Is Undertaker the Best Big Man Ever?

[IrishCanadian25]

Sam, The Undertaker doesn't qualify as a "Superheavyweight." He does qualify (in my book) as a "Big Man." The term SHW precludes several performers in my book, which the term Big Man allows. A short, from memory list of performers I would list as "Big Men" but not "Superheavyweights:"

Undertaker
Kane
Big John Studd
Scott Norton
Barry Windham
Diesel / Kevin Nash
Warlord
Berzerker
Zeus / Ze Gangsta (lol)
Lawrence Taylor (double lol)
Sid Justice / Vicious

Plenty more out there. Paul Wight / The Giant is certainly an SHW. Hogan is on the fringe.

As far as the question of success = skill, I don't agree with that at all. Becca green repped me on my post, commenting that I was actually pining for SlyFox to show up and take me on. But the fact is, a wrestler by himself doesn't dictate success. Vince McMahon and the modern era WWE is a marketing machine. And that marketing - the money spent, the mediums used, etc. - contribute to the perception of a wrestler's success, especially in North America.

Randy Coture and Chuck Liddel are thought to be two of the top MMA fighters of all time. They are easilly two of the most successful in history. But would I place them above Royce Gracie? No, but many fans would because Couture and Liddel had "The Dana White" effect on their side. Gracie predated the marketing machine that is today's UFC.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I didn't say success equals skill, although it arguably does in the wrestling business. Personally, I'd argue that Hulk Hogan had very little skill (well, he performed a relatively simple job) but he's still the most successful wrestler of all-time and, therefore, the best. It just makes sense that the most successful person at a certain thing is the best at a certain thing. Otherwise, I don't know why the best person hasn't done a better job.

I think the MMA comparison is flawed. The MMA business is a competitive sport, even in the UFC. It's not the "pure entertainment" that is the WWE. Besides, you seem to be confusing success with marketability. But shit, I'll try and run with it. Fedor Emelienko is generally considered to be the greatest heavyweight fighter in the world. His commercial success is much less than many other fighters, many other heavyweights - even Brock Lesnar, who has generated the most money. The guy's undefeated though - i.e. he is the most successful.

The difference is that in the MMA business, making money isn't the ultimate goal - winning fights is.

By looking at how The Undertaker has consistently made good money, drew big crowds etc. etc. for the world's premier wrestling organisation for nearly two decades, it is fair to assume that he is the best big man...

...Ever.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Fair points, Samuel.

But here's the thing - Taker drew more and made more money partially because of the team around him. You cannot underestimate the Vince McMahon hype machine.

Hogan is something of an anomole, but in a good way. Sure, he wrestled simple matches and did a simple job, but he didn't get over on wrestling skills. His skill was his charisma, look, and power. Plain and simple. He was marketable. That's a big reason he took his success with him to WCW. But one could also argue that the success in WCW wasn't as much Hogan as it was the arrival of Eric Bischoff as a major player in that company and the formulation of the NWO.

Let me bring this back to the "big men." I think it's dismissive and unfair to say that Undertaker is a better big man than Vader because of money / draw, because Taker has had the benefit of McMahon's hype longer. Vader's prime was spent in WCW and Japan. Had Vader come to WWF sooner, who knows? Vader could have taken the place of Yokozuna as post-Hogan champion in WWF and feuded with Hart and Luger instead! History doesn't read that way, though.

And I also stand by my international success argument.

 

[Uncle Sam]

But here's the thing - Taker drew more and made more money partially because of the team around him. You cannot underestimate the Vince McMahon hype machine.

But you are saying that Vader drew less money, fewer people and just generally had a lesser impact on the business, right? Team or no team.

Hogan is something of an anomole, but in a good way.

I don't think he is. Nor do I think he's the exception that proves the role. He is the rule. Ask people who the second best wrestler of all-time is. They'll likely say Steve Austin.

Sure, he wrestled simple matches and did a simple job, but he didn't get over on wrestling skills. His skill was his charisma, look, and power.

The reasons why he was successful were irrelevant - it's the end result that was important. Put it this way - in an alternate universe, Hogan does everything the same but it's the Macho Man that initiates the wrestling boom and shakes the world with his heel turn. Does Hogan get nearly as much credit? Hell no.

