The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[milamber]

Smackdown is on a bit of a roll. Vince is busy working on Tough Enough now so that probably explains it. This week Cesaro & Owens took center stage. Also got Rollins, Rusev, Ambrose, a Sasha promo clip, a decent Divas tag match and Cody killing it as Stardust. Can't wait until it's on USA and billed as an A show, with or without a roster split.

[hellboy2]

So according to you....

 

Iron Sheik dropped the title to....nobody....Andre The Giant put over an invisible man at Wrestlemania 3....Andre won the title from nobody only to have it vacated the same night....Yokuzuna beat bret Hart at Wrestlemania just to lose it to nobody again.....and then beat that nobody at King of The Ring in 93. Kevin Nash and Scott Hall were the only founding members of the NWO. NWO come to WWE and nobody wrestles in the main event against the Rock. I could go all day but I think you get the point.

 

imagine how funny that DVD would be, edit out all commentary about him too it would be brilliant, all of a sudden Yokozuna becomes a magician floating about a foot in the air, you could set music to the Rock match it would be fantastic

 

or better yet turn it into a You Been Framed, WWE style like that Swerved program

 

Or The HBK match at Summerslam, you could bill it as when HBK Found his Smile and Went Bat Insane

[Stennick]

This doesn't impact my enjoyment of his work. This doesn't impact the fact that this board wouldn't be here and none of us would be on it if it weren't for Hulk Hogan. Even if you go with the internet cliche of "I was never a Hogan fan". The only way that rings true is for those that weren't watching yet. The point is that although what Hogan did was unacceptable its no more unacceptable than what Warrior has said and he has an award named after him. What Steve Austin did was WORSE. Steve Austin put his hands on a woman and yet I don't remember any outrage to this degree over Steve Austin beating his wife. What Hogan did was wrong and its very clear he meant what he said. I'm just not sure why guys like Warrior and Steve Austin are not also wiped from the company and condemned by people for their actions.

[K-Nection]

You want to compare Chris Benoit to Hogan or Flair? Let's be honest, as accomplished as Benoit was in the ring, his lasting impact in the business isn't nearly the same...Hogan and Flair were top draws in wrestling for soooo long. Benoit was considered a top guy in a company that didn't really have any competition for only a couple years.

 

Ok first of all welcome to the conversation if you scroll back a couple pages before you would realize that Chris Benoit was put into this debate because of the similarities of WWE treating Hogan.

 

If your talking about no competing company yes there happen to be no other competing company when he was on top of the card. But wouldn't that mean more in a sense. If your on top of the mountain when there is only one mountain then that should mean more am I correct. It would qualify you as the best of the best.

 

 

Yeah. When you think about it, there's better ways to make an argument than "Let me compare the guy I'm defending to a known murderer."

 

I repeat my first paragraph rebuttal to DaMegaFish.

 

 

Correct. I'd rather have all that history forgotten about than to honor a racist for accomplishments he did in a sport I love.

 

Well no body liked the N*A*Z*I's but is that a reason to forget them...we learn from our history. If we take an eraser to the parts we don't like than nobody learns from other people's mistakes. They continue to happen.

 

 

For the record, while I understand WWE's reaction, I don' t want to leave the impression that this hurts my enjoyment of his work. I'm quite sure most of the athletes and entertainers I enjoy are awful people.

 

I stand with Charles Barkley on the issue.

 

Wow the first thing you said on this subject I agree with...this guy get's the big picture right here.

 

 

It absolutely impacts my enjoyment of his work, although my view of Hogan has been tarnished for a while now due to his past several decades of behavior offscreen.

 

Hulk Hogan the character is supposed to be the Real American. That gimmick doesn't work so well when the man portraying it represents a side of America that was better left behind in the previous century.

 

Ok...let's see here. I'm about to burst your bubble on a lot of things and by yours and Atticus' argument you probably won't be a fan of pro wrestling afterward.

 

You have to be a crazy, self loathing, egotistical or insecure person to be successful in the wrestling business. If you get in the business and something isn't wrong with you than you will be crazy by the time you leave it.

 

Ric Flair is one of the greatest of all time and he was one of the biggest assholes of all time as well. If you are not a 5'7" blonde woman then he is a douche bag to you the second a camera isn't rolling.

 

Scott Hall was a crazy alcoholic. He would show up to shows so wasted that you can smell the booze on him from your living room couch. He had to clean up his act once he got out of the business. Why do you think WWE put Razor Ramon in the Hall of Fame instead of Scott Hall? It's because the real person at the time was a complete train wreck and couldn't function without at least a 40oz to start his day.

