Was Hulk Hogan's 2002 Title Run Needed?

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Originally Posted by Dagger Dias

It was not. Hogan may have been over but he did not need the belt by that point. The World Championship is meant for the very best and Hogan's prime was already far behind him.

If it's meant for the very best, then why did Jericho and HHH hold it before Hogan? Do you think Jericho and HHH were the very best?

He was just not believable in the role of being the Undisputed best in the federation.

Why wasn't he believable? Honestly, he wasn't any less believable than HHH.

There is no denying how over he was at the time, that shouldn't be all it takes to put the belt on someone.

That's a pretty big factor. You want a champion that is over. Hogan was over. Therefore, I had no problem with him winning the title.

Simply giving him a title shot against Triple H would have sufficed.

But it didn't.

Hogan was so over that Triple H retaining would not have damaged him in the slightest. I'm not a fan of nostalgia runs with a world title, I'd rather give legends wanting a nostalgia run a midcard title so that the actual top guys can all go for the top belt.

Fuck that. If they want a nostalgia run, I'm putting them straight at the top. Besides, the only other options were HHH, Austin, and Undertaker. I'm putting Hogan slightly behind Austin for 2nd. Maybe even 1st.

A run with the United States Championship would have been better for not only that particular belt but also a perfect fit given Hogan's american hero persona. Hogan winning the Undisputed Championship was not a title win that I agreed with at the time and I still think that was a bad decision..

Except for the fact that the title was brought back after Hogan left the WWE. Learn your title history.

[Dagger Dias]

Originally Posted by Little Jerry Lawler

If it's meant for the very best, then why did Jericho and HHH hold it before Hogan? Do you think Jericho and HHH were the very best?

Jericho won it at first because Triple H was injured. The first Undisputed Champion would have been Triple H had he been available, besides Jericho was still a fine choice.

Originally Posted by Little Jerry Lawler

Why wasn't he believable? Honestly, he wasn't any less believable than HHH.

Hogan was past his prime, HHH was in his. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Little Jerry Lawler

That's a pretty big factor. You want a champion that is over. Hogan was over. Therefore, I had no problem with him winning the title.

Yes, a champion being over is important. However, being believable in the role of being the best is also highly crucial. This was 2002, not the 1980's or 1990's. Hogan was no longer believable in that role.

Originally Posted by Little Jerry Lawler

Fuck that. If they want a nostalgia run, I'm putting them straight at the top. Besides, the only other options were HHH, Austin, and Undertaker. I'm putting Hogan slightly behind Austin for 2nd. Maybe even 1st.

Why put them straight to the top? Say Bret Hart was coming in for a nostalgia run. He's one of my all time favorite legends, but I wouldn't want him to be WWE or World Champion. Why? He's no longer believable in that role. Neither was Hogan 11 years ago, let alone today. Legends should not hold a world title again once they are no longer believable in that role. Midcard or tag team belts are another story. By your logic I imagine you'd make Hogan the TNA World Champion, wouldn't you? This is why I rarely agree with your posts.

Originally Posted by Little Jerry Lawler

Except for the fact that the title was brought back after Hogan left the WWE. Learn your title history.

So what? They owned the rights to the title. What if Hogan had brought it back? Now THAT would have made for an awesome crowd reaction, man.

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Originally Posted by Dagger Dias

Jericho won it at first because Triple H was injured. The first Undisputed Champion would have been Triple H had he been available, besides Jericho was still a fine choice.

Average choice given how that reign went especially with all the stars around. Also, Lucy the dog. And they actually thought aligning with a McMahon would help Jericho.

Hogan was past his prime, HHH was in his. It's that simple.

HHH's prime was 1999-2001. He was never as good as he was during those years.

Yes, a champion being over is important. However, being believable in the role of being the best is also highly crucial. This was 2002, not the 1980's or 1990's. Hogan was no longer believable in that role.

