Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Apr 13, 2011 12:09:20 GMT -5
Right place, right time. Hogan was getting over in AWA but there is no way the AWA would have been as big as WWF got if Hogan had stayed. Like I said, they needed each other. But all the McMahon worshippers who think that anyone could've been in that spot in the 80s are sorely mistaken. Do you realize that most of the biggest successes in WWE came in SPITE of McMahon? Steve Austin was brought in as The Ringmaster, and even when he made his infamous Austin 3:16 speech at King of the Ring, do you remember what he was doing at the 2nd biggest PPV of the year, SummerSlam? He was jerking the curtain in a PPV pre-show with Yokozuna. McMahon had no clue what to do with Stone Cold and it was Austin himself who built up a character, a name, a crowd following until Vince finally realized what he had on his hands. Ditto The Rock. After giving up on the flopped Rocky Maivia character, Rock was relegated to just another midcarder in the Nation next to DLo Brown and Mark Henry. It was Rock coming up with the eyebrow, the pompous character, the shirts, the sideburns that caught on with the people until McMahon decided to break him out. Ditto Bret Hart while McMahon tried and failed to push Luger as Hulk Hogan v2.0 in 1994. I'm assuming that the lack of importance you place on Hogan's part in the 1980s expansion, plus the lack of respect your showing him is a result of you not being there to see it in person. Oh and "right place, right time" is bullpoop. That's like saying that at Survivor Series 1990 that's like saying they could've put the black hat and black coat on ANYONE, and they'd still be playing the Dead Man today. Would Sid eudy be going 19-0 at Wrestlemania today if he'd been given the Undertaker gimmick back in 1990? I doubt it. You guys have been watching too many McMahon produced DVDs ;D Chalk and Cheese.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 13, 2011 12:11:06 GMT -5
Any respect I've had for Hogan has diminished over the years from faking injuries or wanting a ton of money to come in despite his saying he's doing this for the fans or him thinking he's God's gift to wrestling in the year 2011.
Not one of them would have been as big as they were if it weren't for Vince McMahon. He gave them a place to grow and shine.
Luger wasn't the greatest and he ruined his push by telling a reporter that he was going to win the title at WrestleMania.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 12:14:13 GMT -5
Like I said, they needed each other. But all the McMahon worshippers who think that anyone could've been in that spot in the 80s are sorely mistaken. Do you realize that most of the biggest successes in WWE came in SPITE of McMahon? Steve Austin was brought in as The Ringmaster, and even when he made his infamous Austin 3:16 speech at King of the Ring, do you remember what he was doing at the 2nd biggest PPV of the year, SummerSlam? He was jerking the curtain in a PPV pre-show with Yokozuna. McMahon had no clue what to do with Stone Cold and it was Austin himself who built up a character, a name, a crowd following until Vince finally realized what he had on his hands. Ditto The Rock. After giving up on the flopped Rocky Maivia character, Rock was relegated to just another midcarder in the Nation next to DLo Brown and Mark Henry. It was Rock coming up with the eyebrow, the pompous character, the shirts, the sideburns that caught on with the people until McMahon decided to break him out. Ditto Bret Hart while McMahon tried and failed to push Luger as Hulk Hogan v2.0 in 1994. I'm assuming that the lack of importance you place on Hogan's part in the 1980s expansion, plus the lack of respect your showing him is a result of you not being there to see it in person. Oh and "right place, right time" is bullpoop. That's like saying that at Survivor Series 1990 that's like saying they could've put the black hat and black coat on ANYONE, and they'd still be playing the Dead Man today. Would Sid eudy be going 19-0 at Wrestlemania today if he'd been given the Undertaker gimmick back in 1990? I doubt it. You guys have been watching too many McMahon produced DVDs ;D Chalk and Cheese. How is it chalk and cheese? It's the exact same situation. People are saying that Hogan was right place, right time, OK? In other words, Hulkamania, Wrestlemania, Hulk-Andre at the Silverdome, etc etc would've happened with ANYONE ELSE that Vince would choose. In other words, it could've been Billy Graham-Andre at the Silverdome, or Savage-Mania running wild, or Mr T tagging with Bob Backlund. That's the point being made here, and I'm saying that is incorrect and completely reducing the role that Hogan played. If "right place, right time" applies to Hogan, then it applies to anything else in the business. You can't say it about one thing and not another. Therefore, those who think that Hogan's role was interchangeable and it would've been the exact same thing with Billy Graham in his place, are therefore saying that Marty Jannetty would've gone on to the exact same heights had he been chosen for the push instead of Michaels. In other words, total nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 12:16:30 GMT -5
Any respect I've had for Hogan has diminished over the years from faking injuries or wanting a ton of money to come in despite his saying he's doing this for the fans or him thinking he's God's gift to wrestling in the year 2011. Not one of them would have been as big as they were if it weren't for Vince McMahon. He gave them a place to grow and shine. Luger wasn't the greatest and he ruined his push by telling a reporter that he was going to win the title at WrestleMania. Luger was already going down the toilet way before that happened. He told the reporter that on the weekend of Wrestlemania X. Go back and look at the end of the Royal Rumble four months prior. Hart and Luger are both being declared as winners, and McMahon is on commentary desperately trying to make the point that the crowd is torn and is completely 50-50 when it's blatantly obvious that the crowd was 70-30 in favor of Bret. McMahon may have provided the stage and the marketing machine, but you can't polish a turd.
