Championship Region, Tournament Final: (1) John Cena vs. (1) Hulk Hogan

[LSN80]

This has been a fun tournament, and I've enjoyed it immensely. I'm going to make this my last post of it.

Over 30 years of watching wrestling tells me

Should I automatically defer then, seeing how I'm "only" 30?

that when a face takes on a heel, the heel will dominate for the majority of the match only for the face to make a Herculean comeback.

Except the voting says otherwise, which you're ignoring. 82-35 says Cena dominated Flair, not the either way around. It was a virtual landslide.

I would consider the Undertaker '90-'94 who only had one pinfall loss (to Hogan) to be the prime Taker because he couldn't be pinned.

He still lost multiple gimmick matches during that time, didn't have the accomplishments or achievements to match, and didn't demonstrate the same wrestling ability or repertoire that he did later on.

And that's the Undertaker you want to use that almost defeated Hogan?

The one you've listed held the 'B' world title.

Was it the 'B' World Title when it was main-eventing multiple PPV's, including WrestleMania 24?

Erm... Cena accrued 72% of the votes in his two bouts while Hogan accrued 58% - that's 14%, hardly insurmountable odds.

I was using the percentage by which they defeated their opponents. That is much more indicative of damage done. For example, Hogan only got 53% of the vote, as opposed to 47% for Undertaker. That's a 6% difference, indicating a much closer match then the 70% for Cena as opposed to 30% for Flair, which indicates a 40% difference between the two.

That's a much larger gap, and much more indicative of damage done.

Wrestling history dictates that a top line face does not dominate a top line heel, rather it is the other way around. Crowds need the face to struggle to get behind him to overcome the dastardly heel.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Wrestling history doesn't mean much when the face squashes the heel, as Cena did to both Flair and Andre.

Cena gets 70% of the vote over Flair, and 75% over Andre. It doesn't matter what the 'dastardly heel' did, Cena obviously was virtually unaffected by it. Hogan gets 53% of the vote, and 62%. Damage carries over so it's 17% more damage for Hogan in the first, and 13% more for Hogan in the second.

Add, divide, it's semantics. It's a considerable amount more damage to Hogan either way.

Hogan's bouts being (arguably) more exhausting due to their duration while Cena's are more injury prone.

How can you argue exhaustion here? Using your analogy, Hogan went an extra 34 minutes in one night. And having essentially squashed both Flair and Andre, it's preposterous to argue that he's more injured then a Hogan who went to war with Undertaker, and had a hard fought match with Bruno as well.

The argument is very VERY simple, John Cena is 8 years into his headline career - it is unfair to go further into Hogan's headline career than that just because you can then point to his weaknesses in that period. In 2020, Hogan's career in WCW can then be accounted fairly against Cena's (well, if John is still headlining in 2020).

It's simple, and it's also a very silly one. What about a Brock Lesnar, who I believe has won the tournament before? He had a 4 year wrestling career in his prime, essentially, so would you only argue for the best 4 years of Hogan's career if he opposed Lesnar?

The comparison is their prime, not the time spent in it.

Please don't, I think I've highlighted how unfair you are bringing in a period of Hogan's career that Cena is yet to reach.

There's nothing unfair about it. Again, it's their prime, not their time.

Because Hogan had a greater first 8 years to his headline career? Because he overcame insurmountable odds time and time again while John was still in baby jorts? Because he's better!

My question was to why John Cena, who's superior to the Ultimate Warrior, wouldn't beat Hogan, when Warrior did?

14% more damage is the most you can credibly argue and in this very tournament

Not really, as I showed. Even so, 14% would be significant.

He has already beaten the Taker and Sammartino in matches well well over 20 minutes.

So he went longer and unquestionably took more damage, how does this favor him, pray tell?

At what stage of Hulkamania was it highlighted that Hogan had poor cardio? Plus (and you brought him up) Randy Savage was also more than capable of going 20 minutes plus and Hulk put him away in less than that period.

It never was, and I didn't say it was. I simply pointed out how the biggest matches of Hogan in his prime that went long he lost, where the shorter matches were to his favor.

