TNA President Dixie Carter Defends the Criticism of Hulk Hogan
Throughout the years we have heard countless criticism's about Hulk Hogan. We have heard of times he didn't like finishes to his matches and changed storylines just to make himself look better. The list goes on and on. Are they true? No one really knows.
Hogan has been with TNA since January of 2010 and has had people at least notice that TNA exists. But there are still a lot of critics out there who feel Hogan is only out for Hulk Hogan.
I conducted an interview with TNA president Dixie Carter and she debunks the criticism of her highest-profile wrestler on the roster.
"I think people think he's just showing up and collecting some big, fat paycheck and it couldn't be further from the truth," Carter said. "This guy, this legend in our business, truly he surpasses the word 'wrestling' itself. He is so immersed in our business and helping us grow our business on days he's not even on shows. He's driving an hour and a half to sit in on our agents' meetings and help working with agents and the talent on the night of the show. If we have a PPV and he's not on it, he's there. He's working his tail off.
"And then you have, what does Hulk Hogan bring to a company such as ours and the doors it opens and the visibility it gives and that's everything. He's making business calls for us, he's talking to advertisers, he's showing up and working Viacom stuff. He's as vested as you can possibly be and I think he will always be known for so many big, big things throughout his career. I am hopeful that this period of his life, even when he's not in the ring wrestling, will be one that fans are so proud of how much he's giving back to this sport and how much he's giving back to this sport and how he's helping these young guys grow and what he's doing for our industry."
You can listen to the complete interview here.
You can follow me on Twitter @fightclubchi.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?