Championship Region, Fifth Round: (1) Hulk Hogan vs. (3) Undertaker

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think Undertaker could beat Hogan, but I dont think he will in this one.

Both men are two of the most important superstars the WWE has ever had, but Hogan is THE biggest star of all time. He routinely beat the biggest and best WWE had for years, and in a regular 1 on 1 match I cannot see him losing to Undertaker. If this was a gimmick match, like a Hell in a Cell or Casket Match- i.e something suited to Undertaker, then I would go with The Deadman, but not in a normal match in Hogan's prime. He beat everyone.

I don't think it would be easy, and Hulk would end up taking a Chokeslam and Tombstone, so he is going to be weaker in round 6. Undertaker in his prime wouldn't go down to a single Leg Drop either, so I see this ending after a 2nd, or possibly 3rd Leg Drop after a tough match.

Hogan may struggle next round after Taker puts up such a fight, but Hulk advances...just.

Winner: Hulk Hogan

 

[SSJPhenom]

Let me be honest; I'm a 'Taker mark and as such, I'm going to vote for him in this match regardless of if he should win or not.

Coincidentally, in a one off match in a tournament like this, I fully believe that 'Taker could win against anyone and that includes the Hulkster. Let me tell you the young 'Taker that I remember. 'Taker, after his debut went undefeated for what? A year? Even after he was defeated, how many times was it clean? I remember a 'Taker that had to have ashes thrown in his eyes at Tuesday in Texas to drop the title back to Hogan. I remember a 'Taker that had to have TEN men beat him down and put him into a casket for him to lose to Yoko. I remember a 'Taker that even a prime HBK couldn't beat without help from DX or Kane.

So to say that Hogan couldn't beat 'Taker without help is fine, however, I believe that the almighty demi god Hulk Hogan couldn't beat 'Taker without help either. 'Taker has taken the Title off of Hogan twice and don't tell me that the second time isn't significant because even at that time Hulk Hogan was the biggest babyface in the WWE.

People can talk all they want to about how Hogan is a larger draw and more successful. At the end of the day, however, people should vote for who they feel would go over. None of us work for the WWE. So all of this talk about who should go over business wise is just speculation. Also, people completely under cut how much of a draw 'Taker actually was and still is. Maybe not has big as some people, but the man can and does put asses in seats. To say otherwise is idiotic.

Idk what's going to happen. This is going to be a damn close match, but to say that 'Taker can't handle Hogan is ridiculous because he has handled Hogan. I even remember 'Taker and Paul Bearer doing the Regis show before Survivor Series in '91. So how can people say that 'Taker wasn't a draw in that match?

'Taker could win this match. Vote 'Taker.

 

[IHW]

I like Hogan here. Think back, way back, to both of these men in their prime. Hogan was obviously the bigger star. 'Takers huge drawing power didn't come till this past decade with the Wrestlemania Streak.On any day, this could go either way. On this day, I am going to go with Hulk Hogan.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Did I miss the point when he wasn't a novelty? Did it come and go, just like his month long title reigns?

Taker has always been a luxury for the WWE. A guy who was great to have, but was never needed, at least in the ring. Sure, backstage he's the voice of reason, but we aren't dealing with backstage. We're dealing with careers here.

And since we are, Taker's career is a molehill to Hogan's mountain

Mole..MOLEHILL!!!


Ok motherfucker,

[YOUTUBE]nu0bm3Ksiko[/YOUTUBE]

You know what that is? That is a fake Undertaker in a Bollywood movie. An industry that generated close to 3 billion dollars in 2012, had Undertaker in this movie. Why? Because his "molehill" of a career, garnered him super stardom only a choice few are blessed with.

Now let me do a little background story here:

The movie came out in mid-90s and it was shot during WWF's tour of India. They were running the Fake Undertaker angle back then in the WWF. And for storyline purposes, Callaway didn't travel to India. But the fact that ANY Undertaker was in India was godsent for Film Producers here. They pounced on his IMMENSE popularity and made this movie which was a huge box office hit.

Don't dare belittle the man's legacy child. He is one of those guys that is instantly recognizable in so many parts around the world.

"A guy who was never needed" says the schmuck. He was needed. He was needed, he was an attraction early on in his career when he was hot shit, he was a marquee on SmackDown and was THE selling point of that show, after he re-adopted the Deadman persona. His career and fame are epic.

How many dark matches have you seen that have announcers and are released by the WWE on video? WWE had few ppv's and few live tv shows with big matches back then so when these supposed "dark matches" were released on video it was a way for fans to see big time matches outside of the 4 or 5 ppvs they did. Shit, just one year later Bret Hart defeated Ric Flair in the same type of match to win the WWE Title. This wasn't the type of "dark match" you are used to.