|
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Apr 13, 2011 12:20:43 GMT -5
How is it chalk and cheese? It's the exact same situation. People are saying that Hogan was right place, right time, OK? In other words, Hulkamania, Wrestlemania, Hulk-Andre at the Silverdome, etc etc would've happened with ANYONE ELSE that Vince would choose. In other words, it could've been Billy Graham-Andre at the Silverdome, or Savage-Mania running wild, or Mr T tagging with Bob Backlund. That's the point being made here, and I'm saying that is incorrect and completely reducing the role that Hogan played. If "right place, right time" applies to Hogan, then it applies to anything else in the business. You can't say it about one thing and not another. Therefore, those who think that Hogan's role was interchangeable and it would've been the exact same thing with Billy Graham in his place, are therefore saying that Marty Jannetty would've gone on to the exact same heights had he been chosen for the push instead of Michaels. In other words, total nonsense. Just look at the two gimmicks. You have the muscular, huge, whitemeat babyface, a perfect role model for that era. Then you have a wrestling zombie. One quite clearly designed to be top babyface, the other an over the top, quite frankly ridiculous gimmick seemingly destined for failure. And I'm not saying ANYONE could've done Hogans job, I'm just saying in all likelyhood they could've found someone able to do a similar job.
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Apr 13, 2011 12:22:11 GMT -5
Nobody is saying you have to kiss his butt, but lines like "the world of wrestling will be a much better place once Hulk Hogan is gone" and "Hulk Hogan is a worthless piece of poop" just make me chuckle. The world of wrestling WILL be a better place once he is gone. To clarify, I did not say when he is dead, nor did I discredit anything he has accomplished for the WWF/WWE or wrestling in general. The point I was making is that he isn't doing anything positive for wrestling NOW. Even in TNA, while he is a marquee name that they can advertise, he nor any of his suggestions have made the product better. He's an icon in the eyes of the fans, and that will never change. But right now, in the year 2011, he isn't doing anything and hasn't for a while. He makes waves, in negative ways, and even if it's just a little bit, it hurts the business. So IN MY OPINION, I think the wrestling world will be better once Hulk is gone.......FROM THE WRESTLING WORLD.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 12:24:21 GMT -5
How is it chalk and cheese? It's the exact same situation. People are saying that Hogan was right place, right time, OK? In other words, Hulkamania, Wrestlemania, Hulk-Andre at the Silverdome, etc etc would've happened with ANYONE ELSE that Vince would choose. In other words, it could've been Billy Graham-Andre at the Silverdome, or Savage-Mania running wild, or Mr T tagging with Bob Backlund. That's the point being made here, and I'm saying that is incorrect and completely reducing the role that Hogan played. If "right place, right time" applies to Hogan, then it applies to anything else in the business. You can't say it about one thing and not another. Therefore, those who think that Hogan's role was interchangeable and it would've been the exact same thing with Billy Graham in his place, are therefore saying that Marty Jannetty would've gone on to the exact same heights had he been chosen for the push instead of Michaels. In other words, total nonsense. Just look at the two gimmicks. You have the muscular, huge, whitemeat babyface, a perfect role model for that era. Then you have a wrestling zombie. One quite clearly designed to be top babyface, the other an over the top, quite frankly ridiculous gimmick seemingly destined for failure. And I'm not saying ANYONE could've done Hogans job, I'm just saying in all likelyhood they could've found someone able to do a similar job. Well, I respectfully and politely disagree. Hogan had a likable charm that crossed all demographics. Adult males liked him, chicks liked him, kids liked him. It's hard to find a wrestler that appeals to all three (look at Cena). We can sit here and speculate that 'Superstar' Billy Graham or Hercules Hernandez could've been handed the exact same push on a silver platter and if it would've reached the same heights, but I'm saying it wouldn't. To say it would is to say that you could've given Steve Austin's King of the Ring speech, word for word, to Marc Mero, and all would've been walking around wearing Mero 3:16 shirts and watching Mero open up a can of whoop-ass on Vince McMahon. Sometimes you just catch lightning in a bottle, and that's what guys like Hogan, Austin and Rock were. To say that Hogan was simply "right place, right time" is extremely naive.
