I like how Hogan marks start a Hogan suckfest thread and immediately gang up on anyone who doesn't agree with them. What's the point in a discussion thread if you don't want to have a discussion? You can't prove that Hogan is good for TNA because the PPV buyrates havent increased and the ratings havent gone up. That's all information that's released to the public. I can blame Hogan and you can blame everyone else in TNA, but both of our differing opinions will remain subjective. That's kinda what makes it an opinion.
I refer to him as Bollea because that's his name: Terry Bollea. Of course, he forgot his own name about 20 years ago and actually believes he's the character, Hulk Hogan. It sounds like all you Hogan marks believe he's actually Hogan too. "Say your prayers and eat your steroids little Hulkamaniacs and one day you too can be world champion and a card carrying member of the AARP at the same time, brother!"
Maybe the ratings suck because they've been centering the major storyline of the show around old has-been's and doing more talking and less wrestling in a feeble attempt to mimic the E in WWE. Maybe TNA should go back to putting the A in TNA which was the only thing they were good at.
You've got just as much evidence supporting your opinion as I've got supporting mine. It's all conjecture in a discussion forum. You don't know what Hogan is really like behind the scenes so how can you blindly defend him? By the same token, I don't know what Hogan is really like behind the scenes so how can I blindly bash him? It's simple. There's far more credible people who have worked with the man that have said the same negative things than there are people who say positive things.
It goes back to my Michael Jackson analogy from an earlier post. Everyone but Jackson's fans were saying the same thing about him over and over for decades; his fans were the only ones who stuck by him despite all the unfounded rumors. Since I was never a fan of Jackson, and the guy looked like he shouldve been on an episode of X-Files, I was more inclined to side with the negative viewpoint. I was never a fan of Hogan's so I'm more inclined to believe the negative viewpoint about him as well. Nobody on the outside knows if the rumors about Jackson were true. Nobody on the outside knows if the rumors about Hogan are true. And guess what? Everyone reading this right now is on the outside looking in so everything you can present to support your argument is anecdotal at best.
Yes, let's go back to your original Michael Jackson point. I made a sarcastic comment about how well you must know Hogan to have such an insight into his off-camera character.
Your reply was that you didn't know Jackson but still wouldn't leave your kids with him.
That's such a ridiculous comparison that it's not even funny.
Michael Jackson was charged with molestation twice. That gives you a fairly good insight into Michael Jackson as a person.
However, you have a serious hatred for Hulk Hogan based off of interviews, shoots and "insider" reports made by people who you have NEVER met about someone you have NEVER met.
If Hogan was charged with kicking the shit out of an old woman and leaving her in critical condition then your level of hatred for Hogan, like the MJ comparison, would be somewhat understandable if not to be expected.
There's a big difference between judging someone over the accusations faced by Michael Jackson and judging somebody based on "insider" reports. Making a comparison between the two is completely ridiculous.
Your hatred of "Bollea" is based on what? He didn't put over your favourite wrestler? You must have very little else going on in your life if that evokes this level of emotional response from you. Dude, you're clearly far too emotionally invested in wrestling and I'd suggest you find something else to obsess over.
I don't like how Axl Rose treated the other GnR members. If I had the same level of hatred for Rose, whom I have never and WILL never meet, that you do for Hogan (based off of what 3rd parties have said) I would genuinely seek help from a therapist. I'm not saying that to belittle you or your argument, I'm being genuinely honest.
I don't like that Axl Rose broke up one of my favourite bands but I've never met him, never heard his side of events and wasn't there when the events took place. As such, while I can certainly dislike Axl Rose, if I were to possess a blinding hatred of him I would seek help.
This thread showcases my biggest pet peeves with the IWC:
1: Thinking you have an insight into the workings of someone's mind, know their intentions, know their off-screen character, etc, etc based off of dirtsheets.
None of us know these guys. 'Nor will we ever know these guys. As such, while it's fair enough to say "I don't think such and such will like it if that other guy is brought in", it's different to start making broad accusations about someone's character. Someone you DON'T know.
I could read every tabloid article about Rihanna every day for fifteen years. Will I know Rihanna after that? Will I have an insight into her mind and know exactly why she does the things she does? No. I've never met her, I don't know her whatsoever.