 

Chris Jericho has one of the biggest egos walking the planet. If there was an award for somebody thinking his crap doesn't stinks it is him.

 

Stone Cold Steve Austin one of the biggest names ever in the business. He stayed an alcoholic to deal with the mental pressure of being the guy. He beat the merciless crap out of his wife but not one fan persecuted him for it.

 

Shawn Michaels.....his most successful years are when he was the biggest pain in the ass.

 

Do you want me to continue because I could go back to the 80's and 70's if you like? By your two's argument though if you don't like the person then the wrestler either doesn't exist or you can't enjoy their work. Well there is absolutely nothing to like about the sport in your guys' opinion.

 

 

This doesn't impact my enjoyment of his work. This doesn't impact the fact that this board wouldn't be here and none of us would be on it if it weren't for Hulk Hogan. Even if you go with the internet cliche of "I was never a Hogan fan". The only way that rings true is for those that weren't watching yet. The point is that although what Hogan did was unacceptable its no more unacceptable than what Warrior has said and he has an award named after him. What Steve Austin did was WORSE. Steve Austin put his hands on a woman and yet I don't remember any outrage to this degree over Steve Austin beating his wife. What Hogan did was wrong and its very clear he meant what he said. I'm just not sure why guys like Warrior and Steve Austin are not also wiped from the company and condemned by people for their actions.

 

This guy gets it!

[liontamer]

Reading the news/comments oh Hulk....

 

I'm ok with him being fired given his role in the company

 

That said, I seem to recall Booker calling tons of people crackers/honky without any backlash and wwe having several racist gimmicks, so it is a bit hypocritical.

 

Hulk also lived for decades when the N word was acceptable and the norm, and even today its all over in entertainment. I have no ill will for the fact that he used the word itself (had a black person said the same comments, would you be offended merely by the word? - if you are by hulk and not that scenario, then I contend that you are racist). If it's part of your vocabulary you're going to use it, I still haven't fully switched from black to African American and I almost married a black woman, well almost proposed technically. Black is what I grew up with, it's the first word that comes to mind, the fact that it later became offensive does not change that.

 

I would also contend that most parents strongly prefer that their kids marry within their race and know a few people from india whose parents forbade them from marrying outside of their race. I also know a ton of parents who would freak if their kids were homosexual. Are any of these people horrible just for their beliefs/preferences? I would argue not.

 

If we're going to get all butt hurt that he used that word (in the context of complaining who his daughter dated), then he was equally offensive to the poor, short, and non athletic given his comments and none of those groups are speaking out

 

Also a question. Somewhere in the comments somebody stated that Booker's comments and Vince's past comments were fine because they were a character, but Hogan's were bad because they were personal comments and therefore only his comments were offensive and worthy of removal of the HOF. I just want to clarify - we should induct openly racist characters, whose actions/remarks will be seen by people watching the old footage, but characters that were iconic and universal with no racism on screen, should be removed? (FYI I'm not arguing for booker's removal, just making a point)

 

The way I see it, he got angry and emotional about his daughter's choices, his filter wasn't very good and he used some language that offends the public on a tape that was never meant to be public. His actions in no way harmed anyone, there is no proof he held anyone down on account of race (look at the support on his twitter page), this is much ado about nothing. What's more offensive is the fact that, if I recall correctly, the footage was not just a sex tape, but a tape of him sleeping with his buddy's wife. The adultery and betrayal is way more offensive to me than the language, but nobody seems to really care about that, and no I wouldn't take him out of the HOF for that as it has nothing to do with it.

[lukess11]

His daughter also said that she was not mad at him and said he was not racist in a poem yesterday.

[shamelessposer]

His daughter also said that she was not mad at him and said he was not racist in a poem yesterday.

 

And if you can't trust noted poet Brooke Hogan, who can you trust?

[d_w_w]

Putting aside the (to me) rather unimportant issue regarding whether we should respect Hogan's work, this issue and the WWE's response are pretty straightforward.

 

Race relations are a hot button topic in the U.S. right now (they often are, but now even more so) and the use of the N-word (especially the "er" variety) is exceptionally taboo (see Paula Dean).

 

The WWE anticipated substantial press about the issue and moved to distance themselves from Hogan. Was the response appropriate? Of course it was, it was the strongest possible response they could make and they were obviously confident that whatever losses they took (in terms of merchandise or ratings) were smaller than the losses associated with a smaller given response. Anything weaker and they would be subject to the critique that they did not take the issue seriously enough.