Big Show, JBL, Cena, Rey Mysterio, Booker T, Edge, RVD, Kane, Khali, Swagger, Miz

Those are some of the guys who have held world titles since 2002. At the time they won, how many do you think were believable in the role of being the best? Punk's been the champion for over a year and yet there are still many who continue to hold his stature against him.

If you're over and you can come up with a good story, than believability of being the very best matters less and less. See Mankind in 1999.

Why put them straight to the top? Say Bret Hart was coming in for a nostalgia run. He's one of my all time favorite legends, but I wouldn't want him to be WWE or World Champion. Why? He's no longer believable in that role. Neither was Hogan 11 years ago, let alone today. Legends should not hold a world title again once they are no longer believable in that role. Midcard or tag team belts are another story. By your logic I imagine you'd make Hogan the TNA World Champion, wouldn't you? This is why I rarely agree with your posts.

I rather see Hart winning the WWE or WHC title than a midcard title. We saw the latter in 2010 and that was just a footnote in his career. If you could get mileage out of them for a couple of months, then I'm cool with it. It's not like there are a plethora of guys being pushed to the main event scene anyway. Couple of months wouldn't kill them.

[comrade_mario]

Regardless of what you think of Hogan, the title had to be switched off Triple H and given to the Undertaker in a manner that would keep Taker heel and allow Triple H to turn heel. Triple H wasn't working as a face and he clearly wanted to return to being a heel, which is the direction they took the night after he lost the belt to Hogan. HHH also never declared that he would win his title back off Hogan, so they had also obviously decided Taker would be the champion going forward.

So it had to go through a transitional face champion quite simply. Now look back at the WWF landscape when Hogan won the title, who were the top faces?

Steve Austin: Was about to walk out on the company and was clearly disgruntled, wouldn't have been a good choice
The Rock: Was gone to Hollywood
Jeff Hardy: Not ready
Edge: Not ready
The Big Show: Could have been used
RVD: Not ready but could have been used

So it's a choice between RVD, Big Show or Hogan to carry the title for a month to drop to the Undertaker.

I would have anyway, but especially considering WM 18, chosen Hogan a hundred and one times before RVD or Big Show at that time.

[FlairFan2003]

The guy holding the World Title should be way over, way popular, and be able to sell tickets. If that guy is a legend in a nostalgia run then so be it. From a money making business standpoint (and this is a business built around making money) I'd rather bury the young guy who isnt yet over with fans but has potential and ride the guaranteed money train that is my way over, way popular, ticket selling legend on his nostalgia run. There is always time to build Mr Potential young guy later, the money making machine of the legend has a short shelve life, ride it while you can.

Want to know why Cena & HHH have had so many title runs in the last 12 years ?? They put more fans in seats than anyone else, simple. Want to know why Vince was always trying to find someone new to be Champ during Brett Hart's heyday...he didnt think Hart put enough fans in seats so he tried Nash & Yokozuna & eventually moved to KBK.

Hogan's title run in 2002 did not hurt one wrestler or career. It was a great selling point, the ultimate favorite son returns home and wins the gold. Did anyone's career really suffer irresversible harm due to all the attention HBK-Taker got at WM 25 & 26 ? How many future superstars saw their careers ruined by Ric Flair's Farewell Tour in 07-08 ? Please explain the damage done to all of pro wresting by having so much attention on Taker-HHH at the last two WrestleMania's ? I can tell you one side effect of each of those matches and storylines...THEY MADE WWE A LOT OF $$$$$$

Look at the NFL, no matter what young up and coming team grabs headlines the biggest ratings grabbing match ups are always the ones involving The Steelers, Patriots, Peyton Manning, etc... the old, well established, successful franchises and players who have dominated the past decade plus. Despite all their success this season what match up do you think brings the most interest, Manning vs Brady or Russell Wilson vs Andy Dalton ?? Maybe some day after years of hard work Wilson vs Dalton will be as big as Manning-Brady, but not today.

