Hogan Opinions on The Rocks Return Retort to Hogan

[UltimateHitman]

I really don't see how ignoring actual history is grounds for a defense/debate. I would think the numerous instances in many different interviews by people that were actually there would be grounds for legitimacy over a forum mod's self-importance. Oh well.

There were many names in WCW that were held back. You had Mysterio, Saturn, Malenko, Benoit, Guerrero, Jericho, Kidman, Raven, Vampiro, and many others. Jericho points it out in his book. He was there. Unless you were a part of WCW during those years, Sly, I'm inclined to agree with Jericho.

Now I know you're argument is "how were they buried? They all became noteworthy. Mysterio, Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero all became top champions in the WWE", etc. etc.

The key phrase is "in the WWE". They were held back IN WCW, where Hogan was present and where he played his backstage politics. Why were they successful AFTER leaving the place Hogan played his games w/his pal Bischoff? Because they were talented and Vince gave them the opportunity to showcase it. If they had not moved on, would they have gotten to the top? Of course not. Unless Hogan and the others who played those games left. Hogan had a direct influence on the booking, and these guys were booked to stagnate where they were. Hence Hogan's part in keeping talent down. Which is the point being made here.

We're talking Hogan holding back people. He was in WCW holding back people, not WWE. You can't reference their success after Hogan was out of the picture because he wasn't around to do what he did elsewhere.

The above mentioned stars' limitless talent was ignored. And I say ignored confidently because you could obviously see these guys had talent. Yet they never achieved success until they were out from under the WCW name. Unless you're saying that the Disciple, Ed Leslie, (Brutus Beefcake et. al.) had more talent than these guys and wasn't put in the main storyline because of his friendship w/Hogan. He's Hogan's best bud almost since they were in diapers. How did he get a break before these other guys? Don't know about you, but to me it shows that Hogan had at least a LITTLE pull...

If they were talented enough to ME in WWE and win championships and achieve what they did, why couldn't they in WCW? Their talent didn't magically appear just because they went to another Federation. It happened because they were held back, or "buried" in the place they were before they went elsewhere.

Again, you can use Bret Hart as an example because Hogan refused to put him over. The owner of the company planned a rematch where in Hart would go over, yet Hogan, as an employee of said owner, refused to do so. How is that not Hogan's ego trying to keep another talent down? Refusing to put someone over that your boss has said he wants to go over you is trying to "bury", or hold back, somebody. It doesn't matter if it ultimately didn't work, at the time they had no idea that it wouldn't. So Hogan was legitimately trying to keep Bret from succeeding. Vince saw Bret as a commodity, decided to book Hart to win, gave him the ball and he rolled with it.

So, by your logic, you can't blame Hogan for booking decisions. So does that mean you agree it was Hogan's ego at fault when he was booked to put Hart over and refused? It wasn't Bret's fault he was booked to go over Hogan, so it must have been Hogan's fault for refusing the booking decision, right? You can't use booking in one scenario and then overlook it in another. Like I said, it doesn't matter if the attempt was successful or not, the point is the attempt. And just because Hart made it past his attempt doesn't mean other people did.

Couple of other examples of Hogan's ego. Hogan faked injury in order to miss a Nitro that was being preempted by US Open Tennis. He then used this to claim that Nitro's rating fell because he was not on the show. He was subsequently given the WCW title soon after.

Chris Jericho's action figures were set so that when they were bought, the receipt would say either "Sting" or "Hogan". They subsequently got the revenue money for the sales.

How would that not be Hogan "holding back" Jericho? Did he say anything about it and make it right? Nah, he just pocketed the money along w/Sting. Surely a guy that could rob another guy would be capable of "holding somebody back" or "burying" somebody he didn't like. I'd say the odds were more in favor of that than not, such as you're implying.

And you can't ignore the present company he's in either. Is his storyline (and his couple select buddies) NOT taking away tv time for people such as Douglas Williams, Ink Inc., Amazing Red, Desmond Wolfe, and others? Is the focus on his storyline (Immortal) not taking focus off of finding decent stories for guys like Pope and Joe, who were pretty big in TNA until he and his creative friends came along to muddle things up? "It's not his fault he's being booked in the main storylines..." So that's why he was shown in the media stating that because of himself and Bischoff being hired by TNA it would "change the face of the industry" because he had no impact on it whatsoever? Do you honestly believe that Hogan, with the obvious influence he's exerted (proven by his refusal to do the job to Hart, Ed Leslie's spot in WCW, The Nasty Boys and Bubba the Love Sponge being brought into TNA) could not simply say "Hey, don't put me in the spotlight, brother. Use me sparingly, in backstage or promo spots and put the young guys out there"? Do you not think he has creative control over his use (when he makes a point to put total creative control in his contracts anywhere he goes)? I think your wanting to be right just for the sake of being right and winning a debate goes past the lines of reality into absurdity sometimes.

Where's the X-Division? Where are the talents they let go when he arrived (Homicide, et. al.)? Where are all the talent-driven storylines in the past 1 1/2 years that should be establishing half of the TNA roster instead of relegating them to filler or benchwarmer status?