 

The question of whether what he did is worse or comparable to what other pro-wrestlers did is pretty much irrelevant, as these other transgressions aren't currently in the media spotlight. And the question of when Hogan went on this tirade is also a non-issue, the only thing that matters is that it's being discussed now.

 

The WWE's response is far more oriented in public relations and business, than it is morality. In that sense, the hypocrisy complaints are swings and misses. An inconsistency charge would only hold value if there was another WWE figure currently embroiled in a similar issue and they treated them differently than Hogan (and even this is a stretch, as a big part of the issue here is that this is Hogan and that he is well known enough to be National Inquirer attention worthy). Past issues regarding race that aren't currently news topics are fundamentally different in that they lack the key character of the Hogan incident (that being that it's getting a large amount of public attention right now).

 

To me, the only way to make a hypocrisy (and I'm not even sure this is about hypocrisy) charge against the WWE here is to argue that they're more interested in how they are perceived than by what Hogan actually said. But that only makes then similar to pretty much every large corporation beholden to stockholders and dependent on consumers. They want our money and so will move to put themselves in the best light possible to do so. There are plenty of reasons why we might think the WWE is a bad company, but this isn't a fair one, as far as I can see.

[AfRoMaN36]

So I waited till I got more details on the Hogan situation before I decided to comment. Hogan was my hero when I was a child. He was what got me into wrestling and I even defended his actions when he went heel with the nWo. I was as strong a Hulkamaniac as there ever was for someone who was not alive for the majority of his initial WWF run.

 

When I got older though, and started to learn of how big a tool he really was backstage I started to distance myself. And in the past decade or so, he's really come across as an old buffoon. So this doesn't surprise me, nor does it elicit much of a response from me. I think the WWE was right as a publicly traded company to fire him. I don't think he should be erased from history, nor do I think this will stick. I'm sure once the heat dies down they'll return his HOF stuff. I DO think he is a racist though. Not just for the casual usage of the n-word, but just by his thought that everyone is a bit racist. It sounds more like he is projecting his own views onto everyone else. Suffice it to say that his views are not an accurate reflection of everyone.

 

I'm confused by the false equivalences some of the commenters have made in his defense. Booker T making an obvious slip up during a promo does not equate Hulk Hogan's quasi-hate speech. Bookers usage of the word honkey does not elicit the same response because their is no historical significance behind that word. It was never used by any race to categorize whites as they were being treated as objects. It just sort of appeared in the 1970's and was commonly used on television in jest. And Vince's poor joke on RAW several years ago was supposed to be making fun of himself and had no malice behind it. I still think it was cringe worthy, but that's neither here nor there.

 

So yeah, I agree with him being fired. I don't think he should be stricken from the record books at all, but I do think that speech is an indication of deeply held views on the world that a public company like the WWE would be wise to distance themselves from.

[Stennick]

And if you can't trust noted poet Brooke Hogan, who can you trust?

 

This made me laugh even if we disagree with our positions on this particular issue

 

When I got older though, and started to learn of how big a tool he really was backstage I started to distance myself. And in the past decade or so, he's really come across as an old buffoon. So this doesn't surprise me, nor does it elicit much of a response from me. I think the WWE was right as a publicly traded company to fire him. I don't think he should be erased from history, nor do I think this will stick. I'm sure once the heat dies down they'll return his HOF stuff. I DO think he is a racist though. Not just for the casual usage of the n-word, but just by his thought that everyone is a bit racist. It sounds more like he is projecting his own views onto everyone else. Suffice it to say that his views are not an accurate reflection of everyone

 

You realize that every pro wrestler is a tool right? Savage used to lock Elizabeth in a closet when he was doing something without her because he was so jealous. Ric Flair refused to drop the title in 88 and 89 to Luger because he "promised" the title to Sting who was out for a year with an injury. He also lost the title to Ronnie Garvin just so he could get the win back at Starrcade. Hell just listen to the guy on that Legends of the Round Table as he tries to claim the nWo wasn't that big of a deal and puts himself over everyone on everything for the entire show. Shawn Michaels was even more political than Hogan in a lot of ways and just as big of a tool for most of his career. Steve Austin got on top and only worked with Foley and Taker for what like two years straight? I mean the list goes on and on of top pro wrestling guys that used their spot to either be a tool, or hold someone back or say something stupid.

