regal was there. A lot of good talent. A lot of those guys were much more interesting to watch then Goldberg blasting threw the company.

I gotta meet you half way on this one, because you raise good points. I was never a Goldberg fan per se, and I would have liked to see the younger guys excel more, however despite what seemed like limited pushes at the time many of these individuals vied for the United States Championship and the Television Championship and to any pre-Turner version of WCW (aka the Jim Crockett Promotions) those titles had MAJOR weight and story to them, and sure it would have been nice to see those aforementioned wrestlers get pushed to the very top, the fact that they were stalwarts in the US and TV Title divisions along with the Cruiserweight divisions show that WCW did have confidence in these guys. With Benoit and Booker T truly reaching WCW's pinnacle and Malenko and Guerrero owning the Cruiserweight division those are very positive moves on WCW's part that I think get sadly overlooked. After all, the Cruiserweight division never saw better moments anywhere else because let's be honest WWE did a far worse job with it than anything WWE did, i.e. giving the title to Hornswoggle and Chavo Classic, granted the Oklahoma and Medusa storyline was rancid to be sure, but WCW had a rich history with that title albeit a short one preceding that mess.

I will admit one thing against Hogan though that I won't argue with people about, his first reign having him wrestle Brutus Beefcake for the WCW Title was not a booking decision I was particularly fond of, I have heard a rumor or two that it was supposed to be Mr. Perfect but I have no way of confirming that. Beefcake was well past his likability to me by that time and without being able to bring the actual persona with him from WWF it just didn't work. It was a pretty nepotistic move from my viewpoint. However, when you mention guys like Austin and Regal, it would have surely been nice to see them excel however there's a couple points to bring up here.

During that time, Austin was a mid carder at best to many of the fans, and granted if we had seen him be allowed to be the Stone Cold Steve Austin we know him to be now, maybe his fortunes in the company would have turned around. But there was no way of knowing that back then and WCW made the choice to fire him, granted it bit them in the ass, but to be fair, we know nothing of what really went down between both outside of the accounts both sides have given and considering that they were both given in a WWE produced DVD, makes me question the level of bias put in for dramatic effect to those being told such anecdotes.

In Regal's case even at that time substance abuse problems were an issue and I remember hearing something about him acting disorderly on a plane and waking up in a jail cell. I'm not sure WCW wanted to get behind someone like that. Hogan while an admitted steroid user did come clean about what he did and otherwise did not do anything to my knowledge that would make him unreliable, however drug charges and arrests will do that to a performer. My money is on Austin having a bad run of luck, but if anyone was holding anyone back, in Regal's case, it was himself sad to say.

During that time in WCW, I also don't think guys like Ric Flair and the newly arriving Randy Savage did much to help Steve Austin's lobby to step up the WCW ladder. Sting was also a pretty strong fixture in the scene, so I have a feeling that did not help Austin either. Those guys had their spot too and I am sure just like Hogan they weren't willing to give it up.

Hart's right on the money with Bischoff and Hogan. The only way those two could succeed, running a wrestling show in today's age is if they had a knowledgeable filter. Someone to step in and say, now, "let's book things this way, no, the title should be lost this way. That stable is a bad idea."

One thing to say about Bret Hart's time in WCW, he also had to compete with main event stars like Sting, Piper, Flair, and eventually Nash. Hogan wasn't the only obstacle there. Considering the stranglehold all of them had on things in the company, much like the Austin situation, I can't see things being as black and white in what Bret was saying. Although for all that money they paid him, I find it frustrating that he did not get the status and prestige I feel his resume warranted. Despite what Ric Flair says, Bret was a great champion in so many memorable matches....Piper, Diesel, Michaels, Flair (himself), Mr. Perfect, his brother Owen and so on. So many great memories as a young kid watching those contests on TV and PPV that I admit I was perturbed to see his luck change in the company. Then to boot his injury that ended his career at Goldberg's hands.

I'm not blaming Hart for his comments. He was there, he saw it all happen.