Just because a person can flip a word or two, or call people names in order to undermine them doesn't make a person right. If you're a wrestling fan (which you have to be to even want to be here) then you know about the basic nature of the beast. I don't have a degree in physics but I know the laws of gravity exist on planet Earth as we have defined them. As such, just because somebody can't produce a list of each and every name that Hogan has spoken out about backstage, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

For me, I will gladly take the word over numerous sources in the professional wrestling business that were a direct part of the backstage scene when Hogan was present in WCW or any other place he exerted his persuasion over a guy that likes to prove he can win a debate by throwing out all rationality and common sense.

 

[UltimateHitman]

By the by, Hogan's main point was that you don't bury your top face with a returning star. That just proves the points of Bret and Shawn. They were top faces at the time, and he was the returning one.

Oh, and what he said about Hart did have an effect on the booking of the angle. Which, by the way, also had Hart going over later, which he refused to do. Cause and effect. Another proven occurrence in many areas.

 

[ZeroVX]

Oh, I did read the rest of it. But when you admit it wasn't a burial, then what's the point of continuing? You made my point for me. Thanks.

Are you serious? How many other 23+ tag team champions are there? Who else could he have been talking about? I notice you didn't answer that.

Whether or not that's true, doesn't change the fact it wasn't on TV. And since Hogan's comments were regarding what should be said on TV, this doesn't really matter, now does it?

It resulted in a burial on PPV. Even if he didn't flat out say "Bret shouldn't be a main eventer" on TV, the end result hurt him. Or should I also bring up the fact that Bret didn't get the title back for a whole year after that?

Lack of a rematch? How does that bury Hart? In fact, how can you have a rematch, when you don't even have a first match? How dumb are you?

Hogan didn't beat Hart, he beat Yokozuna after Yokozuna cheated Hart and had a misfire on trying to cheat Hogan. You can't have a rematch, without a first match. And losing a title to a heel by cheating is hardly considered a burial, especially back in those days.

OK, fine, "rematch" was a poor choice of words. Doesn't change the fact that no match between the two happened, despite it being planned and it being an obvious money-making match. Instead, Hogan tossed the title back to Yoko and left, not even giving Bret a chance to prove himself.

Did I say you didn't? Or are you just getting overly defensive and trying to change the scope of the argument because you know you're getting destroyed in this one?

Are you fucking shitting me? Did you actually just type that down? If anything, you're the one dodging the subject by bringing up others who buried people when the subject is Hogan! Not once did I mention HBK not burying anyone or Angle not burying anyone. You did. What does this have to do with HOGAN?

You were talking about Vader being buried and his American career was never the same, and I mentioned that Vader was main-eventing Summerslam 1996. Which was against HBK, which is where the REAL burial of Vader's American career took place.

It was already downhill by the time he went to WWE. He never won another world title in WCW, despite being in the main event with Ric Flair before Hogan showed up. Hogan appears, Vader goes down and eventually leaves. Did HBK hurt Vader even more? Obviously, but again, we're discussing HOGAN.

Which has nothing to do with a burial.

When Vader doesn't win one match in an entire feud and Hogan makes him and everyone who lost to him look like fools? Uh, yeah, it kind of does.

How does it bury him? Your argument is that Hogan buried an untold number of wrestlers. It's not my job to explain how Vader looked good, it's your job to show that Vader suffered, and you can't do that.

No world title wins in WCW after Hogan appeared, and eventually leaving for WWE. I already explained this, you just refuse to admit that I have a point.

I didn't remember this, but if it's true (and given IC's man crush on Vader, I imagine it is) this pretty much destroys your argument on Vader.

Uh, no, not really. The end result was still what it was. Kicking out of a finisher, even if it was the Legdrop Of Doom, doesn't change that fact.

And then beat Hogan again at Superbrawl. Two wins over Hogan...sounds like a burial to me...

Weren't you the one who just said that you don't have to beat someone to get put over? Using that logic, wouldn't that also mean that just because you lost, doesn't mean your opponent was put over? And aren't you blatantly ignoring the context of the Starrcade match, mainly because it destroys your argument?

Let me compound this with another example: Kidman. During the first match of their "feud", Hogan destroyed Kidman like a jobber. He only lost due to interference from Bischoff, turning Kidman heel. Now, explain to me how that puts Kidman over? Answer: it doesn't.

I believe it was Bischoff's book.

And that makes it oh so reliable, right? I mean, it's not like he and Hogan are the best of buddies or anything. And I'm sure the fact that no one else mentioned drug abuse is just a mistake.

Huh? You're not even making sense now. But yeah, I think it's Bischoff's book where he mentioned Sting's condition. Not to mention the fact Sting himself has talked many times about his addiction to painkillers, and even does a speaking tour about it.

Again, you're blatantly ignoring the context of the match. Hogan destroyed Sting, then won by a fast count that actually wasn't fast, then Sting only won because Bret Hart restarted the match and called a submission as fast as possible. As for the painkillers thing, unless Sting explicitly admitted that he was on them around the time of Starrcade, the point is questionable at best.

Talk about grasping for straws at this point. By the way, you didn't answer my question. Was HBK less popular after his feud with Hogan? Was he seen as less of a main-eventer? Or was he wrestling for the title just two PPVs later?

Feel free to answer.