|
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Apr 13, 2011 12:32:53 GMT -5
Just look at the two gimmicks. You have the muscular, huge, whitemeat babyface, a perfect role model for that era. Then you have a wrestling zombie. One quite clearly designed to be top babyface, the other an over the top, quite frankly ridiculous gimmick seemingly destined for failure. And I'm not saying ANYONE could've done Hogans job, I'm just saying in all likelyhood they could've found someone able to do a similar job. Well, I respectfully and politely disagree. Hogan had a likable charm that crossed all demographics. Adult males liked him, chicks liked him, kids liked him. It's hard to find a wrestler that appeals to all three (look at Cena). We can sit here and speculate that 'Superstar' Billy Graham or Hercules Hernandez could've been handed the exact same push on a silver platter and if it would've reached the same heights, but I'm saying it wouldn't. To say it would is to say that you could've given Steve Austin's King of the Ring speech, word for word, to Marc Mero, and all would've been walking around wearing Mero 3:16 shirts and watching Mero open up a can of whoop-ass on Vince McMahon. Sometimes you just catch lightning in a bottle, and that's what guys like Hogan, Austin and Rock were. To say that Hogan was simply "right place, right time" is extremely naive. I'm not saying 'right place right time', I actually disagree with that. I think Hogan was basically the perfect fit for a fairly generic gimmick. But what I'm saying is that Vince McMahon was absolutely WAY more important to the progression of the WWF/E than Hulk Hogan was. Back then was a very different time, wrestling wasn't generally seen as 'fake' and people didn't try to be edgy and cheer heels/boo babyfaces. I'm pretty confident that if John Cena had been in Hogans position, he would've seen similar success to what Hogan had, much like if Hogan had made his debut to the wwe 9 years ago with the same gimmick, he'd get as many if not more boos than Cena, Which is why I say they probably could've found someone to play the role that Hogan did with similar results.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 12:37:56 GMT -5
Well, I respectfully and politely disagree. Hogan had a likable charm that crossed all demographics. Adult males liked him, chicks liked him, kids liked him. It's hard to find a wrestler that appeals to all three (look at Cena). We can sit here and speculate that 'Superstar' Billy Graham or Hercules Hernandez could've been handed the exact same push on a silver platter and if it would've reached the same heights, but I'm saying it wouldn't. To say it would is to say that you could've given Steve Austin's King of the Ring speech, word for word, to Marc Mero, and all would've been walking around wearing Mero 3:16 shirts and watching Mero open up a can of whoop-ass on Vince McMahon. Sometimes you just catch lightning in a bottle, and that's what guys like Hogan, Austin and Rock were. To say that Hogan was simply "right place, right time" is extremely naive. I'm not saying 'right place right time', I actually disagree with that. I think Hogan was basically the perfect fit for a fairly generic gimmick. But what I'm saying is that Vince McMahon was absolutely WAY more important to the progression of the WWF/E than Hulk Hogan was. Back then was a very different time, wrestling wasn't generally seen as 'fake' and people didn't try to be edgy and cheer heels/boo babyfaces. I'm pretty confident that if John Cena had been in Hogans position, he would've seen similar success to what Hogan had, much like if Hogan had made his debut to the wwe 9 years ago with the same gimmick, he'd get as many if not more boos than Cena, Which is why I say they probably could've found someone to play the role that Hogan did with similar results. Well when it's put like that, I can definitely see your point and agree with you. I still think overall, it's a "one couldn't do it without the other" thing though, and even McMahon and Hogan themselves have both gone on record and said that. If you go back and look at the rosters in 1984-1985, there weren't too many other wrestlers doing what Hogan was doing, packaged with that body and look. Rhodes was charismatic but didn't have the look Vince wanted, Graham wasn't as lovable, etc. Unless Vince searched the globe and stumbled on a diamond, there was no #2 waiting in the wings who could've done the whole Tonight Show/Saturday Night Live/Dolly Parton/MTV stuff as good as Hogan did. But again, you made a great point. I can definitely get on board with that more than the "Hogan is overrated" and "right place, right time - it could've been anyone" ignorance.