He's considered good because he's so successul, hence why you get a lot of "Hogan can't wrestle... although he did have a big impact on the business" but with worse spelling on the ol' internets.

But one could also argue that the success in WCW wasn't as much Hogan as it was the arrival of Eric Bischoff as a major player in that company and the formulation of the NWO.

Well, Hogan was what made the nWo (spell it right at least) go but let's not go off on a tangent.

Had Vader come to WWF sooner, who knows? Vader could have taken the place of Yokozuna as post-Hogan champion in WWF and feuded with Hart and Luger instead! History doesn't read that way, though.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. He didn't, and he's not the best big man in the world. Like I said, it's not why or how it happened, it's the end result that counts.

And I also stand by my international success argument.

As you have exhaustively documented, he did some impressive things. All the same, I think international success is a bit iffy. It's awkward to compare at the very least.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Ladies and gentlemen, I say unto you that I am in awe of this thread.

IC and Savage Taker, I commend you. Very smart and outstanding arguements that you have presented before me and it is hard to find something to counter you. Vader was an outstanding big man and clearly I over looked him. Having said that, I'm not going to say that he was better than 'Taker.

I mentioned in my last post that professional wrestling is more than just ring wrestling. You may not like it, but because of Hogan, pro wrestling is dictated by marketability and success. As Sam so eliquently put, 'Taker was the most successful big man, so by definition, that makes him the best. For example, you may not like Michael Jackson's music, but he is the best selling artist of all time, doesn't that dictate that he be called the best? I mean we could go on and on about their in ring work and such. I mean lets just agree, Vader did things that 'Taker hasn't and probably couldn't do, but 'Taker has done things that Vader hasn't and probably couldn't do.

If we go by marketability and who is the most recognizable, then we are talking about 'Taker. To be fair, Vader was good and to be completely honest, you just schooled me in how good he was, because I had no idea how good he was. I honestly wish that Vince had snagged him in the late 80's and early 90's cause he may have been outstanding with WWE, but Vince didn't snag him and it never happened. I think that it is unfair to 'Taker to say, "Well he had Vince backing him so he had a upper hand." Did Vince not back Sid Vicous, Kevin Nash, Vader at one point, so on and so on?

I am still going to call Undertaker the best big man of all time, but for you who can't see this. Let's just agree that Undertaker is the best big man in WWE history or any wrestling organization in America.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ladies and gentlemen, I say unto you that I am in awe of this thread.

IC and Savage Taker, I commend you. Very smart and outstanding arguements that you have presented before me and it is hard to find something to counter you. Vader was an outstanding big man and clearly I over looked him. Having said that, I'm not going to say that he was better than 'Taker.

I mentioned in my last post that professional wrestling is more than just ring wrestling. You may not like it, but because of Hogan, pro wrestling is dictated by marketability and success. Has Sam so eliquently put, 'Taker was the most successful big man, so by definition, that makes him the best. For example, you may not like Michael Jackson's music, but he is the best selling artist of all time, doesn't that dictate that he be called the best? I mean we could go on and on about their in ring work and such. I mean lets just agree, Vader did things that 'Taker hasn't and probably couldn't do, but 'Taker has done things that Vader hasn't and probably couldn't do.

If we go by marketability and who is the most recognizable, then we are talking about 'Taker. To be fair, Vader was good and to be completely honest, you just schooled me in how good he was, because I had no idea how good he was. I honestly wish that Vince had snagged him in the late 80's and early 90's cause he may have been outstanding with WWE, but Vince didn't snag him and it never happened. I think that it is unfair to 'Taker to say, "Well he had Vince backing him so he had a upper hand." Did Vince not back Sid Vicous, Kevin Nash, Vader at one point, so on and so on?

I am still going to call Undertaker the best big man of all time, but for you who can't see this. Let's just agree that Undertaker is the best big man in WWE history or any wrestling organization in America.

Wait, I'm confused. We're going to call Vader and Undertaker big men? Fine, then I'm going to submit my candidate for best big man of all time, and I bet I win.

The best big man of all time is Hulk Hogan. I don't see how this is even disputable. He was the greatest face and the greatest heel in wrestling history. He's revolutionized the business twice, and led it into two separate boom periods. He's a far bigger draw than Undertaker ever was, and every bit the in-ring worker. Undertaker is a proven mediocre draw, whose legacy has been built upon beating terrible wrestlers in terrible Wrestlemania matches. Hogan, on the other hand, has arguably 4 of the top 5 biggest and most memorable matches in history (vs. Andre, vs. Warrior, vs. Sting and vs. Rock).