First off, the fact that you accuse me of this when you've blatantly done the same is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Second, as I said, Hogan made HBK look like an idiot for putting so much effort into the feud when he couldn't even be bothered to show up. He buried HBK as a person, not as a wrestler.

Oh wait, I mentioned him 70 posts ago? Guess that makes you wrong...again. You must be getting used to this by now.

Does it change the fact that Angle isn't the subject here, but Hogan is? No, no it doesn't.

Why should he have beat him? How would that have been punishment for Orton if he gets to come back from suspension, just to beat the greatest wrestler in history? Orton STILL got a 3 count, and the false victory. What more can you possibly want?

The point is that Orton was staying with the company, Hogan wasn't. When you're on the way out of a company, you do the job to who the boss tells you to job to. That's the rule. If they weren't going to do that, they shouldn't have made the match in the first place.

Hogan DID put Orton over, that's what I'm telling you. How can you be so stupid as to think the only way to put another wrestler over is by losing to them? That's just asinine. Using your theory, Hart didn't put over Austin at WM 13. Is that what you're saying?

Once again, the subject is HOGAN. Hogan did not put over Orton. The feud itself was just stupid, since it seemed to focus more on Orton trying to get into Brooke's pants than the idea of killing the legend of Hulk Fucking Hogan (since that was, you know, Orton's gimmick at the time). Also consider the fact that all the other "legends" Orton faced did put him over, only for Hogan to put a stop to that. And no, not because he beat him, but because Orton was never treated like a legitimate threat to Hogan at all. The focus was never on them.

The fact of the matter is you don't have to beat someone to get put over. When you get a three count and the false finish victory over the greatest wrestler ever, not to mention the weeks of RKOs, that's called a rub. And even if you don't think Orton was put over, you CERTAINLY can't say he was buried since he was World Champion just one year later.

He was buried in the fact that it took him a whole year to regain the world title. Before that, everyone was saying that he was ready for the main event, but he didn't move up. After Hogan, he was stuck in limbo from then until next year, with his first feud with Cena. The results speak for themselves.

The fact Vader was main-eventing the second biggest PPV in the WWF roughly one year later clearly shows Hogan didn't bury Vader. And again, if Vader never got another title shot after his match with HBK, then that is more proof of who REALLY buried Vader. And because you're too simple-minded to understand, I'll explain it in more detail for you.

After Hogan: Vader gets title shot at second biggest WWF PPV.

After HBK: Vader never gets close to the title again.


Do you see the difference? Do you see what a REAL burial does to another wrestler?

Did Vader win another world title in WCW? No, he didn't. That is fact. You cannot dispute that fact. I doubt Vader would've left WCW at all were it not for Hogan, considering Vader was main-eventing PPVs for one of the biggest wrestling companies in the world at the time. Fact is, he did, and things only got worse with the WWE. But he would not have even gone to WWE were it not for Hogan.

Oh, you're way to late for that, everyone already knows. Pretty certain I'm the one who told them.

Of course, it doesn't change the fact that I'm RIGHT, which is what is really bothering you here. I would say that I'm burying you right now, but I don't think anyone here really saw you as much more than a comedy jobber anyways.

No, see, what's bothering me is how you can't seem to accept any point that could prove you wrong, if this response is any indication. I fail to see how that makes you as good as everyone says you are. That kind of debating is shattered dreams level of terrible. Honestly, I don't find you intelligent or relatively impressive right now. Just absolutely pathetic. Frankly, I'm done dealing with you.

I await for you to say that I'm running away. That'll be good for a laugh.

 

[Tech N9ne]

And yet another post with accusations and without even ONE single example.



Seriously, who is on this long list of guys Hulk Hogan got on TV and buried. If it's hypocritical as you say, then surely you can give me 5 guys Hulk Hogan buried on TV.

It doesn't have to have been on TV, like an actual RAW episode. But as other names were brought up in posts before this one, Hogan HAS buried people. As I had said earlier, whether it was during their career or after, Hogan has shit on a lot of people. Hogan has discredited every single time he has "passed the torch".

Guys like The Ultimate Warrior, Randy Savage, The Rock, Goldberg, Lex Luger, and others. Hogan has publicly tried to make each of their reigns sound illegitimate. He has done that on numerous DVDs and Documentaries.

Hulk Hogan is a piece of shit and he proves it every time he steps back into the spotlight, AND basically every time he opens his mouth. It will always be all about him and thinking anything different is you just kidding yourself.

Back things up to his original statement. Why does The Rock bringing up John Cena bury him with the things he said? If anything, it is making John Cena even MORE relevant. The Rock has always attacked the other guy's gimmick and what not. It has always been his way of talking shit to the guy. Certain guys can not be buried. John Cena is one of them. As many people as there are that do not like Cena, there is 10 for each one that of his haters, that love him.

So, if anything, it was the perfect guy for The Rock to go after. The Rock attacking Sheamus or The Miz to the degree that he will (and is) go after John Cena, would surely bury them. But, John Cena is the biggest thing in Pro Wrestling since The Rock. Plus, there is an underlying beef or problem that already exists. The point won't be to bury John Cena, it is for The Rock to break him down, and Cena to be the one that either gets the last laugh or earns the respect of The Rock.

