Hulk Hogan or The Undertaker??

[Sock-O-Matic]

Hey, I'm relatively new here.

This is a really interesting topic, but still fallible by just about every way. Let's pretend for a minute that The Undertaker and Hulk Hogan arrived in WWF/E in the same time, with the same amount of experience, okay?

You have a zombie character and and then you have an american hero guy. Which one are you most likely going to relate to? Which one is going to garnish the most fans, sales, merchandise, television time?

If you answered hero, well then congratulations because gimmick-wise you just said Hogan had a better one. Hulk was an American Icon wayyy before Taker went "Badass", Hogan had the crowd by his side the whole ENTIRE time he was in WWF, and he set the wrestling standard; muscled guy with catchphrases, mannerisms, and a unique look. And this was before Undertaker made his debut.

And then he did it again in WCW, pretty much single-handedly took the fight to WWF. Yeah I said it. Argue that. The only wrestler that has been capable of taking a rival promotion and make it a legitimate threat by the way. Why do you think TNA signed him in the first place?

In ring prowess still has to go to Hulk Hogan, because Undertaker was still green when Hogan was having unforgettable rivalries with Andre, Randy Savage, and of course the main man Roddy Piper. Hell Hogan had Wrestlemania in his back pocket before Undertaker set foot there. He had the crowd going with over-the-top antics and got a pop from a leg drop. I will repeat that a LEG DROP. Not a piledriver, not a powerbomb or chokeslam, but a simple drop of the leg. And he made it look legit. You can be anyone in the wrestling world but if you can make one of the most basic moves legitimate, then you sir are a Legend.

I love them both equally but when it comes to whose legendary status means the most to the world of wrestling, how can you argue with Hogan's? He is the end all. If it weren't for Hogan wrestling wouldn't be in the media with its guest hosts and whatnot.

 

[Reddannihilation]

Thread is amusing, forgetting that Hogan is directly responsible for the Undertaker even existing in his current state, the idea that the Undertaker has done more than Hogan is absurd. Hogan is an icon, one of 2 names everyone associates with wrestling (the other being Austin) the Undertaker can't hold a candle to the Hulkster. Hulk Hogan made wrestling, the Undertaker didn't make shit. Hulk Hogan is wrestling, the Undertaker is just a successful by-product of what Hogan did. No amount of smark opinion polls and articles by writers who pander to smarks is going to change the fact that Hulk Hogan is synonymous with professional wrestling and the Undertaker is just a big guy with nice entrance.

 

[RiVaLGaMeR]

Undertaker simple. The Undertaker will never die but Hulkamania is a diminishing flame. Hes not the same anymore his personal life messed him up and now that hes "in charge" hes been sucking. We love Hogan he did a lot for wrestling but he should have retired and spent time with his family.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, to me, that sounds particularly silly. I consider 'Taker's matches with Michaels to be the greatest of all time. As far as his other great matches, here's several off the top of my head:

Then you obviously haven't seen many truly great matches.

Taker vs. Michaels doesn't even begin to compare to matches like Magnum vs. Tully at Starrcade, Steamboat vs. Savage at WM3, Steamboat vs. Flair from WrestleWar (or even Clash of Champions, which I think is the better match), Funk vs. Flair, Hogan vs. Warrior, Warrior vs. Savage, Hart vs. Perfect, Hart vs. Hart, Hart vs. Austin, etc.

Hell in a Cell with Lesnar

I've tried watching this match on three separate occasions...never made it through yet.

Wrestlemania with Edge

I'd say passable.

Wrestlemania with Batista

Marginal. The only reason people think it was so great is because it had a bunch of false finishes, and people didn't think Batista was very good and the match surprised everyone. Then Batista went on to have good matches with just about everyone after that, while Undertaker...not so much.

Versus Kurt Angle at No Way Out

I'll admit that I still haven't see this one yet. So, I can't comment.

Versus Jeff hardy on RAW in a Ladder Match

No...just no.

There's a difference between being a bully and being a good leader

Exactly, which is why I called him a bully.

Being "smart" isn't insisting on a win or pushing an expired character.

Yes, it most certainly is. The wrestling business is, and always has been, a cutthroat business. You ONLY look out for number 1, yourself, and nobody else. It's always been that way, and will continue to be that way for a long time in the future.

If you're not looking out for your best interests, then you'll be a nobody in no time.

And Vince "running him over"? I don't see what you mean; Vince would have jobbed the guy out, simply because that was the best course of action to take.

First of all, there's a difference between "jobbing out" and "putting over". Hogan isn't going to come back to job for anyone. And with opponents like HBK and a recently returned from suspension Randy Orton, why should he lay down for those guys?

