More "good" news for TNA: Chyna

1305928814-81.jpg
 
Okay, I will. When was the last time that guy drew? I'm thinking early 90s. Fact is, he WAS the icon. He was the face of wrestling maybe 3 generations ago. Today, when the general person thinks of wrestling, they think of either Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, or John Cena, because these guys were here when wrestling was at the height of its popularity, while Hogan and his friends were effectively killing WCW.

WCW had worse times than that my good man, trust me, when the Crocketts were still running it, they overexerted themselves with business acquisitions like the UWF (Bill Watts old company, which is how Sting got his big break) then Ted Turner saved the company by buying it in 88. For the next few years they still struggled but Turner was willing to cover the losses.

When Hogan got there in the mid-90s for a guy that couldn't seem to draw past the earlier part of the decade like you claim, it seems he did a pretty damned good job with what's that angle again...oh yeah the nWo. Yeah Hall and Nash were important to that, but seriously the third man could have been no one else, it had to be Hogan, it worked and it sold. Tell me then if you were booking and creating storylines who would your pick have been for the third man then, La Parka, El Dandy, Sgt. Craig Pittman, or maybe even Yoshi Kwan...I am sure you'd probably have found those to all be better picks since Hogan couldn't draw past the early 90s.

As far as Hogan aiding in WCW's demise, I call bullshit on that one. There were bigger factors with WCW, in fact Eric Bischoff and Fusient media would have been more than happy to take the financial losses Turner Networks had to endure and they would have ran the company while Turner networks kept WCW programming on the air, in fact even in its worst days WCW was still drawing better numbers than anything Turner had on its networks. The fact is Turner lost controlling interest in WCW and the company was losing money but Turner networks would have had nothing to lose if they kept the programming on the air and sold the company much like Jim Crockett did in the 80s to Ted Turner. But AOL Time Warner and the programming president said no go, and again all they would have had to invest was advertising dollars while Bischoff and his investors would have been in charge of the company and owning it. Granted I can surely say that the financial losses did not motivate AOL Time Warner to keep it running, but considering viewership was still rather good there would have been no harm in keeping them on the air, even if they had to eliminate one or two programs to do so.

So seriously come up with a better argument and look at the company's history before you go and put Hulk Hogan in the rogues gallery of WCW's killers. Hogan still has a presence and granted maybe it would have been better for him to stay with WWE under a legends deal where he's on TV for a special RAW appearance every now and then but I give him no animus for wanting to go into business by himself and oh as far as Hogan's profile amongst general wrestling fans, why would he be on the cover of WWE All Stars if the common wrestling fan today would not know who he was? Granted he shared the cover with other superstars, but a guy who's not even with WWE is on the cover of a WWE wrestling game, that should tell you something. Seriously...oh and sorry kid but John Cena didn't show up on the scene until AFTER the Monday Night Wars were said and done...(Summer of 2002 is when he made his debut, he was never around when WWF and WCW were going at it, which is what I assume you are referring to as the height of wrestling).
 
WCW had worse times than that my good man, trust me, when the Crocketts were still running it, they overexerted themselves with business acquisitions like the UWF (Bill Watts old company, which is how Sting got his big break) then Ted Turner saved the company by buying it in 88. For the next few years they still struggled but Turner was willing to cover the losses.

That's debatable. What's worse, having 10 dollars and losing 9 dollars, or having 10 million dollars and losing 9 million?

When Hogan got there in the mid-90s for a guy that couldn't see to draw part the earlier part of the decade like you claim, it seems he did a pretty damned good job with what's that angle again...oh yeah the nWo. Yeah Hall and Nash were important to that, but seriously the third man could have been no one else, it had to be Hogan, it worked and it sold.

Yeah, it worked. When it happened. It worked, peaked, declined, and stayed on a course of rapid decline for like 5 years.