It's still a dark match, that you are comparing with a WWF Title Winning match. Pulling the Bret Hart card? Bret won that title because Flair wanted to go back to WCW asap, as Herd was gone as WCW head honcho; AND Flair much preferred dropping the belt to Bret at a house show, rather than at a PPV or TV event. Bret himself has said, Flair wanted to make as less a fuss about Bret winning the title from him as possible.

 

[Bdubbs]

This is a really close match-up. As stated, it's obvious Hogan was the bigger draw and had more meaningful title runs. When it comes down to it, Hogan is arguably the best wrestler of all-time.

Taker beat Hogan at a time where Hulkamania was running wild on everyone. The argument that Taker only beat Hogan in 2002 due to Hulk being way out of his prime doesn't hold-up for me. Hogan beat HBK, another great considered to be one of the best of all-time, at Summerslam 2005. Taker was the man to end Shawn Michaels career, and he scored wins in back-to-back classics against Mr. Wrestlemania.

My vote goes to Taker due to personal preference, as I've always enjoyed Undertaker's style of work more. However, I won't be disappointed if Hogan goes over.

 

[Con T.]

Mole..MOLEHILL!!!


Ok motherfucker,

[YOUTUBE]nu0bm3Ksiko[/YOUTUBE]

You know what that is? That is a fake Undertaker in a Bollywood movie. An industry that generated close to 3 billion dollars in 2012, had Undertaker in this movie. Why? Because his "molehill" of a career, garnered him super stardom only a choice few are blessed with.

Great.

The real Hulk Hogan starred in legitimate, box office movies. His work alone in Rocky III trumps your tripe.

I'm shocked you didn't add Taker's minor role in Surburban Commando. But then again, who got Taker his job in WWE after that?

Yup, that'd be Hogan

Now let me do a little background story here:

The movie came out in mid-90s and it was shot during WWF's tour of India. They were running the Fake Undertaker angle back then in the WWF. And for storyline purposes, Callaway didn't travel to India. But the fact that ANY Undertaker was in India was godsent for Film Producers here. They pounced on his IMMENSE popularity and made this movie which was a huge box office hit.

The fact that you have to rely on a Bollywood movie to make your point to arguably the biggest crossover star in the history of wrestling is rather pathetic.

Don't dare belittle the man's legacy child. He is one of those guys that is instantly recognizable in so many parts around the world.

And how does that compare to the most recognizable man in wrestling?

Something tells me "'molehill to a mountain" is fitting.

"A guy who was never needed" says the schmuck. He was needed.

Then why, in his twenty something years with WWE, was Taker never selected as the guy to carry the company.

Vince thought Diesel was a more fitting man to carry the World Wrestling Federation. Uneeded seems kinda fitting.

he was an attraction early on in his career

An attraction would imply Taker drew money. Taker hasn't drawn money his whole career, let alone early in his career.

when he was hot shit, he was a marquee on SmackDown and was THE selling point of that show

He was a part time star on the B show, living off past reputation, while all the while, producing dimishing results. Pardon me if I'm not too impressed.

His career and fame are epic.

Literally everything you just said about Taker, I can say Hogan,

A. And then some.

B. It would all be actually true.

C. Hogan actually made money.

Why should I vote Taker, when literally every reason you've given me is true about Hogan?

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Great.

The real Hulk Hogan starred in legitimate, box office movies. His work alone in Rocky III trumps your tripe.

I'm shocked you didn't add Taker's minor role in Surburban Commando. But then again, who got Taker his job in WWE after that?

Yup, that'd be Hogan



The fact that you have to rely on a Bollywood movie to make your point to arguably the biggest crossover star in the history of wrestling is rather pathetic.




And how does that compare to the most recognizable man in wrestling?

Something tells me "'molehill to a mountain" is fitting.



Then why, in his twenty something years with WWE, was Taker never selected as the guy to carry the company.

Vince thought Diesel was a more fitting man to carry the World Wrestling Federation. Uneeded seems kinda fitting.



An attraction would imply Taker drew money. Taker hasn't drawn money his whole career, let alone early in his career.




He was a part time star on the B show, living off past reputation, while all the while, producing dimishing results. Pardon me if I'm not too impressed.



Literally everything you just said about Taker, I can say Hogan,

A. And then some.

B. It would all be actually true.

C. Hogan actually made money.

Why should I vote Taker, when literally every reason you've given me is true about Hogan?

So nobody has ever paid to watch Taker? Ye gotcha, he may have never hit the glass ceiling but bub, he brought people to the arena. I re-iterate, in 2 phases of his career, 1. The debut period and 2. After 2004, when he re-adopted his Deadman gimmick. He was very much a star attraction.