|
|
Infinite
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 27, 2009 13:49:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,608
|
Post by Infinite on Apr 13, 2011 12:48:02 GMT -5
I'm not saying 'right place right time', I actually disagree with that. I think Hogan was basically the perfect fit for a fairly generic gimmick. But what I'm saying is that Vince McMahon was absolutely WAY more important to the progression of the WWF/E than Hulk Hogan was. Back then was a very different time, wrestling wasn't generally seen as 'fake' and people didn't try to be edgy and cheer heels/boo babyfaces. I'm pretty confident that if John Cena had been in Hogans position, he would've seen similar success to what Hogan had, much like if Hogan had made his debut to the wwe 9 years ago with the same gimmick, he'd get as many if not more boos than Cena, Which is why I say they probably could've found someone to play the role that Hogan did with similar results. Well when it's put like that, I can definitely see your point and agree with you. I still think overall, it's a "one couldn't do it without the other" thing though, and even McMahon and Hogan themselves have both gone on record and said that. If you go back and look at the rosters in 1984-1985, there weren't too many other wrestlers doing what Hogan was doing, packaged with that body and look. Rhodes was charismatic but didn't have the look Vince wanted, Graham wasn't as lovable, etc. Unless Vince searched the globe and stumbled on a diamond, there was no #2 waiting in the wings who could've done the whole Tonight Show/Saturday Night Live/Dolly Parton/MTV stuff as good as Hogan did. But again, you made a great point. I can definitely get on board with that more than the "Hogan is overrated" and "right place, right time - it could've been anyone" ignorance. I don't doubt that Hogan played a huge part in the rise in WWE's popularity, I also don't think they could've found anyone more perfect for the role, and who knows, maybe if Hogan never did get into wrestling, maybe they never would've found anyone to play that role, or play that role effectively, causing WWE to never rise in popularity. However, I also think that there's a very good chance they would've found someone similar to do almost as good a job and it all would've been alright in the end. But I do see your point. Vince McMahon Jr, on the other hand, in my opinion is absolutely irreplaceable in that I don't think anyone could have filled his boots. In my view, He's a bona fide genius and nobody could have ever done what he did. I'll get my head out of his ass now
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 12:51:02 GMT -5
Well when it's put like that, I can definitely see your point and agree with you. I still think overall, it's a "one couldn't do it without the other" thing though, and even McMahon and Hogan themselves have both gone on record and said that. If you go back and look at the rosters in 1984-1985, there weren't too many other wrestlers doing what Hogan was doing, packaged with that body and look. Rhodes was charismatic but didn't have the look Vince wanted, Graham wasn't as lovable, etc. Unless Vince searched the globe and stumbled on a diamond, there was no #2 waiting in the wings who could've done the whole Tonight Show/Saturday Night Live/Dolly Parton/MTV stuff as good as Hogan did. But again, you made a great point. I can definitely get on board with that more than the "Hogan is overrated" and "right place, right time - it could've been anyone" ignorance. I don't doubt that Hogan played a huge part in the rise in WWE's popularity, I also don't think they could've found anyone more perfect for the role, and who knows, maybe if Hogan never did get into wrestling, maybe they never would've found anyone to play that role, or play that role effectively, causing WWE to never rise in popularity. However, I also think that there's a very good chance they would've found someone similar to do almost as good a job and it all would've been alright in the end. But I do see your point. Vince McMahon Jr, on the other hand, in my opinion is absolutely irreplaceable in that I don't think anyone could have filled his boots. In my view, He's a bona fide genius and nobody could have ever done what he did. I'll get my head out of his ass now LOL, but you're right and it's true. If Vince was replaceable, then guys like Bischoff, Heyman, Gagne and Carter would all be running companies just as big as WWE.
