WWE Region, Fourth Round, Hell in a Cell: (1) Hulk Hogan vs. (12) Brock Lesnar

[Bythedockofthebay]

Then you can easily argue that Lesnar has in his favor that Undertaker, who fits somewhat into the same mold of Lesnar as being an unstoppable monster, defeated Hulk Hogan after Tombstoning him onto a chair.

Hogan has lost to a man like Lesnar in the Undertaker.

Lesnar has lost to a man like Hogan in Cena.

Sure and if Ric Flair shows up in this match I'll say Lesnar has the advange, yet flair's busy with Misawa and I don't think he's going to worry about helping Lesnar at this point.

 

[DarksideEric]

Sure and if Ric Flair shows up in this match I'll say Lesnar has the advange, yet flair's busy with Misawa and I don't think he's going to worry about helping Lesnar at this point.

Except Flair doesn't have to hand Lesnar a chair.

He can grab one of his own from underneath the ring.

 

[Tastycles]

I can't be bothered to have this conversation any more. Brock Lesnar was a complete box office disaster, then he came back from an impressive career elsewhere and made no impact whatsoever on his return. Lesnar is shit, and a glorious summer in 2002 and beating the streak this year is absolutely no match for being the greatest wrestler ever.

The thing about the Cell is that pretty much it doesn't favour any type of wrestler. Michaels has won in there, CM Punk, Orton, Cena, Henry, Batista, Kane too. These guys are so different that it's clear the cell is no leveller. Hogan wins this because he has done more for wrestling and in wrestling than Lesnar by a country fucking mile.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Except Flair doesn't have to hand Lesnar a chair.

He can grab one of his own from underneath the ring.

You are right there, but had Taker had to go outside to grab said chair it would've given Hogan time to recover and Hogan would have hulked up, Taker would've missed with the chair and Hogan would've won. Took both Flair and Taker to beat Hogan at least. And I believe the ref was distracted as well. So three people.

 

[DarksideEric]

The thing about the Cell is that pretty much it doesn't favour any type of wrestler. Michaels has won in there, CM Punk, Orton, Cena, Henry, Batista, Kane too. These guys are so different that it's clear the cell is no leveller. Hogan wins this because he has done more for wrestling and in wrestling than Lesnar by a country fucking mile.

Michaels won when a monster heel got involved.

Punk has proven to be a fairly savage fighter.

Orton is a savage fighter.

Cena is arguably the equivalent of a "monster" face.

Henry is a monster heel/face.

As is Batista.

As is Kane.

Tell me again how they're so different?

Every single singles match held in a Cell has had at least either a. a savage/vicious fighter or b. a monster/brute.

Every single singles match Cell winner, with the exception of Shawn Michaels, has been one of those two things or a combination of the two.

 

[DarksideEric]

You are right there, but had Taker had to go outside to grab said chair it would've given Hogan time to recover and Hogan would have hulked up, Taker would've missed with the chair and Hogan would've won. Took both Flair and Taker to beat Hogan at least. And I believe the ref was distracted as well. So three people.

But the Undertaker/Hogan match was a regular match, thus no extra damage due to fighting on the outside, being slammed into the cage or use of weapons earlier in the match.

I've no doubt at some point Hogan would Hulk Up against Lesnar and nearly beat him.

But I think Lesnar would win in a complete shocker in the same way he defeated the Undertaker to end the Streak. Both Lesnar and Hogan would weather each others' storms, but in the end I think Lesnar would come out of no where and hit that fifth F-5 for a victory.

 

[Tastycles]

Michaels won when a monster heel got involved.

Punk has proven to be a fairly savage fighter.

Orton is a savage fighter.

Cena is arguably the equivalent of a "monster" face.

Henry is a monster heel/face.

As is Batista.

As is Kane.

Tell me again how they're so different?

Every single singles match held in a Cell has had at least either a. a savage/vicious fighter or b. a monster/brute.

How is John Cena any more of a monster than Hulk Hogan? You've just made some ridiculous statement that Batista is more brutal than Hulk Hogan without any supporting statement. This is utter nonsense.

 

[DarksideEric]

How is John Cena any more of a monster than Hulk Hogan? You've just made some ridiculous statement that Batista is more brutal than Hulk Hogan without any supporting statement. This is utter nonsense.