Now, I know what people will say, "Hogan is not a big man". Well, you know what? If both Vader and Undertkaer are, then Hogan is. Hogan is as tall as Vader and weighs as much as the Undertaker. If they're big men, then so is Hogan.

And Hogan then becomes the greatest big man ever.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I knew he wouldn't argue either Undertaker or Vader, but even I'm suprised. That's way out of left field. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my suspicions though.

But yes, if Hogan is to be considered the best wrestler of all time - which he is - and he's to be considered a big man - which, apparently, he is - then logic dictates that he is in fact the best big man of all time.

We've all been wasting our time.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Wait, I'm confused. We're going to call Vader and Undertaker big men? Fine, then I'm going to submit my candidate for best big man of all time, and I bet I win.

The best big man of all time is Hulk Hogan. I don't see how this is even disputable. He was the greatest face and the greatest heel in wrestling history. He's revolutionized the business twice, and led it into two separate boom periods. He's a far bigger draw than Undertaker ever was, and every bit the in-ring worker. Undertaker is a proven mediocre draw, whose legacy has been built upon beating terrible wrestlers in terrible Wrestlemania matches. Hogan, on the other hand, has arguably 4 of the top 5 biggest and most memorable matches in history (vs. Andre, vs. Warrior, vs. Sting and vs. Rock).

Now, I know what people will say, "Hogan is not a big man". Well, you know what? If both Vader and Undertkaer are, then Hogan is. Hogan is as tall as Vader and weighs as much as the Undertaker. If they're big men, then so is Hogan.

And Hogan then becomes the greatest big man ever.

We've already discussed why Hogan is not considered a big man.

I want to discuss you saying that Hogan is every bit the in ring performer as 'Taker. Come on man, Hogan's in ring work is mediocre at best. Hogan had a simple job to do. Hype his matches up, then in the match itself, make the crowd believe that he was defeated and couldn't possibly come back, then Hulk up, hit his signatures of death and then win. Hogan is not as good as a performer as Taker. Hogan was successful and if we were to call him a big man, then he would be considered the best off of that alone.

 

[Slyfox696]

We've already discussed why Hogan is not considered a big man.

And I discussed why he is. Why is Hogan not a big man? Is he a small man?

Hogan is, without a doubt, a big man. He's 6'5" 300 pounds. That's big.

I want to discuss you saying that Hogan is every bit the in ring performer as 'Taker.

Sure, as long as you can do it without bias.

Come on man, Hogan's in ring work is mediocre at best.

Only to people like you who know nothing about wrestling.

Hogan had a simple job to do. Hype his matches up, then in the match itself, make the crowd believe that he was defeated and couldn't possibly come back, then Hulk up, hit his signatures of death and then win.

1) You obviously haven't seen many Hogan matches.

2) Even if it were true, doesn't it speak to his incredible ability to work a crowd, that he could make people believe he was defeated over and over, and then surprise them when he came back? That's called skill.

Hogan is not as good as a performer as Taker.

You're right, he's much better.


I mean, what the fuck is Taker good at? The Undertaker's selling is atrocious, both by skill and gimmick. His best matches are always going to be with guys who are willing to bump hard for him (HBK, Mankind, Bret Hart, etc.), and he has never shown an ability to put another wrestler over. How many workers have come out of a feud with Undertaker better than they went in? I can think of one; Mick Foley. And that was because Foley nearly killed himself, not because Taker made him look good.


The Undertaker is a fine worker, but he's no where near the level of Hulk Hogan in the ring.

 

[Uncle Sam]

This is not going to end well, I've gotta say. UTNOF, as I will now call you, you've come leaps and bounds in this thread. I can only imagine how apeshit Sly will go noew you've called Hogan a mediocre performer. You know, in a sort of suave serial killer sort of way.

It's best to just nod your head and agree, otherwise you can be here for days just going round in circles.

Really, if we're talking big, big men, I'd say he'd probably argue Andre the Giant. Or The Great Khali; just to get a reaction.

Edit: Hey, look at that.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Sam, trust me, I know. I have done battle with Slyfox before in the original Cena Thread. I'm not afraid of him at all. I know his M O.