 

So although I don't disagree with your stance on his use of the word. I agree it sounds like he very much meant what he had to say. We could dive into the social aspects such as the fact that he was nine before the civil rights act was signed into law. So he spent the first decade of his life living in a world where human beings had to use separate toilets. Its not an excuse for his actions but I suspect that a LOT of people his age and older hold those same views. Thankfully we live in a world where my daughter who's seven doesn't see black, white or brown she just sees friends. All that being said when someone says "yeah man I don't like Hogan because he was a tool and held people back and stuff". It smacks of someone who just found the internet and read the "smark" stance that Hogan "isn't good" or whatever. Every top guy ever decides who he works with and who he doesn't. Bret Hart did it, Steve Austin for sure did it just as Jeff Jarrett and others. Shawn Michaels did it, Hogan did it. Its a business first and when you're in that spot that only a few guys have ever been in and you realize you only have a handful of years in most cases to make the absolute most amount of money possible I don't fault guys for doing whats best for them. He says some stupid things but nothing more stupid than the things Flair says and I don't hear a tenth of the backlash for Flair's stupidity that I do for Hogans.

 

I think its insane to say "I heard through a website that quoted another website that talked to a guy that knew a guy that knew Hogan that said he wasn't a good guy" or replace Hogan's name in there with anyone elses. I mean thats what we're doing right. 99% of the people I know don't have a subscription to the Observer. They read it on a website thats quoting the Observer who got their information from some third string nobody that heard something from somebody else that MAY have talked to the person the story is about. That to me is an insane process that I never understood let alone put any weight or enjoyment in analyzing.

[lukess11]

This made me laugh even if we disagree with our positions on this particular issue

 

Same.

[lazorbeak]

That said, I seem to recall Booker calling tons of people crackers/honky without any backlash and wwe having several racist gimmicks, so it is a bit hypocritical.

 

Also a question. Somewhere in the comments somebody stated that Booker's comments and Vince's past comments were fine because they were a character, but Hogan's were bad because they were personal comments and therefore only his comments were offensive and worthy of removal of the HOF. I just want to clarify - we should induct openly racist characters, whose actions/remarks will be seen by people watching the old footage, but characters that were iconic and universal with no racism on screen, should be removed? (FYI I'm not arguing for booker's removal, just making a point)

 

This is a really bad argument. If you don't understand why making candid racist statements (and admitting to being a racist) in real life is much worse than calling someone a "honkey" in a wrestling angle, you need to think critically about why what Hogan said was so much more damaging. It's the same reason Mel Gibson's candid hate speech was treated differently than characters playing racists in movies. Because not only is it in real life, not part of a story, it forces people to re-evaluate the person's work and wonder if racism actually negatively impacted the careers of the people he worked with.

 

Maybe it's just a coincidence that Junkyard Dog was never treated as Hogan's equal even when he was clearly the #2 guy in the company (the two only teamed up six times ever, during a two-month span in 1986 when JYD was a huge name, appearing together once on a SNME show), and maybe it's just a coincidence that Hogan never worked programs with guys like Butch Reed or Bad News Allen or Abdullah. It's definitely possible that those things have nothing to do with Hogan, but it's hard to say that he wasn't saying "no thanks Vince, I'd rather work against the white guy pretending to be an African Dusty Rhodes."

 

Again, this is real life, and it's bad stuff. Considerably worse than accidentally calling someone a bad word once in a wrestling promo.

[DaMegaFish]

Ok first of all welcome to the conversation if you scroll back a couple pages before you would realize that Chris Benoit was put into this debate because of the similarities of WWE treating Hogan.

 

If your talking about no competing company yes there happen to be no other competing company when he was on top of the card. But wouldn't that mean more in a sense. If your on top of the mountain when there is only one mountain then that should mean more am I correct. It would qualify you as the best of the best.

 

 

Just to be clear, my response was more to the statement of your previous comment of not being able to tell the story of pro wrestling without Chris Benoit. I was trying to say that ripping out Benoit's pages isn't really comparable to Hogan's or Flair's. Benoit when compared to those two is extremely easy to remove from the story of pro wrestling.

[AfRoMaN36]

You realize that every pro wrestler is a tool right? Savage used to lock Elizabeth in a closet when he was doing something without her because he was so jealous. Ric Flair refused to drop the title in 88 and 89 to Luger because he "promised" the title to Sting who was out for a year with an injury. He also lost the title to Ronnie Garvin just so he could get the win back at Starrcade. Hell just listen to the guy on that Legends of the Round Table as he tries to claim the nWo wasn't that big of a deal and puts himself over everyone on everything for the entire show. Shawn Michaels was even more political than Hogan in a lot of ways and just as big of a tool for most of his career. Steve Austin got on top and only worked with Foley and Taker for what like two years straight? I mean the list goes on and on of top pro wrestling guys that used their spot to either be a tool, or hold someone back or say something stupid.