This is the biggest problem with our generation, imo. You think you're above celebrity culture and the mindset of the teenagers reading gossip magazines. However, you seem to possess the same mind-set as them: "I read third party information and thus know that person intimately".
Our generation is socialised into making snap judgements about people we've never met. You're no different.
I bet you, like many people my age, roll their eyes when they hear pre-teen girls talking about One Direction and all of the bandmembers personalities, etc. Like me, you may wonder why they feel so intimately close to and feel they know these people they've never met so well. You're doing the exact same thing but approaching it from a different angle.
Moving swiftly on.
I know what you're going to say about me. I'm a Hogan mark. Nothing is further from the truth. I loved the NWO and Hogan when I was six years old, not so much anything afterwards. I just don't like his work, I'm not interested by it. Unlike you, however, I'm not arrogant enough to think that because I don't like something that it isn't a good idea.
That's my IWC Pet-Peeve 2:
Many of them cannot take a step back and analyse decisions based off of anything but their opinion, likes/dislikes on the product. There is little to no understanding/attemp at understanding the underlying business, social trends, any other relevant factors. Wrestling is not black and white. Try looking at things objectively.
After my last post I said that Hogan winning the belt makes for a good journalism piece/story. Your reponse was that the fictional "Wrestler" was a good story.
I think you're failing to see the differece between fact and fiction, son.
TNA's biggest problem, as has been noted here, is exposure. The product is good and they're getting their act together with every day, imo.
Do you think appearing in every tabloid newspaper, every celebrity blog/news site, etc, etc is bad for business? That gives exposure. Appearing on the front page of TMZ gives you exposure. Appearing in the Daily Sun/Mirror, etc, etc, gives you exposure.
Wrestling fans (that used to be a collective 10 points in Monday Night Wars days) that have fallen away from the product might go "hm, might tune into that" and find they enjoy TNA's product.
I can assure you that nothing short of Hogan winning the belt, and to make it even more of a juicy story breaking the record for oldest WHC an aforementioned poster mentioned, will make mainstream media outlets pay any attention to TNA. There is nothing else they can do to achieve that.
Hell, having Brock Lesnar win the big one wouldn't translate into as much media coverage for the WWE as Hogan would for TNA.
Sorry to sound big headed but I'm going into my 3rd year of journalism I think I have a better understanding of PR/media than most people on this site.
You don't like Hogan, that's fine, but don't compare a fictional tale to a PR move. That's what this is. This isn't giving Hogan a pat on the back, stroking his ego or anything else other than a big, fat publicity move with the only trump card they possess.
Kurt Angle, at one time, was a part of American pop-culture. So was Sting, to a much lesser extent. Their influence and star power, from a mainstream point of view, has greatly diminished. Hence why putting the title on either of them will do nothing.
Hulk Hogan, like him or not, is still a huge pop-culture icon. Both Stone Cold and he are the two most recognisable faces in wrestling history, both are still relevant to mainstream pop-culture. Maybe he got there by being a politicing prick, maybe he didn't, but the sheer fact is that he IS an Icon.
TNA would be stupid not to cash in on that.
And on a final note, CMAmbrose, to reitterate a point that I know got under your skin: Dixie Carter knows far more about the wrestling business than any single member of this site. She's worked in the industry, under people who you class them as "WWE cast aways". Those cast aways who she works with have forgotten more about this business than we'll ever know.
Neither of us know Dixie, neither of us can prove what she does or doesn't know. Logic, however, dictates that she has learned more about this business than we have.
Oh, and your argument of her being able to waste "Daddy's money" with little to no repurcussions is interesting. Do you have as much insight into the Caster Family's (and Dixie in particular's) finances as you do into the inner workings of Hulk Hogan? Thanks for imparting your insider information to us!
My main point, brother, is that you can critique the things about wrestling that you do know. If you don't like a show or a character then by all means voice your opinion. Just be aware that you, like the rest of us, know FUCK ALL about the inner workings of either company or anybody that works within it. Stop pretending you know these people intimately. You don't. It makes you look like an angry little teenager.