To you Slyfox I say HA! Who has Hogan ever put over that has had a long and fruitful career? Hogan was always perceived as unbeatable and "immortal." So, in actualality, isn't he in the same boat as 'Taker? BTW, 'Taker did put over Lesnar(HIAC), and let's not forget Kane, who, without 'Taker, would probably be in TNA or nothing at all. I know you are going to say that it was the story and not 'Taker that put him over, but it was 'Taker constantly getting his ass whipped by Kane and their WM match that put Kane on the map.

Let's get back to the in ring work. I know that you are going to comment that pro wrestling is telling a story and psycology and blah blah blah. Both men do this well. I want to talk about the physical aspect of it though. What does Hogan do that is so damn special? It's already been pointed out the things that 'Taker and Vader do that is amazing for their size. What does Hogan do that we won't ever see from someone of his size? Was Hogan great, hell yes. Was he a good physical wreslter? NO!

 

[Slyfox696]

Sam, trust me, I know. I have done battle with Slyfox before in the original Cena Thread. I'm not afraid of him at all. I know his M O.

To you Slyfox I say HA! Who has Hogan ever put over that has had a long and fruitful career?

So, wait, now it's Hogan's fault Warrior and Goldberg and Rock didn't stay around long? How does that make sense?

And let's not forget guys like The Bossman, Roddy Piper, Paul Orndorff, Lex Luger, Paul Wight (The Big Show), Zeus, Hall, Nash, etc.

Hogan was always perceived as unbeatable and "immortal."

Which has nothing to do with putting a guy over.

So, in actualality, isn't he in the same boat as 'Taker?

No, he's actually put people over.

BTW, 'Taker did put over Lesnar(HIAC),

Losing is not the same thing as putting over.

and let's not forget Kane, who, without 'Taker, would probably be in TNA or nothing at all. I know you are going to say that it was the story and not 'Taker that put him over, but it was 'Taker constantly getting his ass whipped by Kane and their WM match that put Kane on the map.

Kane is maybe the ONLY guy I would agree that he's put over.

So, your argument is that a career midcard worker, who was pathetic in the ring, is the one guy Taker has put over? Good logic.

Let's get back to the in ring work.

Okay.

I know that you are going to comment that pro wrestling is telling a story and psycology and blah blah blah.

Yes, at least that's what guys like Flair, Foley, Hart, HBK, Hogan, etc. say.

I'm willing to take their word for it.

Both men do this well.

Agreed. And Hogan does it far better.

I want to talk about the physical aspect of it though. What does Hogan do that is so damn special?

He puts on entertaining matches, and always gives the crowd their money's worth. What does Undertaker do that's so damn special?

It's already been pointed out the things that 'Taker and Vader do that is amazing for their size. What does Hogan do that we won't ever see from someone of his size? Was Hogan great, hell yes. Was he a good physical wreslter? NO!

So, wait, are you now resorting to the moves=quality argument?

Because that's the biggest shit argument in the history of the IWC.

 

[SSJPhenom]

So, wait, now it's Hogan's fault Warrior and Goldberg and Rock didn't stay around long? How does that make sense?

And let's not forget guys like The Bossman, Roddy Piper, Paul Orndorff, Lex Luger, Paul Wight (The Big Show), Zeus, Hall, Nash, etc.

Which has nothing to do with putting a guy over.

No, he's actually put people over.

Losing is not the same thing as putting over.

Kane is maybe the ONLY guy I would agree that he's put over.

So, your argument is that a career midcard worker, who was pathetic in the ring, is the one guy Taker has put over? Good logic.

Okay.

Yes, at least that's what guys like Flair, Foley, Hart, HBK, Hogan, etc. say.

I'm willing to take their word for it.

Agreed. And Hogan does it far better.

He puts on entertaining matches, and always gives the crowd their money's worth. What does Undertaker do that's so damn special?

So, wait, are you now resorting to the moves=quality argument?

Because that's the biggest shit argument in the history of the IWC.

Hogan did not put over The Rock. Rock was way over at the time of their encounter. Hell, he already had one foot out. If anything, The Rock helped to make Hogan relevant again. The same could be said about Luger, Hall, and Nash who were all front runners in the WWF before their tenure in WCW. You can have Goldberg and Paul White. He did put them over.