It's not arguing that Hogan has poor cardio, it's that he lost big matches that were longer form. This most certainly is a big match, Hogan comes in damaged and exhausted, and Cena virtually unscathed.

It's advantage Cena.

At this stage in Cena's career, he still needs quite a bit more advantage than he has here against a home field Hulkamania!

Uh....Hogan was billed from Venice Beach, not New Jersey.

Okay I have an analogy as my last argument to try and dispel this Hogan/WCW prime theory. If this doesn't work, than nothing will...

John Elway made three Super Bowls, losing them all, in the span of '86-'89. That was his prime. An argument could even be made that his prime extended until '93 when he had maybe his best statistical season. Anything after, while he was still a solid player, and even put up good numbers due to the shift in the way the league approached the passing game, was after his prime and he was a declining player physically.

Yet in his final two seasons('97 and '98) years after his prime ended, and in the twilight of his career as a savvy vet who was a shell of his former self physically, Elway won his only two Super Bowl titles.

Anyone who watched at that time and had followed his career knew Elway was WAY past his prime at that point, in fact it was almost sad to see him go out there and play as so much "less" of a player. Perhaps the greatest athlete to ever have high success at the position, was now a broken old man getting it done with nothing but heart, drive, veteran knowledge, smoke, and mirrors. Yet that was when he achieved his highest level of championship success.

This is relevant to the Hulk Hogan argument. You just have the wrong time frame.

Simply put, the comparison to Elway is relevant to Hogan's full-time tenure in the WWE, 2002-03. Those are comparable to Elway's final two years. Hogan was a shell of himself in the ring, yet he won the Undisputed Championship, and the Tag Championships.

If I was trying to argue that Hogan as being in his prime, the analogy would fit perfectly. But that's not the Hogan I'm arguing. I'm arguing the one who actually was still in his prime.

Hopefully that helps make the equation on how Hogan's WCW career was post-prime, despite the title reigns.

It makes the equation as to how Elway's last two years as a full-time player were comparable to Hogan's last run in WWE. Both winners of the biggest title in their industry when they were past their primes and shells of their former self.

I would love to sit here and say that John Cena is the greatest ever, and that's why he should win. In good conscience, I cannot. However, this is not an "all things equal" match. Hogan comes in with significantly more damage then Cena, and Cena's matches combined to be far shorter then Hogan's. In a standard, one on one match, I believe a prime Hogan would defeat a prime John Cena.

However, this isn't that match. The greatest of all-time comes in exhausted and beat up against a relatively fresh John Cena, who's one of the all-time greats already. Cena has shown he can counter virtually any leg move into the STF. Who uses a leg both to set-up and deliver their finisher? Hogan may come close, and even hit the boot once. But that wouldn't put Cena down, and a second attempt would be countered into the STF, and just like Piper made Hogan pass out in the sleeper, Hogan would pass or tap out to the STF after a great fight.

I don't fault Hogan supporters or those who support him. I just believe that with all the variables involved, Cena would win this match.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

This has been a fun tournament, and I've enjoyed it immensely. I'm going to make this my last post of it.

I hope not, I enjoy our back and forwards.

Should I automatically defer then, seeing how I'm "only" 30?

Touché. No but the wrestling story still operates the same rather you've been watching it decades or months. Heels dominate to get the crowd to support the underdog face. Seeing as this is a best of the best of all time tournament, I'd imagine tradition would be observed.

Except the voting says otherwise, which you're ignoring. 82-35 says Cena dominated Flair, not the either way around. It was a virtual landslide.

And I've considered that in match length (36 minutes) but what happens in the 36 minutes should follow convention otherwise you are looking to use the damage twice (for duration and also match content). Cena would and should receive the appropriate damage for going that period of time with Naitch, just as Hogan deserves to receive the appropriate damage in the 56 and 44 minute matches he had.

He still lost multiple gimmick matches during that time, didn't have the accomplishments or achievements to match, and didn't demonstrate the same wrestling ability or repertoire that he did later on.

And that's the Undertaker you want to use that almost defeated Hogan?