And I agree with you on many points man, but I think we have to keep in mind how many other guys besides Hogan were there and how many had creative control. It definitely warrants a thought, especially if you go back to some of Flair and Hart's unflattering comments towards one another, Hart might not have brought it up this time, but Flair if you believe everything he says to the general public, well let's put it this way, the two are definitely very critical of one another's impact in the business. A lot of Hogan and Bischoff's philosophies are a bit outdated, but at the same time, you have to think, several of these creative figures do need creative filters. Look no further than WWE, I am sure a lot of people rolled their eyes at Katie Vick and if there was not a creative team to tell Vince that this is not the best idea, who knows what would have been the next storyline to top that. I can agree with a lot of what Bret Hart is saying, but not everything.

Good posting though man and I hope you don't find this to be a personal attack, just a debate over some points that I just wanted to bring up.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

You're 100% right. I wasn't there. But that doesn't mean I haven't done things to educate myself on the subject. Is credibility held back from historians because they weren't there? No. Our understanding of history is based on what history has written. True, history is the story of those that won and not always the truth, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to eat Peking Duck.

That being said though, I'm just trying to say man, that things aren't as simplistic as you might read in all these articles. Again that's not to take anyone's side it's just to point out that putting stock into everything you read and hear about, ESPECIALLY with the internet these days, I'd just not be so quick to assume what you're hearing is always going to be the truth.

Not to say you are not educated on the subject and that you don't have any merit, but the fact is that nothing is ever what it really seems. Not to say that there's not truth in anything we ever read or hear about, but everything I feel should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to what happens behind the curtain. The one thing that I am confident to say that I know about what REALLY goes on in the wrestling world...is that I truly don't know.

 

[Rampage Bentley]

To me its one of those ego vs ego things. Bret Hart doesn't like Hogan and Bischoff? That isn't exactly old news. Bret Hart blames those guys for a lot of things. Some of which are justified to an extent and some of which are obviously overstated sour grapes. I do not see much of a difference between what bret was doing in WWE and what hogan has been doing recently in TNA. Thus, his comments seem a little hypocritical and just a byproduct of another grudge he is holding onto. Maybe he will bury this one in a few years for another paycheck.

How is there no difference in what Bret was doing in WWE and what Hogan is doing in TNA? Bret was in a few main events and got involved in a few big programs, but EVERYTHING in TNA revolves around Hogan. It's gotten slightly better since his back surgery, but he's pretty much involved with every segment on TV, if he's not on camera he's mentioned during every match by the announcers and every promo is ultimately about him or Immortal. TNA's current world champion was one of the biggest draws last year in all of wrestling, but even he is playing second fiddle to Hogan.

 

[Wrestling Free Thinker]

I do not see much of a difference between what bret was doing in WWE and what hogan has been doing recently in TNA. Thus, his comments seem a little hypocritical and just a byproduct of another grudge he is holding onto. Maybe he will bury this one in a few years for another paycheck.

Bret made appearances and just one angle leading up to a Wrestlemania match. That's it. He didn't lead a huge faction "taking over" the company, he didn't hold the spotlight, or anything like that.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Bret made appearances and just one angle leading up to a Wrestlemania match. That's it. He didn't lead a huge faction "taking over" the company, he didn't hold the spotlight, or anything like that.

You do remember he did come back even after WrestleMania XXVI, right?

So let me ask, how many matches did Hogan wrestle since coming to TNA? One and it was a tag match where he didn't even get the winning pinfall.

Bret wrestled several and even took a main event spot in Summer Slam 2010's Nexus vs WWE match. He could have just as easily been given a role as a manager or special guest referee, and not to mention, he also won the United States Title against the Miz. Bret didn't have to go through with any of those booking decisions, he could have very easily had a non-wrestling role like Hogan is having now, not to say that Hogan's act is anything great, but there are some questionable booking decisions they've had with Bret considering the condition and age he is in. Also how many titles has Hulk Hogan won since coming to TNA, in fact when's the last time Hogan had a title reign of any kind?