The fact that I used a bollywood movie shows you and those reading that Undertaker's stature has crossed seven seas, and even a fake Brian Lee Taker was deemed 'yes-please'. Why? Taker has been one of the most instantly recognizable superstars of all time. Hogan's movie career won't really be a strong suit for you here, so I'd advise against it being brought up.


When you say the most recognizable man in wrestling, do you only across mean the streets of Tampa? Coz Taker walking anywhere around the world was recognizable (maybe not so much during the ongoing mohawk-McCool era).

He carried the B-show. He was burdened with the B-show. After Taker re-debuted as the Deadman at WM 20, SD would run vignettes about how he is SOLELY on SD. He was THE man chosen to bear the weight of carrying a whole damn show. Brock was gone, Goldberg was gone, Steiner sucked ass, and Trips was, well, Trips. Taker carried a show for years and stayed on SD because Brand Roster meant something back then and that you would buy a ticket to SD to see Deadman. A lot of people did that.

 

[Con T.]

So nobody has ever paid to watch Taker? Ye gotcha, he may have never hit the glass ceiling but bub, he brought people to the arena. I re-iterate, in 2 phases of his career, 1. The debut period and 2. After 2004, when he re-adopted his Deadman gimmick. He was very much a star attraction.

Then, why was he never pushed as "the guy"? You still have yet to answer that, and for that matter, everyone who has voted Taker has failed to answer that

The fact that I used a bollywood movie shows you and those reading that Undertaker's stature has crossed seven seas, and even a fake Brian Lee Taker was deemed 'yes-please'. Why? Taker has been one of the most instantly recognizable superstars of all time. Hogan's movie career won't really be a strong suit for you here, so I'd advise against it being brought up.

Why? Because Hogan actually has one, and Taker doesn't? Again, you seem to be completely skirting the issue; Hogan is the most recognizable star in the history of wrestling.

Why should a shitty Bollywood movie convince me this isn't the case? What's so prolific about Taker's fame, that can't be said, and even more so, for Hulk Hogan? Because until you answer that question, your posts are meaningless asides that don't seem to answer any of what I've said.

Oh, and here's this. Taker isn't the only man to hit the Far East.

[YOUTUBE]0CCROasz8F0[/YOUTUBE]

This? It's probably just as meaningful as your Bollywood film.

When you say the most recognizable man in wrestling, do you only across mean the streets of Tampa? Coz Taker walking anywhere around the world was recognizable (maybe not so much during the ongoing mohawk-McCool era).

I mean the whole world

He carried the B-show. He was burdened with the B-show. After Taker re-debuted as the Deadman at WM 20, SD would run vignettes about how he is SOLELY on SD. He was THE man chosen to bear the weight of carrying a whole damn show. Brock was gone, Goldberg was gone, Steiner sucked ass, and Trips was, well, Trips.Taker carried a show for years and stayed on SD because Brand Roster meant something back then and that you would buy a ticket to SD to see Deadman. A lot of people did that.

So when there was no one else around, Taker was the guy.


Gotcha

 

[The Brain]

The fact that I used a bollywood movie shows you and those reading that Undertaker's stature has crossed seven seas, and even a fake Brian Lee Taker was deemed 'yes-please'. Why? Taker has been one of the most instantly recognizable superstars of all time. Hogan's movie career won't really be a strong suit for you here, so I'd advise against it being brought up.


When you say the most recognizable man in wrestling, do you only across mean the streets of Tampa? Coz Taker walking anywhere around the world was recognizable (maybe not so much during the ongoing mohawk-McCool era).

You say Taker is so instantly recognizable, but someone else played Undertaker in that movie and nobody noticed. I'm not going to knock the Undertaker but to suggest he is more famous or more recognizable than Hulk Hogan is simply ridiculous. I've been watching WWE since before Undertaker ever showed his face there and I never had any idea that movie existed until five minutes ago. I have a feeling you didn't know about it before today either. You were probably just searching for something to counter Hogan's fame and that's the best you could find. I haven't voted yet but if you want to convince me to vote for Taker you'll need to do more than show some lame movie that no one has ever heard of.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

I say Hogan wins, absolutely. Taker is great, but Hogan is the greatest of all time. Both guys in their prime, Hogan wins no doubt about it.

I suppose you could factor Taker when he's in Streak Mode but this isn't at Mania.

 

[Tastycles]

I knew it would be close, and Hogan would probably lose, so to say I'm surprised would be a lie. However, this is fucking ridiculous. Undertaker's victory over Hogan in 1991 was complete and utter bullshit designed to get the title off Hogan and onto Flair without them fighting each other. A win for Taker here would be like saying Ivan Koloff should beat Bruno Sammartino. In a greatest of all time scenario, that's absurd, and we should know that.

Hogan is a bigger draw, had longer reigns, more impressive wins, more success in a similar era and totally changed the fortunes of every company he wrestled for.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Then, why was he never pushed as "the guy"? You still have yet to answer that, and for that matter, everyone who has voted Taker has failed to answer that





So when there was no one else around, Taker was the guy.