As far as Hogan aiding in WCW's demise, I call bullshit on that one. There were bigger factors with WCW, in fact Eric Bischoff and Fusient media would have been more than happy to take the financial losses Turner Networks had to endure and they would have ran the company while Turner networks kept WCW programming on the air, in fact even in its worst days WCW was still drawing better numbers than anything Turner had on its networks. The fact is Turner lost controlling interest in WCW and the company was losing money but Turner networks would have had nothing to lose if they kept the programming on the air and sold the company much like Jim Crockett did in the 80s to Ted Turner. But AOL Time Warner and the programming president said no go, and again all they would have had to invest was advertising dollars while Bischoff and his investors would have been in charge of the company and owning it. Granted I can surely say that the financial losses did not motivate AOL Time Warner to keep it running, but considering viewership was still rather good there would have been no harm in keeping them on the air, even if they had to eliminate one or two programs to do so.

So basically, you read Bischoff's book, and took his word that the only problem with WCW was Time Warner? Nothing to do with the bland, ridiculous storylines, nWo, hemorrhaging money, the WWF being better, the politics, "inmates-running-the-asylum" policy, the lack of communication between anybody running the show, and the lack of anyone except for Hogan and the people he liked going over in any and every match?

But okay, Time Warner had it out for Bischoff and Time Warner, and they're the only reason why the WCW doesn't exist today.

Hogan still has a presence

Of course he has a presence. A large part of wrestling being what it is today has a lot to do with him. That doesn't mean what he's doing now isn't stupid. He came to TNA with the promise of making it the best wrestling company around, and after he and Bischoff jumped aboard, TNA got worse.

oh as far as Hogan's profile amongst general wrestling fans, why would he be on the cover of WWE All Stars if the common wrestling fan today would not know who he was? Granted he shared the cover with other superstars, but a guy who's not even with WWE is on the cover of a WWE wrestling game, that should tell you something. Seriously...

Because he's a wrestling All-Star? Because the WWE can use his name, image, and likeness with zero cost to them? Because it would have been silly not to include him? I'm not saying Hogan isn't who he is, he's still one of the biggest names professional wrestling has ever seen, but there have been bigger names. Hogan did not draw in his prime nearly the amount he did when he was the leader of the nWo, and even then, he was beaten by Mankind, then consistently after that.

oh and sorry kid but John Cena didn't show up on the scene until AFTER the Monday Night Wars were said and done...(Summer of 2002 is when he made his debut, he was never around when WWF and WCW were going at it, which is what I assume you are referring to as the height of wrestling).

Way to be a condescending douche AND prove an inability to comprehend writing. I said John Cena was the face of his generation, while Austin and Rocky were the face of theirs. This isn't only about the MNW.
 
I think some of the vitriol we see from folks here is based on their desire to see the good old NWO days again. We constantly see people harken back to the brilliance of Bischoff, Russo, Hogan and company during their run with Turner/WCW. What those folks continue to find trouble coping with is that they failed. At the end of the day, WCW FAILED!!! They lost and WWE won! Simple as that. No spin, no amount of debate is going to change those facts.

My suggestion is that people simply move on. The truth NOW is Hogan, Bischoff, and company are NOT out-drawing the WWE in any way, shape, or form. And it's not likely they will anytime soon. Hogan doesn't like VKM and wanted his own deal. Well now he's got it. He's been there what a couple of years now? Still no significant bump in anything, so it's clear his glory years are now behind him.

Time to build new stars Hulkie and move on with your life. (and for you old school NWO fans as well.)
 
That's debatable. What's worse, having 10 dollars and losing 9 dollars, or having 10 million dollars and losing 9 million?

Just the same, if Turner hadn't bought JCP, there would be no WCW kid. Granted you weren't even a gleam in your daddy's eye when all this was going down, so I'll give you something of a free pass since it seems like you're not one for the history of the business and are probably conditioned to believe everything you read on the internet.

Yeah, it worked. When it happened. It worked, peaked, declined, and stayed on a course of rapid decline for like 5 years.

It still worked though, say what you want bitch all you want but WWF was given a real run for their money with the storyline and it worked, you can't dispute that fact. No matter how tired the angle got, but of course it's not like WWF could ever do any wrong, right?

So basically, you read Bischoff's book, and took his word that the only problem with WCW was Time Warner? Nothing to do with the bland, ridiculous storylines, nWo, hemorrhaging money, the WWF being better, the politics, "inmates-running-the-asylum" policy, the lack of communication between anybody running the show, and the lack of anyone except for Hogan and the people he liked going over in any and every match?

