Has The Undertaker Turned Into Hulk Hogan?

[Psyclone]

ok i skipped to the end but I'm going to read every post after I add this... sorry if im repeating what's been said here but NO !!!!!!!!!! hogan and taker are polar opposites... Hogan booked any match big or small to benefit himself and himself alone (when he had creative control) or bitched and moaned and got his way (see wrestlemania 9)...

Taker on the other hand has the respect of everyone (and i mean EVERYONE) in the locker room... I have read numerous biographies of wrestlers... EVERY SINGLE ONE mentions taker as being the most respected wrestler in the locker-room.. Hell even flair goes out of his way to mention what a great person/wrestler taker is(and that's from arguably the best wrestler of all time).. HBK's book respects him, Bret Hart's does, Jericho's book(s) do, Foley's book(s) do... all of them have nothing but respect for Taker..

By the same token all of those books have wildly differing opinions about hogan... How yes he was the guy who built the business (agreed, without him there is no professional wrestling to this extent...) but how backstage politics and his own ego ruined great angles or buried talent (every one of those books includes that except for Foley's as he never was around in a company with Hogan for a long period of time).. So yes they have nice things to say about him, but they also bury him for other things..

There is no debate taker is nowhere near what hogan was.. Yes I guess he doesn't put over young talent right now at wrestlemania, but really you're ideas (OP) for who he'd face at wrestlemania are Miz or Ziggler etc? While I agree that they have talent (Ziggler especially..) If booked this year "dolph ziggler vs undertaker" people would KNOW that taker was going to win mostly because Ziggler's been a non main eventer... You don't just throw a guy who's only title so far (not counting spirit squad) has been the US championship into a match with undertaker... Especially after "the streak" has in the past 3 years (leading up to this year) been HBK vs taker (good vs evil) HBK Taker II (Streak vs career) Taker vs HHH (II) (YOU ENDED MY BEST FRIENDS CAREER, I'LL END YOUR STREAK!!) to Taker vs Ziggler (I HAVE MORE HAIR THAN YOU?!?!?!)
I'm sorry but right now, at this point in his career unless it's a credible threat, fans will not accept any random mid card talent being booked against taker (especially at wrestlemania) unless it's a handicap match, but even then he's not exactly young.. He's not the taker of old and therefore i don't think he could pull of a hypothetical ziggler+swagger vs taker match at next year's wrestlemania and even then at points in this years card hbk and HHH both tried to destroy taker and failed so even THEN it wouldn't do much...

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

I have read numerous biographies of wrestlers... EVERY SINGLE ONE mentions taker as being the most respected wrestler in the locker-room.. Hell even flair goes out of his way to mention what a great person/wrestler taker is(and that's from arguably the best wrestler of all time).. HBK's book respects him, Bret Hart's does, Jericho's book(s) do, Foley's book(s) do... all of them have nothing but respect for Taker..

Here's a sage reminder to get you back to reality my good man, reading people's autobiographies (a good number which are WWE produced anyway....so there's no possibility there could EVER be any bias....right ) does not make you or anyone else on here an expert of what these people are like backstage. Until you can absolutely prove to me otherwise, those works are all glorified kayfabe.

This is the problem with people who read autobiographies, watch DVDs and read dirt sheets, they think they have all of a sudden become an oracle to the wrestling business. That's total bullshit.

Now this isn't to say that guys like Hulk Hogan don't play their creative control card or use their star power to leverage things their way, but at the same time...some people are just completely gullible and will buy every single thing they read about.

In all honesty, that's just pathetic...if all you people care about when it comes to wrestling is what happens behind the curtain (which you really don't know is true or not) then why are you even a wrestling fan in the first place? Go watch something like the Jersey Shore or some other reality TV garbage if you'd rather have the lines of reality and fantasy blurred. Then again the wrestling business in the last few years has gone that same route on several occasions.

But anyway...I digress...the primary concern should be what's on the TV screen not behind the curtain. To answer the OP's question though, no I don't think Taker is Hogan "per se", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. There might be a small minority that might not be happy that Undertaker is keeping the streak, but so be it, personally I want the streak to last forever. At this point, I personally would not want to see WWE have Taker put someone over that might not be able to meet the hype and pressure of being the man who ended the streak.