If WWE isn't doing this thing with Cena and The Rock to turn Cena Heel. Then surely it is to legitimize John Cena a little more, especially to those of us that do not like him very much. But WWE might figure if John Cena gains the respect of The Rock, or his "seal of approval" that it might put Cena even further over with the fans that support The Rock or his Era.

 

[Slyfox696]

I really don't see how ignoring actual history is grounds for a defense/debate. I would think the numerous instances in many different interviews by people that were actually there would be grounds for legitimacy over a forum mod's self-importance. Oh well.

Spoiler

There were many names in WCW that were held back. You had Mysterio, Saturn, Malenko, Benoit, Guerrero, Jericho, Kidman, Raven, Vampiro, and many others. Jericho points it out in his book. He was there. Unless you were a part of WCW during those years, Sly, I'm inclined to agree with Jericho.

Now I know you're argument is "how were they buried? They all became noteworthy. Mysterio, Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero all became top champions in the WWE", etc. etc.

The key phrase is "in the WWE". They were held back IN WCW, where Hogan was present and where he played his backstage politics. Why were they successful AFTER leaving the place Hogan played his games w/his pal Bischoff? Because they were talented and Vince gave them the opportunity to showcase it. If they had not moved on, would they have gotten to the top? Of course not. Unless Hogan and the others who played those games left. Hogan had a direct influence on the booking, and these guys were booked to stagnate where they were. Hence Hogan's part in keeping talent down. Which is the point being made here.

We're talking Hogan holding back people. He was in WCW holding back people, not WWE. You can't reference their success after Hogan was out of the picture because he wasn't around to do what he did elsewhere.

The above mentioned stars' limitless talent was ignored. And I say ignored confidently because you could obviously see these guys had talent. Yet they never achieved success until they were out from under the WCW name. Unless you're saying that the Disciple, Ed Leslie, (Brutus Beefcake et. al.) had more talent than these guys and wasn't put in the main storyline because of his friendship w/Hogan. He's Hogan's best bud almost since they were in diapers. How did he get a break before these other guys? Don't know about you, but to me it shows that Hogan had at least a LITTLE pull...

If they were talented enough to ME in WWE and win championships and achieve what they did, why couldn't they in WCW? Their talent didn't magically appear just because they went to another Federation. It happened because they were held back, or "buried" in the place they were before they went elsewhere.

Again, you can use Bret Hart as an example because Hogan refused to put him over. The owner of the company planned a rematch where in Hart would go over, yet Hogan, as an employee of said owner, refused to do so. How is that not Hogan's ego trying to keep another talent down? Refusing to put someone over that your boss has said he wants to go over you is trying to "bury", or hold back, somebody. It doesn't matter if it ultimately didn't work, at the time they had no idea that it wouldn't. So Hogan was legitimately trying to keep Bret from succeeding. Vince saw Bret as a commodity, decided to book Hart to win, gave him the ball and he rolled with it.

So, by your logic, you can't blame Hogan for booking decisions. So does that mean you agree it was Hogan's ego at fault when he was booked to put Hart over and refused? It wasn't Bret's fault he was booked to go over Hogan, so it must have been Hogan's fault for refusing the booking decision, right? You can't use booking in one scenario and then overlook it in another. Like I said, it doesn't matter if the attempt was successful or not, the point is the attempt. And just because Hart made it past his attempt doesn't mean other people did.

Couple of other examples of Hogan's ego. Hogan faked injury in order to miss a Nitro that was being preempted by US Open Tennis. He then used this to claim that Nitro's rating fell because he was not on the show. He was subsequently given the WCW title soon after.

Chris Jericho's action figures were set so that when they were bought, the receipt would say either "Sting" or "Hogan". They subsequently got the revenue money for the sales.

How would that not be Hogan "holding back" Jericho? Did he say anything about it and make it right? Nah, he just pocketed the money along w/Sting. Surely a guy that could rob another guy would be capable of "holding somebody back" or "burying" somebody he didn't like. I'd say the odds were more in favor of that than not, such as you're implying.

And you can't ignore the present company he's in either. Is his storyline (and his couple select buddies) NOT taking away tv time for people such as Douglas Williams, Ink Inc., Amazing Red, Desmond Wolfe, and others? Is the focus on his storyline (Immortal) not taking focus off of finding decent stories for guys like Pope and Joe, who were pretty big in TNA until he and his creative friends came along to muddle things up? "It's not his fault he's being booked in the main storylines..." So that's why he was shown in the media stating that because of himself and Bischoff being hired by TNA it would "change the face of the industry" because he had no impact on it whatsoever? Do you honestly believe that Hogan, with the obvious influence he's exerted (proven by his refusal to do the job to Hart, Ed Leslie's spot in WCW, The Nasty Boys and Bubba the Love Sponge being brought into TNA) could not simply say "Hey, don't put me in the spotlight, brother. Use me sparingly, in backstage or promo spots and put the young guys out there"? Do you not think he has creative control over his use (when he makes a point to put total creative control in his contracts anywhere he goes)? I think your wanting to be right just for the sake of being right and winning a debate goes past the lines of reality into absurdity sometimes.

Where's the X-Division? Where are the talents they let go when he arrived (Homicide, et. al.)? Where are all the talent-driven storylines in the past 1 1/2 years that should be establishing half of the TNA roster instead of relegating them to filler or benchwarmer status?

