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

[klunderbunker]

This is a fifth round match in the Championship Region. It is a standard one on one match. It will be held at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Assume everyone is starting fresh. However, damage carries over to the next round.

#1. Hulk Hogan

Vs.

#3. Undertaker

​

Polls will be open for five days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.

 

[Diet Soda]

In the words of Bobby Heenan, "Hulkamania is dead, long live the Undertaker!"

The Undertaker can and will win this match because, legacies aside, the Undertaker is a better, stronger, tougher wrestler. Headband sales and reality TV shows make no difference to the man who is one of the most difficult to pin in wrestling history, and a man who has never officially submitted to a submission.

Hogan as a draw, Hogan as an icon, Hogan as an institution obviously eclipses the Undertaker. The Undertaker is nowhere near the level of infamy as Hogan; he is not a household name, he has in fact accomplished little outside of the wrestling industry. But we are not comparing the economics of these two men, we are debating who is the greater of the two in the ring, and this is without a shade of doubt the Undertaker.

In one on one encounters, Taker is up 2-1 to Hogan. All 3 matches were for the WWE title and, to no-one's astonishment, all were greasy finishes with interferences and foreign objects coming into play. Despite this, Undertaker has managed to pin the Hulkster's limp shoulders down for the three count on both occasions, whereas Hogan only managed to sneak a roll-up on the Deadman. History, though not the most convincing, favours the Undertaker.

And if we remove from the equation the Ric Flairs and the steel chairs, Vince McMahon's gurns and Paul Bearer's urns, the threat of Hogan is diminished further still. Hulk does not have the in-ring arsenal or ability to triumph over the Undertaker, least of all not on a big stage, where the Deadman excels. For every Hulk-up, there will be a sit-up. Taker could survive being leg-dropped for hours, but it would take less than a handful of Tombstones to dispatch the Hulkster.

There are two things not to expect from this match, a technical masterpiece, and a Hogan victory. Vote Taker.

 

[Shocky]

Undertaker. In their head to head matchups, he's 2-1. Yes, all three matches were littered with shenanigans, but the fact remains, the Undertaker can handle Hogan. The longer the match goes, the more it favors the Undertaker. Hogan isn't known for his longevity, and he's not going to put the Undertaker away in under 15 minutes. You get by that length, it dramatically begins to favor the Undertaker.

The Leg Drop isn't going to keep the Undertaker down. How many finishers has the Undertaker no sold throughout his career? The Leg Drop never could keep the Undertaker down when they wrestled. The Undertaker has put Hogan down with the Tombstone, and a chokeslam. Factor in the Last Ride, and Taker has so many ways of putting down Hogan.

Hogan will no sell, Undertaker will no sell, but at the end, Hogan is going down.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

In the words of Bobby Heenan, "Hulkamania is dead, long live the Undertaker!"

The Undertaker can and will win this match because, legacies aside, the Undertaker is a better, stronger, tougher wrestler. Headband sales and reality TV shows make no difference to the man who is one of the most difficult to pin in wrestling history, and a man who has never officially submitted to a submission.

Hogan as a draw, Hogan as an icon, Hogan as an institution obviously eclipses the Undertaker. The Undertaker is nowhere near the level of infamy as Hogan; he is not a household name, he has in fact accomplished little outside of the wrestling industry. But we are not comparing the economics of these two men, we are debating who is the greater of the two in the ring, and this is without a shade of doubt the Undertaker.

In one on one encounters, Taker is up 2-1 to Hogan. All 3 matches were for the WWE title and, to no-one's astonishment, all were greasy finishes with interferences and foreign objects coming into play. Despite this, Undertaker has managed to pin the Hulkster's limp shoulders down for the three count on both occasions, whereas Hogan only managed to sneak a roll-up on the Deadman. History, though not the most convincing, favours the Undertaker.

Nope: 7 encounters, with the Deadman leading 4-3... however, 3 of 'Takers victories came in 2002 and required outside interference from Vince McMahon (REQUIRED not DESPITE)!

http://www.wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=konst&letter1=H&wrestler1=184&letter2=U&wrestler2=124&letter3=&wrestler3=0&letter4=&wrestler4=0&matchtyp=1&anzeige=matches

And if we remove from the equation the Ric Flairs and the steel chairs, Vince McMahon's gurns and Paul Bearer's urns, the threat of Hogan is diminished further still. Hulk does not have the in-ring arsenal or ability to triumph over the Undertaker, least of all not on a big stage, where the Deadman excels. For every Hulk-up, there will be a sit-up. Taker could survive being leg-dropped for hours, but it would take less than a handful of Tombstones to dispatch the Hulkster.

