Just because you don't agree doesn't make it stupid. People would agree The Rock was a bigger draw then Hogan. Would this be incorrect? If so, prove the statistics.
No, the fact it is so ignorant and asinine is what makes it stupid.
The only people who agree The Rock was a bigger draw than Hogan are people who think ROH is good wrestling, and that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Yeah because Vince McMahon couldn't have revolutionized the way wrestling is looked at now at all
There's a MAJOR difference between "couldn't" and "didn't".
Could he have? Maybe. Did he? No, Hogan did.
Vince made Hogan the character he was, and then Hogan left WWF for WCW.
Bullshit. That is the most ridiculous argument out there.
Hulk Hogan was already a mega babyface. He was main-eventing in the AWA, challenging for the NWA World Title, and was main-eventing in Japan, even going over Antonio Inoki in the first IWGP tournament. He also was featured strongly in the incredibly popular Rocky 3 and played a character which dominated Balboa until the very end.
I still can't believe people actually buy into the myth that Vince McMahon made Hogan. Vince McMahon did two things for Hogan; he recognized Hogan's greatness, and he rode Hogan's coattails. That's it.
Hogan was still playing the exact SAME character (complete with yellow and red) until he went heel, and the only thing that changed about him is what he wore (black and white, with a different color of feather boas, how original) and everything he wouldn't have done as a babyface in WWF, so in other words just flipping his Superhero character around. Vince deserves credit here.
Wait...did you just say that Vince deserves credit for Hollywood Hogan? How the fuck can that make sense, even in your mind?
The Hollywood character WASN'T simply the opposite of the Real American. The Hollywood character was very much a classic heel, but at the same time, it also relied on the fact that Hogan was just clearly better than everyone else, which really WASN'T something you saw from heels at the time, and flaunted how great he was. Combine that with the "attitude" Hogan and the nWo brought to wrestling, and Vince was actually stealing from Hogan, not the other way around.
Again, I point at Vince McMahon.
And again, you are wrong.
He is the reason wrestling exists in its current form. To say otherwise is fallible; he was just a character given mic time. That's like saying Cena is the reason WWE is PG, as if John Cena had that power.
It amazes me how wrong one person can be. Without Hogan and his drawing power, Vince McMahon takes YEARS, if not DECADES longer to conquer the wrestling world, if it even happens at all. There's no greater example of this than with the original Wrestlemania, an event which would make or break McMahon, an event that ONLY would have happened if Hogan was on the card. Had there been no Hogan, there would have been no Wrestlemania. There was no one who could have drawn enough to make Wrestlemania financially viable for those first years, had Hogan not been there.
Hogan was special, he wasn't lucky. And if McMahon could just pluck anyone to become a mega star, how come there hasn't been one since The Rock left? How come McMahon almost had to close his doors, you know, when Hogan was kicking his ass?
The fact is that Superstars are guided, not made. And in Hogan's case, he made wrestling what it is today. And The Undertaker? If it hadn't been for Hogan, he wouldn't even have the Wrestlemania streak, which when you come right down to it, is his main claim to fame.
Hulk Hogan is extremely overrated: winning the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Award for Most Overrated Wrestler 7 times, Reader's Least Favorite 9 times (6 of these before he even went over to WCW), The Worst Wrestler Award won in 1997 (around the time he went heel), and Most Embarassing Wrestler 5 times.
But of course Wrestling Observer doesn't have a clue what they are talking about, right?
The Wrestling Observer? THAT'S your source? Oh my god, I seriously cannot believe you tried to use the Wrestling Observer to make a point. You do realize that not only is Meltzer stuck so far up his own ass he can't see the light of day, he also is an extremely biased hack, with absolutely no experience in the business.
I have a better idea, how about we take the word of people who actually have some kind of credibility in the business? You know, guys like Bret Hart and Ric Flair, both whom have called Hogan the greatest ever. But hey, a guy who has never worked in the business and is a blind mark for guys with Japanese last names is far more credible than two of the greatest ever to work in the business.
Undertaker was cheered when he made his first debut, and he was a heel.
No he wasn't.
In fact, I will go so far and say he was cheered in his fight against Hulk Hogan at Survivor Series in 1991. He was undefeated until then, garnished more praise then Hogan did his rookie year, and he wasn't even trying to get on the fans good side. Undertaker didn't even need mic time to be over with the audience.
Wow...did you really just say that? And you want to claim that Vince was the reason Hogan saw so much success during his career? Wow...just wow.