In your opinion though, explain the rationale for the number of matches they put Bret in and why they gave him the United States Title. I would like to know your perspective on that. And how it really is all that different, if he didn't get a title reign, I'd almost be willing to set aside the fact that he was in a few matches, namely the one with Vince because of the storyline behind it, but just the same. Where was the need for the title reign?

 

[ilapierre]

I feel Hitman is entitled to his opinion. He would know better what it was like working for Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff. I think it would be naive to criticize his reasoning for not wanting to be part of TNA. He feels Hogan and Bischoff would try to ruin him, and are in
the business of ruining wrestling promotions. When Hitman speaks, people should listen. The guy knows what he's talking about, he's had to deal with his fair share of shady people in the wrestling world.

I think there's a bigger story here that people seem to be missing. Hitman has been a WWE puppet now for almost a year. If you look at his old TNA comments they were a
lot more negative, not about the wrestlers themselves but of the old WCW guys like Bischoff and Hogan. His comments were made as if he were a part of WWE. His most recent comments almost sound like he'd be considering going to TNA at some point
after WWE is done with him. WWE has absolutely no tolerance for anyone who deals with TNA. They rewrite them from history. Bret Hart himself hit the nail on the head when he says that behind the scenes WWE is trying to stamp out TNA and sees it as
competition. Most WWE guys would never dare expose this, no matter how obvious it is. Bret Hart's comments make it sound like WWE doesn't have much more use for him, and he would consider going to TNA if Hogan and Bischoff would disappear and if or when McMahon doesn't need him anymore.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I could be reading way too far into it. But WWE employees NEVER dare saying they'd consider working for TNA in the future and they NEVER dare expose the fact WWE feels threatened behind the scenes. WWE employees are suppose to stick to their scripts and act like emo wusses like the Miz and CM Punk, so since when did a WWE employee like Bret Hart grow balls and tell it how it is while still under WWE employment? Or is he just not under contract?

 

[Rayne]

Too many people to quote on this, so I'll just address the difference between Hogan's run and Hart's run- camera time. Bret Hart was getting one segment every other week through the first half of this year, and has since disappeared. He was never the focus of the WWE this year. His "US Title Reign" lasted all of about 30 seconds, after he relinquished his title. The belt was never focused on him; it was a one-off "aw, isn't that nice" match. Was there a need for it? No, but it also didn't harm the belt or push anyone under in the process.

Hogan, multiple times this year, has appeared in six segments on Impact. (A typical two hour wrestling program will run between 10-15 segments in the current era.) The very first headlining program of the year was Hogan/Abyss vs. Flair/AJ, and even though AJ was holding the TNA World Title, the focus of the program was less on AJ's development into a heel character, and more on the "Power Of The Ring!!!!" story between Abyss and Hogan. From there, it was RVD's forgettable title reign (hey- what color was the confetti that rained down after RVD won the World Title anyways? Not a color you see RVD wearing often), and Hogan's continuing development as a company leader. Then we have the "Immortal" storyline, which is just a little bit on the nose; naming your headlining faction after Hogan's nickname.

What's the difference between the two? Bret Hart had a feel good run which was the third/fourth run storyline, and has since come to a close. Hulk Hogan turned himself into the focus of a company, without being able to improve on the results occurring before his run. Only the blindest TNA mark could try to claim that there were more similarities to the two runs beyond both men being in their 50's.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Too many people to quote on this, so I'll just address the difference between Hogan's run and Hart's run- camera time. Bret Hart was getting one segment every other week through the first half of this year, and has since disappeared. He was never the focus of the WWE this year. His "US Title Reign" lasted all of about 30 seconds, after he relinquished his title. The belt was never focused on him; it was a one-off "aw, isn't that nice" match. Was there a need for it? No, but it also didn't harm the belt or push anyone under in the process.

Hogan, multiple times this year, has appeared in six segments on Impact. (A typical two hour wrestling program will run between 10-15 segments in the current era.) The very first headlining program of the year was Hogan/Abyss vs. Flair/AJ, and even though AJ was holding the TNA World Title, the focus of the program was less on AJ's development into a heel character, and more on the "Power Of The Ring!!!!" story between Abyss and Hogan. From there, it was RVD's forgettable title reign (hey- what color was the confetti that rained down after RVD won the World Title anyways? Not a color you see RVD wearing often), and Hogan's continuing development as a company leader. Then we have the "Immortal" storyline, which is just a little bit on the nose; naming your headlining faction after Hogan's nickname.