I'm sorry; what are you stating here? That Takers chances of beating Hogan are increased because Hulk overcame his cheating attempts when Hogan was closer to his prime?

Hogan doesn't excel on the big stage? You do know who Vince McMahon invented the big stage for?

There are two things not to expect from this match, a technical masterpiece, and a Hogan victory. Vote Taker.

Hogans 6 WWF Title Reigns average a year (even his WCW reigns average half a year); Takers 7 WWF(e)/ World Reigns average 2 months.

The Undertaker is great, especially at WrestleMania but Hulkamania was the strongest force in Wrestling and this ISN'T WrestleMania.

In a one on one in their primes (and WrestleMania isn't a prime), Hulk Hogan goes over the Undertaker every time.

 

[Big Sexy]

Before we get into the argument of why Hogan obviously goes over Taker, we need to dispel the myth that Taker holds an advantage over Hogan in head to head match ups.

[YOUTUBE]bQKU4nzTunA [/YOUTUBE]

If you fast forward to the 6:30 mark of the video then you see Hogan pins the Undertaker clean without the use of throwing ashes into Taker's eyes like he did at Tuesday in Texas. That essentially evens up their score 2-2, however, if you are really going to say the match in 2002 is of much relevance then you are delusional. Hogan at that time was just shy of 49 years old and no where near his prime. He lost plenty of matches to big name superstars around that time period. Hogan in his prime only lost clean once, and that was to the only other unstoppable mega face of his time period, the Ultimate Warrior.

Now you can use the "interference" angle all you want in favor of the Undertaker, but the only realistic interference he could get in this match is from Paul Bearer. If you have seen any of the Hogan/Taker matches from the early 90's, you would know that Bearer's interference was largely unsuccessful and more often then not, backfired. The only successful interference came from Ric Flair who is going to be a little busy considering he is still a participant in this tournament.

Taking head to head match ups out of the equation and this is even more of a concrete victory for Hogan. Outside of actual in ring ability there is not one thing that Taker has on Hogan in terms of criteria used to determine how great of a wrestler someone is. Hogan has him in popularity, drawing ability, legacy, success, world titles, mic work, etc. Taker is great, Hogan is an icon. I see no scenario in which Taker beats him in this situation with both men in their prime. Paul Bearer interference never led to a Taker victory and I can show video evidence of two incidents where Taker's tombstone could not keep Hogan down. There will be no Hogan fighting at age 48 and no Ric Flair with a steel chair. Hogan wins.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

That essentially evens up their score 2-2, however, if you are really going to say the match in 2002 is of much relevance then you are delusional.
.

Didn't he beat HHH for the undisputed title a PPV earlier? So Hogan goes over a face Triple H in 2002, the year when he returns to WWE at MSG to a monstrous pop and wins the Undisputed Titles at Mania but nostalgia is just poppycock, so that negates that.

Anyway, I'm still undecided and I think Taker might go through here because of his 1991 victory over Hulk, and how the crowd popped for that.

 

[Big Sexy]

Didn't he beat HHH for the undisputed title a PPV earlier? So Hogan goes over a face Triple H in 2002, the year when he returns to WWE at MSG to a monstrous pop and wins the Undisputed Titles at Mania but nostalgia is just poppycock, so that negates that.

Yes he did, but if anything that's just another point for Hogan. Even at 48 years old and well out of his prime, Hogan was still able to beat some big names and win a world title. However, that was still well past his prime and he also lost plenty of matches to big names during that time period. The Undertaker's absolute prime can be disputed but he was at his most dominant in the early 90's when he and Hogan had their first few encounters.

 

[Con T.]

A couple things I want to dispel right here and now:

1. Undertaker was more important to WWE.

No, no, no. See, Taker has always been a role player in the WWE. He may be the more consistent of the performers (and that's highly subjective), but Taker was never really the guy for WWE. In fact, his only really long reign as champion (1997) was, shockingly enough, the same year WWE was teetering on bankruptcy.

Hogan's title reigns save companies. Taker's are just kind of there, at best

2. Taker was as dominant as Hogan.

Do you remember Taker not having been pinned cleanly for six years?

