Third Round - Toronto Region: Last Man Standing - Hulk Hogan vs. The Undertaker

[Tenta]

I had a feeling you would go there. You're right. Hogan's contributions to the business are enormous and he was the biggest draw. I don't see how that's relevant here. If you want to use that to support your vote then so be it. If that's going to be the argument why are we even having this tournament? If we're using who contributed most to the business, sold the most tickets, and made wrestling what it is today, a tournament is not necessary as Hogan would be the obvious winner. Based on that you must have made up your mind that you were going to vote for Hogan no matter who he came up against in any type of match before this tournament even started.

I am trying to use my imagination to see how this match would play out. I don't think Hogan would get slaughterd by any means, but I do see him losing a hard fought match. I think the match would be close and losing would not damage Hulk's reputation. I see him walking out even more respected like Steve Austin at WrestleMania 13. I have been very complimentary of Hogan and stated I wasn't sure what it would take to get me to vote against him. He happened to draw a bad combiniation by getting Taker in last man standing.

By the way I don't appreciate being grouped in with those who might argue "Takerz does the sitz upz!!!" There may be those who are brainwashed by such things, but consider that someone who disagrees with you might actually have a legitimate argument and an original thought. You don't have to agree with it, but don't group me in with those who use one sentence of misspelled and poor grammar. I may make mistakes at times. I may have started out a little weak in this thread, but I think since you called me out my posts have been at least respectable.

EDIT: I don't know if the last paragraph was necessary. If you were not grouping me in with that group I apologize.

Hulkamaniac, I get it. Sometimes thing go that way in a debate like this. It's easy to slip in that direction. It's cool.

Umm.... I said you were actually worth the response man. Meaning, you don't rely on the Taker does the sit up argument. I mean, it gets annoying when you see someone do it. You're one of the few here that hasn't lean on the sit up like a fat man stumbling on the Titanic.

God it's late. Anyway, what we boil down to is taste. You're looking strictly from kayfabe. I can't hate you, because it's the way you feel the tournament should be. I don't agree with you, but I get where you're coming from. I do, in fact, believe that if you're going to be declared a winner of this tournament, at some point, you have to sell the tickets. That's why, God bless him, Shawn will never get my blessing to be a winner of this thing. Great wrestler, never drew.

You're Austin logic is a tad flawed. First of all, up to this point, Austin had the whole Dallas Mavericks complex going. By that, I mean that Austin won big against the lightweights, but when fighting champions, he would typically come up short. It would be that way until Wrestlemania 14. Hogan's character, however, is based on always winning. Always. Austin got the sympathy from the fans, because he had still yet to win that big match. Hogan made a career out of absorbing punishment, and coming back. Granted, that's why his character was stale by 1993, but for that eight year period, it drove people bat shit crazy, and it always willed Hogan on. And the bigger the opponent got, the more he rallied. See: Bundy, Andre, Savage, etc. Sure, you could say Taker is a better wrestler than these men, but the character is already set. It's what Hogan did to everybody, regardless of the character he faced. The Undertaker, for all his capabilities, isn't immune either. Great big man have become stepping stones for Hogan. Don't believe me? Ask Vader; he'll point you out to the way Hogan does things, once he gets around to finding the career Hogan caused him to lose.

We're quibbling on taste, now, Brain. We've established that while you like Vanilla, I like strawberry. We both love ice cream, just different flavors. And unfortunately, that's not really something you can debate. How you vote this tournament is completely your call. I do, however, feel it's negligent to ignore drawing. It doesn't have to be a deciding factor, but it has to be weighed. If it weren't, Kane would win this tournament every year for his kayfabe run in 1998. Do you really believe that should be the case?

 

[The Brain]

We're quibbling on taste, now, Brain. We've established that while you like Vanilla, I like strawberry. We both love ice cream, just different flavors. And unfortunately, that's not really something you can debate. How you vote this tournament is completely your call. I do, however, feel it's negligent to ignore drawing. It doesn't have to be a deciding factor, but it has to be weighed. If it weren't, Kane would win this tournament every year for his kayfabe run in 1998. Do you really believe that should be the case?

Well we know where we stand and that's fine with me. I've said my peace and I'll be done with it. Truth be told I don't think it would be bad if Hogan won this. This was really close for me. I even assumed I'd vote for Hogan. Then I saw last man standing and let my imagination take over and visualized Taker coming out on top. I admit I'm going kayfabe here. I feel I have to otherwise Hogan wins every year without competition. It's been a pleasure Tenta. If anyone else comes in here with a lame argument I may be back.

By the way, didn't Earthquake lay out Hogan for well over ten seconds on the Brother Love Show? Just kidding. I couldn't resist.

 

[Ferbian]

First of all, I apologize for the late respond, wasn't even aware you quoted me..