Let's talk about the Undertaker. Here you have a guy who, like you said, didn't have much interaction with the crowd, has notoriously put on terrible matches at the biggest shows, has always been a weak main-event draw, and yet is considered one of the greatest ever by fans. And you don't think that is a prime example of a guy who happened to fall into the right gimmick at the right time? My god, THAT is far more a case of Vince making a guy, than anything else in wrestling history. The Undertaker's gimmick is what got him over, and has helped him become regarded as one of the best ever.
Because it sure as hell wasn't the matches he's been in, and certainly not at the biggest shows of the year.
The Rock is possibly the biggest draw in WWE media-wise. Things like movies, television spots, etc were much more favorable compared to Hogan having a conversation with ALF and starring in such memorable movies like Suburban Commando.
What you're missing is that if Hogan hadn't been such a mainstream media star, the Rock would never have had those opportunities.
Hogan opened so many doors for today's wrestlers, and fans just don't seem to realize that. I bet you have a wrestling shirt in your closet somewhere, don't you? Where did you buy that shirt? Did you order a WWE magazine, and then order the shirt through the magazine? Or did you get it at a show, or in your local store? When Hogan was revolutionizing the wrestling business, merchandising was one of the greatest things he brought to wrestling. Throw in his incredible mainstream appeal, his jump to TV and movies, and the doors he opened for wrestlers are numerous.
The Undertaker trumps Hogan in Wrestlemania
Only in matches won, not in importance to Wrestlemania, or number of quality matches.
years dedicated to the WWE
Which means fuck all in this discussion, considering we're not just talking about WWE careers.
and he isn't bashed half as much as Hogan is now.
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Barry Bonds is arguably the most criticized baseball player ever...doesn't change the fact that (ignoring the steroid controversy) he's the best baseball player ever.
We could have a Ric Flair and The Undertaker thread, and everything you have said can be said about Flair.
Except for the whole "revolutionized the business twice", and "is the reason wrestling exists in its current form" thing. Those two don't really apply to Flair.
But of course if people think differently than you they are ignorant. Poor logic.
No, when people say stupid things, I assume they are ignorant. I guess you could just be stupid, but I tend to think positively about people, so I call them ignorant instead.
Wrestler: Undertaker, definitely. 'Taker had bad matches at points in his career, such as when he was told to move like a zombie initially, and when he's involved in a mismatch (ala CM Punk) in modern times, but Hogan had one good wrestling match in his career that I know of, and probably not many more besides. Undertaker has been a participant in some of the greatest matches of all time, two of which were incredibly recent.
First of all, Hogan has had three great matches at Wrestlemania alone, at 5 vs. Savage, 6 vs. Warrior and 18 vs. Rock. Throw in his underrated match with Slaughter at WM 7 and his fun match with McMahon at 19, and to say Hogan has only one good wrestling match in his career is silly. And that is ONLY his Wrestlemania career, it doesn't consist of other matches he's had.
As far as Taker goes, his matches with HBK are overrated. The one this year was better than last year's, but to call either of them great is just silly. I'd say this year's was good and last year's was acceptable. Other than that, where are Taker's good matches? HIAC with Michaels? Fine, good match. But where else? He's NOTORIOUSLY terrible in matches at big shows like Wrestlemania or Summerslam. Where are these other "greatest matches of all times"?
Finally, as a person? Undertaker by a landslide. Undertaker has always carried himself, shown incredible discipline and trustworthiness, kept wrestlers in line and served as a leader you can go to.
The Undertaker is a big bully backstage. There are countless examples of Undertaker trying to intimidate other wrestlers to do things the way he thought they should be done, and him playing mean jokes on others.
Hogan lies horribly in interviews
You do realize this is pro wrestling right? Where the very show is nothing but a lie.
It amazes me how fans have such a terrible time telling real life from in character.
came back to WWE several times and insisted on a high salary and pinning new guys, rather than jobbing and accepting his role in the grand wrestling machine as temporary. Now, he won't accept it as done.
So, you're holding it against him that he's smart?
Tell me this...if you were promoting a wrestling card, and wanted to receive the highest attendance possible, who would you book: Hogan, Ric Flair or Mick Foley? Of course you would book Hogan. Why? Because the other two guys have ****ed out their reputation and are no longer seen as top guys in the sport. But if you had to promote between Hogan, Austin and Rock, who would get highest attendance? Well, that becomes a much more difficult scenario, because all three of these guys went out as THE top guy in the business.
To say Hogan is a bad person because he's the one guy who refused to let Vince McMahon run him over is just absurd.
Hogan wasn't that big a media draw, what did he do that was so huge- Headline the first Wrestlemania with Mr. T? That's great, iconic in fact, now what else?
Next time read everything else I post. You won't look so lost. I mentioned the Wrestling Observer as a valid statement; if you can't take the time to read everything else I type then you should leave now. Thousands of subscribers for WO but they are all wrong, right? Get a grip.
