The Undertaker's 6 day Title reign in 1991

[Doomsday Device]

Back in the late 80's/early 90's WWF used to show the Survivor Series event the night before Thanksgiving. In 1991 we saw Undertaker against Hogan for the WWF title, good match. Then, the rematch would be at Tuesday in Texas six days later. Taker loses the belt to Hogan. Taker was WWF champion for 6 days. 6 days??

I've always wondered what went on with this. Did Hogan complain and politic to get the belt back? Or did Vince just change his mind and hand over the belt to Hogan.

I have never heard Vince, Taker, or Hogan talk about this in any shoot interviews or anything. Taker was a dominant force already by this time, but losing the belt in his first title defense just after 6 days made him look weak. They could at least kept Taker with the belt until Royal Rumble 92, and then lose it to Flair or Hogan. What was the intention of having Taker win the belt just to lose it 6 days later?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Of course we'll never know why but if I were to make a guess I would have to go with this:

I think they did it the way they did it was simple, it was a way to get the belt onto Flair without Hogan having to lose to him. The WWE would never put over someone like Flair (who was more of an NWA guy) over a homegrown star like Hogan cleanly. That's where taker comes in, at the time he has never been defeated, had one hell of a year and overall I think people could accept Taker beating Hogan because he just had that indestructible aura around him, basically people believed Taker could beat Hogan. So you do a pair of title changes within 6 days with both ending by controversy and since no real champion is crowned they have the Royal Rumble to decide who will be the undisputed champ (when in a logical world Taker and Hogan would of had a rubber match to decide who was champ), and then at the Rumble they give the title to Flair (because Flair don't have to beat taker or hogan to win the title). It was really a way to make all 3 still look strong, while at the same time getting the title on Flair, and I have to disagree with Taker holding the title for 6 days made him look weak because he didn't lose the title clean and back in '91, losing the title by controversy was the way to do a title change while keeping the former from losing a ton of momentum (I can honestly say after those 2 title matches with hogan, in my eyes he looked stronger than ever).

 

[Doomsday Device]

I get what you're saying.

And I knew some would not understand what I was trying to say when I mentioned that Taker losing the belt after just 6 days would make him look "weak". Still today, when you think about it, many thought that Taker would hold on to that belt for a long time, that an 18 wheeler would be needed to run him over just to get that belt away from him...instead all it took was some ashes from the urn for the quick 3 count. Doesnt that just make you say "what?" in your mind.

I guess the generation at that time didnt study and dissect wrestling and look into the behind the scenes info as much as we do today. Because if something like that would have happened today, we sure would be looking for answers. Instead no one seemed to care I guess, people were just happy to see the bald man rip his yellow shirt off.

And yes I agree with you, Taker really didnt lose any momentum after that, he started a little program with Jake Roberts, became face and the rest is history.

Taker would have to wait 5 long years to get the hands at the title.

 

[pjsdoughboy]

At the survivor series The undertaker only got the win because flair slid a chair in just in time for the undertaker to tombstone hogan on to it. So I would have to say cheating hogan out of the title made the undertaker look like a week champion from the get go. The undertaker had enough momentum that this finish was unnecessary but if he had cleanly pinned hogan then this tuesday in texas match would not be needed and we would have had a different outcome hogan would have pinned the undertaker and flair would never had been the champion! So I agree with deanerandterry on 2 things 1.That flair would not get a clean win over either hogan or taker and 2. As for it being politics I doubt it was hogan crying about the title itself but crying he didn't want to be beat by flair (The real Worlds Champion as he claimed) because it would make flair look like the better wrestler (and he is imo) and that Vince would never let that happen either.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

I agree, and the way they had Taker lose the title was incredibly stupid. Ash to the eyes, followed by a schoolboy rollup. wow. I think wholeheartedly that Hulk Hogan did go to Vince, cry his eyes out and politick to get his belt back. I also think he did this too because he wanted to get Flair in the main event of WM VIII. I heard so backstories that Hogan did NOT want to wrestle Sid at Mania, but that's neither here nor there. But Taker's 6 day reign is one of most (unfortunate) forgetable reigns EVER.

Does anyone ever think about this: When Vince had Hogan drop the belt to Taker several years later, was it a way to get back to Hogan for being such a crybaby back in '91?

 

[healyz84]

In this particular situation, its not that Hogan was politicing to regain his title, because technically he never won the rematch. In fact, Hogan did not regain the wwe title for 16 months. This was a tough time for the wwe, with the reports that McMahon was making the wrestlers take steroids and Hogan at the center. Im not sure if this was starting to trickle in at about this time, but I know for sure come February that the wwe was feeling the full weight of this.