Erm... wasn't it yourself who argued the gimmick matches are irrelevant when discussing straight matches? And the early Taker wasn't pinned or submitted in straight matches, whereas yours did. The more 'human' Taker became, the more susceptible he became to losing clean.

Was it the 'B' World Title when it was main-eventing multiple PPV's, including WrestleMania 24?

Yup, because it was the World Title of the secondary show because your boy headlined the 'A' show... that is unless you want to weaken his case and say that Taker was superior to him at this time?

I was using the percentage by which they defeated their opponents. That is much more indicative of damage done. For example, Hogan only got 53% of the vote, as opposed to 47% for Undertaker. That's a 6% difference, indicating a much closer match then the 70% for Cena as opposed to 30% for Flair, which indicates a 40% difference between the two.

That's a much larger gap, and much more indicative of damage done.

And overall, between the two matches - Cena had 72% of the votes in his matches and Hogan had 58%... so that's 14% difference overall, correct?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Wrestling history doesn't mean much when the face squashes the heel, as Cena did to both Flair and Andre.

You are still looking to use the votes twice, for match duration and match content. I still maintain that Cena went 36 minutes with Ric Flair and 30 minutes with Andre and those matches would go exactly to type. In the same way as I believe that Hogan would have went 56 minutes with Taker and 44 minutes with Sammartino in the format that these bouts would dictate (basically two long drawn out brawls).

Cena gets 70% of the vote over Flair, and 75% over Andre. It doesn't matter what the 'dastardly heel' did, Cena obviously was virtually unaffected by it. Hogan gets 53% of the vote, and 62%. Damage carries over so it's 17% more damage for Hogan in the first, and 13% more for Hogan in the second.

Add, divide, it's semantics. It's a considerable amount more damage to Hogan either way.

Or 72% and 58% overall, which I argued from the start - 14%. And yet again, you are still looking your cake and eating it - you want duration and damage. And you want to talk simple semantics - Cena is at 72% with the 28% damage being on his legs and Hogan is at 58% with no real specific area affected.

How can you argue exhaustion here? Using your analogy, Hogan went an extra 34 minutes in one night. And having essentially squashed both Flair and Andre, it's preposterous to argue that he's more injured then a Hogan who went to war with Undertaker, and had a hard fought match with Bruno as well.

I wasn't, you were the one trying to argue that Hogan would lose because he has no stamina. I was merely pointing out that Hogan's ability to put opponents down quickly ≠ inability to go long periods. You're putting Hogan down for a quality that you wouldn't give Flair credit for, a history of long matches.

It's simple, and it's also a very silly one. What about a Brock Lesnar, who I believe has won the tournament before? He had a 4 year wrestling career in his prime, essentially, so would you only argue for the best 4 years of Hogan's career if he opposed Lesnar?

The comparison is their prime, not the time spent in it.

There's nothing unfair about it. Again, it's their prime, not their time.

Erm... no!

2007 – Shawn Michaels
2008 – Undertaker
2009 – Bret Hart
2010 – Steve Austin
2011 – Steve Austin
2012 – The Rock
2013 - Hulk Hogan

If Cena's career was over, that would hold water but it isn't so it is unfair to bring in periods of an ex wrestler's longer career that your guy hasn't even reached.

My question was to why John Cena, who's superior to the Ultimate Warrior, wouldn't beat Hogan, when Warrior did?

And Hogan's superior to the Rock and CM Punk, why wouldn't he beat Cena... and (kayfabe), it could be argued that Warrior is indeed superior to Cena because he has a vastly superior Win : Loss record.

Not really, as I showed. Even so, 14% would be significant.

So he went longer and unquestionably took more damage, how does this favor him, pray tell?

Firstly you have concluded with my figures and secondly, the nature of damage can be just as significant as the amount. The majority of the 28% of damage Cena has received is likely to be to his left knee, whereas the 42% damage Hulk has is likely to be concentrated to his upper body.

It never was, and I didn't say it was. I simply pointed out how the biggest matches of Hogan in his prime that went long he lost, where the shorter matches were to his favor.

It's not arguing that Hogan has poor cardio, it's that he lost big matches that were longer form. This most certainly is a big match, Hogan comes in damaged and exhausted, and Cena virtually unscathed.

