Hulk Hogan or Vince Mcmahon

[punk is gold]

The subject of this thread is not the two named above but the two greatest wrestlers in Wwe history never to be the Wwe champion Ted Dibiase and Roddy Piper.Now my question is this do you guys think it was Hulk Hogan's unwillingness to put people over or a unkown Vince Mcmahon agenda that was the cause of neither becoming the champion during their primes.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Neither. Hogan didn't have that much stroke at the beginning of his run to deny putting people over anyway. The title needed to have credibility restored to it, like the credibility Bruno brought to it, with a long reign. Further, business went to a level never before seen when Hogan rose to the top. So they kept the belt on him for just long enough before it as necessary to shake things up a bit. While both Piper and DiBiase would hae been fine champions, they didn't "deserve" titles because they would have cost the WWF money. Business dropped when Hogan wasn't the champion, this was proven. DiBiase and Piper were over in a "fans react when they enter the bulding" sense. Hogan was more over then them in that way, and he was also over in a mainstream/worldwide sense. People's spending habits with regards to wrestling literally changed depending on his presence and whether he as champion. Wrestling isn't a charity, and the titles are fake. Being the champion isn't a prestigious thing to most workers because they ant to be champ, it's prestigious because they want more money. Hogan drew the most money, so he was champion.

 

[johnboyy49]

Interesting thread.. Hulkamanic is correct about WWF losing money when Hogan wasnt champion but that was Vince's biggest weakness, he built his empire around one man. Though there are rumors that Hogan was unwilling to work with Jake Roberts, I dont believe he wouldnt put over DiBiase or Piper. But to the main topic in my opinion Razor Ramon and Owen Hart were the two biggest names to win never win the WWE Championship and I blame Vince. Razor was a solid heel/face probably cared more about money but couldve kept him from going south. Owen Hart was good in ring performer and the majority of King of the Ring winners had great title runs. except for mabel

 

[Chrome]

Interesting thread.. Hulkamanic is correct about WWF losing money when Hogan wasnt champion but that was Vince's biggest weakness, he built his empire around one man. Though there are rumors that Hogan was unwilling to work with Jake Roberts, I dont believe he wouldnt put over DiBiase or Piper. But to the main topic in my opinion Razor Ramon and Owen Hart were the two biggest names to win never win the WWE Championship and I blame Vince. Razor was a solid heel/face probably cared more about money but couldve kept him from going south. Owen Hart was good in ring performer and the majority of King of the Ring winners had great title runs. except for mabel

If we are talking WWE Championship then you can't forget Lex Luger, Dusty Rhoads, Ricky Steamboat, The Von Erichs, Mr. Perfect, Rick Rude, British Bulldog, never won the WWE Title either.

But to the threads point, I say it was 100% Vince who was unwilling, looking at it from a business man's perspective, he thought Warrior would make more money, and for a while he was right. But he hadn't built up more people to challenge warrior. Thus people still loved Hogan. When Savage was champ they lost money too.. Hogan was the right guy at the right time. However, I would argue that Dusty Rhoads was as over as Ric Flair back int he 80's, why Vince never gave him a title run still makes me scratch my head.

It was not the Talent that made the choices but the promoter back then. Vince protected Hogan and in the end they both made a lot of cash.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

TBH, piper and dibiase weren't the best guys in the ring...i have to say piper was better, but i don't think either of them should have won the world title..nor did they...

 

[TheAnimal]

The champ needs challengers to make them a great champ. Its no good giving someone the belt and not having anyone for them to face. Hogan would not have been as over without them, and they would not have been as big stars if they hadnt had Hogan opposite them in the ring.
So i think its maybe a case of neither, its that they served their purpose well, maybe they could have had the gold but the time wasnt right for them, they had the plan to make Hogan the main man, it worked well obviously. It wouldnt have been the same if they had traded the belt with them all. Fewer changes make the belts become more special. It obviously devalues the title if everyone who gets the shot has to win the belt.
In its simplest form, Superman has Lex Luthor, Batman has the Joker etc, you cant have the bad guy actually take over the world, they needed to come close but have the good guy prevail in the end. Hogan needed those heels to make him into the star he was, things would most likely have been different had he dropped the title to them. Maybe they did deserve it, but i think it worked out better that they didnt in the sense of those feuds.

 

[Mark0820]

Honestly, Hogan helped make those guys as much, if not more, then they made him look good. Working main events against the biggest star the business had ever seen was huge for them. Neither of them went on to win the big one, but their programs with Hogan made them main event players for years. You don't need to job to someone to give them the rub.