So this title lose by Hogan was a way to get the title off of him, with of course not making him look weak. I believe the ultimate plan was to give the title to Flair, but I don't think they wanted to have Hogan lose to Flair. So the Undertaker would be used for this purpose, to win the title from Hogan with help from Flair, only to lose it due to controversial fashion 6 days later, and have the title vacated. I believe Taker was chosen because he was the only wrestler who's momentum would not be stopped by only having a 6 day reign, and of course it only got stronger.

 

[Grizzly0u812]

regarding The Undertakers 6 day title reign in 1991, could of been many factors with him and the title, maybe they gave him the title just to tease the fans and bring undertaker up to that level even though is was way on his way to what he is today with out any help, back then the title actually ment something, no a days its a trinket, has really no meaning, when you won the title you were the guy, not anymore.

Hogan still was popular back then, maybe they wanted another root, I have heard title matches being changed at the last minute, would of been interesting if Taker held the title longer, what would of been the out come, would taker of faced flair down the road ect.

I did hear one thing about the hogan/taker match, I heard hogan even though I am a big fan of hogan for all he has done, I did hear a rumour that he complained that taker did not protect him in the match I guess when he tomb stoned him and that he was not ready for the title, so maybe thats why he lost 6 days later.

that was why taker never was present when hogan was inducted in the hall of fame, he felt hogan held him back all those years ago, just things I heard, could be true could be rumours.

with wrestling, its a dog eat dog business.

 

[JGamens632]

Honestly, no offense or anything, but I think this is a case of everyone looking way too deep into this than what it's meant to be.

Survivor Series was Free, Tuesday in Texas was an experimental Pay-Per-View. They have Hogan drop the belt to Taker at Survivor Series. Then they did this whole angle during "intermission" (they used to do that back then) where all the wrestlers were in an UPROAR about Hogan losing because of Flair, and that something stinks, and that Jack Tunney needs to do something. Then by the end of Survivor Series, they announce, "Oh! And Hogan gets a rematch with Undertaker at the Earliest Possible Time! ...Which just happens to be Tuesday in Texas, our next Pay Per View!"

It was just a way to sell the Pay-per-view. No politicking, no complaining, they just sold the Pay-Per-View. This is also probably when booking was done far in advance, and they most likely had a gameplan as to where everything was going. Put it this way... Survivor Series had Controversy which led to Tuesday in Texas. Tuesday in Texas' outcome led to the title being held up, which led to arguably one of the most ENTERTAINING, STAR-FILLED ROYAL RUMBLES in history. 1992, when pretty much EVERYONE could have won, and everyone was an established star.

Then from there, this ended Macho Man/Jake the Snake, which led to WrestleMania, and also set up Hogan/Sid, because Hogan was contemplating retirement, so it brought back Warrior.

All this was, was a case of Booking, selling pay-per-views, and actually thinking in advance, unlike today when a Pay-per-view is set up the week of. No conspiracy, no nothing. My two cents.

 

[Doomsday Device]

Not to get off topic, but I read Hogan's new book called "My life outside the ring" when it came out in October and he's bitching and complaining about that Tombstone Taker gave him in SS 1991. That still to this day he doesnt have feeling at the tip of his fingers. Really? Whatever. Instead of taking time to show his respect to all the wrestlers who carried the company and keep it alive after he left he's bitching about something that happened 18 years ago.

 

[King Douche]

The Hogan/Sid storyline was awesome, but the match was not so good. Anyways I always thought that was weird Taker ahd the belt for only 6 days but atleast he not like Kane. Holding the belt for 1 day then losing it right back to the same person. Now thatsj ust silly and uncalled for. Kane should of atleast had a 1 month world title reign as champion.

 

[JGamens632]

Hey guys, I just did a quick background check on Survivor Series 91 just to double check what I was saying. Basically what I said in an earlier post was Hogan dropping the belt was just a way to sell the pay-per-view Tuesday in Texas with the rematch.

I also found this: This was the 5th Survivor Series, but the 1st ever to feature a one-on-one match, especially one for the title. So something big had to happen. Also, they put this match on mid-way through the card instead of the main-event. Then every match thereafter, the commentators put over how this was a conspiracy against Hogan, and he deserves a re-match, and then Jack Tunney came on to say "The rematch WILL happen in Texas!"

Also, the other part of the show was used to hype the rematch of Jake the Snake vs Macho Man, which was being billed as Macho Man's return to the ring after finally being 'reinstated.' When you look at it this way, it really seems like the whole theme of Survivor Series was to sell Tuesday in Texas.