Gotcha

Glad you have answered you question and FYI: When there was no Brock, Cena became the man. Didn't Brock say this? When Austin got 'run over' The Rock was the man. Who was the main face when Austin got hit by that car in 1999? Val Venis?

You take over, and are given a responsibility when other stars fade out or get injured. A slew of TOP superstars left and to sustain a show like SD, that hardly drew post 2002, he was given the responsibility to be THE star attraction and bear the burden. Raw would have the aplomb of the other stars and its name would carry it. Smack Down didn't have that luxury when the brands split and guys like Austin, and Rock started leaving. Smack Down needed someone big to even get some viewers and Taker did that magnificently.

Now I will address you are main question...

Then, why was he never pushed as "the guy"? You still have yet to answer that, and for that matter, everyone who has voted Taker has failed to answer that

Let me show you something and follow this nice and slow Haiku...

This is one of the saddest pics I have ever seen. Glenn Jacobs, gets to star in a movie. Long gone where his Isaac Yankem days, and to say that you starred in a motion picture, is a credit to any wrestler.

But look at him, look how miserable he looks. He was burdened by his gimmick. It would be great if he came down in a nice spiffy suit, shook hands and took pics. No. His gimmick would be dealt a blow. Why? Because he is this spooky guy who everyone fears in the WWE. You humanize him, and one movie can cost him any sort of kayfabe credibility for some time. This is the fear the WWE have.

This is the problem with The Deadman's gimmick.


From time to time you may get this,

Or this,

And if you get the DVD or subscribe to WWE 24/7 you may get this,



[YOUTUBE]GeyrJsQSIAY[/YOUTUBE]




Ever wonder why Taker is never at the Hall Of Fame Induction ceremony? Why one of the longest, top serving superstars can't be a part of that celebration? His gimmick inhibits him. Inhibits him to be...normal like the Cenas and Hogans of this world. Yet still, the man has put butts in seat as they await his whole presentation. Thats what he is, he is a whole package from his entrance to his matches, expressions, sit ups, signature moves, Tombstone and pin and the one-knee tribute.


But the man's persona has come at a price, i.e that he can never be a spokesperson, can never make frequent public event appearances and is always made to sit out, so that his gimmick doesn't wane in credibility. It is to protect his other-worldly image. Yes, even in this world of one-click information, the cutting of his hair was kept a secret for months before Mania 28.


This is what his interviews are as the Deadman:


[YOUTUBE]TS5J3ZnLvsg&list=PL66D5215C8BFEF99E&index=4[/YOUTUBE]


BTW I hope someone kills Kathie Lee.


You see how comical it becomes?! How is persona is shredded if he follows his gimmick to the fullest and does these?



It is a double-edged sword and has been so all his career. Yes he is over because he is an other-worldly attraction. He brings this eerie, mystical feel that even at age 26 I find extremely entertaining. People from all around the world (and in the U.S) have paid their hard-earned money to get that Undertaker experience, right from the gong hitting, to his fist-raising in the end. But at the same time he can't be THE man, because he can't be normal and be himself in public appearances that the Austins and the Rocks have the luxury of.

has[/I] one, and Taker doesn't? Again, you seem to be completely skirting the issue; Hogan is the most recognizable star in the history of wrestling.

Why should a shitty Bollywood movie convince me this isn't the case? What's so prolific about Taker's fame, that can't be said, and even more so, for Hulk Hogan? Because until you answer that question, your posts are meaningless asides that don't seem to answer any of what I've said.

Oh, and here's this. Taker isn't the only man to hit the Far East.

[YOUTUBE]0CCROasz8F0[/YOUTUBE]

This? It's probably just as meaningful as your Bollywood film.

No it isn't.


What don't you get about the Undertaker being used in a big-budget Hindi movie, in an industry that makes close 2 billion dollars a year? Undertaker can't do ads endorsing shit when he is knee-deep in his gimmick.

He did all the OTR, sit down interviews with people after 97 when his character got a brother, father and shit like that. They humanized him more and more but the fact of the matter is, American Badass wasn't an attraction, The Phenom was and is! They still keep him guarded, and secret to the public's eye. He has been inhibited from being the man, because he cannot as social as the TOP face is supposed to be. There is your reason.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

You say Taker is so instantly recognizable, but someone else played Undertaker in that movie and nobody noticed. I'm not going to knock the Undertaker but to suggest he is more famous or more recognizable than Hulk Hogan is simply ridiculous. I've been watching WWE since before Undertaker ever showed his face there and I never had any idea that movie existed until five minutes ago. I have a feeling you didn't know about it before today either. You were probably just searching for something to counter Hogan's fame and that's the best you could find. I haven't voted yet but if you want to convince me to vote for Taker you'll need to do more than show some lame movie that no one has ever heard of.