 

[closet_fan]

in the 80s, piper is the only guy i can think of who was just as big of a heel as hogan was a face. bundy, moracco, studd, etc. were popular, but didn't rank up there with hogan in terms of star power.

i'm not lumping dibiasi in because he came a bit later. i really wished they would have given piper the belt for at least a couple months. i think it would have allowed hogan winning it back to be that much bigger.

but i agree with all the posters that said it was more vince wanting to keep hogan as champion than hogan's ego keeping him champion. although i think it was a mix of both. i'm sure hogan didn't protest that much when told he was going to win.

it still boggles my mind that hogan had the belt for over 3 years in his first reign and people, including myself, still ate it up. now if a guy keeps the belt for more than 2 months, it's boring and stale.

 

[airvar]

There were a ton of different factors leading into these two guys not getting the belt, and the biggest was the time period, not Hogan or Vince.

The 80's were cartoon characters and good vs evil. Hogan was the good guy, so as much as these guys were the top heels, and "deserved" a title reign, the fact was, bad guys didn't really win the big title back then. Everything was fresh and new , and the key in my opinon, there was flat out less wrestlign show's in general. Now we have Superstars, NXT, Smackdown, Raw ( thats 6 Hours a week) Plus a payper view EVERY MONTH. Thats SO much more time to fill then they had back then, and stuff gets older faster. Think if we had Raw every monday, Just raw, and a PPV every 3-4 Months. Title reigns last a LOT longer when you see a lot less of the wrestlers.

These guys were the top heels of there time, and are compareable to any top heel of now. I don't take anything away from these guys because they never got the WWE championship, it was just a different time. Hell, when the finally took the belt off Hogan it was a "passing of the torch" to the Ultimate warrior, another huge face.

 

[WWEWrestleFest]

Seeing as Hogan put over guys like Sting, Luger, Goldberg, and DDP in WCW, and was made to look weak by having to cheat to win almost all of his matches back then, I really don't think he had that much of a problem lying down for people. In the 80's and early 90's, he was the biggest star in wrestling by far, and one of the biggest stars in all of entertainment at that time. It wouldn't have made sense from Vince's perspective to have Hogan losing the belt every few months. I really think people blow the "not putting people over" thing out of proportion. No matter how much power a wrestler has, it's still the promoter who's running the show. If Vince really wanted to put the belt on one of those guys and Hogan refused to do the job, Vince probably would have just orchestrated a screwjob similar to Survivor Series '97.

Interesting thread.. Hulkamanic is correct about WWF losing money when Hogan wasnt champion but that was Vince's biggest weakness, he built his empire around one man. Though there are rumors that Hogan was unwilling to work with Jake Roberts, I dont believe he wouldnt put over DiBiase or Piper. But to the main topic in my opinion Razor Ramon and Owen Hart were the two biggest names to win never win the WWE Championship and I blame Vince. Razor was a solid heel/face probably cared more about money but couldve kept him from going south. Owen Hart was good in ring performer and the majority of King of the Ring winners had great title runs. except for mabel

Scott Hall has said in shoots that he never cared about winning the belt because he didn't look at his career from a "mark" perspective. With all the power he had in WWF in the mid 90's, with the Kliq basically running the show, and all the power he had in WCW when the nWo took off, he could have gotten a run, but he never cared for it. Sure, he hung out with guys like Kevin Nash, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H, guys who always wanted the strap. But the biggest influence on his wrestling life was Curt Hennig. And Hall had Hennig's mentality, that it doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as the fans remember your match/segment when they leave the show.

As for Owen, there's a documentary on his life and death, I can't remember the name of it. But they make it pretty clear that his heart wasn't in wrestling, and he wanted to quit a few different times and move on to a different profession (firefighter, in particular.) He wrestled because he was good at it, and needed to provide for his family, but he was looking for a way out. If he was gonna be given the belt, it would have only been a short run.

 

[Grizzly0u812]

the way I look at things, Vince was the boss, Hogan was the Character, Hogan had to go out and put on the performance which is clearly did or the crowd would not cheer for him night after night, Vince can see it, if the crowd is into someone of course he will back them and protect him because he is bringing in the dollars, look at stone cold, when stone cold could wrestle he packed areas and sold merchandise, John Cena same thing vince protect Cena because he is a top money maker.