Considering that Undertaker has never had the Austin or Hogan like status in WWF/E, I think the streak is the thing that he should have when it's time to retire.

In closing OP, appreciate the initiative in trying to make a good discussion but in doing so you've let a bunch of self professed experts of the businesses (or as I like to call them...stupid gullible *****) out of the woodwork.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's all pretty much been said I think. All in all, Taker's reputation is about as far from Hulk Hogan's as you can get.

Taker has never really been an attention ****e. He's never been known to run to Vince or other company executives to push his own agenda.

He doesn't make boldly ridiculous statements just to put himself over as Hogan frequently does. Remember a while back when Hogan said in an interview that he taught Vince everything he knows?

Also, as others have mentioned, Taker has put over a slew of talents in his day from the likes of Yokozuna, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, John Bradshaw Layfield, Randy Orton, etc.. Hell, he even put over that guy Maven, the first Tough Enough winner, back in the day. If I'm not mistaken, Taker also jobbed out to CM Punk in a WHC match. It wasn't a clean job by any stretch but, still, Taker put Punk over. Sorry, but it's ridiculous to try and say that Taker isn't known for putting over young talent.

Hulk Hogan has used his magic to make himself the centeral focal point for TNA the majority of the time he's been with the company. He's been gone lately for several months but now he's back. He's been back for two episodes of IW and is already back to being the center of attention. Now that he's the GM for Impact Wrestling, he could very well be back to dominating the show with his presence like he's been known for the majority of the past 2 years. Taker shows up now on special occassions, such as building for his WM match, but isn't featured in every other segment on the show.

 

[gers09]

hell no for one taker can still wrestle and put on a match worthy of math of the year and proved it at WM hogan can't do a thing in the ring any more other than put me to sleep. taker is willing to put over the young guys where if hogan got in the ring with someone as good as a wrestler as Punk hogan will need to win of he will spit his dummy out the pram and cry like a big baby and not only would he have to win he has to be the one that looks good and punk has to like poor. Undertaker isn't making Vince let him win at WM it the gimmick he has been given hogan cant stay out the ring because of his ego taker steps in the ring because he wants to give the wwe fans a show and when he feels it time to retire he will and will stay retired unlike hogan and flair

 

[Mark Henry's Beard]

I love Dolph Ziggler, but who the fuck would buy Ziggler vs. 'Taker at WrestleMania?

The streak has gotten big enough that a match against a younger talent just will not work. I actually think that of the current "full-timers" on the roster, the only three that would make sense against 'Taker at Mania are Cena, Orton, and Kane.

The Undertaker isn't holding anyone back. He wrestles one fucking match a year. It's not going to be against Dolph Ziggler or Wade Barrett.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The idea of comparing Undertaker to Hogan is interesting in respect to the biggest contrast between the two: Hogan spent his on-stage career acknowledging the fans while Undertaker did the exact opposite. As 'Taker's persona goes, he could have been wrestling in an empty arena; if fans were cheering or booing him, he wouldn't acknowledge it. Yet, both men have been among the most popular wrestlers in history.

Of course, none of us really know what Mark Callaway is like behind the scenes; whether he has put some performers over or held back others. I tend to think of him as being like his on-air character, which he probably isn't.

One thing for sure, though; whatever professional privileges he enjoys today have been earned through years of hard work. He performed while injured and was always there when the company needed him.....in fact, that quality probably explains why he's wrestled at the last two Wrestlemanias; he's effectively retired but the company wants him and he does it for them. (I'm sure the payday he receives doesn't hurt, either).

If you've got a guy who performs just once a year, of course the company is going to promote the hell out of it. After all, Undertaker or not, if a guy doesn't show his face and build momentum during the year, people will stop thinking about him, which could hurt the buy rate for the event.

Again, I have no idea of the politics involved, yet I keep thinking that Callaway has presented WWE with this option: Insist I work a regular schedule and I'll retire in two years.....or, let me perform once a year and I'll work the next ten Wrestlemanias.

Which option would you choose?