I sure as shit don't.

3. Taker = equals Wrestlemania.

If anything, Hogan was far more important to the success of Wrestlemania. Hell, Mr. Fucking T and Cindy Lauper are more important to Wrestlemania's success.

4. Undertaker beat Hogan.

That was Hogan in 91, at the waning powers of his fame. By that time, he'd already been pinned cleanly and passed the torch to Warrior (coincidentally enough, when Warrior didn't have much success, who did McMahon turn to again?

Do you expect me to believe that Taker beats 1985 version of Hogan.

5. Taker's an elite star in WWE.

Please; he's a sideshow attraction. The only thing separating him from Andre is that Andre actually sold tickets.

Vote Hogan; don't make this any more difficult than it has to be

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Yes he did, but if anything that's just another point for Hogan. Even at 48 years old and well out of his prime, Hogan was still able to beat some big names and win a world title. However, that was still well past his prime and he also lost plenty of matches to big names during that time period. The Undertaker's absolute prime can be disputed but he was at his most dominant in the early 90's when he and Hogan had their first few encounters.

It was well past his prime but see how you use it as a point for Hogan, so it is still relevant, contrary to your original post.

I would still consider his prime after 2004:

- He returned to his Deadman gimmick and became an attraction.

- I genuinely think this was the time that he really became a marquee. People say how he wasn't over and shit, but he put fannies every 18 inches. People paid to see him and have the whole UNDERTAKER experience with from the gong tolling to his fist-raising in the end.

- I could give you a bullshit analogy like:

Warrior beat Hogan clean.
Batista is like Warrior,
Undertaker beat Batista at Mania.​

But I won't.

Undertaker will take this, you wait. I need some time.

 

[LSN80]

This entire match comes down to a discussion of what you consider Undertakr's prime, and that in itself is Undertaker's biggest problem here. Is it 1991 to 1993, when he didn't lose a single match? Was it 97-2001, when Undertaker was a main event staple? Or is it 2003-2010, when Undertaker returned as the Deadman, wrestled full-time for the WWE, and had the best matches in terms of quality in his career. Outside of the 1997 Bad Blood Hell in A Cell match with HBK, of course.

I'm not sure. While Undertaker did defeat Hogan for the title in November of '91, he lost the title back to Hogan just six days later, despite extensive interference from Flair and Paul Bearer. Yes, he won due to throwing ashes in Undertaker's face, but it was interference on 'Taker's behalf that lead to the finishing sequence of events.

I think trying to factor in their previous matches is a mistake. Both men defeated the other due to interference, and when Undertaker beat Hogan in 2002, Hogan was well out of his prime. So, in a one on one match, you go with the more successful wrestler. And that, without a doubt, is Hulk Hogan.

In his WWE prime, Hogan lost clean only once. This wasn't the case when he jumped to WCW, as he even lost to his old nemesis and the man he seemingly beat every time they matched up, Roddy Piper, with the sleeper. He lost numerous times to Sting, in title matches, both by submission and pinfall, and also lost clean to Lex Luger and Goldberg. But at 43, could you consider this his prime? He won 6 WCW championships during this time, so the argument is there.

I'd argue that along with the head-to-head matches, their primes are a wash as well. There's so much uncertainty around both men's primes, as Hogan was on top for long periods of time in both WWE and in WCW, while Undertaker was a character that evolved more then possibly any in history, and there are a number of times that could be considered his prime. In fact, there's an argument that his entire time in WWE could be considered his prime.

I'm going with Hogan here. As much as I loathe him, he was the superior draw and lost far less then Undertaker. If you simply factor in their respective times in WWE, Hogan lost clean only once, while Undertaker did so frequently. Yes, Undertaker has a more diverse repotoire at his disposal, but all of them have been kicked out of by stars less formidable then Hogan.

It may take two leg drops, but Hogan advances. Other then Wrestlemania, Undertaker hasn't shown to be a "big match" performer or winner. Hogan was.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I don't think Flair or Vince are going to be intefering in this match. And not let's forget during their first matchup before Flair shenanigans, Undertaker delivered a Tombstone to Hogan. Hogan popped right back up. I'm going with the Hulkster. Bigger draw, success, titles, etc.

 

[Big Sexy]

It was well past his prime but see how you use it as a point for Hogan, so it is still relevant, contrary to your original post.