Uh no, I actually looked at the numbers WCW was pulling and granted it wasn't anything great compared to the nWo heyday but they still had viewership. Don't ever underestimate the southern wrestling fan base, there were still plenty of WCW fans even if the numbers weren't as great. WCW was sold to Fusient originally and not the WWF and there was an intention to keep the company running on TBS and TNT.

If you need some education like most smarks do then here you go:

Canoe Wrestling Covers WCW Sale to Fusient

WCW Fusient Media Press Release

WCW Nitro Ratings History - (Again I know WCW had some really lame storylines and not everything Hogan did was gold, but still WCW still had viewership even if it wasn't record setting.)

Jamie Kellner Drops WCW from programming at Turner - From New York Times

This information pre-dates Eric Bischoff's book by YEARS. So nice try on calling me out, too bad you fucked it up. Like the great Roddy Piper said never throw rocks at a man with a machine gun.

So yeah kid, it looks like I didn't need Eric Bischoff to tell me all that, and for the record I never read his book, moron.

But okay, Time Warner had it out for Bischoff and Time Warner, and they're the only reason why the WCW doesn't exist today.

I never said anything about Time Warner having anything out for Bischoff you stupid fool, I'm just telling you that wrestling was obviously not on the list of programming that Turner Networks wanted to have. Again, a huge cost would have been saved by them with having to run the company, but given the fact that there was still a decent enough amount of viewership compared to the rest of the programming they had on their networks, they would have had nothing to lose by selling to Fusient and keeping WCW on the air, it was a long running staple on their programming.

I can't wait to see your rebuttal, smark.
 
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what WCW did, or how much of a run they gave WWF at the time. Those days are long gone now, WCW went out of business (so to speak), and they failed. It's that simple. Great run. Didn't last. Poor leadership no matter how you look at it.
 
I think some of the vitriol we see from folks here is based on their desire to see the good old NWO days again. We constantly see people harken back to the brilliance of Bischoff, Russo, Hogan and company during their run with Turner/WCW. What those folks continue to find trouble coping with is that they failed. At the end of the day, WCW FAILED!!! They lost and WWE won! Simple as that. No spin, no amount of debate is going to change those facts.

My suggestion is that people simply move on. The truth NOW is Hogan, Bischoff, and company are NOT out-drawing the WWE in any way, shape, or form. And it's not likely they will anytime soon. Hogan doesn't like VKM and wanted his own deal. Well now he's got it. He's been there what a couple of years now? Still no significant bump in anything, so it's clear his glory years are now behind him.

Time to build new stars Hulkie and move on with your life. (and for you old school NWO fans as well.)

WCW did not fail, it was a long running company that went through a lot of different owners over the years and sadly lost its supporters like Ted Turner, the company's roots go all the way back to 1931 as Jim Crockett Promotions and lasted until 2001 when WCW was sold to WWF. And if you don't think the same thing can't ever happen to WWE, trust me it can. Don't be so blind to the history of the wrestling business that any company is immune to a rise and fall.

I'm not looking for the nWo to come back, but I am just making observations that people like you and other fans can't seen to wrap your heads around the concepts of. That's not my problem, that's yours.
 
What's your problem, dick? This is a wrestling conversation, not a cockfight. Chill out.

Just the same, if Turner hadn't bought JCP, there would be no WCW kid. Granted you weren't even a gleam in your daddy's eye when all this was going down, so I'll give you something of a free pass since it seems like you're not one for the history of the business and are probably conditioned to believe everything you read on the internet.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The fact is, WCW didn't get shut down simply because the TW guys didn't like the product. It's because it was bleeding money and it was a terrible product at the state it was in.

It still worked though, say what you want bitch all you want but WWF was given a real run for their money with the storyline and it worked, you can't dispute that fact. No matter how tired the angle got, but of course it's not like WWF could ever do any wrong, right?

And the WWF would have lost if it were for the countless mistakes and stupid decisions. I never said the WWF did everything right, but you can count on the fact that the WCW made an infinite amount more mistakes than the WWF did.