Brian Lee had just put away the original Taker in the storyline and he didn't travel to India. The producers knew this but went with it as his face would be covered with his hair. People didn't watch that movie and go, "Who is that big dude?", they went "Holy Shit! That's Akshay Kumar (star of the movie) and the Undertaker!!!"


I am Indian dude, and I was one of those guys marking the fuck out when the first trailer played out some 16 years ago. When I saw the movie I knew it wasn't the real Taker, and back then there these spooky rumours that the real Taker was dead, and they replaced him with a new Taker and all kinda shit. His other-worldly aura was intact with the masses here.

I wasn't just searching something for Taker, I shared with you a real-life Taker story. Crush was in that movie too. Would you like the clip?


Bottom line is, people in the Indian sub-continent knew who Taker was but NOT Hulk Hogan. Know why? TNT didn't start broadcasting till 1997 here so Hogan was gone for a long time from the public eye and we got wrestling in 93-94. We saw but a glimpse of Hogan and then he was forgotten and nobody had a clue as to how big he was before that. Taker on the other hand, because of how he stood out with his whole look was seared in the minds of anybody who saw him. And I mean everyone.


People still ask Akshay Kumar of his fight with Taker and he is one of the highest grossing stars here. Trust me his movies do some insane business close to 150 crores ruppees, that is 27 Million dollars; that is a big number here. And to show why it is still a big deal here:


[YOUTUBE]TPi9pB0zI9g[/YOUTUBE]


This is basically Akshay Kumar talking about inviting Kane to meet his son, as both him and his kid are avid WWE fans. And he mentions how he fought Kane's brother Undertaker.


It is still real to us DAMMIT!

 

[ABMorales787]

In this day and age, Hogan has become an expense and Undertaker has become a major attraction. Whether it's for The Streak or a match on Raw in the U.K. an appearance by The Phenom is considered major while Hogan is considered by a few as the anchor on TNA's ship.

In his heyday Hogan was the top draw with zero dispute while Undertaker was just the sideshow. That's true. Hogan drew the most. But that's in the past. Undertaker on the otherhand, while not the top draw, has always had a niche fanbase and as of the last few years his Streak has become one if not the definitive Wrestlemania attraction.

I know lots of people will claim Hogans the bigger draw and that both these guys in their prime, Hogan would go over. History says that can go either way. Then again, history also says Metlife Stadium was opened in 2010 so I don't know how the hell a crippled Hogan could fare with Undertaker just shy of being one of the headliners in said stadium.

If being the bigger household name is what dictates who should win here something's up because Billy Kidman or Maven never really come up alongside these guys. At the end of the day even Hulk Hogan was a mere mortal when matched against The Phenom.

 

[Con T.]

In this day and age, Hogan has become an expense and Undertaker has become a major attraction. Whether it's for The Streak or a match on Raw in the U.K. an appearance by The Phenom is considered major while Hogan is considered by a few as the anchor on TNA's ship.

In his heyday Hogan was the top draw with zero dispute while Undertaker was just the sideshow. That's true. Hogan drew the most. But that's in the past. Undertaker on the otherhand, while not the top draw, has always had a niche fanbase and as of the last few years his Streak has become one if not the definitive Wrestlemania attraction.

I know lots of people will claim Hogans the bigger draw and that both these guys in their prime, Hogan would go over. History says that can go either way. Then again, history also says Metlife Stadium was opened in 2010 so I don't know how the hell a crippled Hogan could fare with Undertaker just shy of being one of the headliners in said stadium.

If being the bigger household name is what dictates who should win here something's up because Billy Kidman or Maven never really come up alongside these guys. At the end of the day even Hulk Hogan was a mere mortal when matched against The Phenom.

Oh, God, where do I even begin here?

A. Even if we are using the versions of each wrestler you're referring to (which is idiotic. If that's the case, Triple H should go over Andre by forfeit, because Andre's dead)....

Hogan is crippled, but Undertaker isn't?

He wrestles one match a year, maybe two if he's put in a tag team.

Why?

Because anything more might kill the fucker

B. Hogan means much more to TNA than you are giving credit, because of the brand. Of course he means nothing as a wrestler now, how could he? But when TNA comes to London, who is the most over guy?

When they do go on the road, who is the most over?

Oh, and there is that whole thing about making two different promotions the #1 promotion in the world.

C. Hulk Hogan is more important to the success than Taker ever has been.

The majority of Taker's streak features god-awful matches, that wind up being the least climactic matches on the whole show. For every Shawn/Taker, there's about three Henry/Taker matches. It's a marketing tool by the WWE, a happy accident that works in WWE's favor.