 

[Jetspete]

JGamens, I can assure you, survivor series 1991 was not free. Tuesday and Texas was also not free, though it was offered at a reduced rate and had a good card. But your point that Taker winning the belt to set up the next pay-per-view is a valid one.

As for 'Taker only having a 6 day run, you have to remember that in 1991-2 no one in the company had the size and agility of the Undertaker. And during that era big guys almost never lost to smaller guys. So you couldnt have 'Taker beat Hogan, hold the belt for several months and lose to Savage or Bret Hart. At the time, it would just not be believable. That's why 'Taker was regularly put in programs with Giant Gonzalez, Yokozuna, Kamala, etc.

And doomsday, at the time a lot of people were surprised with 'Taker's win. the arena was shocked (not quite shamus level shocked, but close to it). And think about it, this might have been only what, the second time in eight years Hogan had lost a singles match? And the first time in 4 years against a heel character? a grown man dressed up like Hogan in the front row was crying the rest of the event (the match was not the last match).

Throughout his career i felt UT was only screwed once, his match with Yoko at the '94 Rumble. That shouldve been the year of the 'Taker, instead it took him 3 years to get another title shot.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

There have been some good theories presented thus far and I'd say that there's a possibility that it could be several of them. Ric Flair had recently signed with the WWF and having Taker win the title could have been the first step towards Flair getting the title without beating Hogan for it, thereby setting up a match between the two at WrestleMania.

However, that's not exactly how it turned out. Given the fact that Taker won the title, with some assistance from Flair, it could have been just a great way to generate heat for both of them. However, that was also derailed with Hogan winning the title back less than a week later and cheating himself in order to do it.

Another theory could be that Hogan started pissing and moaning about having to give up the title when he simply may not have wanted to and, in order to keep Hogan happy, Vince had to scrap some potentially good ideas and angles in order to appease Hogan's ego. It was around this time, I think, that the WWF was no longer really making Hogan the centerpiece and focus of the company. Younger guys like the Undertaker, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Yokozuna and some others really started to come into the limelight about this time. Hogan, even though he was only in his late 30s, was still starting to show signs of slowing down and becoming even more limited than he had been in the past. The WWF was building new stars, people to take Hogan's place and, quite frankly, Hogan didn't really care for that one bit and I can't help but wonder if Taker's first WWF Championship win, brief though it may have been, was really the first step towards the WWF pushing Hogan aside.

 

[Jetspete]

Jackhammer it is very plausible that you are correct, and you bring up one of the things people forget on this board is that 'Taker did not earn a clean victory over Hogan at Survivor Series. Flair assisted, as well as Paul Bearer. So six days later Hogan earned a tainted victory over Taker. Basically they were even, each with a tainted win over each other. That set up a highly successful and memorable royal rumble, and shouldve led to the ultimate battle between Hogan and Flair at WM VIII. For whatever reason, Hogan was put in a program with Sid and Flair was fighting Savage. Anyone have any insight into why that happened?

as for your second theory, in november 1991 we are still around a year away from Hart, Michaels and Yoko taking over the company. Most of 1992 was built around Savage, Flair, and the Warrior.

 

[Final Verdict]

This was just after Wrestlemania 7, so HBK was still a tag team wrestler, and Bret Hart was just getting his first shot as a singles wrestler in the undercard at this point.

I think the only reason it happened was to give fans a reason to pay for a second ppv inside a weeks time. They needed a really big selling point and that was the hook.

I also think as we've all heard Hogan was supposed to face Flair, but at the same time Vince promised Sid in his contract he would get to main event against Hogan, I think it was more or less Vince made a couple promises and didn't know what trigger to pull.

Far as Mania time, I think Vince must of promised Flair x title reigns with his contract and title reign going into Mania, but at the same time its been reported by Bret in his book that Vince just wasn't satisfied with Flairs work. So my opinion he didn't trust Flair to go on last, and like always came running back to Hogan like he did with Mania 7 when Warrior started to problems.

Yeah Taker wasn't Vince's first attempt to move away from Hogan and make a new mega star, its Warrior never panned out like he wanted.

Otherwise yeah only thing I've ever heard about Takers first win or thought of it, was just to sell more tickets. Sorta like Ivan Koloff, Stan Stasiak, and Iron Sheiks short reigns to change champions.

 

[RicSpade]

Well to be honest with you at one point in time I remember hearing that the match looked bad according to Vince so the plan was to basically do the rematch at Tuesday in Texas, but that match looked bad too which was the reason why they pulled the title off Hogan and held it up at the Royal Rumble for Flair to win it.