What about Hogan’s ability to put the Undertaker down? I think it is a lot more difficult for Hogan to do. If it was a guy like Cena, Brock Lesnar, Stone Cold, or even HHH I would say they have a better chance than Hogan in this match . Hogan does not dish out punishment on a level significant enough to put the Undertaker down. Hogan catches his opponents with a late flurry of offense and gets a quick 3. He never puts people “out”.

True, Brock, Stone Cold, and Triple H would've been a better opponent to proceed against Undertaker in a Last Man Standing match I'll give you that, but Hogan isn't exactly the cleanest guy to fight, he had his dirty moves here and there in the time of NWO as far as I recall, and I think it could definitely come into play.
And yes, Undertaker can dish out incredible punishments, but Hogan has suffered insane punishments and has rarely, if ever been kept down for a 10 count during a match, or stayed down for longer than 10 seconds after a match has ended after being pinned, he would usually be in the ring gloating some kind of way still (ridiculously enough I know)

But Undertaker has been known for loosing his handful of gimmick matches, especially matches that has him lying down for a fair deal of time, remember the buried alive matches he's had? against Vince McMahon? he wouldn't have been buried if he wasn't down for long enough.

Cena is hard to keep down, but he has been put down. Let’s go to last year when the Big Show put him through a search light. The Undertaker is easily more sinister than that. Setting Kane on fire and throwing Mankind off the cage is evidence of that. Hell he even hung the Big Bossman! You think Hogan stands a chance against him with no rules what’s so ever?

Cena is no Hulk Hogan when it comes to being kept down, and I stated that as well, and while Undertaker is sinister, he's suffered his share of defeats, and I believe up to this match there was the discussion that Undertaker defeated Hulk Hogan, but only with help from Ric Flair, the only time I've seen Hogan being defeated by Undertaker was in 2002 at Judgement day when Hogan was definitely past his prime, and even there Hogan didn't stay down for 10 seconds.

Oh and actually, that match is just PERFECT to prove you wrong about the punishment part: Hulk Hogan lashed Undertaker with his belt before the match-up, he was choking Undertaker in the corner, if that's not punishment, what is that then?

Hulkamania was never faced with a last man standing stipulation, and has shown that when the odds are stacked against him against a big heel or another mega face, he is more prone to lose. He wins one on one matches. Hulkamania is vulnerable in gimmick matches, while the Undertaker thrives in this environment. Probably the best gimmick match wrestler of all time. He has several that were pioneered by him, all being hardcore. Hell in a Cell, Last Ride Match, Inferno Match (along with Kane), Buried Alive Match, Casket Match, all of which he has winning records in, and all of which he has fought some big names and beaten them. With no rules, the Undertaker is about as unstoppable as unstoppable gets. Not even Hulkamania can overcome it.

Yet Undertaker looses the majority of his gimmick matches as far as I know, he's had a few loses in the very gimmick match that is his "home field gimmick match" the hell in a cell, he's lost Buried Alive matches, and sure while he's had his majority of wins in the last man standing matches he's been in, it's been against opponents that doesn't have anything near the stamina or endurance of Hulk Hogan from a kayfabe view.

What would Hogan do to keep the Undertaker down? You have to say how he would put ‘Taker out…but you can’t say how…because deep down you know that The Undertaker cannot be put down by Hulk Hogan. He is not a weapons specialist. He’s not sinister. He’s not hardcore. He’s not stronger than ‘Taker. Would he be able to beat the 10 count after Hell’s Gate is slapped on? Absolutely not.

A choke could very well keep you down, as I mentioned, Hogan choked Undertaker during their match in 2002 at Judgement Day, Hogan has also slapped Shawn Michaels with a steel chair, the exact same way that Undertaker defeated Khali in a last man standing, several chair shots, and a chokeslam, chokeslam being replaced by a body slam and a leg drop.

 

[shattered dreams]

I see why the gimmick matches can be annoying. Undertaker has a sit up gimmick so he should win. Really? The dumbest part is that sitting up does not win you a last man standing match. Now if his gimmick was standing back up then maybe I would agree. But it isn't. Well, then people start talking about the Undertaker's move set being hard hitting. True but that is only part of the equation. Hard hitting or not the top guys have all shown the ability to take quite a few of these moves in a match and still kick out at 2 1/2. Hogan in his prime was way harder to take down than any of the guys the Undertaker has failed to with a few of his hard hitting moves. If people are saying sting won't quit because he is a baby face how is Hogan going to stay down for 10 count when he is the greatest babyface of all time? Also, Hogan is not weak by any means. He slammed Andre. Just because he drops a leg does not mean he does not make use of the pythons. They both get some offense in, just when you think taker has him he hulks up and puts undertaker down for the count, then taker sits up at 9 rolls his eyes into the back of his head, the referee counts 10 and the match is over. Hogan wins.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Again, the ONLY time Undertaker loses is when he's cheated, which would require a heel Hulk Hogan, a version of Hogan that 'Taker could certainly keep down for a 10 count if he withstood the nWo's attack. There's no way Hogan puts in the offense required to knock down someone like 'Taker. I'm really glad that the voting is going like this. Is Hogan going to 'Hulk Up" after a Tombstone? No.