Just because a person can flip a word or two, or call people names in order to undermine them doesn't make a person right. If you're a wrestling fan (which you have to be to even want to be here) then you know about the basic nature of the beast. I don't have a degree in physics but I know the laws of gravity exist on planet Earth as we have defined them. As such, just because somebody can't produce a list of each and every name that Hogan has spoken out about backstage, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

For me, I will gladly take the word over numerous sources in the professional wrestling business that were a direct part of the backstage scene when Hogan was present in WCW or any other place he exerted his persuasion over a guy that likes to prove he can win a debate by throwing out all rationality and common sense.

Everything you just said has NOTHING to do with what is said on TV, which is what this debate is about. Of course, you make pretty big leaps of faith in your post (most of which are silly too, but I digress), which we can discuss in an appropriate thread, but as for right now, nothing you mentioned here is even close to being the same as what Rock did to Cena.

Good Lengthy post, but ultimately pointless.

By the by, Hogan's main point was that you don't bury your top face with a returning star. That just proves the points of Bret and Shawn. They were top faces at the time, and he was the returning one.

But Hogan didn't bury them on TV, so you really don't have a point, now do you?

If you want to discuss what Hogan does off screen, make another thread, and I'll show you why you're wrong there too. But for this thread, talking about what happens off screen doesn't matter, because the point I'm making is that Hogan is well within his rights to say he disagrees with Rock's promo last week, and for the people who say it makes him a hypocrite, they are completely wrong because he just doesn't do that.

Are you serious? How many other 23+ tag team champions are there? Who else could he have been talking about? I notice you didn't answer that.

Spoiler

It resulted in a burial on PPV. Even if he didn't flat out say "Bret shouldn't be a main eventer" on TV, the end result hurt him. Or should I also bring up the fact that Bret didn't get the title back for a whole year after that?



OK, fine, "rematch" was a poor choice of words. Doesn't change the fact that no match between the two happened, despite it being planned and it being an obvious money-making match. Instead, Hogan tossed the title back to Yoko and left, not even giving Bret a chance to prove himself.



Are you fucking shitting me? Did you actually just type that down? If anything, you're the one dodging the subject by bringing up others who buried people when the subject is Hogan! Not once did I mention HBK not burying anyone or Angle not burying anyone. You did. What does this have to do with HOGAN?



It was already downhill by the time he went to WWE. He never won another world title in WCW, despite being in the main event with Ric Flair before Hogan showed up. Hogan appears, Vader goes down and eventually leaves. Did HBK hurt Vader even more? Obviously, but again, we're discussing HOGAN.



When Vader doesn't win one match in an entire feud and Hogan makes him and everyone who lost to him look like fools? Uh, yeah, it kind of does.



No world title wins in WCW after Hogan appeared, and eventually leaving for WWE. I already explained this, you just refuse to admit that I have a point.



Uh, no, not really. The end result was still what it was. Kicking out of a finisher, even if it was the Legdrop Of Doom, doesn't change that fact.



Weren't you the one who just said that you don't have to beat someone to get put over? Using that logic, wouldn't that also mean that just because you lost, doesn't mean your opponent was put over? And aren't you blatantly ignoring the context of the Starrcade match, mainly because it destroys your argument?

Let me compound this with another example: Kidman. During the first match of their "feud", Hogan destroyed Kidman like a jobber. He only lost due to interference from Bischoff, turning Kidman heel. Now, explain to me how that puts Kidman over? Answer: it doesn't.



And that makes it oh so reliable, right? I mean, it's not like he and Hogan are the best of buddies or anything. And I'm sure the fact that no one else mentioned drug abuse is just a mistake.




Again, you're blatantly ignoring the context of the match. Hogan destroyed Sting, then won by a fast count that actually wasn't fast, then Sting only won because Bret Hart restarted the match and called a submission as fast as possible. As for the painkillers thing, unless Sting explicitly admitted that he was on them around the time of Starrcade, the point is questionable at best.



First off, the fact that you accuse me of this when you've blatantly done the same is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Second, as I said, Hogan made HBK look like an idiot for putting so much effort into the feud when he couldn't even be bothered to show up. He buried HBK as a person, not as a wrestler.



Does it change the fact that Angle isn't the subject here, but Hogan is? No, no it doesn't.



The point is that Orton was staying with the company, Hogan wasn't. When you're on the way out of a company, you do the job to who the boss tells you to job to. That's the rule. If they weren't going to do that, they shouldn't have made the match in the first place.



Once again, the subject is HOGAN. Hogan did not put over Orton. The feud itself was just stupid, since it seemed to focus more on Orton trying to get into Brooke's pants than the idea of killing the legend of Hulk Fucking Hogan (since that was, you know, Orton's gimmick at the time). Also consider the fact that all the other "legends" Orton faced did put him over, only for Hogan to put a stop to that. And no, not because he beat him, but because Orton was never treated like a legitimate threat to Hogan at all. The focus was never on them.



He was buried in the fact that it took him a whole year to regain the world title. Before that, everyone was saying that he was ready for the main event, but he didn't move up. After Hogan, he was stuck in limbo from then until next year, with his first feud with Cena. The results speak for themselves.