Hogan does not have better ring psycology or better ring presence than 'Taker. 'Taker's presence, to this day, is still awe inspiring as his Hogan's. So I am still going to put them in the same boat as far as that is concerned.

Yes exciting moves do help to improve upon the quality of a match. Ask any luchadore or high flyer. So Hogan slammed Andre, was that not exciting? Cena picked up Big Show and Edge at the same time, was that not exciting? A 6'10" man dives over the top rope, is that not exciting? What did Hogan do that set him apart from everyone else? Yes, he had the crowd on their feet, but so did Austin. Hogan was physically limited at best. Great performer, bad wrestler(I know you have heard it before, but it's true).

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Hogan did not put over The Rock. Rock was way over at the time of their encounter. Hell, he already had one foot out. The same could be said about Luger, Hall, and Nash who were all front runners in the WWF before their tenure in WCW. You can have Goldberg and Paul White. He did put them over.

Hogan does not have better ring psycology or better ring presence than 'Taker. 'Taker's presence, to this day, is still awe inspiring as his Hogan's. So I am still going to put them in the same boat as far as that is concerned.

Yes exciting moves do help to improve upon the quality of a match. Ask any luchadore or high flyer. So Hogan slammed Andre, was that not exciting? Cena picked up Big Show and Edge at the same time, was that not exciting? A 6'10" man dives over the top rope, is that not exciting? What did Hogan do that set him apart from everyone else? Yes, he had the crowd on their feet, but so did Austin. Hogan was physically limited at best. Great performer, bad wrestler(I know you have heard it before, but it's true).

How in the hell is Hogan a bad wrestler. I guess keeping the crowd entertained and drawing them in is a bad wrestler. Revolutionizing the business and being an all-time great makes you a bad wrestler. Undertaker can jump the over top row. Wow, that is certainly amazing. Let's give him a medal for that. Hogan has better in-ring presence and psychology because he was better at what he did in the ring than the Undertaker. Hogan was a great wrestler back in the 70s and 80s and he wasn't physically limited then.

 

[SSJPhenom]

How in the hell is Hogan a bad wrestler. I guess keeping the crowd entertained and drawing them in is a bad wrestler. Revolutionizing the business and being an all-time great makes you a bad wrestler. Undertaker can jump the over top row. Wow, that is certainly amazing. Let's give him a medal for that. Hogan has better in-ring presence and psychology because he was better at what he did in the ring than the Undertaker. Hogan was a great wrestler back in the 70s and 80s and he wasn't physically limited then.

Hogan has always been physically limited. Watch him closely. You're right, Hogan revolutionized the business. I have never and will never discredit Hogan for that. Everything that we see today wouldn't be possible if Hogan hadn't have been huge, with that said, Hogan still can't wrestle.

Hogan wasn't known in the 80's and 90's for being able to go in the wrestling ring. He was known for his catch phrases and merchandise. Hogan was marketable and that is what made him revolutionize pro wrestling. "Well you know something brother." Things like that helped him revolutionize pro wrestling.

His in ring work, psycology, ability to tell a story, etc. is no better than 'Taker's. 'Taker has great ring presence and ring psycology. He knows what makes the crowd tick. Prime example, WM 25, the chants of "This is Awesome." 'Taker is an outstanding worker and if I am going to put him on the level of Hogan presence wise and psycology wise, then that only leaves their physical abilities and sorry to tell you Hulkamaniacs, but 'Taker has him out classed in every way.

BTW, don't simply state that Hogan has better ring presence and psycology, please, tell me why.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

UTNOF, you're much better off arguing that Hogan isn't a "big man" by the criteria. To try and argue that Hogan was inferior to Undertaker just isn't going to work. Too many people with too much proof and knowledge to back it up will converge on you, myself included.

Incidentally, you asked who Hogan has ever put over? Well, Undertaker. Twice, actually. So before you make the argument that Hogan doesn't put people over, just take a moment to remember who you're backing, and small the hypocricy.

And on another note, Hogan put Vader over, as Vader is the only man in North American wrestling history to kick out of the leg drop at a count of one. If Angle kicked out of the Stunner at one, people'd go apeshit.