Continue voting Taker.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Again, the ONLY time Undertaker loses is when he's cheated, which would require a heel Hulk Hogan, a version of Hogan that 'Taker could certainly keep down for a 10 count if he withstood the nWo's attack. There's no way Hogan puts in the offense required to knock down someone like 'Taker. I'm really glad that the voting is going like this. Is Hogan going to 'Hulk Up" after a Tombstone? No.

Continue voting Taker.

This is just a blatant lie. Undertaker has been beaten cleanly, and far more often then Hogan.

 

[Bernkastel]

We all knew this match would be a toss up from the moment KB announced it. This match is the Batman vs Superman of the WZ Tournament; an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. I've enjoyed reading the arguments, the only thing I could add would be that Taker did beat Hogan twice for the title. Whether or not you take primes into account is irrelevent, because in the world of pro wrestling, a loss is a loss.

I'd also argue that Hogan was a much bigger star in 2002 than he was in the 80s. In the 80s he was a legend in the making; when he returned he was the legend because of what he accomplished.

I voted for Undertaker, simply because I find him to be the more entertaining performer; but I won't care if Hogan wins.

 

[TwistofRKO]

This is just a blatant lie. Undertaker has been beaten cleanly, and far more often then Hogan.

RARELY. Name any big match he's lost where there was no sort of interference or screw job.

Go ahead, try. You can name losses, but not many clean losses.

He wins feuds, and he wins gimmick matches. Undertaker is a lot more dangerous with a steel chair than Hulk Hogan is.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

RARELY. Name any big match he's lost where there was no sort of interference or screw job.

Go ahead, try. You can name losses, but not many clean losses.

He wins feuds, and he wins gimmick matches. Undertaker is a lot more dangerous with a steel chair than Hulk Hogan is.

No Mercy 2002
No Mercy 2005
No Way Out 2006
Cyber Sunday 2007
No Mercy 2008

I could have thrown in Vengeance 2002 and No Way Out 2009 where Undertaker lost in mutli-man matches or Summerslam 2004 where he got himself disqualified.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[TwistofRKO]

So maybe 6 in the last 8 years? Including 4 or 5 that were, while still enjoyable years of his run, waaaaaaaaaay out of his prime? Undertaker's win over Hogan himself in 2002 is dismissed due to it being out of Hogan's prime?

The Undertaker has tons of experience in a hardcore setting, much more than Hogan, and can simply withstand more than Hogan himself can dish out.

Yeah, you didn't shoot any fish.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

You're just changing your argument now. You said the only time Undertaker lost is when someone cheated, and that has been proven to be not only false, but VERY false.

And Hogan has had enough offense to beat better people then Undertaker, so he could certainly beat Undertaker himself.

Further, ou just dismissed Undertaker losing because it takes people cheating to beat him, and now you're complaining about people discounting Undertaker's wins over Hogan because he, ya know, cheated...blatantly, sometimes from multiple people. Hypocritical much?

 

[TwistofRKO]

That was in reference to gimmick matches. Overall, I said he rarely loses cleanly. I'm not changing anything.

Yeah, for three counts. He's never dealt with someone like the Undertaker in an all-Hell situation. Undertaker has loads of hardcore-type experience, and can certainly withstand Hogan's output. Hogan's belt isn't knocking Undertaker out for a 10 count, I'll tell you that right now.

The first one? Yeah, there was cheating, so was Hogan's win over the Undertaker. Didn't Hogan have to attack Undertaker before their 2002 match even started?

I'm glad Taker's taking this one, deservedly so.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

That was in reference to gimmick matches. Overall, I said he rarely loses cleanly. I'm not changing anything.

Yeah, for three counts. He's never dealt with someone like the Undertaker in an all-Hell situation. Undertaker has loads of hardcore-type experience, and can certainly withstand Hogan's output. Hogan's belt isn't knocking Undertaker out for a 10 count, I'll tell you that right now.

The first one? Yeah, there was cheating, so was Hogan's win over the Undertaker. Didn't Hogan have to attack Undertaker before their 2002 match even started?

I'm glad Taker's taking this one, deservedly so.

The first one the UNdertaker had Ric Flair and Paul Bearer interfering. The second one they both interfered again, and Hogan overcame it, and turned it back on Undertaker, so I think of that as a rather clean win. The third one, where Hogan was 50 years old, Undertaker AGAIN needed outside itnerference to save him, as he was pinned for three seconds while Vinny Mac interfered. And by the way, after that pin attempt, Undertaker stayed on the floor for over 15 seconds, past the required 10 seconds for a LMS match.