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on Apr 13, 2011 12:57:56 GMT -5
Just look at the two gimmicks. You have the muscular, huge, whitemeat babyface, a perfect role model for that era. Then you have a wrestling zombie. One quite clearly designed to be top babyface, the other an over the top, quite frankly ridiculous gimmick seemingly destined for failure. And I'm not saying ANYONE could've done Hogans job, I'm just saying in all likelyhood they could've found someone able to do a similar job. Well, I respectfully and politely disagree. Hogan had a likable charm that crossed all demographics. Adult males liked him, chicks liked him, kids liked him. It's hard to find a wrestler that appeals to all three (look at Cena). We can sit here and speculate that 'Superstar' Billy Graham or Hercules Hernandez could've been handed the exact same push on a silver platter and if it would've reached the same heights, but I'm saying it wouldn't. To say it would is to say that you could've given Steve Austin's King of the Ring speech, word for word, to Marc Mero, and all would've been walking around wearing Mero 3:16 shirts and watching Mero open up a can of whoop-ass on Vince McMahon. Sometimes you just catch lightning in a bottle, and that's what guys like Hogan, Austin and Rock were. To say that Hogan was simply "right place, right time" is extremely naive. Adult males didn't "like" Hogan I think for the most part they were indifferent. Hogan was over huge with the kids, and young males and what have you but this era of wrestling didn't really have the indignant older male smark and as a result I think a lot of older males who were watching were kind of like "Oh, ok that's cool". Hogan was in essence John Cena without the fat, creepy, 40 year old guy trying to shout down the 8 year old next to him. He was over huge with kids, adults were kind of indifferent. I'd say the average adult male didn't mind Hogan, they were probably into someone more traditional like Steamboat (I understand Steamboat was over the top in his own way too, it's just he had a sort of old school flavor to him). Gotta remember the older generation at this time has been watching wrestling in the 80's and to a degree the 70's when it wasn't really all that much flash and decoration. Now to compare Marc Mero to Austin is we-donkey-lips. Austin created Austin, that is character born out of a wrestler knowing he needs to get out of a one way gimmick. That is a character that is multi-dimensional, that wrote itself through Austin's actions, not to mention the ring style Austin adapted to fit his character. Marc Mero had the look, I'll give him that, but I don't think he had the charisma, technical ability, or even the brains to undertake the Austin character. At the same time, all Hogan's character was asked to do was ooze charisma, that's not that strenuous of a demand to make for a wrestler. His promo's weren't particularly ground breaking, his style not really all that great, it was a character built behind booking. He was booked and pushed to being the character he was. If the IWC existed back in the day they would have crapped all over Hogan because he's apparently their worst nightmare. I don't think Hogan lost cleanly for like a 5 year period. Again remember now, the majority of fans are marks at this time, we don't really know what the deal with wrestling is. To see a guy pushed like that, that was kicking the ass of Giants and beating the snot out un-American SOB's, who wouldn't love that? Hogans character isn't necessarily hard to play, he never faced any great moral dilemmas, he never had any really crippling faults. He had to talk how wrestlers pretty much already talked when they weren't in character ("Listen here brotha"), had to talk about how great God and USA was, and had to beat some foreign commie ass, not exactly a lot of directions you can take that character. Undertaker and Austin could have been huge busts if improperly handled. Undertakers schtick has probably been done to death (no pun intended) in wrestling and fails nearly every time. how many times did a guy have magic, or dark powers, or was evil and just end up looking like a total tool? Just about every time. And how about Austin, you're going to have a character who swells beer and doesn't do things for the greater good but rather for himself? That was revolutionary for a face. Austin was one of the first great tweeners, he did heel things but the crowd loved it, it takes a special guy to get away with that. Here is where I will give Hogan credit, Vince created this image, but Hogan ran with it and never looked back. He made the most of this opportunity and refused to give up the spotlight, which at the time is actually what the company needed. In my personal opinion though, I say right place, right time, a guy say like Tony Atlas could have perhaps taken the same reigns. That said I don't have a Tony Atlas-mania t-shirt in my drawer right now, so all said is moot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 13:08:42 GMT -5
Well, obviously we all have an opinion on it, and that's awesome. But I'm sticking with my original stance. Vince had a vision in his head of wrestling branching out into mainsteam media, with wrestlers on Johnny Carson and guest VJ'ing MTV shows. He had a vision of wrestling cartoons and movies, and he needed a horse to ride to capture the public's attention.