Similar to Undertaker, Hogan is a fringe big-man because he's never really worked as a big man. In stature, that is, not in strength. Similar to Undertaker, Hogan generally worked matches where he was undersized. King Kong Bundy. Andre the Giant. One Man Gang. Earthquake. Sid Vicious. Yokozuna. Undertaker. Brock Lesnar. Vader. The Giant. Goldberg. Most of Hogan's massive feuds with guys NOT named Flair or Savage occured with men who were larger than he was. He rarely worked as the "big man" in a match. Even when he faced Luger, the match centered around Lex as the impactful superpower.

Now that's not a knock on Hogan. I just think it's a fair point to take into consideration when deciding which side of the fringe Hogan falls on in the "big man" sweepstakes.

This is also why I prefer the "Superheavyweight" cut off. 325+ lbs for most of the career. But you take out Hogan, 'Taker, Sid, Kane, Norton, et als. at that point.

 

[Rickabod]

I would agree 'Taker is up there without a doubt especially to still be able to do the things he does in the ring upwards of 40, just look at Kevin Nash by comparison who can barely walk these days!

But I would also agree that Vader has to be in the mix as the best big man ever, criminaly underused in WWF mainly due to his WCW background no doubt, but in a large part due to Shawn Michaels refusing to drop the belt to him which effectively killed his monster heel image.

 

[SSJPhenom]

UTNOF, you're much better off arguing that Hogan isn't a "big man" by the criteria. To try and argue that Hogan was inferior to Hogan just isn't going to work. Too many people with too much proof and knowledge to back it up will converge on you, myself included.

Incidentally, you asked who Hogan has ever put over? Well, Undertaker. Twice, actually. So before you make the argument that Hogan doesn't put people over, just take a moment to remember who you're backing, and small the hypocricy.

And on another note, Hogan put Vader over, as Vader is the only man in North American wrestling history to kick out of the leg drop at a count of one. If Angle kicked out of the Stunner at one, people'd go apeshit.

Similar to Undertaker, Hogan is a fringe big-man because he's never really worked as a big man. In stature, that is, not in strength. Similar to Undertaker, Hogan generally worked matches where he was undersized. King Kong Bundy. Andre the Giant. One Man Gang. Earthquake. Sid Vicious. Yokozuna. Undertaker. Brock Lesnar. Vader. The Giant. Goldberg. Most of Hogan's massive feuds with guys NOT named Flair or Savage occured with men who were larger than he was. He rarely worked as the "big man" in a match. Even when he faced Luger, the match centered around Lex as the impactful superpower.

Now that's not a knock on Hogan. I just think it's a fair point to take into consideration when deciding which side of the fringe Hogan falls on in the "big man" sweepstakes.

This is also why I prefer the "Superheavyweight" cut off. 325+ lbs for most of the career. But you take out Hogan, 'Taker, Sid, Kane, Norton, et als. at that point.

You're right, Hogan put 'Taker over at Survivor Series. Much like HHH put Orton over. You know, let him win the title, old it for a small period of time and essentially crush him for the title. I ask you, how long was it after 'Taker's and Hogan's rematch, days after 'Taker had won the title, was 'Taker in the title hunt again? I really don't think Hogan helped 'Taker out at all in his career. Also, I personally do not think a person, who is already very popular, can be put over. So if you are referring to their match for the Undisputed Title. I don't think Hogan put 'Taker over at all in that match. Besides, if he did, he didn't do it the right way. Why not let 'Taker win cleanly to put him over? Both times 'Taker beat him, it was by cheating. He didn't put 'Taker over.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

You're right, Hogan put 'Taker over at Survivor Series. Much like HHH put Orton over. You know, let him win the title, old it for a small period of time and essentially crush him for the title. I ask you, how long was it after 'Taker's and Hogan's rematch, days after 'Taker had won the title, was 'Taker in the title hunt again? I really don't think Hogan helped 'Taker out at all in his career. Also, I personally do not think a person, who is already very popular, can be put over. So if you are referring to their match for the Undisputed Title. I don't think Hogan put 'Taker over at all in that match. Besides, if he did, he didn't do it the right way. Why not let 'Taker win cleanly to put him over? Both times 'Taker beat him, it was by cheating. He didn't put 'Taker over.

Because both times, Taker was the biggest heel in the business and Hogan was the biggest face in the business. Very rarely does the heel beat the face, clean. Vader beat Sting clean a couple times, but still, not more than half.