Uh no, I actually looked at the numbers WCW was pulling and granted it wasn't anything great compared to the nWo heyday but they still had viewership. Don't ever underestimate the southern wrestling fan base, there were still plenty of WCW fans even if the numbers weren't as great. WCW was sold to Fusient originally and not the WWF and there was an intention to keep the company running on TBS and TNT.

The WWF had more. Deal with it..

If you need some education like most smarks do then here you go:

Canoe Wrestling Covers WCW Sale to Fusient

WCW Fusient Media Press Release

WCW Nitro Ratings History - (Again I know WCW had some really lame storylines and not everything Hogan did was gold, but still WCW still had viewership even if it wasn't record setting.)

Jamie Kellner Drops WCW from programming at Turner - From New York Times

This information pre-dates Eric Bischoff's book by YEARS. So nice try on calling me out, too bad you fucked it up. Like the great Roddy Piper said never throw rocks at a man with a machine gun.

The WWE had more. By a large margin. No one had ever said the WCW was pulling in ratings of 0. Of fucking course it had viewers. But it was losing, and badly. That was the point of the Monday Night Wars. It was a ratings war. And the WCW lost it, and their money, and their flagship show.

I never said anything about Time Warner having anything out for Bischoff you stupid fool, I'm just telling you that wrestling was obviously not on the list of programming that Turner Networks wanted to have. Again, a huge cost would have been saved by them with having to run the company, but given the fact that there was still a decent enough amount of viewership compared to the rest of the programming they had on their networks, they would have had nothing to lose by selling to Fusient and keeping WCW on the air, it was a long running staple on their programming.

If you seriously think that the only reason the WCW is gone is because TW/Turner simply didn't want them on TV anymore, then you're deluded.

I can't wait to see your rebuttal, smark.

You clearly have anger issues, stemming from the immense amount of butthurt you received from the early 2000s trolling you took up your ass when WCW went under. You shouldn't take that out on me.
 
I wonder if Chyna is friends with some other porn stars. Could she get Jenna Haze to TNA? Jenna vs Velvet for the TNA Knockouts Title. Wait that sounds like porno too.
 
WCW did not fail, it was a long running company that went through a lot of different owners over the years and sadly lost its supporters like Ted Turner, the company's roots go all the way back to 1931 as Jim Crockett Promotions and lasted until 2001 when WCW was sold to WWF. And if you don't think the same thing can't ever happen to WWE, trust me it can. Don't be so blind to the history of the wrestling business that any company is immune to a rise and fall.

I'm not looking for the nWo to come back, but I am just making observations that people like you and other fans can't seen to wrap your heads around the concepts of. That's not my problem, that's yours.



1. Does WCW exist any longer? Answer: No.

2. Why? Because they failed. If they had succeeded there's a VERY good chance they would still exist apart from WWE.

As for my knowledge of wrestling history, I've been watching for some 30 years now and I've seen the same thing in the wrestling industry that I've seen in the retail industry. The big dogs win the little dogs lose. At the end of the day the reason is that the big dogs produce a better overall product and get that product in more peoples' hands than the little dogs. (i.e. Big box retail pushing out the Mom and Pop stores.) When a company doesn't have the ability to grow with the competition, they fail to exist. Now, you can say they bowed out gracefully all you like, but the bottom line is WWE drove WCW out of business. Like it or not, those are the facts.
 
What's your problem, dick? This is a wrestling conversation, not a cockfight. Chill out.

Actually you were being the dick first, plain and simple. It's assholes like you that really piss me off because you can't handle being called out on the ludicrous bullshit you say.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The fact is, WCW didn't get shut down simply because the TW guys didn't like the product. It's because it was bleeding money and it was a terrible product at the state it was in.

Read the links idiot, WCW was being sold originally to Fusient by Turner networks and the press clipping said that they were going to keep the wrestling on the network. However, a change in the head of the programming department decided to cancel any wrestling shows and that left Fusient without a leg to stand on in the purchase of the organization. Therefore the company went back on the market and WWF picked it up. But the bottom line is this there were plans to keep WCW on the air no matter how bad the programming got.

And the WWF would have lost if it were for the countless mistakes and stupid decisions. I never said the WWF did everything right, but you can count on the fact that the WCW made an infinite amount more mistakes than the WWF did.