What's the difference between the two? Bret Hart had a feel good run which was the third/fourth run storyline, and has since come to a close. Hulk Hogan turned himself into the focus of a company, without being able to improve on the results occurring before his run. Only the blindest TNA mark could try to claim that there were more similarities to the two runs beyond both men being in their 50's.

While I admit that Hogan's overexposed, never argued that for a second, Bret Hart's time in the WWE was a nice full circle bit of closure but just the same, we all could have gotten the point as fans without that WrestleMania match with Vince, or the US Title reign even if it was for 30 seconds, it was still a lame effort to use a title (albeit a prop) but it was a meaningless booking decision when you really come down to it. And besides, if Bret's medical problems over the years are as serious as they are, there was no need to put him into any harm's way, luckily nothing ever happened, but Bret lucked out. Or maybe the reports of his health years ago were greatly exaggerated, either way. I still feel most posters on here are being a little too simplistic in their point.

As far as naming Hogan's group Immortal (after Hogan's moniker), it just sounds like some stupid rock band name, but hell when Bobby Heenan had his stable he called it the Heenan Family, in typical heel fashion he showed his ego by naming his group after him, Hogan is no different here. He is merely playing the egotist. What about the fact that DH Smith and Tyson Kidd's Hart Dynasty theme borrows the same opening riff from Bret's theme. I think the fact they are called the Hart Dynasty warrants enough of a cause for us to realize that this is a new generation Hart Foundation, I don't think we need to have their theme music included to get the rest of the parallels, do we? Arguing something like the name of Hogan's stable is a small thing, not as big as some may make it out to be.

Getting back to Bret Hart, there was no need to put him in as a Team WWE member at the main event of SSlam 2010, no need at all. I've seen Hogan dominate TNA's segments but I've yet to see him try to win a title belt in the company. For the record, at the time when you had AJ and Flair against Hogan and Abyss,I feel they did justice in AJ's heel turn, and the power of the ring idea was all about Hogan trying to find a successor, granted I'm not an Abyss fan, and I gotta say I am still not impressed, but it was an effort albeit not the best one.

However, I gotta break this one to ya dude, you were reaching a little too far with the RVD title win comment and the color of the confetti, I respect most of your post and your points. I appreciate your difference of opinion from mine.

But take a GOOD Look at RVD's color scheme for his attire, it's not all that different from his confetti. You got some black, red and yellow in there. So you are wrong Rayne, on that particular night, RVD was indeed wearing those colors. Unless you can get a signed confession from RVD that Hogan made him wear attire similar to the color scheme of the confetti, then I'll owe you a coke, but just to argue your point here is the video. I had embedding problems with it, but check this link out, and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE1SDfO2VvI

 

[Rayne]

While I admit that Hogan's overexposed, never argued that for a second, Bret Hart's time in the WWE was a nice full circle bit of closure but just the same, we all could have gotten the point as fans without that WrestleMania match with Vince, the US Title reign even if it was for 30 seconds, it was still a lame effort to use a title (albeit a prop) but it was a meaningless booking decision when you really come down to it.

As far as the "need" of Hart's title win or his SSlam appearance, you are under the mistaken impression that every booking decision is need-based. Of course they didn't "need" Bret Hart to do that. Not every booking decision has to have a meaning behind it beyond "will it make money?" Hart's return generated a crapload of viewers, and his segments remained amongst the highest rated that the WWE had through WrestleMania. Hogan's return hasn't generated anything for TNA that it didn't already have; if it did, it would be reflected in the ratings and Dixie Carter wouldn't be able to shut up about it.

I've seen Hogan dominate TNA's segments but I've yet to see him try to win a title belt in the company.