Did Vader win another world title in WCW? No, he didn't. That is fact. You cannot dispute that fact. I doubt Vader would've left WCW at all were it not for Hogan, considering Vader was main-eventing PPVs for one of the biggest wrestling companies in the world at the time. Fact is, he did, and things only got worse with the WWE. But he would not have even gone to WWE were it not for Hogan.



No, see, what's bothering me is how you can't seem to accept any point that could prove you wrong, if this response is any indication. I fail to see how that makes you as good as everyone says you are. That kind of debating is shattered dreams level of terrible. Honestly, I don't find you intelligent or relatively impressive right now. Just absolutely pathetic. Frankly, I'm done dealing with you.

I await for you to say that I'm running away. That'll be good for a laugh.

Dude, seriously, how many different ways can you make yourself look stupid? Do I really need to go through your post again and point all the stupidity out for everyone again? I didn't even read this post, except for the thing you typed in red (assuming you thought that must be an excellent point), and you're questioning whether Sting was on drugs at the time, when Sting himself has a fucking speaking tour to talk about his issues with painkillers. Oh, and since you wanted proof in your next paragraph, here you go:

http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/interviews/steve_borden_111504.aspx

Seriously, how fucking bad do you want to make yourself look? And if you want a response to your post, just take everything I've already said, pretend I posted it this time, and go on. Because I'm sure it's equally applicable.

I'll tell you what. If you said anything new or different, and think you actually made a GOOD point, let me know, and then I'll tell you why you're wrong. But as you can see, I have lots of typing already in this post, and I'm not going to waste my time on your continued idiocy. If you have something you feel was exceptionally great, point it out, I'll be happy to address it. Otherwise, just pretend I said the same thing I said last time, and respond to it again.

But yeah, seriously, if you feel you actually made a good point, and not something incredibly stupid like 95% of your posts, then post it again, and I'll respond. But I'm not going to repeat myself on how Vader and Orton both got World Title shots after their feud with Hogan, and I'm not going waste my time explaining again to you how winning two matches over Hogan is not a burial, and how you can't have a rematch when there wasn't even a first match. So unless it's a new AND good point, don't bother, I've grown tired of your stupidity.

It doesn't have to have been on TV, like an actual RAW episode.

Uhh...yes, yes it does. You cannot call Hogan a hypocrite and say he's done the same thing, unless he did it on TV. Because that's the part Hogan took exception to.

So yes, it DOES need to be on programming in order to matter in THIS conversation. Like I told Hitman, if you want to discuss whether or not Hogan held people down off-camera, start a new thread, and I'll be happy to discuss that as well. But the point I'm making is that Hogan is well within his rights to criticize Rock's comeback promo, and by doing so it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Back things up to his original statement. Why does The Rock bringing up John Cena bury him with the things he said?

It's not that Rock brought him up, it's what he said and in the context he said it. The way the Rock held his first promo, it was like giving the green light for the 2006 way of thinking of John Cena. The WWE and Cena has finally turned that corner, and he's fairly well received at most events now, and then you bring the Rock back to turn those fans against Cena again, after you have finally got them to accept Cena?

Hogan's point is fair. You may not agree with it, but his statement holds a fair amount of truth. Take the second Rock promo (from last night) and that was basically the type of promo Rock should be having with Cena. Rock got his shit-talking in, but it wasn't a "hey, you're not fit to lick my boots" and have the crowd turn on Cena, it was a legitimate heat-building promo to build up the feud, NOT to tear down Cena. That's what Hogan was saying should be done.

The Rock has always attacked the other guy's gimmick and what not. It has always been his way of talking shit to the guy.

But the Rock is not around anymore. And Hogan's point is why should the guy who's not around anymore to draw gates be verbally burying the guy who is.

John Cena is one of them. As many people as there are that do not like Cena, there is 10 for each one that of his haters, that love him.

Now there is, I completely agree. Back in 2006, not so much. But we both agree today is different than it was 5 years ago, but if you have someone like Rock come in and keep cutting those type of promos, the 2006 mentality comes back. And that's just not good business.

But WWE might figure if John Cena gains the respect of The Rock, or his "seal of approval" that it might put Cena even further over with the fans that support The Rock or his Era.

And that's what I always say with regards to programs between wrestlers, you have to give it time to play out. My biggest beef in this thread has been people saying Hogan's comments make him a hypocrite, which is just completely untrue, because when he works a feud with someone, he doesn't bury them on-screen. For all the complaints people have about Hogan's matches, with the Hulk-Up and stuff, there is NO ONE who can deny that for the Hulk-Up to work, the opponent has to be made to look really strong for most of the match. So even the match style Hogan haters always rail against can't be used against Hogan, because for Hogan's match style to work, Hogan's opponent has to be made to look strong and believable, as if he legitimately could beat Hogan.


The anti-Hogan sentiment in this thread is just stupid and illogical. It's just a case where Hogan was the greatest ever, and he refuses to let McMahon ruin that, and suddenly a bunch of idiots who don't understand anything about wrestling want to bash Hogan for not giving away what he accomplished in his 30 years of non-stop sacrifice for the business. It's complete bullshit how people want to criticize Hogan. The line I've seen several times is "well *insert wrestler here* was actually in WCW, so I think he'd know". Well guess what, fucktwats, Hulk Hogan spent 30 fucking years in the wrestling business, devoting his entire life to the fans, and I daresay he knows a whole hell of a lot more about the wrestling business than any of you. And he's more than earned the right to protect the image he built with his incredible life sacrifice to make the decisions that are best for him.

