And those same people can NEVER define what it means to have better in-ring ability.
Hulk Hogan/FOTH gets his ass handed to him over and over again
- Thread starter TheOneBigWill
- Start date
Again, everything comes down to money, not entertainment value. "Oooh, the business is meant to make money". Which business isn't? No, seriously. Tell me. Entertainment value outlasts money made in the long run, particularly when the money doesn't directly effect the fans.
The problem with your statement is that entertainment value can ONLY be determined by money.
I mean, how can a wrestler be entertaining if no one ever pays to watch him? The sole way to objectively define entertainment value is how much money it draws over a period of time.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
And Hogan doing the same moves over and over and never selling makes him so great. Flair was the best wrestler and had great psychology, he knew how how to make his matches look real. Yeah, he sucked.
He was also the glue that held the NWA together and outdrew wrestlers like Sting, even Hogan never outdrew Flair in WCW.
Take it up with Bret Hart and Ole Anderson.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
Why does ROH even bother?
I'd imagine being signed as an artist to a major record label you'd get a similar description too.
Even besides the fact that the industry's goal is to make money, how does that make them the best? It still means they're the most successful. There's no strict definition for what makes someone the best, unless you claim - like you are going to - that money-making makes someone the best. I don't see why.
Also, that's the industry's goal, not the fan's goal. That means that fans aren't allowed to dislike someone who fulfills the industry's goals, even if they're completely dull? And since when are the fans interests eternally tied into the interests of the industry? They're not, meaning we all have the right to claim Hulk Hogan is flawed.
What does that have to do with calling Flair on his piss bucket wrestling?
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
Then Britney Spears > Ozzy Osbourne. Money isn't the only way to determine these things.
Stateside, since 1984, with inflation and everything, you will never find a guy more over then Hogan, period, plain and simple. No one made more money then Hogan. I'll concede that guys like Sammartino, Thesz, Rogers or any other of the past greats "could" and I stress could, have made more money with inflation, but I don't see that being the case. Hogan was the first guy to take the business and be over across the entire country, not just in one territory.
In most cases, a guy as successful as Hogan or any other person as successful as he was gets most of his criticism from jealousy. That's the way I see it. You may not have to like the guy, but you do have to realize that the guy was what he was, the man responsible for the last two boom periods in the business, and there is no arguing that.
Two words: personal preference. Which is why doing it objectively is just inaccurate. It's all down to people's opinions.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
Anybody who saw a Flair match wouldn't say that. And how can you attack Flair's wrestling but praise Hogan who did the samething night in and night out? He did the same moves.
I'll gladly recognize that. I've never argued that. However, some people seem to think that makes him immune to criticism and makes him flawless.
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY
To try and turn a profit.
I wasn't aware that the major record label wrote your songs for you.
Yes you do. Because I've already explained it to you. Take your head out of the sand and you'll see it.
How else do you determine entertainment value other than the fans who are willing to pay to see you?
But, when having an objective debate on who is the better wrestler, personal opinions mean absolutely nothing. And since we were trying to objectively debate skill, what else do we use? Personal opinions? Not hardly.
I recognize the importance that Triple H has to the WWE, but I think most people here know how much I loathe him as champion. That's my opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the guy is obviously doing a job that the WWE wants him to do well.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
No, no one is immune to that, nor is he flawless. But it also doesn't warrant the level of Hate and Bashing Hogan gets. No one gets the bashing more then Hogan does, not even our favorite Triple H.
Like you said, it comes down to personal preference. I enjoy watching the old good ecw, you enjoy TNA, justin enjoys ROH, Sly enjoys garbage like the Warrior.
We're not talking about music, we're talking about wrestling.
Personal preference doesn't explain quality nor greatness. Which is why we use the only objective criteria which does.
So did Ric Flair. And, I have seen a Ric Flair match. And since I've seen one Ric Flair match, I've pretty much seen all of them.
I've seen plenty of Flair matches, but are you really going to sit there and tell me that he did not work the same match? Watch his first DVD. Every match follows the same basic structure, no matter the situation, nor his face/heel disposition.
Now, you could get by with it back in the NWA in the 80s, because people in Missouri weren't watching matches from Georgia. Doesn't change the fact he was working the same spotty style match every night.
They get it too. I forget my point.
Sort of a fair point, but then wrestling is most similar to television shows surely? The people there are just actors playing parts written for them. Is the best actor the one who makes the most money for the industry?
I really don't. It makes them the best at money-making and the most successful. There's no objective way to accurately decide who's better than who though, it's all personal preference.
Personal preference. People say "I'm entertained" or "I'm not". Simple as. Also, you're suggesting that Hogan's ticket sales twenty years ago accurately represent his entertainment value to fans today?
Then it's impossible then. You can claim Hogan was the most successful, or that he made the most money, or that his leg drop was pulled off with the most technique. But best is always opinion, based on millions of insignificant factors and intangibles so there's no point debating it really. I'm sure McDonald's fries outsell KFC chicken, yet people claim KFC chicken is better.
Then yeah, you can argue that's someone's better than someone else in a certain way - ticket sales and so forth accurately represent who draws the most fans, etc. But things like entertainment value simply cannot be accurately decided by that.
Does it matter if those objective methods are inaccurate?
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
It's a valid point, just because something made more money doesn't make it better.
No. I have seen many Flair matches, he was able to mix up his moves and style to best match who he was wrestling, he sold their moves better than anybody. The fact is he changed his style, this is so a match against Steamboat didn't look like the match against Sting. Hogan on the other hand did the same thing every night. Can you sit there and tell me that Hogans match at WM 2 wasn't the same as the one at WM 5? Hogans matches didn't age well, in fact all of Hogans match of the year awards were based on hype and atmosphere while Flairs were based on wrestling. If you have seen one Hogan match you have seen them all, because they were all the same. Flair on the other knew how to mix up his stuff, Hogan didn't.
What was the original post? Why was Hogan better than Flair? I was showing Sly's POV. I think...
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
The best actors are the ones who are able to make people care about them to the greatest degree. Which is also the purpose of professional wrestlers.
But, by giving their money to Vince McMahon to watch Hulk Hogan perform, MORE people are saying that they are entertained by Hulk Hogan than anyone else. Thus, even by your own definition, Hogan is the better wrestler because people personally prefer him more than anyone else.
As far as Hogan's value to people today, I would say that his multiple television shows would show his value.
Precisely my point. Well, not precisely.