 

So although I don't disagree with your stance on his use of the word. I agree it sounds like he very much meant what he had to say. We could dive into the social aspects such as the fact that he was nine before the civil rights act was signed into law. So he spent the first decade of his life living in a world where human beings had to use separate toilets. Its not an excuse for his actions but I suspect that a LOT of people his age and older hold those same views. Thankfully we live in a world where my daughter who's seven doesn't see black, white or brown she just sees friends. All that being said when someone says "yeah man I don't like Hogan because he was a tool and held people back and stuff". It smacks of someone who just found the internet and read the "smark" stance that Hogan "isn't good" or whatever. Every top guy ever decides who he works with and who he doesn't. Bret Hart did it, Steve Austin for sure did it just as Jeff Jarrett and others. Shawn Michaels did it, Hogan did it. Its a business first and when you're in that spot that only a few guys have ever been in and you realize you only have a handful of years in most cases to make the absolute most amount of money possible I don't fault guys for doing whats best for them. He says some stupid things but nothing more stupid than the things Flair says and I don't hear a tenth of the backlash for Flair's stupidity that I do for Hogans.

 

I think its insane to say "I heard through a website that quoted another website that talked to a guy that knew a guy that knew Hogan that said he wasn't a good guy" or replace Hogan's name in there with anyone elses. I mean thats what we're doing right. 99% of the people I know don't have a subscription to the Observer. They read it on a website thats quoting the Observer who got their information from some third string nobody that heard something from somebody else that MAY have talked to the person the story is about. That to me is an insane process that I never understood let alone put any weight or enjoyment in analyzing.

 

 

I never said I stopped liking the guy after I found out what a tool he was, I just consciously removed my idealization of his characters from the person. I wasn't as passionately a fan of his, but I didn't flip a switch. I have the same stance for Shawn, Randy and many other wrestlers with well known bad reputations. I can continue to enjoy their past work without putting them on a pedestal. Whereas a guy like Foley I respect both in and out of the ring.

 

It also isn't just smarky websites I've read this from, many wrestlers autobiographies make a point to explain what a pr*ck Hogan was, to either them personally, or their peers. Hogan. But that's neither here nor there and deviates from my initial point. Yes, Hogan was an older guy and that kind of mindset is more typical of an older person. I was not shocked to hear it. I hear Flair was a huge racist back in the 80's and used to bully Teddy Long back when he was a ref. I would hope his views have evolved since then. Hogan's didn't. No his age is not an excuse, and the E was right to let him go.

[LoganRodzen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="d_w_w" data-cite="d_w_w" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Putting aside the (to me) rather unimportant issue regarding whether we should respect Hogan's work, this issue and the WWE's response are pretty straightforward.<p> </p><p> Race relations are a hot button topic in the U.S. right now (they often are, but now even more so) and the use of the N-word (especially the "er" variety) is exceptionally taboo (see Paula Dean). </p><p> </p><p> The WWE anticipated substantial press about the issue and moved to distance themselves from Hogan. Was the response appropriate? Of course it was, it was the strongest possible response they could make and they were obviously confident that whatever losses they took (in terms of merchandise or ratings) were smaller than the losses associated with a smaller given response. Anything weaker and they would be subject to the critique that they did not take the issue seriously enough. </p><p> </p><p> The question of whether what he did is worse or comparable to what other pro-wrestlers did is pretty much irrelevant, as these other transgressions aren't currently in the media spotlight. And the question of when Hogan went on this tirade is also a non-issue, the only thing that matters is that it's being discussed now.</p><p> </p><p> The WWE's response is far more oriented in public relations and business, than it is morality. In that sense, the hypocrisy complaints are swings and misses. An inconsistency charge would only hold value if there was another WWE figure currently embroiled in a similar issue and they treated them differently than Hogan (and even this is a stretch, as a big part of the issue here is that this is Hogan and that he is well known enough to be National Inquirer attention worthy). Past issues regarding race that aren't currently news topics are fundamentally different in that they lack the key character of the Hogan incident (that being that it's getting a large amount of public attention right now).</p><p> </p><p> To me, the only way to make a hypocrisy (and I'm not even sure this is about hypocrisy) charge against the WWE here is to argue that they're more interested in how they are perceived than by what Hogan actually said. But that only makes then similar to pretty much every large corporation beholden to stockholders and dependent on consumers. They want our money and so will move to put themselves in the best light possible to do so. There are plenty of reasons why we might think the WWE is a bad company, but this isn't a fair one, as far as I can see.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Couldn't agree with this post more. Hogan should have never said what he said. He crossed the line and WWE responded with the most appropriate action in this day and age. Instantly distance themselves from a nasty ordeal. It doesn't matter when it happened or what he said. He was absolutely disrespectful when talking of the black race and it isn't acceptable. WWE did what they had to do and it was the right choice. We'll see Hogan back in the WWE within 3-5 years though. Time changes everything (not really, other crap just takes over the current crap).</p>