It's advantage Cena.

Firstly, Cena has his share of losses when matches break the 20 minutes barrier. Secondly, you where very quick at dismissing this as a relevant factor against Flair.

I stand by Flair would do more substantial damage in 36 minutes than Taker would in 56 minutes and that then having to face a Giant with a damaged wheel for 30 minutes would be just as intimidating as going 44 minutes in a slug fest with Bruno.

Uh....Hogan was billed from Venice Beach, not New Jersey.

Really? Where was Hulkamania born? Madison Square Garden? Where was the WWF concentrated at that time? The North East?

This is relevant to the Hulk Hogan argument. You just have the wrong time frame.

Simply put, the comparison to Elway is relevant to Hogan's full-time tenure in the WWE, 2002-03. Those are comparable to Elway's final two years. Hogan was a shell of himself in the ring, yet he won the Undisputed Championship, and the Tag Championships.

If I was trying to argue that Hogan as being in his prime, the analogy would fit perfectly. But that's not the Hogan I'm arguing. I'm arguing the one who actually was still in his prime.

It makes the equation as to how Elway's last two years as a full-time player were comparable to Hogan's last run in WWE. Both winners of the biggest title in their industry when they were past their primes and shells of their former self.

I would love to sit here and say that John Cena is the greatest ever, and that's why he should win. In good conscience, I cannot. However, this is not an "all things equal" match. Hogan comes in with significantly more damage then Cena, and Cena's matches combined to be far shorter then Hogan's. In a standard, one on one match, I believe a prime Hogan would defeat a prime John Cena.

However, this isn't that match. The greatest of all-time comes in exhausted and beat up against a relatively fresh John Cena, who's one of the all-time greats already. Cena has shown he can counter virtually any leg move into the STF. Who uses a leg both to set-up and deliver their finisher? Hogan may come close, and even hit the boot once. But that wouldn't put Cena down, and a second attempt would be countered into the STF, and just like Piper made Hogan pass out in the sleeper, Hogan would pass or tap out to the STF after a great fight.

Again, you are using two different measuring poles for the two guys. Cena is 8 years into his headline run - you, me, Papa nor anybody else knows what lays ahead for John. As such, you can only fairly assess the same period Hogan had at the top. This Hogan didn't tap or pass out and only lost once clean in 8 years.

I don't fault Hogan supporters or those who support him. I just believe that with all the variables involved, Cena would win this match.

And yet you have argued before that Cena is renowned for overcoming the odds. That template was created by Hulk Hogan; if the deck is stacked in Cena's favor as you claim, surely that then makes Hulkamania the logical choice?

 

[JJYanks121]

I hope not, I enjoy our back and forwards.



Touché. No but the wrestling story still operates the same rather you've been watching it decades or months. Heels dominate to get the crowd to support the underdog face. Seeing as this is a best of the best of all time tournament, I'd imagine tradition would be observed.



And I've considered that in match length (36 minutes) but what happens in the 36 minutes should follow convention otherwise you are looking to use the damage twice (for duration and also match content). Cena would and should receive the appropriate damage for going that period of time with Naitch, just as Hogan deserves to receive the appropriate damage in the 56 and 44 minute matches he had.



Erm... wasn't it yourself who argued the gimmick matches are irrelevant when discussing straight matches? And the early Taker wasn't pinned or submitted in straight matches, whereas yours did. The more 'human' Taker became, the more susceptible he became to losing clean.



Yup, because it was the World Title of the secondary show because your boy headlined the 'A' show... that is unless you want to weaken his case and say that Taker was superior to him at this time?



And overall, between the two matches - Cena had 72% of the votes in his matches and Hogan had 58%... so that's 14% difference overall, correct?



You are still looking to use the votes twice, for match duration and match content. I still maintain that Cena went 36 minutes with Ric Flair and 30 minutes with Andre and those matches would go exactly to type. In the same way as I believe that Hogan would have went 56 minutes with Taker and 44 minutes with Sammartino in the format that these bouts would dictate (basically two long drawn out brawls).



