David_TheMan
Banned
Dixie is still the majority owner and until another company buys her out of her majority share, its nothing more than groundless speculation.
Dixie doesn't brow beat & degrade her wrestlers, let alone cameramen/managers/announcersnot as bad as bad as Dixie though, Dixie facial expressions and actions was like that person shouldn't be on tv at all bad.
Damn. I hate you might really be retired from TSC if this hasn't lured him out to chime in.
Does anyone know where he is?![]()
I think he's dead.
if upn, WB, Booker T's WCW run and now bellator mma has told us anything it's when you are the alternative and lagging behind in the ratings race you really have nothing to lose so why not opt to be diverse. They don't do that shyt out of the goodness of their hearts its more a case of we aren't going to make any ground doing exactly what the industry standard is doing let's try to get black eyes on this and see where we can go from there
not as bad as bad as Dixie though, Dixie facial expressions and actions was like that person shouldn't be on tv at all bad.
but TNA were the distant alternative from day 1but TNA was pushing black talent from day 1 tho.
their first few months on the air, you had ron killings' anti-establishment/pro-black title run, which included a feud with monty brown.
now r-truth is doing the complete opposite in the WWE along with darn near every black talent they have over there. and this is the company that youre trying to defend? REALLY?
but TNA were the distant alternative from day 1
Bill Watts ol racist ass even knew pushing black wrestlers was good for business, Vince McMahon stillIt's still kinda wild to me how all the Southern-based feds (some which marketed directly to rednecks/Klan) has pushed more Black wrestlers in serious roles and had more Black champs than the Northern-based WWE which is supposed to be marketed nation/worldwide.
at that in 2016
I don't get whether that's a statement or rhetorical question either way when you are the number 2 it in your best interest to be alternative and as such you take the inventive/experimental route to the top or you are going to be left in the dust trying to be a replica of the industry standard. IE like when WCW decided to make rasslin more a reflection of what was happening in entertainment at the time. They also incorporated luchas and between hours dancing girls (not unlike half time cheerleaders) gave it a big show feel.Whilst RAW just seemed sterile. TNA was a new product and how do you get eyes on your product from the jump? Give it some swagger and attitude that's how. Truth said a lot of controversial shyt which was meant to get the company attention so let's not go out giving NAACP awards like they we trying to be progressive out of the goodness of their hearts. They are desperate and will do anything to see what sticks...doesn't matter. and your logic is backwards.
the fact that they are the alternative means that they shouldn't be taking any chances.
that's not in disputemeanwhile, the WWE is in a position where they can put their top title on anybody they dam well please and theyve done just that. putting their belts on some of the wackest wrestlers on the roster, and also churning out a horrible product. and people will still watch due to brand loyalty.
theyre simply just not putting their top title on black wrestlers, simply because they just don't want to.
I don't get whether that's a statement or rhetorical question either way when you are the number 2 it in your best interest to be alternative and as such you take the inventive/experimental route to the top or you are going to be left in the dust trying to be a replica of the industry standard. IE like when WCW decided to make rasslin more a reflection of what was happening in entertainment at the time. They also incorporated luchas and between hours dancing girls (not unlike half time cheerleaders) gave it a big show feel.Whilst RAW just seemed sterile. TNA was a new product and how do you get eyes on your product from the jump? Give it some swagger and attitude that's how. Truth said a lot of controversial shyt which was meant to get the company attention so let's not go out giving NAACP awards like they we trying to be progressive out of the goodness of their hearts. They are desperate and will do anything to see what sticks...
that's not in dispute

Who is defending anything I just don't have such a high opinion of cacs like you obviously do. Wrestling is a racist ass biz and the majority of fans are cacs given that premise I take any and every action where a black gets a push or belt with a grain of saltI cant believe youre going to great lengths trying to defend this. I cant believe youre defending this at all.
wcw was never the distant alternative that you say TNA is. nor was wwf the "industry standard" that they are now.
so youre saying that these companies are putting the belts on black wrestlers out of desperation, to see what sticks? nevermind the fact that these guys are red hot? its not like theyre putting belts on random black wrestlers.......but the wwe is quick to put their belt on the most random white wrestlers around. WHY IS THAT!?
and the under-lining fact remains. the WWE can put their belt on ANYBODY and the audience will still watch. so AGAIN I ASK, what is stopping them from putting their tile on a black wrestler? they've had plenty of opportunities and ideal champions.
Who is defending anything I just don't have such a high opinion of cacs like you obviously do. Wrestling is a racist ass biz and the majority of fans are cacs given that premise I take any and every action where a black gets a push or belt with a grain of salt