More people buy Wrestlemania for the brand name, than they ever have any of Taker's matches.

D. MetLife stands on The Meadowlands. That's stood during both Hogan and Taker's career.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Under the gimmick of the Undertaker there has never been a nonprime part of his career. The prime 90's Hogan has a winning record over the Undertaker, including their first and last televised meetings... why is this even still a discussion?

Who's bigger? Duh! Hogan was the focal point of THREE wrestling revolutions (Hulkamania and WWF takes over wrestling; Hogan turns heel and WCW takes over wrestling; the WWF respond with Attitude before they go out of business)! The Undertaker is important ONE DAY A YEAR and how many times in the last 20 plus years has it been the main focus of the PPV?

Who has the better record? Hogan has 12 World Title reigns lasting 3362 days over a 20 years spell, Taker has 6 reigns lasting 445 days over a similar period.

And as for cultural influence - being a massive movie star isn't going to get El Santo past Bruno Sammartino, how does the fake Undertaker appearing as a supporting character in a Bollywood film get the real Undertaker past the real American? And I'd say this would trump that as a pop culture reference...

[YOUTUBE]esR019e-uMQ[/YOUTUBE]​

The fake 'Taker was killed, even the Gremlins respect Hulkamania!

 

[deem]

I'm voting Hogan. I far prefer Undertaker but remaining unbiased - obviously the only way to take Undertaker would be with a huge kayfabe bias towards him, and analysis shows not much between them with big excuses for Hogan's main losses. I don't think that's enough to overcome easily the most logical man to advance, with no other advantages to be found.

I do think people are selling Taker a bit short here. Many other posters know far more about drawing figures, but it's such a hard thing to quantify - how could you guess how many buyrates were added to Mania because of Taker as compared to Cena etc in the last 10 years? Just impossible. For me personally, Undertaker is a huge draw and I'd be shocked if that wasn't the same for many. The pops he gets are just insane, that's gotta tell you something. That's been consistent for 20 years too, he's been MAD over for his entire career.

Hogan is the biggest draw of all time and the most important wrestler in history though. There NEEDS to be a kayfabe edge to vote anyone over him, and there isn't here as far as I can see.

 

[CleverName51]

Hogan was the guy in pro wrestling from something like 1980-2000....Undertaker was a career upper midcarder with forays into main event but was never a top draw....

Taker beats the hell out of Hogan, Hogan powers out of Hells Gate, gets up from a Tombstone, Hulks up and wins

 

[8thwotwATG]

The Hulkster goes over Undertaker here; albiet barely. I love me some Undertaker. He's been the reason I have had any interest in watching any wrestlemania anymore, and it's not a secret that Mr. Callaway has provided a show stealing match for the past five years. That being said, I cannot in good concience put UT over the greatest professional wrestler of all time. I am not a fan of Hulk Hogan, nor have I ever been. Personal feelings aside, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore the impact on the business, the overwhelming drawing power, or the man's 20 years as the biggest star in history. Hulk Hogan helped create modern day wrestling as we know it today, and in SPITE of whatever peccadillo's he is enduring now, His legacy as the greatest wrestler of ALL TIME will never go away. Hogan gets the duke in an ugly, violent matchup. There has never, EVER been a bigger star, or a bigger box office draw than HH. Hogan is still, overall, the best ever to lace up the boots, and deserves to go over UT.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Hogan was the guy in pro wrestling from something like 1980-2000....Undertaker was a career upper midcarder with forays into main event but was never a top draw....

Taker beats the hell out of Hogan, Hogan powers out of Hells Gate, gets up from a Tombstone, Hulks up and wins

Well this could very well be one of the most idiotic things that I have ever read. 'Taker has been a main event performer since his debut with the WWE. Not even the all powerful demi god Hulk Hogan can say such a thing.

Also, I'm tired of people putting so much stock into drawing power. None of us work for the WWE. None of us are bookers and as smart as some of you like to think that you are on the topic of professional wrestling, none of us know how this match would be booked business wise. Yes, Hogan was a larger draw then 'Taker but many of you are selling 'Taker way short. 'Taker may not be on the drawing level of the Hogans, Austins, or the Rocks, however, to say that 'Taker is not a consistent top draw is asinine and incorrect.

Kayfabe wise, 'Taker was just as hard to beat as Hogan was. Bret Hart could never beat 'Taker clean. Shawn Michaels at the peak of his powers could never beat 'Taker clean. Foley couldn't beat him clean, Kane couldn't beat him clean, Yokozuna couldn't beat him clean, Edge could't beat him clean, and even Lesnar needed help to beat the damn biker 'Taker. There are many other examples I could use but I digress. In the end, Hogan is a guy that 'Taker has beaten for the WWE title twice and I'm not going to buy the argument that the second time doesn't mean anything. Hogan may have been older the second time, however, he was still the biggest face of the WWE at the time that 'Taker took the strap off of him. So kayfabe wise, it does matter.