Also, all that "gimmick match experience" you speak of involved a lot of the Undertaker losing. Against lesser competition then Hulk Hogan.

 

[TwistofRKO]

The first one the UNdertaker had Ric Flair and Paul Bearer interfering. The second one they both interfered again, and Hogan overcame it, and turned it back on Undertaker, so I think of that as a rather clean win. The third one, where Hogan was 50 years old, Undertaker AGAIN needed outside itnerference to save him, as he was pinned for three seconds while Vinny Mac interfered.

Yes, I watched all three matches. The first two are a wash, and the third seen Hogan attack Undertaker before the bell even wrung.

And by the way, after that pin attempt, Undertaker stayed on the floor for over 15 seconds, past the required 10 seconds for a LMS match.

Yes. Of course he would have stayed down that long if he didn't have to waste time for a Vince run-in

Also, all that "gimmick match experience" you speak of involved a lot of the Undertaker losing. Against lesser competition then Hulk Hogan.

Here we go. Did you fall asleep half way through this post? Look at every major gimmick match he lost, interference. HBK/Batista Hell in a Cell.. Edge TLC.. Stone Cold Buried Alive... ALL MAJOR interference.

And you've addressed nothing in regards to Hogan's general lack of experience in the setting.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

This is going to get ugly...

Yes, I watched all three matches. The first two are a wash, and the third seen Hogan attack Undertaker before the bell even wrung.

That's the match where Undertaker attacked HOgan and dragged him aroundo n his bike just days before the match correct? Oh, and BTW

Spoiler

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5O9t7sNM7Hs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5O9t7sNM7Hs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

As you can see, it is actually your boy, Undertaker that had to attack Hogan before the match...with a weapon. Not the other way around, as you've been falsely throwing around. And Taker still needed interference at the end to avoid a loss against a 50 year old version of Hogan. So, you're wrong.

Yes. Of course he would have stayed down that long if he didn't have to waste time for a Vince run-in

Listen, you have to be consistent. You can't argue kayfabe, and then decide to break kayfabe when it suits your purposes. ANd actually, Vince was at ringside, and up on the apron right as the pin was happening, so Undertaker didn't have to "wait" for anything.

Here we go. Did you fall asleep half way through this post? Look at every major gimmick match he lost, interference. HBK/Batista Hell in a Cell.. Edge TLC.. Stone Cold Buried Alive... ALL MAJOR interference.

But last I checked, those were all perfectly legal in those matches. Unlike Undertaker having to cheat against Hogan...repeatedly.

And you've addressed nothing in regards to Hogan's general lack of experience in the setting.

It's not exactly like it's a super complex gimmick, and how many has the Undertaker been in? Two? Oh yeah, the Undertaker's vast experience in this match should really carry the day. :rollseyes:

Besides for that, Hogan has been in that general situation before of having to beat a 10 count back to his feet...and done so every time. When Hogan has to rise to his feet, he ALWAYS does.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Undertaker was at his best between 2005-2009 when he was winning world titles and putting on some great matches against Angle, Orton, Edge, etc.

HHH had more hardcore experience than Orton yet lost to him in a Last Man Standing match one time and went to a draw the second time. I've seen Undertaker been put down by a bodyslam from the top rope. I bet Hogan can take more punishment than that.

You forget to mention during that 2002 that Undertaker was laid out for damn near half a minute from a chair shot. He seemed to not sit up from that one.

That six man HIAC was a decent match I thought. I love it how they say that Undertaker chokeslammed Rikishi off the top when he just merely pushed him which resulted in an overrated spot. I believe that match went on for ten minutes after that. I saw Rock, Angle, HHH, Austin use finishing move after finishing move to try and put their opponents away. Where was Undertaker? Still on top of the cell. You mean to tell me that in those minutes he couldn't climb down that cell because he was so exhausted. Rikishi is 400 pounds and yet he could get up there but Undertaker who is known not to gas in long matches couldn't get down there? Shows what kind of man he is.

 

[Razor]

What is this? What. Is. This?

Non-kayfabe speaking, Hogan is the biggest wrestler this side of....well, anyone. Bigger than the Rock, bigger than Stone Cold Steve Austin, bigger than Flair, bigger than anyone.

When kayfabe comes into play....Hogan's first reign was almost 1500 days long, no? Whenever Hogan lost in his prime it was because someone cheated and smacked the shit out of him when he wasn't looking. When he, and this is the important part, wasn't expecting the hit.

Now he's in a Last Man Standing match. He knows that the rules allow anything. He'll be watching for the chairs and what not. He'll be ready with the Hulk Up and the Leg Drop. Let's see Taker stop the Hulk Up with that bitchy Sit Up. Yeah, he can't.

Hogan should have run away with this, not the other way around.