Or 72% and 58% overall, which I argued from the start - 14%. And yet again, you are still looking your cake and eating it - you want duration and damage. And you want to talk simple semantics - Cena is at 72% with the 28% damage being on his legs and Hogan is at 58% with no real specific area affected.



I wasn't, you were the one trying to argue that Hogan would lose because he has no stamina. I was merely pointing out that Hogan's ability to put opponents down quickly ≠ inability to go long periods. You're putting Hogan down for a quality that you wouldn't give Flair credit for, a history of long matches.



Erm... no!

2007 – Shawn Michaels
2008 – Undertaker
2009 – Bret Hart
2010 – Steve Austin
2011 – Steve Austin
2012 – The Rock
2013 - Hulk Hogan

If Cena's career was over, that would hold water but it isn't so it is unfair to bring in periods of an ex wrestler's longer career that your guy hasn't even reached.



And Hogan's superior to the Rock and CM Punk, why wouldn't he beat Cena... and (kayfabe), it could be argued that Warrior is indeed superior to Cena because he has a vastly superior Win : Loss record.



Firstly you have concluded with my figures and secondly, the nature of damage can be just as significant as the amount. The majority of the 28% of damage Cena has received is likely to be to his left knee, whereas the 42% damage Hulk has is likely to be concentrated to his upper body.



Firstly, Cena has his share of losses when matches break the 20 minutes barrier. Secondly, you where very quick at dismissing this as a relevant factor against Flair.

I stand by Flair would do more substantial damage in 36 minutes than Taker would in 56 minutes and that then having to face a Giant with a damaged wheel for 30 minutes would be just as intimidating as going 44 minutes in a slug fest with Bruno.



Really? Where was Hulkamania born? Madison Square Garden? Where was the WWF concentrated at that time? The North East?



Again, you are using two different measuring poles for the two guys. Cena is 8 years into his headline run - you, me, Papa nor anybody else knows what lays ahead for John. As such, you can only fairly assess the same period Hogan had at the top. This Hogan didn't tap or pass out and only lost once clean in 8 years.



And yet you have argued before that Cena is renowned for overcoming the odds. That template was created by Hulk Hogan; if the deck is stacked in Cena's favor as you claim, surely that then makes Hulkamania the logical choice?

You gave it a go but I'm not going to lie, the fact that you didn't understand the rules didn't help your argument.

From KB's post:

For example, if a wrestler wins his fifth round match 75-74, it was a grueling war of attrition with both guys taking a huge beating and someone surviving rather than winning. On the other hand, if a match is won 75-20, it was basically a squash with very little damage inflicted.

Also, the length of the match will be determined by the number of votes. If a match has a final score of 5-0, it was a quick match that only runs a few minutes. If the final score is 68-63, it was a long match which ran for well over twenty minutes.

So basically, LSN was exactly right in how he was arguing and you were completely wrong. The scoring does tell you the damage inflicted as well as the match length. Thus, all this stuff where you make up how the match went is null and void.

Now, for anyone who argued that it wouldn't matter and that Hogan would win anyway, that's fine. Guy is the best all time and deserved to win one of these at some point. I do think the rules favored Cena here but it's interesting that the booking of these superstars is eerily similar in that the Achilles heel of these guys in their babyface runs is another top babyface. For Cena, it was Batista and The Rock. For Hogan, it was the Ultimate Warrior. Thus, both would actually be susceptible to one another. That's what makes it really tough.

That said, of everyone, LSN easily argued that best and it would be tempting to vote that way simply because of that. It doesn't matter at this point but kudos to him. Either way we're talking about two incredible wrestlers who deserve to be in the finals. It's just that Cena is quickly becoming the Buffalo Bills of this tournament.........

 

[cawsnallthis]

The voters have spoken. Hogan vs. Cena. But, I despise Hogan and while I am ambivalent about Cena, he defeated Flair in the semis, which I view as a grave injustice. And so do the Horsemen. So, as Hogan goes to deliver the big leg coup de grace, the Horsemen hit the ring with a vengeance, leaving Hogan and Cena battered and bloodied. Flair throws pictures of him with both their ex-wives onto their chests, drops a series of elbows onto the trophy, gives a resounding WOOOOOOO, and struts back up the aisle to his waiting limousine, stylin' and profilin' all the way.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

You gave it a go but I'm not going to lie, the fact that you didn't understand the rules didn't help your argument.