No, I never tried to use it as a point for Hogan, if I did it would have been in my original post. I was simply responding to your post stating that his time in 2002 is relevant to this debate. I stated "if anything" it would be a point for him because it shows even out of his prime he was a huge star. However, I've been arguing in this tournament for years and I've always gone prime vs prime and this match is no different. Don't try to twist my statements.

 

[HBsam31]

I think the Undertaker is going to win. That doesn't mean that I think he should win though. I am definitely still undecided on this one. Taker seems to have the better record, but all of the matches were just laden with interference. Hogan is definitely the more decorated, and we all know what he has meant to the WWF/E. Taker has been their rock for 2 decades. I am leaning towards Hogan just based off personal preference, and I am surprised he hasn't won this tounament yet. I am still waiting for a strong enough argument to sway my vote either way.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

No, I never tried to use it as a point for Hogan, if I did it would have been in my original post. I was simply responding to your post stating that his time in 2002 is relevant to this debate. I stated "if anything" it would be a point for him because it shows even out of his prime he was a huge star. However, I've been arguing in this tournament for years and I've always gone prime vs prime and this match is no different. Don't try to twist my statements.

I dunno what I said to elicit the "I have done this for years" response but I take full credit for it nonetheless.

Ye lets go prime vs prime. You know I firmly believe that Undertaker really drew and became a marquee post WM 20. He got his Deadman schtick back and people paid to see him, even on Smackdown. But speaking to you and looking back to them simpler times; when I had that old WrestleMania Superstars Song tape, when the words "Nasty Boys, NASTY NASTY" were stuck in my head, and when the Undertaker was genuinely scaring the shit out of a 1991 version of yours truly; I wonder, was Taker a big deal then too?

The man beat Hogan, for the WWF title.

Even in 1991, that's a huge deal. Hogan, the same guy who politicked his way to a World Title win at WMania 9 in an impromptu match that he wasn't even involved with to begin with. With Bret Hart's on-air "blessings" of course. Was his star as strong as back in 87? No it was waning, but it wasn't dead and dusted.

Taker at that point was just novel. Undefeated and Unpinned for a while too. In a world full of goody-two-shoes and crooked taxmen, people chose, CHOSE to do this:

[YOUTUBE]FlwKz2Q3oh0[/YOUTUBE]


Really watch the beginning and the end of that match. Hear the crowd response. Now why would a crowd cheer for some big bloke who says he is an undead? Whose fucking music is the Funeral March! Yes the world of good guys and bad guys was starting to become passe (as VKM once said), and truly Taker's initial run can be considered the man's second hottest period. And in this period, he beat a still mighty Hulk Hogan.


For the WWF title.

Prime vs Prime, Taker : 1.

Game on.

 

[Big Sexy]

He won that match via interference from Ric Flair and proceeded to lose that title back to Hogan just 6 days later. Here are two videos from the exact same time period of Hogan defeating Taker:

[YOUTUBE]PXG9zcQ4ctI[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]bQKU4nzTunA[/YOUTUBE]

Basically you seem to be arguing that Taker (around his prime) beat Hogan (around his prime), in a one on one match. Ignoring the fact that I can show two other matches from the exact same time period where Hogan defeated Taker. I'm sure you're going to go far with that argument.

 

[Con T.]

Taker at that point was just a novel.

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

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

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

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

You do realize that the footage you show me is of a DARK MATCH.

Hell don't leave that out my man. That is important in the context here you know why?

Taker beat Hogan at a PPV. How many PPVs was WWE doing then? 4? It was a big deal, and a way bigger deal when you consider that Taker was in his first year, and the man beats Hulk Hogan, for the WWF title, at a major juncture like a 1991 WWF PPV.

Hogan got his win in a Dark Match. Undertaker won via interference, in his first year, at a major stage like Survivor Series 1991 PPV, THE WWF TITLE!

I'd say still Advantage Taker.

 

[Papa Pillman]

If Undertaker supporters want to sway the swing voters they are going to need to come up with more than examples of Taker beating Hogan because of outside interference.

If we were talking about a number of clean wins that Taker had scored that would be one thing, but as it is, the evidence shows that Taker was unable to defeat Hogan in their primes on the strength of his own abilities.

And any other factors outside of their head-to-head battles clearly favor Hogan. He was a bigger star, a bigger draw, a more dominant champion, and he was "the guy" for the two biggest national companies in the world, one while he was past his prime.