And I am not saying WCW didn't screw up a lot, but it seemed that until Jamie Kellner came on board, WCW was still going to have a home and have new ownership, how long the new owners could have kept it going was debatable, but until Jamie Kellner, WCW did have a shot at continuing on, much like it did when JCP sold their organization to Turner.

The WWF had more. Deal with it..

Didn't say I wasn't, but for your sake be careful who you call deluded when it's obvious that you don't know the whole history of the WCW sale like you think you do.

The WWE had more. By a large margin. No one had ever said the WCW was pulling in ratings of 0. Of fucking course it had viewers. But it was losing, and badly. That was the point of the Monday Night Wars. It was a ratings war. And the WCW lost it, and their money, and their flagship show.

If you seriously think that the only reason the WCW is gone is because TW/Turner simply didn't want them on TV anymore, then you're deluded.

I can't be any more deluded than you are by thinking that Hulk Hogan was the leader in killing WCW like you said. I love how you decided to leave out ideas like Vince Russo and David Arquette winning the WCW World Title. I am sure guys like Hogan really wanted to see that happen, right?

I do believe though that there could have been a chance for WCW to still exist had the original sale gone through, I can't guarantee that, but who knows. However, don't go calling me deluded when I hear your smarkish bullshit answer of "Well Hulk Hogan and Friends Killed WCW". And yeah I know TNA isn't setting the world on fire but by saying they are doing worse is outright stupid too.

And you have the nerve of calling me a dick when you're the one saying all the smark stuff...you stupid asshole.


You clearly have anger issues, stemming from the immense amount of butthurt you received from the early 2000s trolling you took up your ass when WCW went under. You shouldn't take that out on me.

Who the hell are you to talk about that, it's not like you aren't throwing the insults either, I can man up and admit to my condescending asshole nature, but don't cry "victim" here and not think you aren't doing the same thing. Jerkass.
 
1. Does WCW exist any longer? Answer: No.

No you're right on that. I won't argue, there.

2. Why? Because they failed. If they had succeeded there's a VERY good chance they would still exist apart from WWE.

As for my knowledge of wrestling history, I've been watching for some 30 years now and I've seen the same thing in the wrestling industry that I've seen in the retail industry. The big dogs win the little dogs lose. At the end of the day the reason is that the big dogs produce a better overall product and get that product in more peoples' hands than the little dogs. (i.e. Big box retail pushing out the Mom and Pop stores.) When a company doesn't have the ability to grow with the competition, they fail to exist. Now, you can say they bowed out gracefully all you like, but the bottom line is WWE drove WCW out of business. Like it or not, those are the facts.

Bottom line is that for 70 plus years that area of the country had a wrestling market, and that's a very good success rate, granted it went through several different owners and had chaos run amok in the organization, but it still lasted. It might have failed in its battle with the MNW with WWF, but as a company it had some success. There's no denying that. I mean if that's what you think then did the territory system that preceded big name companies like WWF, WCW and the AWA fail then?
 
No you're right on that. I won't argue, there.



Bottom line is that for 70 plus years that area of the country had a wrestling market, and that's a very good success rate, granted it went through several different owners and had chaos run amok in the organization, but it still lasted. It might have failed in its battle with the MNW with WWF, but as a company it had some success. There's no denying that. I mean if that's what you think then did the territory system that preceded big name companies like WWF, WCW and the AWA fail then?



Yes, I think those companies failed because they refused to change with the times. They refused to grow beyond their base. In other words, and for whatever reason, they got Walmart-ed, so to speak.

Do I like that it happened? Absolutely not because I really enjoyed that programming much more than I enjoy what's being produced today. I loved the old NWA, and the UWF was very good as well. Heck, I even enjoyed the AWA and really enjoyed the old-school Midnight Rockers, Col. DeBeers, Scott Hall (pre-dope), Greg Gagne, and all the rest. It was great stuff and I watched it religiously. But eventually they went the way of the dinosaur. (except for an occasional episode of the AWA running in syndication on ESPN2 late at night.)

But yes, they all failed. Now the reasons may be many and varied, but the fact is they failed. When a store in your locale shuts down, no one wonders about the why, all they know is it closed, which is all that matters. Results are what matters, not intentions.
 