In a one off match like this, 'Taker is more than capable of winning. Hogan may pop up after a Tombstone and Hulk up, however, 'Taker would sit up after the leg drop and give Hogan another Tombstone. Also, Hogan Hulks up once a match. 'Taker sits up several times in a match and every time he does, he's as fresh as a daisy.

Hogan may trump 'Taker in a lot of areas but in ring ability is not one of them and in this match that's all 'Taker needs. Hogan has the leg drop. 'Taker has the Chokeslam, the Last Ride, Hell's Gate, and the Tombstone. 'Taker has the arsenal that it would take to defeat Hogan and history has shown that when it's a big match between these two that 'Taker has had the edge.

So if you think that drawing power is what determines each and every match then vote for Hogan. However, if you've ever watched 'Taker then you know the damn leg drop would not defeat him and Hogan isn't gonna have any ashes to throw in his face this time to get a roll up.

Vote 'Taker people.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Well this could very well be one of the most idiotic things that I have ever read. 'Taker has been a main event performer since his debut with the WWE. Not even the all powerful demi god Hulk Hogan can say such a thing.

Also, I'm tired of people putting so much stock into drawing power. None of us work for the WWE. None of us are bookers and as smart as some of you like to think that you are on the topic of professional wrestling, none of us know how this match would be booked business wise. Yes, Hogan was a larger draw then 'Taker but many of you are selling 'Taker way short. 'Taker may not be on the drawing level of the Hogans, Austins, or the Rocks, however, to say that 'Taker is not a consistent top draw is asinine and incorrect.

Kayfabe wise, 'Taker was just as hard to beat as Hogan was. Bret Hart could never beat 'Taker clean. Shawn Michaels at the peak of his powers could never beat 'Taker clean. Foley couldn't beat him clean, Kane couldn't beat him clean, Yokozuna couldn't beat him clean, Edge could't beat him clean, and even Lesnar needed help to beat the damn biker 'Taker. There are many other examples I could use but I digress. In the end, Hogan is a guy that 'Taker has beaten for the WWE title twice and I'm not going to buy the argument that the second time doesn't mean anything. Hogan may have been older the second time, however, he was still the biggest face of the WWE at the time that 'Taker took the strap off of him. So kayfabe wise, it does matter.

In a one off match like this, 'Taker is more than capable of winning. Hogan may pop up after a Tombstone and Hulk up, however, 'Taker would sit up after the leg drop and give Hogan another Tombstone. Also, Hogan Hulks up once a match. 'Taker sits up several times in a match and every time he does, he's as fresh as a daisy.

Hogan may trump 'Taker in a lot of areas but in ring ability is not one of them and in this match that's all 'Taker needs. Hogan has the leg drop. 'Taker has the Chokeslam, the Last Ride, Hell's Gate, and the Tombstone. 'Taker has the arsenal that it would take to defeat Hogan and history has shown that when it's a big match between these two that 'Taker has had the edge.

So if you think that drawing power is what determines each and every match then vote for Hogan. However, if you've ever watched 'Taker then you know the damn leg drop would not defeat him and Hogan isn't gonna have any ashes to throw in his face this time to get a roll up.

Vote 'Taker people.

1. Other than WM, when has Undertaker been a draw for the WWE since around 2009?

2. Undertaker has not been a main event performer since he's been in the WWE. I've seen enough crap from him all these years to know that. Luckily, he likes MMA or who knows what might have happened.

3. Kane beat him clean in 2010 and let's not forget his match with Lesnar in Hell in a Cell which brings me to a point you made. So all those wrestlers couldn't apparently beat Taker clean so you take that to heart let leave out that Taker has never beaten Hogan clean?

So, basically we have no clean finishes between Hogan and Taker. Well, that means I have to vote on based who was the better professional wrestler. I believe it would be that Hulk guy.

Also, you and others don't give me that BS "he always sits up and is fresh as a daisy" argument. He does seem to get injured a lot working once a year for someon who is supposedly fresh.

 

[SSJPhenom]

1. Other than WM, when has Undertaker been a draw for the WWE since around 2009?

2. Undertaker has not been a main event performer since he's been in the WWE. I've seen enough crap from him all these years to know that. Luckily, he likes MMA or who knows what might have happened.

3. Kane beat him clean in 2010 and let's not forget his match with Lesnar in Hell in a Cell which brings me to a point you made. So all those wrestlers couldn't apparently beat Taker clean so you take that to heart let leave out that Taker has never beaten Hogan clean?

So, basically we have no clean finishes between Hogan and Taker. Well, that means I have to vote on based who was the better professional wrestler. I believe it would be that Hulk guy.