HBK is not and never will be even close to Hogan's level. If Hogan's at the finish line, HBK still has half of the course to run. That's how far Hogan is beyond HBK. And as far as Orton goes, his program with Hogan vaulted him right back to the main-event scene, where he won the WWE Title just one year later, after being suspended for 60 days and being made to look like a bitch vs. Kurt Angle at One Night Stand.

To think Hogan should lay down for either of those guys is stupid, when all Vince wanted is buyrates. But if Hogan lets McMahon do whatever he wants with his character, then Hogan would have left the WWE with absolutely no value to his character anymore.

It's why you look out for number one.

His gear in the scheme of current things had already been replaced, his health ailing and his legend cemented and expired; the only thing he could do to generate long-term revenue now (and hence, improve the business) would be for him to lose to people.

How would Hogan losing to people help HOGAN? It doesn't, it weakens his ability to draw money. It HURTS Hogan to lose, so why should he, when Hogan's name still draws? Why are people like you so stubborn in your thinking that everyone should give back to the business, when the business doesn't give a damn about them? Hogan made himself, why should he go commit career suicide? Hogan made a LOT of people rich during his time on top; himself, his family, Vince, Bischoff...and other wrestlers. Bret Hart once had a blog up on his old site relaying how wrestlers would come up to Hogan all the time and thank him for putting food on their table.

Hogan did a LOT for the wrestling business and other wrestlers. He doesn't owe anyone a damn thing.

EDIT: I found the quote:

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.

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

Hogan was the biggest star out of the three, but I don't see how the other two ****ed out their reputation more than Hogan did. They all did the exact same thing: go to TNA. It could be said that all three also went out of retirement, but I suppose Hogan's retirement was only implied.

Because they are little more than jobbers now. When Mick Foley came back for a match in the WWE, you KNEW he was going to lose. So how is he credible in the minds of a fan as a legitimate threat? When you lose consistently and never earn back the reputation, then you are worth nothing.

It's what happened to both Flair and Foley. It's why Hart insisted on character control in '97. It's why Austin refused to put over guys on his way out. When you constantly lose, then your reputation is worth nothing. And when you are someone who will draw money until the day you die, then it's not worth risking your reputation.

It's just smart business.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

This question isn't a very good one. Why are we comparing a guy who's only just become a legend in the last 5 or so years, to a guy who's been a legend for 20 years already?

If we were comparing Taker to Sting, or Hogan with Piper, then this would make sense. Right now this is like comparing Flair to Foley. They are nothing alike, worked in completely different eras, got over during totally different time frames, and one of either two is going to have achieved countless achievements in wrestling history, way before the other one entered the mainstream promotions.

There's no point even trying to compare 90's Hogan to current Taker. I mean, here's the key things that most of you have used as evidence so far, and here's my take on each of them.

Selling

Both suck at it, but for different reasons. With Taker, it depends which gimmick you're talking about, and whether or not he was a heel. If we're talking ABA, then he sold just as well as anyone else did. If we're talking original Taker, or Rebirth Taker, or Deadman Taker, then no he doesn't sell because his character is supposed to be impervious to pain for fuck sake! If we're talking Ministry Taker, then again, he sold just as well as anyone else.

When you're booked to be a guy who doesn't feel pain, or you're constantly hyped as one of the toughest on the roster, you're not likely to scream your lungs out and roll around in agony very often are you? I am so sick of people slagging off Taker for portryaing the character he was given, when HHH no sells Orton's punt every time he does it, and Kane used to sit up 5 seconds after repeated chair shots as if they didn't happen, and yet, no one says a word about them.

Hogan used to sell just as much as any other wrestler, until he hulked up and then he didn't sell shit. So basically, the final minutes of every match, Hogan didn't sell any moves at all.

So neither of them sell well, so get over it.

Drawing Power

Again, if we're talking modern day, then Taker would obviously win, since Hogan's done nothing for TNA's ratings.

Why do you think TNA signed him in the first place?

Because hiring old WWE talent for a quick ratings boost has ALWAYS been their M.O. and you seem to forget that they didn't simply hire Hogan did they? They hired Bischoff as well, AND all the other guys from the original NWO. So that's 3 or 4 of wrestling's greatest names (and Waltman was there too i guess) back on TV and the ratings did what........? Oh yeah......

But we can't compare modern day Hogan to Taker because it's not the same guy. Beat up old dude with a mic, compared to wrestling icon of the 80's. Now obviously Taker isn't going to compete with the man who ME'ed all of the first few WM's. There's no doubt about that, and i wouldn't be stupid enough to try. However most of you seem to think that Wrestlemania was a success because of Hogan and Hogan only. That Hogan revolutionised the wrestling business all by himself. That Vince McMahon walked into his office one day to see Hogan sat there in his chair, smoking a cigar, and said 'Hey Vince, don't worry, i've got everything under control and i'm going to make you rich(er)!'