When did I suggest Cena is more of a monster than Hogan?

How is it utter nonsense? Hogan isn't that well known for his brutality, especially not with his moveset. Hogan is known for his slow, methodical pace, strength and Hulking Up, but he's not very often depicted as "brutal."

Batista is fairly well known for his brutality, powerbombing people through tables and such.

You stated all the men you listed are different, I stated they aren't because many of them fit the same mold.

Hogan is a face "monster," but I've never seen him put people through the same amount of punishment that the other Cell winners have.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Hulk Hogan, in his prime, beat unstoppable monsters. It didn't matter if it was in a cage or in a singles match, Hogan would come out on top. Brock Lesnar is a monster, just like all of the other monsters Hogan has defeated. Yes, Lesnar beat Hogan, but that occurred when Hogan was easily old enough to be Lesnar's father.

I know a lot of people are still riding on the shock of Lesnar beating the streak, but don't be ridiculous. It's Hulk Hogan in a cage. He's not losing to the monster.

 

[Danger Burger]

I guess I'll toss in my two cents since its a close tug...

I know there's a lot of timely title reign business, longer reigns in earlier times etc that complicate the issue, but the facts are the facts, so I won't bother getting in to that one.

Anyway, I don't think Hogan has fought a guy like Lesnar before. Strength wise, Hogan may have been the pinnacle of his era. Picking up a 500 hundred pound guy (just about) was an unbelievable and (kayfabe) unmatched event. Brock picks up guys like Big Show and Mark Henry like tossing pillows. Maybe its a little bit like the ten-second barrier in sprinting, but the peak of Hogans strength does not match Lesnar's.

Guys like Andre were strong, but they did not move like Lesnar did. Genetic Freak is a phrase tossed around a lot these days, but it applies here. Its hard to imagine something like the five minute shove contest and a scoop slam (WM3 for you youngins) would be enough to keep Lesnar down. Warrior beat Hogan on strenght alone, Goldberg, with strength and speed. Lesnar can do the same.

Same conclusion as the last time they met. Vote Lesnar.

 

[Tastycles]

When did I suggest Cena is more of a monster than Hogan?

How is it utter nonsense? Hogan isn't that well known for his brutality, especially not with his moveset. Hogan is known for his slow, methodical pace, strength and Hulking Up, but he's not very often depicted as "brutal."

Batista is fairly well known for his brutality, powerbombing people through tables and such.

You stated all the men you listed are different, I stated they aren't because many of them fit the same mold.

Hogan is a face "monster," but I've never seen him put people through the same amount of punishment that the other Cell winners have.

1) Alberto Del Rio is not in the same mould as Mark Henry.
2) You said Cena won as he is a monster face, which is exactly what Hogan is. Hulking up is the epitome of that.
3) Hulk Hogan used to do his finisher on people over and over again when he was in the nWo. That's far more brutal than anything Batista, who once lost a match because his legs were sellotaped together.

 

[DarksideEric]

1) Alberto Del Rio is not in the same mould as Mark Henry.

ADR has never won a single Hell in a Cell. Nor has he ever been in a Cell against a single opponent. So... what's your point?

2) You said Cena won as he is a monster face, which is exactly what Hogan is. Hulking up is the epitome of that.

Yes, I realize this. And both Hogan and Cena have lost while being said monster face.

3) Hulk Hogan used to do his finisher on people over and over again when he was in the nWo. That's far more brutal than anything Batista, who once lost a match because his legs were sellotaped together.

Multiple leg drops are on par with power bombing someone through a table now? That was also heel Hogan. Heel Hogan != Prime Hogan.

 

[Tastycles]

ADR has never won a single Hell in a Cell. Nor has he ever been in a Cell against a single opponent. So... what's your point?

He's won as many Hell in a Cell matches as Brock Lesnar. If there's more people does the brutality go out the window? In what realm does that make any sense?

Yes, I realize this. And both Hogan and Cena have lost while being said monster face.

But they have mostly won. How many times did Hogan lose to a heel between 1984 and 1990? Once? Twice? Lesnar has lost to John Cena in a gimmick match. Hogan, at his peak, never lost to anyone, let alone someone like Lesnar.