I am sure Hogan has certain things in his contract because he is a smart business man, your not going to sell yourself short and get swept under the carpet, he probably had say in what direction they were taking him, but again vince was the boss and could say yes or no.

once someone does not bring in the dollars vince drops them.

Hogan kept the belt because people were coming to see him and he was creating this larger then life character that people came to see.

love him or hate him, he help build wrestling so wrestlers today are getting paid more, etc.

 

[JuviJuiceIsLoose]

I think it's just the way the WWF chose to do business at the time. Long before Hogan got there, heels rarely, if ever won the World Championship. If they did, it was like when Ivan Koloff or Iron Sheik won the belt as a Transitional Champion.

Hell, Bruno Sammartino had the belt for a combined 11 years. With his 1st reign lasting 8 years!!!

That was just the way the territory did business.

The NWA on the other hand, had a lot of heels as world champion for an extended amount of time like Harley Race and Ric Flair.

I don't know if I can blame it on Hogan or Vince. Vince Sr. ran business the same way..

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'd probably have to say neither really. While, ultimately, whatever Vince McMahon decides is what goes, Vince saw exactly what Hulk Hogan was. From 1984 until about 1991 or 1992, Hulk Hogan was the golden goose of the WWF. Just about anything and everything connected to Hulk Hogan in pro wrestling during this time was gold and Vince McMahon was a smart enough man to know that killing the goose wasn't the way to go about it. Hulk Hogan was helping to make the WWF a lot of money, they had a great formula for success going, so why would any rational businessman possibly wanna fuck around with that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Well from what I've read and heard, DiBiase was supposed to win the Mania 4 tournament instead of Savage. Andre was supposed to weaken Hogan and then DiBiase would have been able to eliminate him and win the tournament. Everything I've read says that Hogan would have been ok with this. However, Savage was supposed to take the IC Title from Honky, but Honky threatened to show up at Clash of the Champions with the belt and no show Mania, so they gave in to him and gave Savage the world title instead. DiBiase was to hold it all summer and then Savage beats him at Summerslam and the rest goes like it did.

So I don't so much think it was Hogan or Vince saying no, but rather waiting on the right guy to come along. I mean can you imagine Bundy or Muraco as champion? As for Piper, I'm not entirely sure as Hogan getting the title back at Mania I would have been EPIC. I guess with the massive mainstream stuff going on, Vince wanted the far more maketable Hogan as the face of the company, which I can understand.

 

[Mustang Sally]

While, ultimately, whatever Vince McMahon decides is what goes, Vince saw exactly what Hulk Hogan was.

That's the key. While Hogan foolishly claimed that he taught the business to Vince McMahon, it was Vince who made the business decisions and had to deal with the egos involved. He picked the wrestlers who helped his business the most.

Ted DiBiase was a good heel, yet was only a supporting player; a guy who was great at making the hero look even more heroic. He worked with Randy Savage, who was as evil a character as ever existed in WWE, and helped him convert to a mega-face. To pull this off, Macho Man had to square off against a heel who was hated even more than he had been. That was DiBiase and he did a good job. But as a champion? He wouldn't have been able to draw enough to sustain a title run and Vince correctly saw that.

As for Piper, his character was the outlaw who walked alone through WWE and was allied to no one. Who else does that sound like?

That's right: Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Yet, Austin was a long-time champion and Piper never won it. As far as I can see, that was because Piper never seemed to be around enough to have a world title placed on him. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall that he was often making movies or involved with other projects outside the wrestling business. He was in and out so much that, on one hand, it was a special treat whenever he showed up. At the same time, the infrequency of his appearances made him a bad bet to hang a championship on.

But it was Vince McMahon that determined all this, not Hulk Hogan. Vince is the ultimate businessman and showman......and he knows who to feature.

 

[TRoN]

I agree with the comments stating it was a different time in wrestling, and the money was with Hogan and everyone knew it. Hogan had some input in his story lines as all top guys do, some more than others of course but Vince had the ultimate say in the end.

I'll just add this, Vince is a very smart business man and it's always in the bosses best interest to keep his employees happy and motivated to ensure they preform to the best of their abilities. Vince wanted to keep the title on Hogan but he needed guys like Piper and Ted around to keep Hogan over with the fans. When talent went to Vince about going over Hogan and getting a chance to carry the company, it would make sense for Vince to try and pass some of the blame off on Hogan and take some of the heat from himself and the company.

When employees become disgruntled with the company they work for their performance almost always suffers, but everyone had a person at their job who they dislike or have tension with, and it doesn't affect their performace nearly as often and alot of the time it increases their productivity.