And when Hogan put 'Taker over the first time, he was putting over "The Deadman." When Hogan put Taker over the second time, he was putting over "Big Evil." Same man, different characters, different eras.

I will also bring up the fact that one man Taker did put over...is Big Van Vader.

Anyway, he absolutely put Taker over in that first match. Kids cried. People were terrified. When 'Taker face clinched Hogan, well, Hogan sold it like a man in terrible pain. He twitched like a man with a broken neck after 'Taker tombstoned him on the chair. Hogan's work in the funeral parlor was tremendous.

If Undertaker wasn't in the hunt after Tuesday in Texas, why is that Hogan's fault? And by the way, the reason 'Taker wasn't in the hunt after that is because the title was vacated and awarded at the Royal Rumble. 'Taker didn't win that, did he? No, Flair did. And 'Taker went face. THAT is why he left the title hunt. To become a "good guy." How cute. His next title shot was against Yokozuna more than a year later, and he wasn't working as a "big man."

Vader FTW.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Because both times, Taker was the biggest heel in the business and Hogan was the biggest face in the business. Very rarely does the heel beat the face, clean. Vader beat Sting clean a couple times, but still, not more than half.

And when Hogan put 'Taker over the first time, he was putting over "The Deadman." When Hogan put Taker over the second time, he was putting over "Big Evil." Same man, different characters, different eras.

I will also bring up the fact that one man Taker did put over...is Big Van Vader.

Anyway, he absolutely put Taker over in that first match. Kids cried. People were terrified. When 'Taker face clinched Hogan, well, Hogan sold it like a man in terrible pain. He twitched like a man with a broken neck after 'Taker tombstoned him on the chair. Hogan's work in the funeral parlor was tremendous.

If Undertaker wasn't in the hunt after Tuesday in Texas, why is that Hogan's fault? And by the way, the reason 'Taker wasn't in the hunt after that is because the title was vacated and awarded at the Royal Rumble. 'Taker didn't win that, did he? No, Flair did. And 'Taker went face. THAT is why he left the title hunt. To become a "good guy." How cute. His next title shot was against Yokozuna more than a year later, and he wasn't working as a "big man."

Vader FTW.

Will you quit bringing up Vader? If we are going to debate 'Taker and Hogan, let's do. I still do not think Hogan helped Taker at all. Especially in '02. Taker had already been the American Badass for some time then and was already well known and liked as that character. Big Evil was just one of his phrases as the American Badass. You can't put someone over who is already well known.

Enough with the putting over thing, let's get back to ring work and such. It doesn't matter who was put over, what I want to know in this thread is, who is the best big man ever? Is Hogan even considered a big man by wrestling standards?

 

[D-Man]

Will you quit bringing up Vader?

Well that should piss off IC25 just nicely.

If we are going to debate 'Taker and Hogan, let's do. I still do not think Hogan helped Taker at all. Especially in '02. Taker had already been the American Badass for some time then and was already well known and liked as that character. Big Evil was just one of his phrases as the American Badass. You can't put someone over who is already well known.

If you are seriously saying that Hogan never put the Undertaker over then you are just talking out of your ass. The Taker was dominating the WWE for an entire year and he was finally given a shot at the WWE title against Hogan. Even though it wasn't a clean finish, just the mere fact that the Undertaker pinned a superstar who was damn near impossible to pin in his hey day is a prime example of putting someone over.

We know you're trying to find points to support your stance, but don't try to rewrite history to make your points look valid. That's insulting the intelligence of the people on this site... including myself.

Enough with the putting over thing, let's get back to ring work and such.

Why? Because you say so? Even you stated that there is more to making a wrestler a superstar than one or two traits. One of those traits is the ability to put another superstar over.

It doesn't matter who was put over

Like I just said, yeah it does.

what I want to know in this thread is, who is the best big man ever?

We're all explaining that to you. It looks like you need the help.

Is Hogan even considered a big man by wrestling standards?

Last time I checked, a 'big man' isn't even part of wrestling terminology. Therefore, you need to set the criteria. So you tell us, is he?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Will you quit bringing up Vader?

Gosh, I am sorry. I thought we were having a discussion on who the best big man in history was. I see that I was clearly mistaken, and we are no longer discussing that. I certainly missed the announcement that we were changing the direction of the thread topic.

If we are going to debate 'Taker and Hogan, let's do.

