Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
I read what you wrote, its typical IWC, lifted from the Newsletters point of view.
Certain guys who were politicians get a pass because they have 4-5 star matches. The guys who dont, like Hogan and Nash, get buried online and in the sheets. Its standard fare. Ive read it all before. I just dont happen to feel the need to have the millionth debate about whether or not Bret was in the right to refuse the finish he was given. Because as we know the entire country of Canada would have went into a state of mourning if they had to see Bret do a JOB.
Its all the same issue to me regardless of the excuse. Promoter comes up with an angle, the top star kicks up a fuss, and says "no". Promoter then makes alternate plans. Its happened in every territory in every era, its nothing new.
I will say, the issue to me is not who has the better reasoning to balk at a finish, to me its just the act itself which is at issue, and proves that everyone plays politics at the top.
|
Which once again is very circular. We have al discussed how everyone politics at the top, but we are discussing when it has hurt business and when it has been most egregious. The 5 star wrestler bit is nonsense, you are generalizing my statements because you think all of the iwc is the same. Take Nash, I could give a shit about his politicking because he was head Booker, the company has themselves to blame and Nash was just making himself top dog, and it's how hes always been.
And you keep going into this whole thing about whether Bret was right or wrong,and that's not what I'm talking about, I'm saying there were extenuating factors.
Hogans politicking at its best was good for business, at its worst, a desperate vindictive selfish man, doing desperate. Vindictive, selfish things that didn't even really benefit himself in the long run.
Same can be said for some others, but his often come across as the most ludicrous when k poking back, no matter what Dave Meltzer says. And I often defend Hogan.