 

[mr.davidson]

I would think you would compare Undertaker more to Andre the Gaint in the 1970's

Cause Undretaker is more of an attraction now like Andre was and Oneday when he does decide to pass the Trch I hope it will be in a WrestleMania 3 Like situation.. and Have the New Hulk Hogan Whoever it is Defat the 20 Years + Streak and give us somthing to Remember

 

[FlairFan2003]

First of all Ive never read where Taker specifically refused to participate in an angle or match because it didnt put him over. Ever, not one time. Do you realize that both Edge and HBK had won nearly every high profile match vs Taker outside of WM ? The complaint about Hogan (mostly in WCW, Vince has a lot less tolerance for that stuff) was that when he was asked to lose even if it was good for business he refused, or in the case of Goldberg he would lose but still continue to main event, marginalizing Goldberg and giving his title matches short thrift promotion wise. You may have the belt but who is the #1 star ?

Second, as far as The Streak is concerned who says its good for business if he loses it to some young mid carder like Dolph Ziggler or even Miz ? Can you imagine the anger fans would have seeing someone so unaccomplished compared to Taker end the streak ?

Plus, who says ending The Streak makes some young guy a Taker-level star ? What did beating Hogan ever do for Billy Kidman ? How has Rico's career gone since he beat Ric Flair ? Its not winning a match that makes a guy a star, its how they perform both in the match, the entire feud, and how they perform moving forward. I always believed Hogan was wrong for not putting over Randy Savage, other than some count out and DQ wins at house shows in 89. However, the rub Savage got from his feuds with Hogan in 86 and 89 did more than anything else in his career to make him a SuperStar. His performances in those feuds plus how he performed in feuds vs other wrestlers afterward made him a legend. You can say the same for Lex Luger and Sting vs Ric Flair. Yes, Flair did eventually put Sting over but Sting lost every money match and most house shows vs Flair during the first two years of their run, and became a mega star. Luger's feud with Flair took him to another level and helped make him one of the most popular stars of the 90s. Yet he always came up short in big match after big match.

Taker is not a "Hogan" in that way, in fact I believe he is such a respected figure because he isnt like that.

 

[Xemmy]

The Undertaker lost cleanly to Vladamir Kozlov. A guy that was never over without Santino. That's all one really needs to say about it. Hogan only lost to guys that would obviously decimate him (Taker being one of them). Taker has a history of losing to guys that you could never see beating a guy that was 6 foot 10.

The Undertaker hasn't put anyone over because he's not an active wrestler. He has one match a year. The only reason he's not wrestling young guys at Mania is because no one else is believable enough to be a challenge for him. The Undertaker is unbeatable on that night, and only the very best have a hope of suspending our disbelief (HHH, Shawn). But he has never been afraid of putting someone over. The Undertaker is not about self-promotion. If he was- he'd have been WWE champion more than once in the last decade. Vince would have given it to him. The Undertaker is essentially the anti-Hogan, and everyone knows it. That's why he (and Shawn) surpassed Hogan as the greatest of all time in the eyes of everyone behind the curtain. It's actually insulting to compare him to Hogan in that regard.

 

[SSJPhenom]

You are dumb. HHH lost at Wrestlemania 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28 and have put over guys like Batista, Randy Orton, John Cena who all became top stars and whom did Undertaker put over ?

Randy Orton should have ended the streak at Wrestlemania 21 if Undertaker really wanted to put someone over.

I'm dumb?? Excuse me while I laugh hysterically for a few moments.....

Ok, now that I'm done doing that, again, really??

Batista is just about the only superstar that HHH really has put over and HHH put over Orton? Are you f'n serious bro? Do you not remember after Orton won his first WHC at Summer Slam of '04? Who was it that beat his ass on Raw, kicked him out of Evolution, and buried him for the title three weeks after he won it? Certainly not HHH. No way.

BTW, it's well known that 'Taker has wanted to lose the streak to a few people and Orton was one of them; however, Orton refused to beat 'Taker at 'Mania and the WWE Officials also didn't want it to happen. The feud that they had after 'Mania 21; however, did put Orton on the map. So, you see, 'Taker did put Orton over. Just like he put over Jeff Hardy(2002), Maven, The Great Khali, Kane, Mick Foley, Lesnar, and on and on. There really are too many to remember all at one time.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

The reason Taker wins is so that they have another match to market the next year. The "who will end the streak" match is probably a bigger draw than the WWE and WHC matches at this point.