So i put it to each and every one of you who sits here and says 'Hogan revolutionised the business twice blah blah blah' that Hogan wouldn't have revolutionised SHIT, if he hadn't had creative geniuses like Vince McMahon and Eric Bischoff in control to market him, promote him, and evolve their product based on the audience trends of the time.

That's why TNA haven't benefitted from him, because they don't know what they are doing.

Moveset

This argument is so irrelevant that i won't even bother. I'll just say that Hogan never needed to change his moveset because he became a wrestling icon back when wrestling was a lot more focused on everything BUT who did what moves. He'd be just as popular if he did nothing but back rakes and eye gouges as long as he kept spouting catchphrases and flexing all the damn time, and being an American icon.

Taker started during Hogan's era, suffered through that boring era after Hogan left, then had the attitude era where it was about hitting things and jumping off stuff than actual wrestling, then the technical era where Angle, Benoit, Lesnar etc were at the forefront, and is now in the PG era. So Taker's lasted 5 separate eras (not including when he started in WCW) in wrestling and has modified his moveset in accordance with that.

But as i said, 'who does what moves' is a really shit argument for 'who's better'.

Matches

All a matter of preference. Not worth a damn in an argument comparing two wrestlers, because half of everything that was accomplished can be credited to the other guy in the ring.

You can say Taker had amazing matches with HBK at WM, but half of that credit should go to HBK.

You can say Hogan had classic matches with Piper and Savage, but half the credit goes to Piper and Savage.

And Sly, are you ever going to slag off Taker's wrestling ability with something to actually back it up? All you ever say is 'Taker's matches are shit' or 'You obviously don't know what good matches are'. What is it about Taker's matches that you dislike so much? Pick any match that the marks rave about non-stop and tell me why you think that match is shit, please. (Prefereably not the Lesnar HIAC because i thought that was shit as well, and see no reason why people hold it in such high regard).

There's probably loads of other arguments that people have made, but i'm not going through all of them now, but those are the ones that have cropped up the most.

Hulk Hogan will be forever remembered by many, as the man who made wrestling mainstream. Lots of others would say Austin before they even think of Hogan, but they aren't long term wrestling fans. Hell, most of them aren't wrestling fans at all, but they know who Steve Austin is.

I've had loads of people who were never full on wrestling fans who know who the Undertaker is, so to those of you who say Taker is a nobody, you're obviously biased Hogan marks.

Hogan's legacy will be the man who put wrestling on the map, and made sure that the whole world knew that he was behind it all (despite not being behind it all, like i said, the promoters might have had something to do with it). He will also be remembered as the guy that leeched off his reputation as much as possible to stay in the limelight anyway he could and has been revealed on several occassions recently to not be a very decent human being and people will look back on his life and say 'How sad it is that a man loved so much by his fans could end up like this.'

With Taker, people will remember him as the guy who bust his ass for Vince McMahon for 20 straight years without jumping ship, had to try and struggle through a LOT of shit fueds in his early years with guys twice his size and had 1/10th of his ability. The man who's gimmick and to a lesser extent, his fueds, have spawned countless gimmick matches that are still used to this day. The man who's wrestled with a broken eye socket, broken foot, torn ligiments in his arms, a hip as fragile as glass and god knows what else. The man who stuck to his gimmick so closely that fuck all is known about Mark Calloway the person. One of the very first men to ever be referred to as 'a guaranteed future HOF'er', and a man who is now at the very centre of WM, will never be considered anywhere near as great as the guy who main evented the very first one.

And one final point just because i'm a huge Taker mark and i've spent roughly 85% of this rant trying to remain objective..........

I remember Taker's first title win, when he beat Hogan, and a LOT of fans cheered.

And then in 2002, it happened again.

 

[jrocc4dub]

Hogan. Not even close. The man revolutionized the business in the 80's and shook it to the core in the 90's with his heel turn. Two different versions of the Hulkster, and arguably both as over as the other. Hogan definitely had more crossover, mainstream success than Taker ever came close to. While you can say that wrestling fans know them both equally, the non wrestling fan knows who Hogan is. He is a big part of pop culture to this day. And, yeah, Taker can go still but he was always a better in ring performer than Hogan. The only thing that Taker has over Hogan is his willingness to put over younger performers, with the exception of CM Punk.

So its really not even up for argument, Hogan easily has meant more to the wrestling biz than Taker. For that matter, Hogan has meant more to pro wrestling than anyone. The only person who would come close is Stone Cold. And honestly, even though Austin's my all time favorite, his impact doesn't even come close to the one Hogan made throughout the years. Hogan without a doubt has the greatest legacy in the business.