Just watched...

[Pera]

I'm disagreeing with this.

On one side, you have the Champion Hogan, who the fans absolutely hate. The champ comes out and talks about how he's the best, no one can beat him, blah, blah, blah.

Queue up the guy that has beat him before for the belt. Warrior comes out, says he's done it before, and he'll do it again, and challenges him for the next big PPV.

The fans, who want to see Hogan lose the title, eat it up and get behind Warrior because they know he can beat the champ, because he's already done it.

That's just one way to do tell that story by acknowledging their past history. Of course, the only reason Warrior was even brought in was because Hogan wanted to get his win back over him, so that story was never meant to be told.

Hogan wasn't champion at the time. Goldberg was.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm tempted to put Warrior in my top 5 in terms of WM performances.

 

[Slyfox696]

He wanted me to hate Warrior because Warrior dared to say he beat Hogan. Sorry, Hulk, I just can't do it. Not a big Warrior fan anyway, but give me a break.

That's not it at all. I explained why earlier in the thread. It had nothing to do with Hogan specifically.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm disagreeing with this.

On one side, you have the Champion Hogan, who the fans absolutely hate. The champ comes out and talks about how he's the best, no one can beat him, blah, blah, blah.

Queue up the guy that has beat him before for the belt. Warrior comes out, says he's done it before, and he'll do it again, and challenges him for the next big PPV.

The fans, who want to see Hogan lose the title, eat it up and get behind Warrior because they know he can beat the champ, because he's already done it.

That's just one way to do tell that story by acknowledging their past history. Of course, the only reason Warrior was even brought in was because Hogan wanted to get his win back over him, so that story was never meant to be told.

Hogan wasn't champion at that point.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Hogan wasn't champion at that point.

Yeah I couldn't remember. Thought he was champ at that point.

Either way, it's still not hard to sell the match by saying this is the guy that Hogan's never beat. Hogan is still the most hated guy in WCW at the time. The fans still wanted to see him get what was coming to him. Sell it to the fans that Warriors the one guy Hogan could never beat (you don't have to mention they only had one match), and he's the guy that's going to take down Hogan. It's old school booking that works fine, as long as the promotions booking is solidly behind it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah I couldn't remember. Thought he was champ at that point.

Either way, it's still not hard to sell the match by saying this is the guy that Hogan's never beat. Hogan is still the most hated guy in WCW at the time. The fans still wanted to see him get what was coming to him. Sell it to the fans that Warriors the one guy Hogan could never beat (you don't have to mention they only had one match), and he's the guy that's going to take down Hogan. It's old school booking that works fine, as long as the promotions booking is solidly behind it.

1. Saying that someone is the guy Hogan never beat is what you do when you want to cheer for Hogan. People naturally cheer for underdogs. If you've never beaten someone, you're the underdog.

2. Goldberg and Sting had already been the man that took Hogan down. It had already been done.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah I couldn't remember. Thought he was champ at that point.

Either way, it's still not hard to sell the match by saying this is the guy that Hogan's never beat.

Only if Hogan was the good guy and Warrior was the bad guy. Why would we pay to watch the bad guy win?

The fans still wanted to see him get what was coming to him.

They already had. In the last year, Hogan had already submitted to Luger free TV, lost to Sting twice, and been pinned by Goldberg on free TV.

 

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan, M.D.]

I liked it, made Warrior seem like even more of an oddball

 

[MrHashasheen]

Only if Hogan was the good guy and Warrior was the bad guy. Why would we pay to watch the bad guy win?

They already had. In the last year, Hogan had already submitted to Luger free TV, lost to Sting twice, and been pinned by Goldberg on free TV.

Four losses in three or four years of domination? Meh.

I'd have had 1998 be Hogan's year of humiliation and defeat as any and all allies begin abandoning him, culminating in an unhinged Starrcade 1998 loss to Bret Hart. He disappears for a few months, then comes back as an upper carder "Hulk Hogan" babyface to work with a few former nWo colleagues that are still heels (Buff Bagwell, Scott Steiner, etc...) before ending his run in WCW at Starrcade 1999 getting a moderate win. Maybe he'd be Commissioner then for a while, I'm not sure when his contract was supposed to run out and when he re-signed and how long he signed for.

 

[The Crock]

Four losses in three or four years of domination? Meh.

I'd have had 1998 be Hogan's year of humiliation and defeat as any and all allies begin abandoning him, culminating in an unhinged Starrcade 1998 loss to Bret Hart. He disappears for a few months, then comes back as an upper carder "Hulk Hogan" babyface to work with a few former nWo colleagues that are still heels (Buff Bagwell, Scott Steiner, etc...) before ending his run in WCW at Starrcade 1999 getting a moderate win. Maybe he'd be Commissioner then for a while, I'm not sure when his contract was supposed to run out and when he re-signed and how long he signed for.