Taker doesn't even have to lose for the other guy to look good. Just putting up a good fight makes a guy look good.

Hogan was never like this. Hogan was good at making Hogan draw, Undertaker is good at making sure the company and the show and the guy he's against can draw.

A lot of you guys think it's 1975. You don't have to get a win to get over. People know it's fake. The Taker streak is a story that gets over. It's not that people legitimately think Taker is unbeatable, it's that it's the story going in.

Taker vs Orton at Mania 21 I believe it was got Orton as over as any victory he ever had.

 

[Psyclone]

Here's a sage reminder to get you back to reality my good man, reading people's autobiographies (a good number which are WWE produced anyway....so there's no possibility there could EVER be any bias....right ) does not make you or anyone else on here an expert of what these people are like backstage. Until you can absolutely prove to me otherwise, those works are all glorified kayfabe.

This is the problem with people who read autobiographies, watch DVDs and read dirt sheets, they think they have all of a sudden become an oracle to the wrestling business. That's total bullshit.

Now this isn't to say that guys like Hulk Hogan don't play their creative control card or use their star power to leverage things their way, but at the same time...some people are just completely gullible and will buy every single thing they read about.

In all honesty, that's just pathetic...if all you people care about when it comes to wrestling is what happens behind the curtain (which you really don't know is true or not) then why are you even a wrestling fan in the first place? Go watch something like the Jersey Shore or some other reality TV garbage if you'd rather have the lines of reality and fantasy blurred. Then again the wrestling business in the last few years has gone that same route on several occasions.

well call it pathetic if you will to believe every "autobiography" i've read, but in this case its pretty clear that all of the stories can't be totally false... Honestly dude sure because most of the books were sanctioned by the WWF (in the case of the earlier ones) or the WWE (for most of the latter ones) they could have been edited (however I will point out Foley's book countdown to lockdown and Bret Hart's autobiography WERE NOT WWE BOOKS)

but sure they all could be lying, but really dude you don't have to act like the knowledge master yourself? the OP is comparing Hogan (who every person within the industry including Mark Madden who posts on this site and who was there in WCW calls a lying backstabber who threw his creative control in EVERYONE's face and changed plans at any time) to the undertaker who as i've pointed out is acknowledged as being a steadying force in the locker room (EVEN IN NON WWE BOOKS....) So please don't think you're special by throwing out "Oh you're not even true wrestling fans for believing this trash, go watch jersey shore" That's bullshit... That's just you being "holier than thou" OH I DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT GOES ON BACKSTAGE I JUST JUDGE THE PRODUCT...
Bullshit, if you didnt care about what went on backstage, or what the rumors are what the FLYING FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?!!?!?! Oh wait I know, you're just into calling random "fans" out on thinking they are "oracles to the wrestling business"

No we don't... The OP asked an opinion of all of us, we're giving our best damn answers we can based on available information... Sure we don't know everything that goes on, but neither do you. You just choose to ignore a potential source of information (yet somehow post on the site of a source of the information) and call the rest of us out for thinking that we are golden gods and know everything... sorry dude but fuck you

 

[Shotaro]

Short Answer: NO

Long Answer: The Undertaker has been in the WWE for 22 years (there or thereabouts) He's put over guys who are now considered legends during his career. He (like HBK and to an extent HHH) has earnt his status as a Legend and as such, his legacy HAS to be a factor. If he is only fit enough to do one match per year, then so be it. The streak is his legacy, Undertaker is not a Grand Slam champion (no IC belt), he's not even had the WWE/WHC championships that many times, especially compared to modern stars (7 in total). If he can only do Wrestlemania and extend the streak, then that's all he can do. He's deserved it and it is his Legacy.