I would take into consideration any valid argument that actually says Taker is the right choice to go over, but one hasn't been made yet.

 

[Big Sexy]

You do realize that the footage you show me is of a DARK MATCH

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

Hogan got his win in a Dark Match. Undertaker won via interference, in his first year, at a major stage like Survivor Series 1991 PPV, THE WWF TITLE!

I'd say still Advantage Taker

And six days later Hogan won at another ppv. Unless you can somehow convince yourself that Ric Flair is going to come out to cost Hogan the match, completely forgetting about his own match with John Cena in this tournament, then you have no argument.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Hulk Hogan overcame lots of odds in his career. He beat Iron Sheik when he powered out of a move that no one had ever escaped in the Cobra Clutch. He beat King Kong Bundy with 'crushed ribs' inside a steel cage match. He slammed Andre the Giant and pinned him clean. He's beaten everyone that's a meaningful name in this industry.

The only person to beat Hogan FIRST in a rivalry other than Warrior was the Undertaker. Hogan couldn't handle Undertaker during Hulkamania in the WWF! How could we say that Hogan could upend Taker when it's all on the line?

I would pick Hogan going over everybody in this tournament except for two people - Ultimate Warrior and Undertaker.

Taker wins this in a hard fought match.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

But he didn't beat Hogan the first time they met - Hogan beat him (in 4:34 by pinfall) and then beat him again (by dq in 3:17) before finally getting defeated, with outside interference by Ric Flair, and he still regained it back six days later... despite further attempted outside interference.

As close as we can get to prime versus prime, Hogan is 3:1 over the Undertaker.

 

[Bernkastel]

After reading this thread it's safe to conclude that Undy is the most overly wanked wrestler on the site, even more than Cena and CM Punk. List of extraordinary reasons that Undertaker beats the biggest wrestling star in history include...

1.) Undertaker beat Hogan thanks to interference
2.) Undertaker beat Hogan for a title more than 15 years past his Hulkamania prime
3.) Undertaker wins cuz he's Undertaker

If this where a gimmick match that favored Taker like Inferno or Ladder or HIAC then maybe I could see justifying a vote for him, but certainly not in a regular match.

Hogan was the better man in every category imaginable except in the subjective "who has more classic matches and moments." As a massive draw and an enormous moneymaker any booker that valued money in the slightest would push Hogan over to the next round.

Vote Hogan.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Hogan was the better man in every category imaginable except in the subjective "who has more classic matches and moments." As a massive draw and an enormous moneymaker any booker that valued money in the slightest would push Hogan over to the next round.

Vote Hogan.

The part in bold means nothing seeing as how this is a one night tournament. I'm assuming it's on pay per view and all the money that was going to be made on it has been made already. Even with that being said I'm torn here. I feel tha Taker would be able to unseat Hulkamania, however, I think Hollywood Hogan would be able to get the best of him. I'm going to hold off on voting for a while and see what arguments you guys make.

 

[Bernkastel]

The part in bold means nothing seeing as how this is a one night tournament. I'm assuming it's on pay per view and all the money that was going to be made on it has been made already. Even with that being said I'm torn here. I feel tha Taker would be able to unseat Hulkamania, however, I think Hollywood Hogan would be able to get the best of him. I'm going to hold off on voting for a while and see what arguments you guys make.

Then the buy rate of the hypothetical PPV would be affected by the aftermath right? And who'd be the one likely to sell more copies, Undertaker as the winner or Hogan? If everyone from the Elite 8 gets to draw to from their fanbases to chip into the overall interest of this show, then I can guarantee that Taker would be the weakest draw of the 8.

He and Andre are the novelty acts - with Taker being inferior to Andre even in that category - the one's that people want to see, but just not in the main event. Against Hogan, Undertaker would have his amazing showing, lose, fans would believe the match was awesome, but would continue to support Hogan.

If you are on the fence due to favoritism, then that should be reason enough to put the bigger star over; which was Hogan.

 

[The Gribbler]

Tough, tough, tough. I think if we say both superstars in their prime then the win has to go to hogan. Hogan simply didn't lose at that time, he went over any and every challenge that was placed before him. The undertaker in his prime lost, albeit not all that often, but he certainly lost. Always a threat, but not unbeatable, hogan, on the other hand, was unbeatable (sans his WM match with warrior)

Vote Hogan.