Ok, folks, here's the official announcement. This is no longer a thread about great big men, it's a thread about the in ring abilities of two men - Hogan and Taker - one of whom we're not even certain is considered a "big man." Everyone still on board?

I still do not think Hogan helped Taker at all.

I still disagree.

Especially in '02. Taker had already been the American Badass for some time then and was already well known and liked as that character. Big Evil was just one of his phrases as the American Badass. You can't put someone over who is already well known.

How do you figure? Let's see another quote from you on this matter:

Much like HHH put Orton over. You know, let him win the title, old it for a small period of time and essentially crush him for the title.

Wait, wait, HHH put Orton over? Orton was already over the first time Randy beat Hunter for the title. Orton beat Chris Benoit for his first world title, so how could Triple H put Orton over?

You've confused me. Clearly an easy thing to do, since I mistakenly posted my thoughts on a big man in a thread about big men. I guess I am 0-2.

Enough with the putting over thing, let's get back to ring work and such.

You brought it up, there, smokey joe...

It doesn't matter who was put over

Then why did you bring it up?

what I want to know in this thread is, who is the best big man ever?

Vader. OH, FUCK, I DID IT AGAIN! I am sorry, I shouldn't have done that.

Is Hogan even considered a big man by wrestling standards?

Well, the standards in this thread change more often than the stairways at Hogwarts, so we'll just play it by ear.

 

[SSJPhenom]

IC you are nit picking at what I say. I asked you to stop referencing Vader because you were quoting me on something that I said about Hogan. I don't want to start debating you on Hogan and in the middle of my post, shift to Vader. That's confusing.

You want me to set the criteria for "Big Man"(not an official wrestling term because The D-Man said so). Then I will.

Big Man Criteria:

1) 6'8" or taller.
2) 300 lbs+
3) Has to have wrestled the majority of their career as a dominant big man.

I don't care if we debate the super heavy weights or not.

The point could be made that 'Taker wrestled a plethora of matches where he wasn't the "Big Man," and that's true, but if you look back, he has certainly performed as the bigger man more often than not. He is also dominant to. You don't get to be the most dangerous entity in the WWE for nothing.

Hogan wrestled the majority of his career, actually, as the smaller man. As mentioned earlier by the wonderful IC. He fought people like Warrior, Luger, Goldberg, 'Taker, Vader, Nash, Paul Wight, and so on. So if we consider Hogan a big man, then we would have to consider the ones a fore mentioned big man wrestlers as well.

Also, I was trying to be sarcastic on the HHH putting Orton over thing. I'm sorry you didn't catch that. When I think of someone putting someone over, I think that if the person that put over the other person hadn't have done it, then the one that was put over wouldn't be relevant today or would have never been relevant. So when you say, "Hogan put 'Taker over," I think to myself, "If Hogan hadn't have fought 'Taker, would he be as big as he is today?" The answer that I have is NO! See you can say something like, Hogan put Goldberg over or 'Taker put Mankind over(HIAC). So Hogan put some people on the map, we've establised that. 'Taker also put some on the map. We can debate this all we like, but we aren't going to concede.

The point is, if we count Hogan as a big man then this discussion is over because Hogan is the greatest of all time and if he is considered to be a big man wrestler, then he is, by definition, the greatest big man ever!

 

[Rickabod]

I am still with IC25 .... Vader.

I'd say Hogan was a 'big man' in essence but as some one else pointed out early not in the classic sense.
A big man to me generally is a heel type, who acts the part of unstoppable force intent upon bulldozing his way though his opponent (sorry if i am hijacking our vague description of a 'big man') where as Hogan even when up against other comparable 'big men' rarely played the part of the agressor until he hulked up and delivered the atomic leg drop of doom.

If you look at all other potential 'big men' I think most would fit my vague definiton.

Vader then. Question answered.

 

[camrud]

Yes The Undertaker is the Greatest Big Man of All Time. He is arguabally the greatest WWE Superstar of All Time.

He will leave a Legacy of being the greatest big man of all time replacing Andre. Vader will be forgotten about later on down the road for who ever wants to say him & we could sit here and argue about it all day.

Whoever said Hogan is a better in ring performer than Taker needs to stop watching wrestling!

Hogan is not a wrestler. He is a CHEERLEADER that plays to the crowd!