Multiple leg drops are on par with power bombing someone through a table now? That was also heel Hogan. Heel Hogan != Prime Hogan.

In wrestling, absolutely. Even Heel Hogan was better than Lesnar anyway. Why? Because he attracted an audience, not reduced it, which is the point of professional wrestling. You're evidently too much of a fanboy to see the obvious outcome. I don't care for Hogan, but it's absolutely obvious what the outcome here would be.

 

[DarksideEric]

He's won as many Hell in a Cell matches as Brock Lesnar. If there's more people does the brutality go out the window? In what realm does that make any sense?

I was mistaken in ADR never winning. No, brutality does not go out the window in a Triple Threat or more Cell, but there's more people in the match that can do work for you. People argued against Benoit because he beat HHH and HBK in Triple Threats, not singles matches, thus they shouldn't be evaluated the same.

But they have mostly won. How many times did Hogan lose to a heel between 1984 and 1990? Once? Twice? Lesnar has lost to John Cena in a gimmick match. Hogan, at his peak, never lost to anyone, let alone someone like Lesnar.

>Lost once/twice
>Never lost

Pick one and run with it. Hulk was still arguably in his Prime when he lost to Taker in '91.

In wrestling, absolutely. Even Heel Hogan was better than Lesnar anyway. Why? Because he attracted an audience, not reduced it, which is the point of professional wrestling. You're evidently too much of a fanboy to see the obvious outcome. I don't care for Hogan, but it's absolutely obvious what the outcome here would be.

I love the fan boy remark, always so cliche. Yeah, audience attraction is important, it would be a fairly big audience to watch a shocker finish of Lesnar defeating Hogan in a Cell.

And apparently it's not obvious, given the votes. There's been some "obvious" matches in this (and probably other) tournaments. This doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

[SSJPhenom]

So I've learned a lot of things during this round.

1. HIAC is the exact same match as a cage match. I guess the Elimination Chamber is as well.

2. Lesnar is your generic monster heel. Even though in his prime he beat the absolute biggest names in the business.

3. Hulk Hogan is wrestling's Batman. He wins because he's the goddamned Hulk Hogan.

4. The match types, stipulations, and such don't matter at all because Lesnar wasn't as successful as Hogan was.

Lesnar should win this match, I've already explained why, however, if the goddamned Hulk Hogan wins I will, from now on, always vote for the more successful wrestler in this tournament. Because if Hogan wins this, then either Hogan, Austin, The Rock, or Cena should win year in and year out.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

Now, for me this is a rather hard hand to pick.

One hand, you have Hulk Hogan, the guy who can be described as the man who build up wrestling as to where it is today.

Now, the other hand has Brock "The Beast" Lesnar, the guy who can be quoted as the guy who can be called "The 1 in 21-1!".

First off my favorite in this match, Brock. Yes Ech, you can say that the streak was kayfabe or whatnot. But, not fake. Why? Cause people believed in it, it was an attraction for every Mania. It was well documented by many people and guess what? People hated/hate the guy who ended it and won with a smile across his face. Brock Lesnar broke many peoples' hopes with that which makes him an S.O.B. Now, not only The Unbeatable Streak has beaten that was unthinkable, so people take that as they may.

While Hulk Hogan, has built up not only the business, but as well build-up peoples' hopes and beliefs. He has also overcome many matches were he was the underdog.

However, I will have to go with Brock Lesnar. Why? As I stated, he destroys/beats/conquers the unthinkable. Which is Hulk Hogan. Simple cause Hogan is in his house.

So, yeah cue Yaz or Pancake anytime now for my vote on Brock Lesnar.

 

[GI Cake]

Hulk was still arguably in his Prime when he lost to Taker in '91.

'91 was hardly Hulk Hogan's prime. His prime was in the 80's when he held the title for 4+ years beating everyone and their mothers. But '91 wasn't a bad year either for Hulk either when he was beyond his prime and still drawing more money and selling more merch than Brock Lesnar ever could.