Actually you were being the dick first, plain and simple. It's assholes like you that really piss me off because you can't handle being called out on the ludicrous bullshit you say.

Calling me "kid" in order to belittle my opinion. Yeah, you're deluded AND a dick.

And you have the nerve of calling me a dick when you're the one saying all the smark stuff...you stupid asshole.

HE SAID SMARK STUFF! ATTACK! ATTAAAAACK!

Who the hell are you to talk about that, it's not like you aren't throwing the insults either, I can man up and admit to my condescending asshole nature, but don't cry "victim" here and not think you aren't doing the same thing. Jerkass.

I called you a condescending douche when you called me "kid" in order to belittle my opinions, and I've since realized it's not worth having a serious discussion with you. I feel like I'm back arguing about the Monday Night Wars on a BBS in 1999. You are repeating yourself, spewing off deluded versions of history, blaming falling ratings and buyrates on Turner for some reason, and being a massive douche bag on top of it.

You are hard-headed, aggressive, and I'm not going to waste anymore intelligence on some moron who needs to use his age in order to invalidate others' opinions.

You can respond to me all you want, but I am done with this thread until you can settle down from your little temper tantrum and decide to have a mature, adult discussion about grown men who pretend to fight in their underwear.
 
Calling me "kid" in order to belittle my opinion. Yeah, you're deluded AND a dick.



HE SAID SMARK STUFF! ATTACK! ATTAAAAACK!



I called you a condescending douche when you called me "kid" in order to belittle my opinions, and I've since realized it's not worth having a serious discussion with you. I feel like I'm back arguing about the Monday Night Wars on a BBS in 1999. You are repeating yourself, spewing off deluded versions of history, blaming falling ratings and buyrates on Turner for some reason, and being a massive douche bag on top of it.

You are hard-headed, aggressive, and I'm not going to waste anymore intelligence on some moron who needs to use his age in order to invalidate others' opinions.

You can respond to me all you want, but I am done with this thread until you can settle down from your little temper tantrum and decide to have a mature, adult discussion about grown men who pretend to fight in their underwear.

I gotta call it like I see it, you see at least with Brian In Austin, he challenged my opinions and came at me with substance, you don't have a single bit of substance in anything and everything you've said. You're the one who's going to be bold enough to call me immature and think I believe everything that Eric Bischoff ever said, screw off if you think that.

Like I said I was reading what happened in the news outside of the wrestling world when the WCW sale was going down, you obviously didn't. But please don't bring maturity into this, you brought this on yourself, by reusing the tired old rumor mill of "Hulk and his buddies" when there was more to WCW ending than just that warrants that you deserve no merit on this issue.
 
I gotta call it like I see it, you see at least with Brian In Austin, he challenged my opinions and came at me with substance, you don't have a single bit of substance in anything and everything you've said. You're the one who's going to be bold enough to call me immature and think I believe everything that Eric Bischoff ever said, screw off if you think that.

Like I said I was reading what happened in the news outside of the wrestling world when the WCW sale was going down, you obviously didn't. But please don't bring maturity into this, you brought this on yourself, by reusing the tired old rumor mill of "Hulk and his buddies" when there was more to WCW ending than just that warrants that you deserve no merit on this issue.



I agree with you about the fall of WCW and appreciate your efforts to educate myself and others on the subject. There's no question that there are a LOT of factors at play but the bottom line was someone with "the company" didn't want wrestling on their air. Sadly, I believe that was a mistake. Now, if the brand of WCW was losing money that adds more fuel to the notion that there were more problems than just someone sitting at a big oak desk deciding the fate of WCW. It speaks to poor leadership of that brand, whomever was running it. (Be that Bischoff, Russo, and Hogan (was he booking matches and determining finishes?) I've read a lot about Hogan not wanting to put over other wrestlers in both WWE and WCW. Weird thing there is I distinctly remember watching an interview with him when he and Andre had their epic PPV match and how Andre told him pre-match that he was going to put Hulk over that night and pass the torch. Those were Hogan's words on the subject. So it strikes me as odd that Hogan, all those years later, would not want to do the same for another up and comer. I don't KNOW that to be true, but I'm saying it's been bandied about.
 
yeah, it's not much of an issue for tna, but I am suprised nobodies mentioned that Mickie James did porn back in the day. Not knocking anyone for doing what they gotta do to make money and quite frankly am glad Mickie did one. She's hot

Post of the day! I'll be looking this up, later!
 