Finally, I'll leave you with these words from Bret Hart, a man everyone knows doesn't like Hogan, and people have been trying to say was buried by Hogan. This quote comes from Hart's own blog, and was written back in the early 2000s:

I can remember, even during the glory days of Hulkamania, how Terry would come into the dressing room and say hi to every single wrestler. Every night he headlined there was a sell out and throughout the night all the wrestlers would come up to him and whoever his opponent was and thank them both for the house, for putting food on their tables and making wrestling something worth respecting.

I can say that Hulk Hogan was not only a hero to millions of Hulkamaniacs, but to all the wrestlers too.

If Vince McMahon was Julius Caesar, then Hulk Hogan was Alexander the Great. I remember one time at an airport, in about 1987, when Hulk signed one autograph after another to the point where it took him 45 minutes to get to the gate. They were closing the doors as he was boarding the plane and this one fan asked him for his autograph. He said apologetically, “I’m sorry, I can’t, I’m gonna miss my flight ...” and he got on the plane. I was right behind him and I heard a bystander flippantly remark, “Just like I figured. I always thought he was a jerk.” I thought to myself, that person has no idea how many autographs he just signed. Being a hero like Hulk Hogan it’s hard to make everybody happy but for a guy that’s been wrestling as long as he has he’s certainly done a heck of a job. Hulk was especially considerate of me when I joined him in the WCW.

I saw him a few days ago at Davey’s funeral and despite the sad backdrop it was nice to catch up on things.

So then I opened up my paper and saw a picture of Hulk, taken in Calgary, with a fifteen year old girl named Amanda Marqniq who dreams of being a pro wrestler but needed a heart transplant. It brought back what I remember most about Hulk Hogan, even more than his feats as a great wrestler. The countless times the office came to get him from the dressing room to make the wish of a sick or dying child come true. Despite the fact that he was pulled in too many different directions and had little time for himself or his family, Hulk always had all the time in the world for kids who needed him to be their hero. He somehow knew just the right things to say. It was never a burden to him. If anything, it gave him a sense of real purpose. I’ve always tried to follow his example.

In Friday’s paper I read how Amanda has now gotten her new heart. I thought I might just give Hulk a call and let him know. He’d be happy to hear that.

Some things in wrestling have always been real and Hulk Hogan is one of them.

http://www.brethart.com/bio/columns/tribute-hulk-hogan


Hulk Hogan worked tirelessly for wrestling fans for 30 years, and for some of you idiots to say such stupid things is an insult to the sacrifice he made for your entertainment. Hulk Hogan has given back NUMEROUS times to the wrestling business, he has put over more guys than anyone in the business, and for people to get upset because they think not having a match with Bret Hart is holding Hart down is simply ridiculous.

[/rant]

 

[UltimateHitman]

I don't think semantics justifies whether or not Hogan is hypocritical or not. A person is hypocritical based on what they say in relation to what they have done. Arguing whether a person is on or off screen in relation to "burying" or giving a bad name or whatever is just nitpicking.

If I cheat on my wife, a couple of people know it, yet I have not been caught by my wife or she doesn't know yet, does that make me less hypocritical if I chastise my buddy down the block that got caught in the act and whose wife knows about it? Sure, what I say will be right because cheating on one's wife is wrong, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be a hypocrite. The actions make me hypocritical, not the fact that I was caught or not (i.e. whether Hogan was on tv or not when "burying" people. He still did it regardless of where it happened).

But if we're looking at performing an action on tv that was not beneficial to the person that was presently "on top", what about Halloween Havoc? Hogan was to face Sting for the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, however, he came to the ring in street clothes, laid down for the pin, and left the ring. Sting was the champ, so he was the "top dog" as it were. Whether Hogan was having issues with Russo or not is irrelevant. If you're not sticking around, you don't do that kind of stuff on-screen. It makes your opponent look foolish as well as you. You may point out that it didn't "bury" Sting, but in all fairness, has Rock "buried" Cena?

Rock/Cena is scripted to be an "outsider" coming in and bashing your top guy. He got love, but so did Cena. And gave Cena some surprising credibility in the process. Surely Hulk wouldn't think Vince would just let them go w/out knowing what they were going to do. That would be foolish at WM time. He probably saw that both promos were good enough and let it go down. If Hogan is such a consummate businessman he knows this. Point being, Hogan didn't need to comment in the first place.

The example I gave of Hogan's ego is actually more of a deliberate attempt at ruining something than Rock's promo, which was scripted at probably the same time Cena's rebuttal was. And like I said, Hogan had no business commenting in the first place if we're going to be technical. He's running TNA. You don't see Vince going out of his way to comment on TNA's use of the 2-21-11 vignette, do you? Hogan needs to worry about his own company, the one he's supposed to be saving with his "superstardom", not what WWE does w/its talent.

