∇
troperville

Vince Russo: Genius or Twatwaffle? A lone member of the former group can start a flamewar of epic proportions on any given Smark forum.
Vince McMahon: he's either the best thing to happen to the industry, or the worst.
Storyline-driven shows or in-ring action-driven shows (or, as they're referred to in the fanbase, "sports entertainment" vs. "pure wrestling"). There are compelling, valid arguments to be made for both sides. And each and every one of them will be contested no matter what.
WWE: Go on any wrestling forum and expect to hear how WWE's kid friendly PG rated programming is unwatchable and they should go back to the edgy adult friendly WWE of the past.
- The funny thing is that the adult friendly WWE was pretty much just the Attitude Era.
WWE's individual brands aren't immune to this, with fans arguing back and forth about whether Raw or SmackDown! is the superior show.
- Might be understandable, however, since at one point each show was viewed as a separate wrestling promotion, with different rosters, writers, and bookers. Thus, one show might have actually BEEN superior due to the roster depth, the matches that were booked, and the angles being better than the other brand. This was actually also what the WWE wanted to have happen because the brand extension was billed in that respect due to there being no other true competition for the WWE after they bought out WCW.
The original ECW. Either it was the holy grail of promotions and it revolutionized the wrestling industry, or it was an overrated hopped-up indy fed that died because it got too big for its britches.
TNA is either the worst promotion in wrestling history (including late period WCW), or a good alternative to the WWE.
TNA: There are huge debates on what creative direction TNA should take. Since fans who follow wrestling on the internet tend to prefer an in-ring action-driven product, there is great hatred for TNA acting more like a smaller version of WWE. Also for them signing a lot of older WWE talent rather than promoting their own wrestlers. They prefer TNA to be less storyline-driven and more wrestling orientated to contrast with WWE. Whether their opinions are valid or unrealistic is open for debate.
Wanna start a flamewar on a smark forum? Just post five words: "I'm a John Cena fan." Then sit back and enjoy the fun.
Bret Hart: Those who believe he's a justifiably angry former star used and abused by the industry vs. those who think he's an overrated bitter has-been who can't accept that his glory days are long past.
Triple H: Either he's an insecure glory hog who uses his backstage pull to hold down the more talented and deserving wrestlers, or he's one of the best of all time and has earned the right to, well, use his backstage pull to hold down the less talented and less deserving wrestlers.
Much like the stigma around Triple H, Hulk Hogan is either considered a glory hog who lets his ego get in the way of putting over more deserving workers or the man who put wrestling in the mainstream and therefore deserves to be in the spotlight.
Chris Benoit: Fallen Hero or pure evil? Although to be fair, that's kind of like asking whether or not this Mysterious Cup of Lemonade is actually week old piss-water or indigestible battery acid.
And now there's AJ Lee, new RAW GM. She's either one of the best Divas ever, or she's a talentless hack that stole Daniel Bryan's schtick.