 

[Big Sexy]

I like how almost all Lesnar supporters in this thread are saying "You guys are just voting for Hogan because of drawing ability/popularity and if we do that the final four will always be the same guys." First of all there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting based on drawing ability, especially when the discrepancy is so astronomically wide between Hogan and Lesnar in that aspect. Second, even if you take drawing power out of the equation, Hogan still wins because he is better in nearly every aspect of pro wrestling.

I don't want to hear "his offense couldn't keep Lesnar down. Lesnar isn't Earthquake or Zeus." Maybe I just imagined Hogan's offense beating virtually every big name in the industry over 2 decades. Piper, Andre, Funk, Flair, Savage, Vader, Giant, Taker, Triple H, HBK, Orton, Yoko, etc. And why would only Lesnar use the HIAC to his advantage? Does Hogan not know how to use weapons? Did he not beat guys like Andre, Vader, Savage, and Flair in cage matches, strap matches, and no DQ matches? If a Lesnar supporter could please clear all this up for me and maybe come up with an argument other then "I want to see someone different go far in the tournament," that would be great.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I never said that Hogan couldn't use weapons or the cell, I just said that he couldn't use them as well as Lesnar. Lesnar isn't Earthquake or Zeus. They were built specifically to be fed to Hogan. After ttheir respective programs with Hogan what happened to them, I can't remember. Lesnar was built up to be the man and he ran through the best in the business at the time to do it.

Talk all the shit you want about Lesnar but during his initial run he was just as godly as Hulk Hogan. Everyone's argument here is that this will be just another heel monster fed to the baby face and I call bullshit. Lesnar, as a heel monster, wasn't fed to the Rock, the Undertaker, or several others. I'm sorry but this is where Hulkamania comes to an end this year.

In the words of Bobby Henan, "Hulkamania is dead, it's dead Monsoon".

 

[DarksideEric]

I like how almost all Lesnar supporters in this thread are saying "You guys are just voting for Hogan because of drawing ability/popularity and if we do that the final four will always be the same guys." First of all there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting based on drawing ability, especially when the discrepancy is so astronomically wide between Hogan and Lesnar in that aspect. Second, even if you take drawing power out of the equation, Hogan still wins because he is better in nearly every aspect of pro wrestling.

Hogan's not a better in-ring wrestler than Lesnar. And yes, there actually is something wrong with voting simply based on drawing ability because then... well, what in the hell is the point of an annual tournament?

Hogan vs. Flair? Doesn't matter, Hogan is wrestling, move aside Flair.

Hogan vs. Inoki? Doesn't matter, Hogan is wrestling, move aside Inoki.

Hogan vs. Austin? Sorry Hogan, I took over so move aside.

What is the point of annual tournaments if you're just going to base your argument on drawing power?

I don't want to hear "his offense couldn't keep Lesnar down. Lesnar isn't Earthquake or Zeus."

Of course you don't want to hear it, because it counters your argument. Why would you want to hear something that counters what you believe is true? Lesnar is not Earthquake or Zeus, he's higher caliber than both of them, perhaps even both combined.

Maybe I just imagined Hogan's offense beating virtually every big name in the industry over 2 decades. Piper, Andre, Funk, Flair, Savage, Vader, Giant, Taker, Triple H, HBK, Orton, Yoko, etc.

Y'know who's offense has defeated Hulk Hogan?

The Ultimate Warrior's, and not a single person on God's green is going to say the Warrior is a better wrestler than Lesnar.

Know who else has defeated Hogan? Undertaker.

At some point you have to drop the Immortal One argument because falling on that argument 95% of the time means Hogan wins these tournaments... which renders annual tournaments moot.

And why would only Lesnar use the HIAC to his advantage? Does Hogan not know how to use weapons? Did he not beat guys like Andre, Vader, Savage, and Flair in cage matches, strap matches, and no DQ matches?

I've never suggested only Lesnar would use the Cell to his advantage. Have you literally read nothing that has been written? The statement is not "Hogan can't use the Cell," because there's no statement being made but a question being asked: Can Hogan keep up with Lesnar in a Cell?

There's a giant difference between "can't do at all" and "can't keep up with."

If a Lesnar supporter could please clear all this up for me and maybe come up with an argument other then "I want to see someone different go far in the tournament," that would be great.