So, technically, the whole discussion of whether he's right, hypocritical, is invalid because he shouldn't even be commenting on what WWE does. He never should have had an opinion on it in the first place. He's not there, he's elsewhere. What Vince does is none of his concern as it does not affect him. He's probably just paranoid it will open the door for returning talent to cut promos on TNA's top guy (in his own mind), himself. And we all know he couldn't save face like Cena did.

And as for the huge, Hogan praising speech? Please. It wasn't JUST Hogan that put wrestling on the map as we know it, it took the effort of EVERYBODY involved. I doubt Hogan's antics would have been as beloved without the right antagonists opposing him. There wouldn't have been any interest if the entire show didn't have things that captivated audiences. That includes Piper and Orton, Rude, Orndorff, Hart Foundation, JYD, Beefcake/Valentine, Demolition, Hacksaw, Andre, Savage, Steamboat, the list goes on and on.

I will even be so bold as to say that WWF (at the time) was coming into its own already and starting to become a national phenomenon before Hogan got picked up. Vince's plan was already in motion and would have happened regardless of Hogan. So Hogan should be thanking Vince, the WWF, and the wrestling community just as much as they are expected to thank him. I'm sure somebody else would have filled that void if Hulk hadn't done so. Anybody from Billy Graham to Magnum T.A. to the Tom Selleck looking Scott Hall of the day, there were plenty of people to fill the position of the "Real American" gimmick. Whether it was as big as "Hulkamania" or not is irrelevant. WWE would have went on one way or another and still would have ushered in a new era in professional wrestling.

And fine, I'll give Hogan credit that he was probably accessible during his "glory days" in the business. But Hart, and countless others, have also written about his ego while in WCW and the fact that he was about himself and wouldn't let anybody take his spotlight. So Hart's word is good in one case, but irrelevant in the other? That sounds like picking and choosing to me. Just because he was alright during the beginning burst of Hulkamania before his ego ballooned to universal proportions doesn't mean he didn't allow it to go to his head after being in that spotlight (which, as we all know, is what eventually happened).

P.S. Does it really matter if on screen or off screen is even mentioned in a spam friendly section? I mean, hypocrisy in general was the main question anyway and it was addressed.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't think semantics justifies whether or not Hogan is hypocritical or not. A person is hypocritical based on what they say in relation to what they have done. Arguing whether a person is on or off screen in relation to "burying" or giving a bad name or whatever is just nitpicking.

I disagree. Because Hogan wasn't talking about what Rock does backstage, he was merely talking about the business aspect of having a guy who hasn't been around for 7 years verbally cutting the legs out of the guy who has been making the WWE money hand over fist, all in front of the millions of people who watch Raw every week. Perhaps if Cena hadn't had all the problems back from 05-08, it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but Cena did, so it doesn't make much sense to cripple Cena again, now that he's finally getting fans to accept him.

That's what Hogan was saying. And because Hogan hasn't done that, it's not hypocritical. That's not semantics, that's a pretty big difference.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Wasn't Syxx-pac fired from WCW already when he said it? Which means he was with the WWF? Which means that example, weak as you admit it is, really doesn't apply anyways, since Hogan is referring to hurting your own business, not the rivals?

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. That's the most prominent example I can think of.

Oh, and he totally tried to bury Vince Russo at BATB. Kind of.

 

[UltimateHitman]

I see. Since hypocritical relies on numerous factors and scenarios that are open for debate, you're using the words as they are without looking at anything else around them.

What I mean is, you're saying the phrase, from a general business perspective, is right REGARDLESS of who would say it and not BECAUSE of who said it.

So you didn't even have to bring hypocrisy into it at all because in your stance it pretty much doesn't matter who said it.

Hmmmmmm....... If I'm getting the gist of it, then that's pretty sly of you there Mr. Fox.

 

[Slyfox696]

I see. Since hypocritical relies on numerous factors and scenarios that are open for debate

No, hypocritical is where you say one thing, and then do another. Hogan has never done what he says Rock did.

What I mean is, you're saying the phrase, from a general business perspective, is right REGARDLESS of who would say it and not BECAUSE of who said it.

Not sure if I fully understand what you're saying here. But if you're saying that if someone other than Hogan had said the exact same thing, then it would be just as accurate, then I would agree.

So you didn't even have to bring hypocrisy into it at all because in your stance it pretty much doesn't matter who said it.

I wasn't the one who brought hypocrisy into it.

Hmmmmmm....... If I'm getting the gist of it, then that's pretty sly of you there Mr. Fox.

Uhh, not really. Just stating facts.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

You couldn't even let him have that Sly

 

[UltimateHitman]

No, hypocritical is where you say one thing, and then do another. Hogan has never done what he says Rock did.

As in come back from 7 years in Hollywood and cut a scathing promo on the company's top face. (Like he could pull it off anyway...) Got it. If you look at general attitude towards others in the business, he is hypocritical in the general sense. If you don't compare his general attitude w/the statement you don't get hypocrisy. Almost too specific to be noticeable. But even if I don't get the point across very effectively, I get the idea of what you're doing.

Not sure if I fully understand what you're saying here. But if you're saying that if someone other than Hogan had said the exact same thing, then it would be just as accurate, then I would agree.

That's exactly what I was saying.

I wasn't the one who brought hypocrisy into it.

No, the OP did.

Uhh, not really. Just stating facts.

Play it off all you want, you know what you do. And you do it just to be right.