From KB's post:

So basically, LSN was exactly right in how he was arguing and you were completely wrong. The scoring does tell you the damage inflicted as well as the match length. Thus, all this stuff where you make up how the match went is null and void.

Thank you, sir. I am the first to admit when I am wrong and in this circumstance, I am most definitely wrong. I had not seen the KB thread you had quoted from and, as such was still operating in, what I regarded as a logical manner. As they say ignorance of the law is no defense in the breaking of it. I may not agree with the previous rounds counting two fold against the competitors (time & damage caused in that time) but that is what was laid out and I was wrong. I will say that I do think that LSN might well have been unaware of this thread as well or he surely would have used it to rip me a new one.

I will say that this could have had an interesting impact on the two rounds prior to the Championship region were Cena went from 59:55 against Funk in a Streetfight to face Race who had an easy 44:24 against Backlund in a Regular 1 on 1 bout. Duration, damage and stipulation under KB's Championship Round Rules would have made this 3 Stages Of Hell bout very interesting.

Now, for anyone who argued that it wouldn't matter and that Hogan would win anyway, that's fine. Guy is the best all time and deserved to win one of these at some point. I do think the rules favored Cena here but it's interesting that the booking of these superstars is eerily similar in that the Achilles heel of these guys in their babyface runs is another top babyface. For Cena, it was Batista and The Rock. For Hogan, it was the Ultimate Warrior. Thus, both would actually be susceptible to one another. That's what makes it really tough.

Even with you having (rightly) put me in my place, I do still believe that Hogan would have come out on top because I believe that the Hulkamaniacs would never have been as strongly behind him as they would have been after seeing him fight tooth and nail to reach the finals while Cena (under these guidelines) had a cakewalk. Ironically, I believe that had Hogan had the blatantly easier path than Cena, then I would believe he would have won. While, against heels, weakness can be used either as a feel good reason to win or a heat saving device to protect in a loss. When it comes to a straight up face versus face match, I think that the underdog would come out because that's who the crowd would get behind.

That said, of everyone, LSN easily argued that best and it would be tempting to vote that way simply because of that. It doesn't matter at this point but kudos to him.

Agreed, LSN is a guy I highly respect and I thoroughly enjoyed our battles in this tournament. I don't know whether he'll publicly acknowledge it but I know he also had fun debating me.

Either way we're talking about two incredible wrestlers who deserve to be in the finals. It's just that Cena is quickly becoming the Buffalo Bills of this tournament.........

If there is one thing I stand over in my argument it's that I feel that Cena is disadvantaged by still being active and it is hard to compare a complete career against an ongoing one. I realize it also has its benefits because younger fans are (logically) more likely to vote for the Cenas and Punks but I still believe that John's true potency for this tournament will increase as his career progresses and will hit its full prowess when he hangs up the boots. With a guy like LSN in his corner, he'll turn from Bills/ Vikings bridesmaid to Broncos bride sooner rather than later.

 

[Bernkastel]

The voters have spoken. Hogan vs. Cena. But, I despise Hogan and while I am ambivalent about Cena, he defeated Flair in the semis, which I view as a grave injustice. And so do the Horsemen. So, as Hogan goes to deliver the big leg coup de grace, the Horsemen hit the ring with a vengeance, leaving Hogan and Cena battered and bloodied. Flair throws pictures of him with both their ex-wives onto their chests, drops a series of elbows onto the trophy, gives a resounding WOOOOOOO, and struts back up the aisle to his waiting limousine, stylin' and profilin' all the way.

Flair should have lost to Inoki. That in itself was a travesty.

Another year comes and goes, and it looks like Hogan is going to finally take his place as a tournament winner following the rematch from last year. IMO that really does legitimize this thing, especially when darlings like Undertaker, Michaels, and Hart have dominated in the past.

I'm sure I won't be the only one whose going to say "Hulkamaina is runnin' wild all over the 7th Wrestlezone Tournament Brother!"