[milamber]

<p><img alt="11180636_863326150387407_227213534444204141_n.jpg?oh=66c4d1ea82b446b6c450f95eef94f999&oe=5615F229" data-src="https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11180636_863326150387407_227213534444204141_n.jpg?oh=66c4d1ea82b446b6c450f95eef94f999&oe=5615F229" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

On a serious note, Hogan was/is a racist and it caught up with him. WWE made a business decision to protect their interests. I was never a big Hulk fan (on or off camera, although I started to warm to him as a Tough Enough judge) but I won't let that tarnish in my mind his legacy in WWF/WWE as a character/wrestler. I can separate Terry from Hogan. I'm sure he'll be back again in a few years once it all dies down.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>I think everyone is in agreeance that the WWE did what had to be done and I think everyone is mostly in agreeance that what Hogan said was unacceptable, it was racist and it was either who he was or knowing Hogan its quite possible that whoever he was with was a racist and he was just "fitting in" because I'm the biggest Hulkamaniac ever but Hogan goes with the wind. Always has really since the buyout of WCW. Before then Hogan swung a big stick and whatever he said goes. Once WCW closed down he became a much bigger team player realizing that he was nearly 60 and had no other options. </p><p> </p><p>

I'm not even concerned about the WWE's actions on this. Again they are a business company and I fully support what they did. It wasn't based in morality it was based in business. I've seen a lot of people say that but for some reason those same people that are saying "this was a business decision by them" are the first ones to complain online when the latest ROH indy darling isn't hotshotted right to the WWE title. So it seems strange to me that they can accept a 60 year old man who was nothing more than a good will ambassador's firing as a needful business decision but somehow turn around and believe that Samoa Joe or whoever should be the WWE Champion instead of the John Cena's of the world. </p><p> </p><p>

My problem isn't with the WWE's moral standards. My complaints aren't a "swing and a miss" because they are more with the people on here or any other website or platform talking about how Hogan's a racist and he's that and he's this. Yet when Steve Austin beat his wife or wives...or when stories of Savage locking Elizabeth in a closet, or the Jimmy Snuka murder, or when Flair physically assaulted someone in a fit or road rage, or when Regal peed on a stewardess, or even when people use the mother of all "I know Benoit killed his entire family and himself but I still appreciate him as a performer". </p><p> </p><p>

Yet I don't see a lot of that with Hogan which I mean is whatever its just maddening how people have some sort of claim to a moral compass but it can swing so freely. Because I think that out of nearly everything I listed there I think all of that is way worse than Hogan spouting racial slurs which was bad in itself but no one was beaten or urinated on in that process...that we know of. </p><p> </p><p>

I doubt he'll be back because they don't really need him. They aren't going to "Benoit" him so to speak. I mean they don't do much with him now. They show clips of him slamming Andre or clips of the nWo but even that is minor. They don't really need to bring him back and it probably saves them a few million a year in a time when they are strapped for cash. Normally I would think Hogan would be just fine due the piles of money WCW gave him but with him at last check only being worth about 7 million I doubt a lot of that is even in liquid form. I wonder what he'll have to resort to now to keep up the lifestyle. I guess he could go the Flair route and keep it up by being a few million in debt and hiding from the police in Joe Gomez's basement I guess.</p>