If a Hogan supporter could come up with something other than the Hogan Factor (Batman's Prep Time), perhaps we can have a logical discussion. Logically, if all you have to do is rely on Hogan's star power and the way he was booked in his prime, there's two people that can actually beat him with good arguments, and that's Austin and Cena. Everyone else would fall to the "it's Hulk Hogan, he never lost."

Bret not Bryan would ever get Hogan to tap in a Submission Match against Hogan Prime.

Foley nor Funk would ever defeat Hogan in a Hardcore Match against Hogan Prime.

Thesz nor Angle would ever beat Hogan in an Iron Man Match against Hogan Prime.

Why? Because Hogan Prime was 99% unbeatable and a 99% unbeatable person would render annual tournaments pointless.

I want to see the winner win due to logic, unfortunately the way Hogan was booked defies logic.

 

[nightmare]

Next person that starts up with the Batman argument is getting pistol whipped. Jesus Christ on a cracker some people make it hard to work around here...


Its story time folks. Take a trip with me back to a magical land where the M was still in Mtv, where cocaine flowed like sand at the beach & where Hulkamania ran wild all across the land....


Vince is obsessed with a certain 'look'. So obviously he fell in love one day when a beast of a man walked through the door. From there on the body count rose & like a rocket ship to the moon, this man was pushed to the top. Size, strength & quick as a cat- this wrestler was like no other before him. So naturally it was inevitable that such a man would cross paths with the red & yellow one day. Cross paths they did & it was epic. Yet on this day it was not the incumbent hero that claimed victory- it was our new conquering hero. It was the Ultimate Warrior & he had the arsenal to do the unthinkable.... He beat Hulk Hogan.



So lets say during this time, a young man named Brock Lesnar shows up. Instantly McMahon likes what he sees. So after seeing what the kid can do- Vince has now just creamed himself over the possibilities that this new talent will afford him. Agile, strong as an elephant & a solid mat background in wrestling? Vince approves & the kid is pushed to the moon.


One day Hulkamania has to answer the call. The red and yellow must defend his kingdom from this young upstart. So they clash. In a match for the ages.


Yet on this day it was not the incumbent hero that claimed victory- it was our new conquering hero.

Brock Lesnar.


Hogan could not contain the Warrior and his pinball fury of clotheslines & shoulder tackles. All the red and yellow vitamins in the world could not defeat the Ultimate Warrior. So why then, would you think that someone younger, stronger & far better on the mat- would not accomplish the same thing? Someone who was booked to run over people on the way to the top & then go over Hulk Hogan is rare, but it happens. Brock Lesnar would have been booked the same way back then. A beast. A beast with the talent to win it all. A beast with a message.


Even heroes can fall.

 

[Big Sexy]

Hogan's not a better in-ring wrestler than Lesnar. And yes, there actually is something wrong with voting simply based on drawing ability because then... well, what in the hell is the point of an annual tournament?

Drawing ability is one part of the equation not the whole thing. Hogan is a better draw, more charismatic, 10000000X better on the mic, had a more successful career, was a better heel, a better face, has more big match victories. The only thing Lesnar has on Hogan is in ring work. That's it.

Of course you don't want to hear it, because it counters your argument. Why would you want to hear something that counters what you believe is true? Lesnar is not Earthquake or Zeus, he's higher caliber than both of them, perhaps even both combined.

It doesn't counter MY argument because MY argument never once mentioned Earthquake or Zeus other than to mock others who keep randomly bringing them up in defense of Lesnar. I also haven't seen anyone in this thread say that Lesnar was on the same level with them because he is clearly many steps above guys like them.

Y'know who's offense has defeated Hulk Hogan?

The Ultimate Warrior's, and not a single person on God's green is going to say the Warrior is a better wrestler than Lesnar.

Know who else has defeated Hogan? Undertaker.

What's your definition of a great wrestler? If your answer is in ring work then no Warrior isn't on Lesnar's level, however, Warrior was more popular when he beat Hogan then Lesnar ever has been. That's why Warrior won. Because someone finally could match his popularity and it was a good passing of the torch. Lesnar doesn't fit the bill. And without the steel chair assistance from Flair, prime Hogan doesn't lose to Taker. He also beat him 6 days later.