Could he have used Tony Atlas in Hogan's place (very similar in terms of size, charisma, larger than life mentality, working class hero, etc) - perhaps. Would Atlas have been so popular and so successful that it would've led to 93,000 Atlas-maniacs filling the Silverdome to see him fight Andre? Who can say. Would The Terminator have been just as successful with Dolph Lundgren in the role (same build, same non-US accent, etc), perhaps.
But again, I just think 'right place, right time' as a way to demean Hogan's role is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by spamdfms101 on Apr 13, 2011 13:21:08 GMT -5
I missed where he dissed edge? If anything he was giving him props.
|
|
|
Post by AdamBomb on Apr 13, 2011 13:23:50 GMT -5
Any respect I've had for Hogan has diminished over the years from faking injuries or wanting a ton of money to come in despite his saying he's doing this for the fans or him thinking he's God's gift to wrestling in the year 2011. Not one of them would have been as big as they were if it weren't for Vince McMahon. He gave them a place to grow and shine. Luger wasn't the greatest and he ruined his push by telling a reporter that he was going to win the title at WrestleMania. Luger was already going down the toilet way before that happened. He told the reporter that on the weekend of Wrestlemania X. Go back and look at the end of the Royal Rumble four months prior. Hart and Luger are both being declared as winners, and McMahon is on commentary desperately trying to make the point that the crowd is torn and is completely 50-50 when it's blatantly obvious that the crowd was 70-30 in favor of Bret. McMahon may have provided the stage and the marketing machine, but you can't polish a turd. Can so. lol
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on Apr 13, 2011 13:25:02 GMT -5
I missed where he dissed edge? If anything he was giving him props. He said if he or any of the other HOF wrestlers he listed had listened to the doctors they would have retired years ago. Quite obviously a dig at his toughness for retiring over what I can only perceive Hogan believes is a nancy boy neck injury. But people believe it doesn't matter because he finished it up with something about how Edge loves wrestling. Kind of in the same sense that some people think once you say "No offense but..." you can pretty much say whatever and no one should get offended.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 17:42:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 13:25:14 GMT -5
Apparently, I stand corrected. And disturbed.
|
|
|
Post by AdamBomb on Apr 13, 2011 13:42:39 GMT -5
Apparently, I stand corrected. And disturbed.
|
|
|
Post by kid677 on Apr 13, 2011 13:48:50 GMT -5
I used to like Hogan.. When he was retired. He should just slow down, and hes becoming a bastard.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Apr 13, 2011 13:52:33 GMT -5
Guys, take it easy on Hogan.....he just didn't say very clearly what he was trying to say. Hogan is right. Edge WANTS to keep wrestling. If it was up to Edge I'm sure he would attempt surgery, rehab, whatever to get back in the ring......but WWE has told him that they will NEVER clear him to compete again. WWE doesn't want him to become paralyzed or die in their ring....so he's done. They will never clear him to perform again. Simple as that. But I'm sure Edge would keep going if it was 15 years ago and it was up to him. So, I understand what Hogan was trying to say. He just didn't really say it the right way. He was actually giving respect to Edge saying that he's one of the real wrestlers actually left out there and he's old school and if it was Edge making the decision to retire and not WWE retiring him, Edge would keep going. Judging by all the wwe shots you're trying to take I'm going to guess you're a tna mark This is so typical of people here. Why is it that when anybody complains about the WWE that automatically means they're not fans and trolling? People can complain about things that suck in wrestling without it making them haters and trolls. It's called criticism, it's actually the point of having a message board.
|
|