[K-Nection]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think everyone is in agreeance that the WWE did what had to be done and I think everyone is mostly in agreeance that what Hogan said was unacceptable, it was racist and it was either who he was or knowing Hogan its quite possible that whoever he was with was a racist and he was just "fitting in" because I'm the biggest Hulkamaniac ever but Hogan goes with the wind. Always has really since the buyout of WCW. Before then Hogan swung a big stick and whatever he said goes. Once WCW closed down he became a much bigger team player realizing that he was nearly 60 and had no other options. <p> </p><p> I'm not even concerned about the WWE's actions on this. Again they are a business company and I fully support what they did. It wasn't based in morality it was based in business. I've seen a lot of people say that but for some reason those same people that are saying "this was a business decision by them" are the first ones to complain online when the latest ROH indy darling isn't hotshotted right to the WWE title. So it seems strange to me that they can accept a 60 year old man who was nothing more than a good will ambassador's firing as a needful business decision but somehow turn around and believe that Samoa Joe or whoever should be the WWE Champion instead of the John Cena's of the world. </p><p> </p><p> My problem isn't with the WWE's moral standards. My complaints aren't a "swing and a miss" because they are more with the people on here or any other website or platform talking about how Hogan's a racist and he's that and he's this. Yet when Steve Austin beat his wife or wives...or when stories of Savage locking Elizabeth in a closet, or the Jimmy Snuka murder, or when Flair physically assaulted someone in a fit or road rage, or when Regal peed on a stewardess, or even when people use the mother of all "I know Benoit killed his entire family and himself but I still appreciate him as a performer". </p><p> </p><p> Yet I don't see a lot of that with Hogan which I mean is whatever its just maddening how people have some sort of claim to a moral compass but it can swing so freely. Because I think that out of nearly everything I listed there I think all of that is way worse than Hogan spouting racial slurs which was bad in itself but no one was beaten or urinated on in that process...that we know of. </p><p> </p><p> I doubt he'll be back because they don't really need him. They aren't going to "Benoit" him so to speak. I mean they don't do much with him now. They show clips of him slamming Andre or clips of the nWo but even that is minor. They don't really need to bring him back and it probably saves them a few million a year in a time when they are strapped for cash. Normally I would think Hogan would be just fine due the piles of money WCW gave him but with him at last check only being worth about 7 million I doubt a lot of that is even in liquid form. I wonder what he'll have to resort to now to keep up the lifestyle. I guess he could go the Flair route and keep it up by being a few million in debt and hiding from the police in Joe Gomez's basement I guess.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If you recall Hogan's wife took 80% of his assets in the divorce settlement. That is why you see him jump on TNA very shortly after. There is no WCW money because Mrs. Bolea is spending it! He needs the money at this point because she left him with virtually nothing. He has said in interviews around 2008 that he was done with making a lot of appearances than the wife trouble started.</p>

[Hashasheen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Atticus" data-cite="Atticus" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> And regarding your Booker T analogy, cracker is nowhere NEAR as offensive as the N word. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Off-topic, but I certainly didn't get that impression from a white school teacher at secondary when I said it in reference to Americans being large and in charge. She was so offended and I was so confused. Cracker just seemed like one of those words that blurs the lines between name-calling and slur, serving an actual purpose.</p><p> </p><p> Never said it around her again though, she was seriously uptight about kids and name-calling.</p>

[Rayelek]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hashasheen" data-cite="Hashasheen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Off-topic, but I certainly didn't get that impression from a white school teacher at secondary when I said it in reference to Americans being large and in charge. She was so offended and I was so confused. Cracker just seemed like one of those words that blurs the lines between name-calling and slur, serving an actual purpose.<p> </p><p> Never said it around her again though, she was seriously uptight about kids and name-calling.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Cracker is offensive to some, including me. Allegedly it was short for "whip cracker" back in the day and I don't take that very nicely.</p><p> </p><p> On the Hogan topic, racism is altogether wrong, no one should do it, all of that that is universally agreed upon. That said, dropping all reference to him at the time isn't awful, and it'll probably come back in a couple of years after this has died down. He made enough money that they probably wouldn't be done with him forever and in the end, it's all about the money.</p>

[BHK1978]

<p>I have not read much about the topic but is the WWE trying to spin this as them doing the right thing and standing up against racism? Because if that is the case that is a comical stance for them to take while still having Michael P.S. Hayes as an employee who is very racist from what I have read in the past. Granted he has never been caught on tape saying those things so I guess it is one of those see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil sort of deals.</p><p> </p><p>

I also wanted to add in regards to the Hall of Fame, I really do not think he should be removed. I mean the WWE HOF is a joke anyway but I do not hear anyone asking for the removal of Ty Cobb from the Baseball HOF and I think it is safe to say that he was a huge racist.</p>