It really isn't uncommon to have something like that happen in wrestling, but you can't really go back on a main event like that and retape it at a pay per view, its kind of like the TNA Ultimate X match from several years ago when SpikeTV and them first became a team, and the Ultimate X match became awful looking cause the X randomly fell off the cables, and so they redid the entire match on the live thursday impact and they had the same finish just made it a little more entertaining and obviously without the screw up.

The other thing you need to really look at when it comes to what happened was how unover the whole situation was. When Taker beat Hogan Vince expected boos, and garbage and this really monster heel reaction to the crowd, but instead there was a lot of shock, and Vince didn't really take to that, so hoping the crowd would get behind Hogan at Tuesday in Texas for the rematch that didn't take place either.

The last thing to really look at was at the time there wasn't too much to build the feud around for Flair and Hogan besides the multiple interferences by Flair and the fact Flair was always being proclaimed as the real worlds champion, but the last thing was that they decided to push for Hogan-Sid after the Royal Rumble because that just looked better as a feud because Hogan basically costed Sid the WWE title, and with Hogan almost out the door (he had planned to be leaving right there when he had a sit down with Vince on camera) and you can't have your top face beat your current champion and just leave so he gave Hogan creative control for his final match and made it the main event at WM8.

Really in a nutshell those are probably all the accumulative reason for the shortest title reign of one of the top stars of all time.

 

[No Count Pup]

In this particular situation, its not that Hogan was politicing to regain his title, because technically he never won the rematch. In fact, Hogan did not regain the wwe title for 16 months. This was a tough time for the wwe, with the reports that McMahon was making the wrestlers take steroids and Hogan at the center. Im not sure if this was starting to trickle in at about this time, but I know for sure come February that the wwe was feeling the full weight of this.

So this title lose by Hogan was a way to get the title off of him, with of course not making him look weak. I believe the ultimate plan was to give the title to Flair, but I don't think they wanted to have Hogan lose to Flair. So the Undertaker would be used for this purpose, to win the title from Hogan with help from Flair, only to lose it due to controversial fashion 6 days later, and have the title vacated. I believe Taker was chosen because he was the only wrestler who's momentum would not be stopped by only having a 6 day reign, and of course it only got stronger.

Hogan technically won the rematch because WWE counts his victory over Taker as a title win.

I think WWE wanted to give Taker credibility as a dominant "Superstar." Being a former WWE Champion makes any wrestler formidabble.

WWE was also able to get heat on Flair for costing Hogan the championship. The most important thing, however, was that Flair was able to win the WWE Title without defeating the Hulkster.

Was Taker's title reign forgettable? No. It established the Undertaker as a main eventer.

 

[King Douche]

Did it really establish Taker as a main eventer? Cause afterwards he was a upper midcarder not getting a shot at the title until 1997. 6 years after he received his first world title reign. I mean the silly feuds WWE put him in, like the Million Dollar Corporation feud, Giant Gonzalez feud, ect. I think it pushed him back some if helped him out in the long run.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Back in the late 80's/early 90's WWF used to show the Survivor Series event the night before Thanksgiving. In 1991 we saw Undertaker against Hogan for the WWF title, good match. Then, the rematch would be at Tuesday in Texas six days later. Taker loses the belt to Hogan. Taker was WWF champion for 6 days. 6 days??

I've always wondered what went on with this. Did Hogan complain and politic to get the belt back? Or did Vince just change his mind and hand over the belt to Hogan.

I have never heard Vince, Taker, or Hogan talk about this in any shoot interviews or anything. Taker was a dominant force already by this time, but losing the belt in his first title defense just after 6 days made him look weak. They could at least kept Taker with the belt until Royal Rumble 92, and then lose it to Flair or Hogan. What was the intention of having Taker win the belt just to lose it 6 days later?

Yeah, I honestly never really thought about that.... I guess it's been long enough that I just forgot. I really dislike short title reigns as much as the next guy because they sometimes feel pointless. Perhaps they did this just to give him his first win, although Hogan "needed" to be champion. We will probably never know, especially since no one really mentions this event. I agree that Taker should have kept the belt a little longer and at the very least won his first defence. Look on the bright side though, this event didn't hurt him in the long run.... look at him now.

If I had to guess, I would say that they wanted Taker to have his first title win, but were so intent on having Hogan be champion that they changed it back thinking that everyone benefits because Taker would have a title win and Hogan would still be champion. I don't agree with it (or the majority of short title reigns for that matter), but that would be my guess. Like I already said though, we will probably never know since this is rarely talked about.