To say he doesn't put anyone over is wrong anyway, he put over Kane (and to a lesser extent, the Nexus) last time he came back for a couple of months. He'll put people over, but Vince quite rightly sees that the streak is priceless. Besides, if the current trend continues then Miz may have a similar undefeated streak. He's 3-0 right now, so who knows. If he gets to 7-0 or something that'll put Miz over way more than 'taker staring at the lights for a 3 count will.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

well call it pathetic if you will to believe every "autobiography" i've read, but in this case its pretty clear that all of the stories can't be totally false... Honestly dude sure because most of the books were sanctioned by the WWF (in the case of the earlier ones) or the WWE (for most of the latter ones) they could have been edited (however I will point out Foley's book countdown to lockdown and Bret Hart's autobiography WERE NOT WWE BOOKS)

Oh I never said what goes on behind the curtain is totally false, but to put SO MUCH merit into what you read is completely pisspoor and pathetic. Whether it’s a NON-WWE publication or a WWE endorsed publication, if your main intention is to be educated and not entertained, then you’re a complete sap. In a business that still has “carnival/circus freak” DNA in it…I refuse to let my guard down to be fooled by the so called “reality” era of the wrestling business. While I have read several of these autobiographies, it’s for the sole purpose of being entertained and never educated. Because in my opinion, and pardon me for sounding sooooo condescending, but plain and simply put none of us here (myself included as I’ve said in several other posts before this one) only know this business from the fan’s perspective and not the insider’s. However, you obviously seem to think otherwise.

but sure they all could be lying, but really dude you don't have to act like the knowledge master yourself? the OP is comparing Hogan (who every person within the industry including Mark Madden who posts on this site and who was there in WCW calls a lying backstabber who threw his creative control in EVERYONE's face and changed plans at any time) to the undertaker who as i've pointed out is acknowledged as being a steadying force in the locker room (EVEN IN NON WWE BOOKS....)

I am no knowledge master, and I’ve never claimed to be…in fact my favorite saying on these parts is that “I know that I don’t know”. And forgive me for sounding like a smug prick, but that’s the way I am and I make no pretenses about it. I will not allow myself to be so easily fooled by the latest tricks the wrestling business pulls on its fan base. Especially since I’m a fan who appreciated the business when there was a finer line between fantasy and reality.

So please don't think you're special by throwing out "Oh you're not even true wrestling fans for believing this trash, go watch jersey shore" That's bullshit... That's just you being "holier than thou" OH I DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT GOES ON BACKSTAGE I JUST JUDGE THE PRODUCT...

Never said I was special but in all honesty, the wrestling business in my opinion was better when we didn’t give a flying fuck about wrestlers personal lives and other nonsense. What’s on the television screen and in the storylines is what mattered more. Begrudge me all you want for that but I could care less, it’s obvious someone like you cares more about irrelevant bullshit as opposed to the actual story being told on the screen. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making posts on here about events you only read about and never took part in. Sorry if I touched a never there, sir.

Bullshit, if you didnt care about what went on backstage, or what the rumors are what the FLYING FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?!!?!?! Oh wait I know, you're just into calling random "fans" out on thinking they are "oracles to the wrestling business"

Actually to be honest, I am into calling out armchair experts like yourself when I read your posts. Your powers of observation are so amazing….and speaking of caring, you obviously cared enough that I cared enough. Go figure Mr. Kettle, I’m the pot and it’s a pleasure to meet you, and if I’m not mistaken you’re calling me black…too funny.

So yeah, I care…I care enough to want to counter what in my opinion are bullshit statements from you.

No we don't... The OP asked an opinion of all of us, we're giving our best damn answers we can based on available information... Sure we don't know everything that goes on, but neither do you. You just choose to ignore a potential source of information (yet somehow post on the site of a source of the information) and call the rest of us out for thinking that we are golden gods and know everything... sorry dude but fuck you

Um yeah, you pretty much sound like everything I called you out on being, obviously I ruffled your feathers enough to get you to reply, and so what should that say? And not just that, but it’s more than apparent that I got your panties all tied up in a bunch to have you go and red rep me too. In closing, you’re no better so go fuck off you stupid cunt.

 

[shalliin]

The idea of comparing Undertaker to Hogan is interesting in respect to the biggest contrast between the two: Hogan spent his on-stage career acknowledging the fans while Undertaker did the exact opposite. As 'Taker's persona goes, he could have been wrestling in an empty arena; if fans were cheering or booing him, he wouldn't acknowledge it. Yet, both men have been among the most popular wrestlers in history.

Of course, none of us really know what Mark Callaway is like behind the scenes; whether he has put some performers over or held back others. I tend to think of him as being like his on-air character, which he probably isn't.