At some point you have to drop the Immortal One argument because falling on that argument 95% of the time means Hogan wins these tournaments... which renders annual tournaments moot.

Hogan has won this tournament once. He usually loses to someone well beneath him in a gimmick match like this where people use awful arguments and flawed logic. Go figure.

I've never suggested only Lesnar would use the Cell to his advantage. Have you literally read nothing that has been written? The statement is not "Hogan can't use the Cell," because there's no statement being made but a question being asked: Can Hogan keep up with Lesnar in a Cell?

There's a giant difference between "can't do at all" and "can't keep up with."

What the fuck does that even mean "keep up with him." Like if Lesnar hits him with 2 chair shots and throws him into the ring steps then Hogan has to counter with two ring bell shots and an Irish whip into the ring post? If Hogan can "keep up" with Savage, Andre, Giant, and Vader in cage, strap, and no DQ matches then yes he can "keep up" with Lesnar.

If a Hogan supporter could come up with something other than the Hogan Factor (Batman's Prep Time), perhaps we can have a logical discussion. Logically, if all you have to do is rely on Hogan's star power and the way he was booked in his prime, there's two people that can actually beat him with good arguments, and that's Austin and Cena. Everyone else would fall to the "it's Hulk Hogan, he never lost."

Except I haven't used that argument. I've used the fact that Hogan is all around better then Lesnar and has beaten similar vicious opponents in similar brutal gimmick matches.

Bret not Bryan would ever get Hogan to tap in a Submission Match against Hogan Prime.

Foley nor Funk would ever defeat Hogan in a Hardcore Match against Hogan Prime.

Thesz nor Angle would ever beat Hogan in an Iron Man Match against Hogan Prime.

Glad we're on the same page. These statements coupled with the fact Hogan is a better/more accomplished pro wrestler, and his history of beating big bad opponents in gimmick matches clearly gives Hogan the victory.

 

[DarksideEric]

Drawing ability is one part of the equation not the whole thing. Hogan is a better draw, more charismatic, 10000000X better on the mic, had a more successful career, was a better heel, a better face, has more big match victories. The only thing Lesnar has on Hogan is in ring work. That's it.

Let me note this portion for a second.

It doesn't counter MY argument because MY argument never once mentioned Earthquake or Zeus other than to mock others who keep randomly bringing them up in defense of Lesnar. I also haven't seen anyone in this thread say that Lesnar was on the same level with them because he is clearly many steps above guys like them.

A few people have used the "generic monster heel" stance to describe Lesnar just as they described Earthquake and Zeus.

What's your definition of a great wrestler? If your answer is in ring work then no Warrior isn't on Lesnar's level, however, Warrior was more popular when he beat Hogan then Lesnar ever has been. That's why Warrior won. Because someone finally could match his popularity and it was a good passing of the torch. Lesnar doesn't fit the bill. And without the steel chair assistance from Flair, prime Hogan doesn't lose to Taker. He also beat him 6 days later.

Remember that part I noted?

Hogan vs. Warrior on the mic: Hogan.

Hogan vs. Warrior in the ring: Close but arguably Hogan.

Hogan vs. Warrior in career achievement: Hogan.

Hogan vs. Warrior as a heel: Well... Warrior wasn't even ever a heel.

See where this is going? You cite that "drawing ability is one part of the equation not the whole thing," yet the only reason Hogan was pinned prior to '91 was because the guy was more popular than Hogan. That makes Hogan 99.9% unbeatable prior to '91, hell... prior to him becoming a heel even, as I don't think he lost all that much in WCW before turning bad. And even then he barely lost.

That's what we call in comics, video games, etc a "Mary Sue'd" character. His Immortal One booking makes it fairly impossible for anyone to beat him if you use him the way you're using him in this discussion.

And Lesnar wouldn't need Flair to get him a chair in this match.

Hogan has won this tournament once. He usually loses to someone well beneath him in a gimmick match like this where people use awful arguments and flawed logic. Go figure.

"Awful arguments" and "flawed logic" that counter a Mary Sue'd character... okay. So Hogan's not Batman... apparently he's the Goku now (or Superman) of the wrestling world when it comes to fan logic.