[liontamer]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This is a really bad argument. If you don't understand why making candid racist statements (and admitting to being a racist) in real life is much worse than calling someone a "honkey" in a wrestling angle, you need to think critically about <em>why </em>what Hogan said was so much more damaging. It's the same reason Mel Gibson's candid hate speech was treated differently than characters playing racists in movies. Because not only is it in real life, not part of a story, it forces people to re-evaluate the person's work and wonder if racism actually negatively impacted the careers of the people he worked with.<p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I firmly disagree. First, lets look at the terms, The N word refers to the slaves and has somewhat taken on a more generalized negative connotation towards black people in general. Cracker is basically calling someone a slave driver and has also become a generalized negative word towards whites. To me they are = even if the PC police don't call it that way. Honky was both a slur against people in certain European countries, and white men driving in cars honking to try to pick up a prostitute. Also not very flattering.</p><p> </p><p> Second, since when don't wrestlers have any say in what words are used in their promos? If I'm not mistaken, often they are at least partially if not completely open mic (While we're on booker, he called hulk the N word in WCW if I'm not mistaken.) Even if it were entirely scripted, you could always refuse a line or gimmick that was racist. In your view, would Hogan be more deserving of the HOF if he used the word several times in character, but not in his personal life? </p><p> </p><p> Back to Hogan, let's evaluate his work..... I don't have a great knowledge of history prior to the 90s for wrestling. I know many of the names, but not where they all ranked. But unless you have any claims by the wrestlers or writers that Hogan refused to work with them, that sounds more like a booking decision. Until you have that, it's pure speculation on your part that holds no weight. But what about the people he did work with...... per Rodman, Disco Inferno, Tito Ortiz, George Foreman (the article seems to imply they were in the ring together, when did this happen?), Kamala, and Virgil he is not a racist, and I have yet to find a wrestler commenting that he was (even a google search could not turn up a single claim). Also, if you watched TE, I saw no racism in his glowing praise of this weeks elimination, either on this or prior episodes, and he praised him to an extent that would be very difficult for a racist to give.</p><p> </p><p> So what did he do? He appeared to work in and out of the ring with people of different races without issues based on racism, did many public services to people of all races and with disabilities etc, there is no evidence yet that he actually held anyone back or committed any actions against anyone due to race. At this point, all I see is incoherent ramblings with a racially charged word. If people come out and say that he committed racist actions, that will change my views quite a bit, but for now I just don't see how this outweighs any of the good he did. Oh I also forgot on my list of people to be offended by it, #1 should be Brooke given his implications about her.</p><p> </p><p> Personally, I don't see how these are damaging to the wrestling fan given that they won't appear anywhere in the product, where as I do seem to recall Booker using both of the words above in WCW and WWE numerous times and that would be seen by kids viewing the network. If you are for removing Hogan from the HOF, for stuff that does not appear on any show ever, and that does not appear to have caused any actual direct harm to anyone, I would think that Booker would have to come out or at least have all of those interview scrubbed.</p><p> </p><p> I don't see any evidence that he or Booker are actually racist in behavior (which I consider a much greater reflection of beliefs than words). They just use terms that are offensive to a lot of people today.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> The over reaction by the public actually kind of reminds me of a heated conversation with the girl I mentioned earlier (this was post break up). She was asking me about the Clippers scandal and after I explained my views she commented something to the extent that people who believe things like that should be executed. Much to her disliking, I pointed out that had her comments been taped and released, I think that they are actually more offensive than his given that she is basically wishing death on people with a different view than her (granted I do agree that he is a scum bag and a racist given non clippers related things that he did which actually caused harm and were racially biased).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also rumor is Bret Hart is taking Hogan's spot on TE</p>

[Bad News Fryer]

From a business stand point though, this was by far the wisest thing to do. Hogan was an idiot - WWE saw this blacklash coming - and thus WWE were just avoiding a media storm. While he shouldn't be removed from history - keeping him would be risky and Hogan is hardly required by them

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="liontamer" data-cite="liontamer" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I firmly disagree. First, lets look at the terms, The N word refers to the slaves and has somewhat taken on a more generalized negative connotation towards black people in general. Cracker is basically calling someone a slave driver and has also become a generalized negative word towards whites. To me they are = even if the PC police don't call it that way. Honky was both a slur against people in certain European countries, and white men driving in cars honking to try to pick up a prostitute. Also not very flattering.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If you don't understand why being called a "whip-cracker" is not the same as being called less than human, we're not having a conversation. They are not even close to being equal. Not even "gee maybe," just... not at all. Even a cursory look at the term means it refers to whipping your own animals, which is obviously a huge insult when other, unfree people can be <em>bought </em>to do that for you. Beyond which, one is a flat-out racist term, one is a term referring to a certain class of white people; by definition, one is more racist.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> For any other questions, I'll refer you to this John Mulaney bit: </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="150" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RC2vOLaTBLE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="The Worse Word - John Mulaney (New in Town)"></iframe></div></div><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="liontamer" data-cite="liontamer" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't see any evidence that he or Booker are actually racist in behavior (which I consider a much greater reflection of beliefs than words). They just use terms that are offensive to a lot of people today.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> As explained, private speech admitting to actual racism =/ words in a wrestling promo.</p>

[mitsukaikira]

Agreement. The word you want is agreement.