Title belts are props. That's all. You don't have to win a title to establish yourself as the major player in an organization; the point is irrelevant. Dominating the segments is far more important then holding the title; if anything, placing your role in the company above that of the champion, which Hogan has consistently done this year, reduces the value of the prop. Had Bret Hart tried to hold onto the title, I'd absolutely agree that it would reduce the value of the US title (as little value as it has these days.) Instead, it had the same effect as The Miz dropping the title to something like a kayfaybe injury.

However, I gotta break this one to ya dude, you were reaching a little too far with the RVD title win comment and the color of the confetti, I respect most of your post and your points. I appreciate your difference of opinion from mine.

I thought the same thing back during RVD's title win when it happened. Red and yellow are colors traditionally associated with Hulk Hogan; saying "well, RVD has a singlet with some red and gold in it" doesn't exactly make those his colors. If you're going to make yourself the focus of a show as Hogan has, you're opening yourself up to those kinds of criticisms.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

As far as the "need" of Hart's title win or his SSlam appearance, you are under the mistaken impression that every booking decision is need-based. Of course they didn't "need" Bret Hart to do that. Not every booking decision has to have a meaning behind it beyond "will it make money?" Hart's return generated a crapload of viewers, and his segments remained amongst the highest rated that the WWE had through WrestleMania. Hogan's return hasn't generated anything for TNA that it didn't already have; if it did, it would be reflected in the ratings and Dixie Carter wouldn't be able to shut up about it.

Title belts are props. That's all. You don't have to win a title to establish yourself as the major player in an organization; the point is irrelevant. Dominating the segments is far more important then holding the title; if anything, placing your role in the company above that of the champion, which Hogan has consistently done this year, reduces the value of the prop. Had Bret Hart tried to hold onto the title, I'd absolutely agree that it would reduce the value of the US title (as little value as it has these days.) Instead, it had the same effect as The Miz dropping the title to something like a kayfaybe injury.

Very fair point about Bret's return, I still think WWE would have been fine without Bret's return, although many people like me who remember being shocked the Saturday Morning following Bret's first title win over Ric Flair definitely wanted it, the WWE still had a status quo and had a GREAT increase from their typical numbers, but it didn't impact WWE that his return happened. For that matter neither has Hogan's return either. However, all I am trying to say is that if Hogan did any of those things like win a title or show up in a main event match as a competitor people would be all over it. As much as I like Bret he seems to avoid some of the same criticisms, hence my only reason for arguing that point about the US title win, personally it doesn't matter to me considering the reality that belts really are just props, no doubt about that. But I just need to mention that there is a double standard. The same with the main event appearance of Bret as a PARTICIPANT in the actual match. I don't have a problem with him in some other role, but he did not need to be in the actual ring to make a point. If Hogan did that, most IWC people would cry out in protest. So I didn't really make myself clear on that and that's my fault boss, it has nothing to do with a title having value or a booking needed to be done, I just wanted to point out more so that I think a double standard has occurred in some of these cases that we are talking about. I do indeed see much of what you are talking about with Hogan's self inflated role, not denying that, but at the same time I still get to see some well done matches in between all that. I mean a lot of what I see Hogan do these days isn't all that different from some of the BS segments I used to see Vince McMahon do during his heyday as the evil boss, granted a lot of those moments were gold, but it's just that TNA is using a tired old formula that I'd like to see end, but it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle and try to go back to some of the more simpler nuances of wrestling where authority figures were more akin to Jack Tunney, not trying to show my age here, but it'd be nice to see that again.

I thought the same thing back during RVD's title win when it happened. Red and yellow are colors traditionally associated with Hulk Hogan; saying "well, RVD has a singlet with some red and gold in it" doesn't exactly make those his colors. If you're going to make yourself the focus of a show as Hogan has, you're opening yourself up to those kinds of criticisms.

Again, though there's nothing saying that Hogan ever told RVD to wear that scheme of colors, he doesn't exactly have set colors, since he's varied his attire over the years. If he came out with dyed stubble, a fu manchu and feather boas, then I'd start to wonder WTF was going on, HAHA! Unless I hear otherwise, I'm chocking that one up to coincidence, because that's where I think that lies.