What the fuck does that even mean "keep up with him." Like if Lesnar hits him with 2 chair shots and throws him into the ring steps then Hogan has to counter with two ring bell shots and an Irish whip into the ring post? If Hogan can "keep up" with Savage, Andre, Giant, and Vader in cage, strap, and no DQ matches then yes he can "keep up" with Lesnar.

A cage match isn't a Cell. Nor is a Strap Match. Nor is a simple No DQ match.

"Keeping up with him." Could he keep the same physical pace? Could he/would he go as far as Lesnar would go inside such a match.

You remember when HHH fought Shawn at Summerslam in a Street Fight, or when HHH fought Taker in their last Mania match? They made this big whole deal of HHH doing "I will do whatever it takes to get it done!" Y'know how Bray is currently trying to break Cena out and be "the monster"? Same thing. The mentality mind you, because I'm fairly certain you'll state that HHH lost those matches as a means to fight the mentality.

It's a question of can Hogan keep up with the combination of athletic ability, raw power and brutality that Lesnar has.

Except I haven't used that argument. I've used the fact that Hogan is all around better then Lesnar and has beaten similar vicious opponents in similar brutal gimmick matches.

And people have used the argument that at some point Hogan will (and has) been beaten by people who equal Lesnar in some fashion. Warrior will always be giantly more popular than Lesnar, but he doesn't have the ring ability that Lesnar does, however he fits the "monster brute" as a face. Undertaker, easily a better legacy than Lesnar, doesn't equal him in in-ring ability, fit the "monster heel" just like Lesnar.

Both beat him. Which points to, at least partially, twice Hogan has lost to the "monster," one of which was aided with a chair and far, far less popular than Hogan will ever be. That makes for the possibility that in a situation where weapons and outside ring violence, plus a cage, are available, a monster has the chance to beat him. Especially if that monster has more in-ring ability than the two monsters that did beat him.

Glad we're on the same page. These statements coupled with the fact Hogan is a better/more accomplished pro wrestler, and his history of beating big bad opponents in gimmick matches clearly gives Hogan the victory.

Except in two cases.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Soooo... we can't count Cage Matches in Hogan's favor because you can't get out of that type of cage to use weapons and we can't use Cena beating Lesnar in an Extreme Match because no cage is involved... riiiiight.

This generation's Hogan can beat Lesnar when weapons are available and the 'Cage' element sans weapons (except for the the fact that the cage itself is MORE, not less of an actual weapon in a standard cage match as the competitors don't have to leave the ring to use it) was always right up Hogan's street. Mix those elements together and tell me again how logical booking applies?

Ah, but Lesnar always does the unthinkable! He beat the streak (against a 49yo part timer who looked like a shell of his former self)! He beat the guy who put HiaC on the map IN HIAC (despite the fact that Taker's record is far from great)! He beat the Rock (who was already part time and treading water)! He beat Hogan (who was also 49)! ... He lost to Big Show (who'd done nothing for years)! He lost to (non competitor COO) Triple H! He lost to Kurt Angle on separate occasions! He lost to Eddie Guerrero (if y'all are counting Taker's win over Hogan - this applies just as equally)! He lost to Goldberg (in a stinker)! MOST IMPORTANTLY - HE LOST TO THE GUY BOOKED MOST LIKE HULK HOGAN (IN THIS GENERATION'S VARIATION OF SE) IN A MATCH EVERY BIT AS BRUTAL!

... and that's even before you throw in this being in the promotion built on Hulkamania's shoulders in the venue he's most synonymous with!

 

[SSJPhenom]

Hold on, I'm gonna use an excuse the Hoban fan boys love to use.

"When Lesnar lost to Cena and Triple H, well he wasn't in his prime anymore." Also, he beat Trips 2 out of 3 times, he beat Angle in their most important match at WM 19, Angle had also beaten Hogan and made him tap at the King of the Ring the year before, he only lost to Eddie because of Goldberg, and Goldberg was able to beat nWo Prime Hogan. Lesnar has also defeated CM Punk who was arguably still in his prime, and he beat the streak. Try to diminish that fact all you want but it was and is still incredible that he did it.

Hogan is out, Vote Lesnar.