Hogan's 2002 run accomplished two major goals. It kept fans interested and it was a popular way to honor one of the industry's most successful stars. No one was damaged by it (HHH didnt suffer from that loss any major damage to his credibility or star power anymore than he did putting over HBK in 02, Flair in 05, or Taker last year). Now you can argue about wether Hogan, a notorious self promoter not known for putting over other talent or working well with others really deserved such an honor, but that is a different thread. Did Hogan's title run hurt the company ? NO - Did It help ? To a small exent YES. Was it a popular tribute to a legendary superstar that long time fans appreciated and enjoyed ? YES. I dont have an issue with it.

[FlairFan2003]

The other point to consider was this was only a short term run... about a month, he was used as a transitional champion maximizing his popularity with older fans but not burying the roster. The he put over Taker, another established star but one ten years younger, better capable of wrestling a full time schedule and carrying the mantle of the company. Given his legendary status, the reaction he got at WrestleMania 18, it was not a bad choice at all. Maybe having Hogan as champ all year would have been rough (he couldnt wrestle that kind of schedule, if they were convinced a long term nostalgia run was the way to go they'd been better of with Flair, at least he could still wrestle more often) but that was never the case. Hogan probably could have run well two or three months, they chose one, in essence they didnt over use him they probably under used him a bit and left a little on the table.

[BC1978]

It was the right thing to do Hogan was HOT at the time. The WWF should have had him win it later and then lose the title to Brock Lesnar at Summer Slam.

Then I think it should have been time to put Hogan out to pasture. Having him tag with Flair and go into WM19 and Face Austin.... Then Retire at WM20.

[braveh]

I was going to say don't forget about Hogans knows best. That show was huge on VH1 between 05 and 07.

But I realize that was years later. No I'm not sure it was the right thing to do to put the belt on him. It probably would have worked better and brought in more casual fans if it was during the VH1-years.

[Why Always Me]

No - just because he got a big pop a couple of times is no reason to give him the title.

Somebody that far past their prime should be putting the new stars over, not beating Triple H and then later Randy Orton and Shawn Michaels.

To look at it from another anlge, The Rock is my all time favourite wrestler but I have said he should lose to Punk at the Rumble and then wn the belt later on from Punk, that way he has put Punk over in a miatch. And the Rock should lose to John Cena in their re-match. And The Rock isn't exactly a million miles away from his prime, he probably doean't have the injuries of half the WWE roster due to him barely wrestling in the last 8 or so years.

Hogan should have come up short against Triple H at Backlash, shook his hand and posed. judgement Day should have been Jericho beating Hogan instead of losing AGAIN to Triple H and Triple H beating Taker at Judgement Day and KOTR. Put Triple H into the match with Angle, Taker and Rock at Vengeance (he can still do the skit with HBK, Stephanie and Bischoff earlier in the show), have Rock win and then everything else happens as it did.

[dukes07]

I am glad I found this topic as I am currently watching 02 WWF and just finished Insurrextion. I was never a fan of Hogan as a face. His WCW runs outside the nWo were quite awful. And while I still think the nWo was aborted far too quickly in his 02 run, I cannot help but mark out a little.

The pops for Hogan at this time are fucking amazing. I just love his interactions with Rock, HHH, Undertaker and Jericho. I am almost wishing that the title reign continued a bit longer....I do think that they maybe could have waited a bit, build him up further and have him win but I see why they did it: He was hot right then and there, so don't fuck with it.

I also see why some would be displeased. HHH coming back, getting pushed to the moon and just winning the title (I will say that his feud with Jericho was fairly awful). He was also getting a huge crowd reaction. I have heard also that he and Stephanie were not happy with Hogan getting the title as it killed his momentum, and if true, then I am even more fine with it! Anyway, everything seems to be clicking right now. I am really enjoying the 02 main event scene too.

Someone said that the Undisputed title was meant for HHH, from all that I have read that is not the case. They knew he wouldn't be back by December and were not sure about the Rumble. The InVasion angle got prematurely aborted and so they scrambled to fill the void, hence the Undisputed title and Jericho coming out the winner.