Again, I have no idea of the politics involved, yet I keep thinking that Callaway has presented WWE with this option: Insist I work a regular schedule and I'll retire in two years.....or, let me perform once a year and I'll work the next ten Wrestlemanias.

Which option would you choose?

And this makes the point very well. Taker unlike hogan does not bring backstage crap into the public eye. He doesn't seek out attention but goes about his business quietly and with respect for the business and the other wrestlers. His private life is private and out of the public eye as much as possible. He has been quoted in the past regarding his intentions for his career and life and how he plans on the future after his career is over.

He's never publicaly talked down any one on the roster or pushed himself to grab attnetion away from the ring. He's done everything the WWE has asked of when when needed, and in recent years as his on screen has faded, he's been scouting talent for them in a variety of independants and grading FCW talent at HHH's request. This shows what kind of respect the WWE has for him, when they ask for his opinion on potential stars for their future.

The one potential issue might be Brock, but that was more on that a$$clowns part since Brock didn't want to job to Taker after all the work Taker did letting Brock run all over him. There were rumors |(and I don't know for sure since I wasn't there) that part of Brock's leaving when and how he did in the first place was because he didn't want to lost clean to Taker.

 

[abhilash81]

taker put a lot many guys over, most notably brock lesnar at no mercx 2002 and royal rumble 2003. He put kane over last year. Its just that vince wants him to win matches and he can't do anything about it....he even wants the streak to end but vince won't let that happen.

 

[Latinoeddy]

Undertaker should not lose again. He's only coming in part time for Wrestlemania now, and he's only going face top level guys because a mid carder like Dolph Ziggler doesn't stand a chance at ending the streak.

As far as his career goes, Undertaker rarely lost, especially in the 90s. But if he did lose to just any mid carder, then beating him wouldn't mean as much. He put over the top guys (Austin, Brock, Batista, etc.), and never was THE guy, but he was always a guy who consistenly won, and that's how it should be. He's a top level guy, and guys like him, Cena, Austin, Rock, etc., shouldn't be losing that much, especially not clean.

 

[Jmarks]

No, no, just no. When it comes to putting people over, politics, doing what's best for business, and personal lives...Hogan and Taker couldn't be more opposite. Undertaker has typically been a guy, who was all about business. He was the type of guy, who put the the buisness before himself and his ego. Taker has always been a guy, who didn't mind putting over a talent. Hell he put over Khali for sobbing out loud. With Hogan, it was the polar opposite. Hogan had a history of putting his ego before business.

And again, Taker has put over plenty of guys..from Stone Cold in the Summer of 98 (b/c it was good business) to having Khali place his foot on him and get a victory at Judgment Day 2006. Hell he had Maven eliminate him from the Rumble, allowing Maven to have a moment. He helped get Orton back on track, after HHH pretty much buried him to nothing in their 2004 feud. So IMO, to say Taker never put anybody over is tad insane and comparing him to Hogan, in that respect, is damn near blasphemy.

As for Taker only facing huge names now instead of somebody like Ziggler, at WM...look I love Ziggler, but he doesn't belong in the ring with Taker at WM. After having classics with HBK and HHH, he should face Ziggler? I don't think so. Not only would that match not sell, but it would be way too predictable. HBK and HHH can't end the streak but the almighty Dolph Ziggler can? I just don't see it. The streak is a huge selling point for WM. Hell it's bigger than the damn title matches. A match of that caliber should only be reserved for huge names, like an HBK or a HHH or a John Cena. Cody Rhodes? Ziggler? Miz? No, just no.

When it comes to the legacy of Taker and Hogan (as far as backstage antics, peer opinion, industry feelings towards both) I always say its a reason that Taker rarely if ever has anybody bash him in shoot interviews. They'll trash HHH, Vince, ect....but never Taker. Hogan on the other hand, gets crap thrown his way alot. IMO, that speaks volumes.

 

[Texas Tornado]

Taker was vocal about this but take a look at Taker over the last few years. I don't care about him winning at Mania - that is Vince's decision and a good gimmick - but look at who he wrestled over the last 4 years - HBK and HHH. both guys were already established and he had wrestled both guys before on several occasions(you can take away one of HBK's matches since it was his retirement match and he should wrestle whoever he likes).<<True