Also, you and others don't give me that BS "he always sits up and is fresh as a daisy" argument. He does seem to get injured a lot working once a year for someon who is supposedly fresh.

1. Although he may only draw at WM now, he is still a draw. How that escapes you is beyond me.

2. Oh, I guess that because he wasn't wrestling in the main event every single night that means that he wasn't a main event level performer. Well damn! That means that Punk, Orton, Sheamus, or even Cena aren't main event level performers either. They've all had some pretty shitty things in the WWE as well.

3. A past his prime 'Taker was finally beaten by Kane clean. Kane definitely couldn't beat him clean while Kane was in his prime. Didn't Heyman do some shenanigans in that HIAC match with Lesnar as well?

It doesn't matter if there are no clean finishes between the two or not. When it mattered, 'Taker is 2-1 against Hogan. Who says that this match has to be a clean finish? History actually favors a scenario in which it wouldn't be a clean finish.

So you're going to tell me that during a match, after 'Taker sits up, that he isn't fresh? I seem to remember that every time after 'Taker would sit up in a match that he would proceed to kick ass. Are you saying that this isn't the case? Even a broken down, injured 'Taker sat up at WM while in the Anaconda Vice and proceeded to whip ass.

 

[Big Sexy]

Taker has been a main event performer since his debut with the WWE. Not even the all powerful demi god Hulk Hogan can say such a thing.

I'd love to hear your definition of a main eventer. In 1992 Taker feuded with Jake Roberts and Kamala. In 1993 he feuded mainly with the Giant Gonzalez. In 1995 he feuded with King Kong Bundy, Kama, and Mabel. Outside of his late 1991 mini feud with Hogan and his feud with Yokozuna in 1994, Taker didn't do much main eventing in his first 5 years. Also from January of 2005 until Mania 23 against Batista in April of 2007, Taker had a total of one World/WWE title match, and he had zero title matches in 2005. That's one title match over the course of 26 months and Taker was still a fairly regular performer during that time period so it wasn't because he was taking a ton of time off like he has the last few years.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I'd love to hear your definition of a main eventer. In 1992 Taker feuded with Jake Roberts and Kamala. In 1993 he feuded mainly with the Giant Gonzalez. In 1995 he feuded with King Kong Bundy, Kama, and Mabel. Outside of his late 1991 mini feud with Hogan and his feud with Yokozuna in 1994, Taker didn't do much main eventing in his first 5 years. Also from January of 2005 until Mania 23 against Batista in April of 2007, Taker had a total of one World/WWE title match, and he had zero title matches in 2005. That's one title match over the course of 26 months and Taker was still a fairly regular performer during that time period so it wasn't because he was taking a ton of time off like he has the last few years.

Why is this hard for people to understand? 'Taker has been a main event level performer since his debut. Meaning that he has been someone that can be put into the main event at any given time in any given storyline. So because he's not always in the main event, you're going to tell me that he isn't a main event level performer? That would mean that Orton isn't a main event level performer, Sheamus isn't a main event level performer, CM Punk isn't a main event level performer, Chris Jericho, Brock Lesnar, HHH, and I could go on but I digress.

Outside of the top face of the company, nobody is ever consistently always in the main event. As a matter of fact, for the Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber PPVs, Cena wasn't in the main event. So I guess that means that he isn't a main event level performer either? Give me a fucking break.

 

[Big Sexy]

Who the fuck said any of that? I just want to hear your definition of a main event performer because if you think having a world title match or even winning a world title makes you an automatic main event performer then you're wrong. The Miz held the title for almost 6 months a couple years ago but I still consider him an upper mid carder. Eddie Guerrero won a world title but I still consider him a career mid carder. Christian, Benoit, Jack Swagger, Daniel Bryan, and even Dolph Ziggler currently, I consider all of these guys (at least at this point) upper mid card guys and not main event guys.

Undertaker in his first 5 years I would certainly have considered an upper mid carder and not main event level guy. He debuted in November of 1990 and then had his first taste of the main event in late 1991 against Hogan. However, at the end of the day, that feud lasted maybe a month and his title reign lasted 6 days. Then throughout 1992 and 1993 he feuded with guys like Jake Roberts, Kamala, and the Giant Gonzalez. None of that was even close to main event stuff. He started out 1994 with his feud with Yoko which was definitely a main event feud when it first started but that lasted just a couple months and Taker failed to win the title. He main evented Summerslam in 1994 with that atrocious Taker/Taker match but that was a short one off thing. Then he finished '94 going against Yoko again but at that time Yoko had lost the world title so the feud lost some of its luster. Then in 1995 he went back to shit feuds with the likes of King Kong Bundy, Kama, and Mabel which are, once again, certainly not anything resembling main event feuds. Taker in his first 5 years was an upper mid carder and I don't see how you could say otherwise.