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

Discussion in 'Championship Region' started by klunderbunker, May 2, 2013.


Who Wins The Tournament?

  1. John Cena

  2. Hulk Hogan

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. LSN80

    LSN80 King Of The Ring

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    This has been a fun tournament, and I've enjoyed it immensely. I'm going to make this my last post of it.

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

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

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

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

    Was it the 'B' World Title when it was main-eventing multiple PPV's, including WrestleMania 24?
    I was using the percentage by which they defeated their opponents. That is much more indicative of damage done. For example, Hogan only got 53% of the vote, as opposed to 47% for Undertaker. That's a 6% difference, indicating a much closer match then the 70% for Cena as opposed to 30% for Flair, which indicates a 40% difference between the two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It's advantage Cena.

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

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

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

    If I was trying to argue that Hogan as being in his prime, the analogy would fit perfectly. But that's not the Hogan I'm arguing. I'm arguing the one who actually was still in his prime.
    It makes the equation as to how Elway's last two years as a full-time player were comparable to Hogan's last run in WWE. Both winners of the biggest title in their industry when they were past their primes and shells of their former self.

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

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

    I don't fault Hogan supporters or those who support him. I just believe that with all the variables involved, Cena would win this match.
    Tyrath likes this.
  2. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    May 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I hope not, I enjoy our back and forwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Erm... no!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And yet you have argued before that Cena is renowned for overcoming the odds. That template was created by Hulk Hogan; if the deck is stacked in Cena's favor as you claim, surely that then makes Hulkamania the logical choice?
  3. JJYanks121

    JJYanks121 The Mouth of the South Shore

    Feb 28, 2008
    Likes Received:
    You gave it a go but I'm not going to lie, the fact that you didn't understand the rules didn't help your argument.

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

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

    That said, of everyone, LSN easily argued that best and it would be tempting to vote that way simply because of that. It doesn't matter at this point but kudos to him. Either way we're talking about two incredible wrestlers who deserve to be in the finals. It's just that Cena is quickly becoming the Buffalo Bills of this tournament.........
    FitFinlay4Life and LSN80 like this.
  4. cawsnallthis

    cawsnallthis Asylum charter member

    Feb 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    The voters have spoken. Hogan vs. Cena. But, I despise Hogan and while I am ambivalent about Cena, he defeated Flair in the semis, which I view as a grave injustice. And so do the Horsemen. So, as Hogan goes to deliver the big leg coup de grace, the Horsemen hit the ring with a vengeance, leaving Hogan and Cena battered and bloodied. Flair throws pictures of him with both their ex-wives onto their chests, drops a series of elbows onto the trophy, gives a resounding WOOOOOOO, and struts back up the aisle to his waiting limousine, stylin' and profilin' all the way.
  5. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    May 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Thank you, sir. I am the first to admit when I am wrong and in this circumstance, I am most definitely wrong. I had not seen the KB thread you had quoted from and, as such was still operating in, what I regarded as a logical manner. As they say ignorance of the law is no defense in the breaking of it. I may not agree with the previous rounds counting two fold against the competitors (time & damage caused in that time) but that is what was laid out and I was wrong. I will say that I do think that LSN might well have been unaware of this thread as well or he surely would have used it to rip me a new one.

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

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

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

    If there is one thing I stand over in my argument it's that I feel that Cena is disadvantaged by still being active and it is hard to compare a complete career against an ongoing one. I realize it also has its benefits because younger fans are (logically) more likely to vote for the Cenas and Punks but I still believe that John's true potency for this tournament will increase as his career progresses and will hit its full prowess when he hangs up the boots. With a guy like LSN in his corner, he'll turn from Bills/ Vikings bridesmaid to Broncos bride sooner rather than later.
    LSN80 likes this.
  6. Bernkastel

    Bernkastel Reaper of Miracles
    E-Fed Mod

    Jul 3, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Flair should have lost to Inoki. That in itself was a travesty.

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

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

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"