Post of the day! I'll be looking this up, later!



Ahhh, but the difference is that MJ did that YEARS ago and has distanced herself from those days. She has since kept herself far from things like that, started her own music career, such as it is, and has become a very successful wrestler now with 2 organizations. By all appearances, she is not that same person anymore, whereas folks like Laurer seem intent on staying that way and not changing for the better.
 
Ahhh, but the difference is that MJ did that YEARS ago and has distanced herself from those days. She has since kept herself far from things like that, started her own music career, such as it is, and has become a very successful wrestler now with 2 organizations. By all appearances, she is not that same person anymore, whereas folks like Laurer seem intent on staying that way and not changing for the better.

Honestly, I have no personal politics in the matter. I think people can do as much porn as they want and I won't care. Moar bewbies 4 meez!

I do think doing any porn, if she is, will hurt Chyna's chances to revive her wrestling career, if that's her goal. Most people aren't as open as I am.
 
At the end of the day, its just porn..? Its not like she finna get naked on television, thought i wouldnt be suprised cus its Toss -N- Action.. Chances are we wont even see Chyna again in the next few weeks
 
Well it looks like Chyna and her agent both lied when they claimed that Laurer hadn't done another film, as the company that produced the video has now released a trailer for it.

Nice job TNA. Way to hire this trashy woman for a PPV.
 
I personally don't see the big deal in them hiring her. The flick was obviously done before they hired her, so it's not like they could have changed that, and they probably didnt even know about it until after the signing and everything was done. I also don't think that she is trying to revive her career. I think it was just a means to make some money and she took it. If she really wanted to return to wrestling she could. She just needs the money, thus, the porn came back into picture.

As far as the mickie james comparisons going around, who cares? Justifying one and condemning the other is not called for. They both did it, they both moved on, and one went back. Who cares? They both sell sex appeal in nearly everything they do anyway. Whatever way they decide to make money is their business and their problem, because they are both grown women.
 
But what each does impacts the companies they represent. Mickie James left that life far behind. Laurer has not. For TNA to have hired "Chyna" was yet another example of their trying to capitalize on name recognition, and not doing their due diligence. Sort of like when they hired Jeff Hardy.

A short time ago I posted a list of wrestlers hired by TNA and their respective 'issues.'
The trend is that TNA makes a habit of hiring drug abusers, alchoholics, and now porn queens. Not very good when you are trying to build a viable brand with a cable network.
 
But chyna isn't a "porn queen". She had a flick, and she did another. If that was the case, all of the companies who hire any celebrity that has a sex tape would look bad. Alos, TNA isn't swaying away from having an adult audience like the WWE is (which isn't bashing anyone, just stating opinion) with their PG era. You can't miss talent because the person who has the talents has made bad decisions. Now in the case of Jeff Hardy, if the decisions affect the product of the company, then yes, it's a problem, but until that happens, I don't see a problem with it. They sell sex anyway, and publicity is good for business. Both bad, and good.
 
But in my judgement, TNA made a poor decision with Chyna and with Hardy.

1. Hardy was a known drug user/abuser/addict before TNA hired him and they did so anyway. There's not a company in this country, outside of one desperate for help, that would do the same thing. In the end, they got exactly what they paid for. A drug addict who affected their product in a very bad way, and more than once.

2. Hiring Chyna again showed their desperation to create headlines by bringing in someone who hadn't been active in wrestling for a decade, had already produced one porn tape, and either was working on or had already completed a second one.

So I do question the hiring practices of TNA. Now I could go on listing other poor hiring decisions made by TNA, but it would be like rehashing old news. Suffice it to say, their efforts, again, fell flat. They aren't garnering more viewers on tv, aren't gaining PPV buys, and now they are without both Chyna and Hardy. This when they already have talented people on their roster they could be using, but at times just won't. Interesting to say the least.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,826
Messages
3,300,733
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top