Yeah, let's have the greatest professional wrestler ever (who was still a huge draw) feud with Buff Bagwell. Sound idea.

 

[klunderbunker]

Four losses in three or four years of domination? Meh.

I'd have had 1998 be Hogan's year of humiliation and defeat as any and all allies begin abandoning him, culminating in an unhinged Starrcade 1998 loss to Bret Hart. He disappears for a few months, then comes back as an upper carder "Hulk Hogan" babyface to work with a few former nWo colleagues that are still heels (Buff Bagwell, Scott Steiner, etc...) before ending his run in WCW at Starrcade 1999 getting a moderate win. Maybe he'd be Commissioner then for a while, I'm not sure when his contract was supposed to run out and when he re-signed and how long he signed for.

Starting with the August 4th loss to Luger and ending with the Warrior victory, do you know how many losses Hogan had? 27, with 7 wins, with most of those seven coming in tag matches. Hogan lost A LOT in that span of time. It was his year of all that defeat, but.....what was the point of this again?

 

[MrHashasheen]

Yeah, let's have the greatest professional wrestler ever (who was still a huge draw) feud with Buff Bagwell. Sound idea.

Mock Bagwell, all you want, he was pretty over for his place on the card. And I never said the feud had to have Bagwell ultimately go over or that it had to be a lengthy one. He'd get a rub just by working with Hogan, and he was just was one example. Imagine 1999 as Hogan facing his past sins and fellow sinners, if that helps.

Starting with the August 4th loss to Luger and ending with the Warrior victory, do you know how many losses Hogan had? 27, with 7 wins, with most of those seven coming in tag matches. Hogan lost A LOT in that span of time. It was his year of all that defeat, but.....what was the point of this again?

1. I did not know how many losses he had.
2. How many of those losses were clean?
3. How many of those losses shared the same victor?
4. How many of those victors lost to Hogan times innumerable?

I'm not saying he gets jobbed to Fidel Sierra or Villanos IV. I'm saying he loses to main eventers and rising stars while he slowly loses all influence, power and respect in the company, pushing him over the edge with a final loss to Bret Hart at Starrcade. Takes time off after that, does some soul-searching and thinking about his legacy the past few years, comes back as the Hulkster looking to set things right.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah, let's have the greatest professional wrestler ever (who was still a huge draw) feud with Buff Bagwell. Sound idea.

They had him feud with Kidman in 2000. Remember how well that went?

 

[klunderbunker]

Mock Bagwell, all you want, he was pretty over for his place on the card. And I never said the feud had to have Bagwell ultimately go over or that it had to be a lengthy one. He'd get a rub just by working with Hogan, and he was just was one example. Imagine 1999 as Hogan facing his past sins and fellow sinners, if that helps.



1. I did not know how many losses he had.
2. How many of those losses were clean?
3. How many of those losses shared the same victor?
4. How many of those victors lost to Hogan times innumerable?

I'm not saying he gets jobbed to Fidel Sierra or Villanos IV. I'm saying he loses to main eventers and rising stars while he slowly loses all influence, power and respect in the company, pushing him over the edge with a final loss to Bret Hart at Starrcade. Takes time off after that, does some soul-searching and thinking about his legacy the past few years, comes back as the Hulkster looking to set things right.

1. Then how can you be in this discussion? Get a proper education.

2. Mostly DQs, other than the pins and submissions to guys like Luger, Goldberg and Savage.

3. About 17 of them.

4. None. I can pretty easily count all of them.

 

[MrHashasheen]

1. Then how can you be in this discussion? Get a proper education.

I was answering Slyfox, who gave the number. I assumed he wasn't understating it.

And knowing Hogans' loss tally in 1997-98 is proper education?

2. Mostly DQs, other than the pins and submissions to guys like Luger, Goldberg and Savage.

So relatively weak losses, then.

3. About 17 of them.

So 7 losses from 7 different people, and 17 between guys like Luger, Goldberg, Sting & Savage and a lot of them being DQs is him on a losing streak that I'm supposed to take seriously?

4. None. I can pretty easily count all of them.

Including house shows?

They had him feud with Kidman in 2000. Remember how well that went?

And Kidman was supposed to get over from it, which is why Hogan sandbagged. I'm suggesting a series of storylines about Hogan seeking redemption. How on earth is he going to sandbag that?

 

[klunderbunker]

I was answering Slyfox, who gave the number. I assumed he wasn't understating it.

We're practically married. Same thing.

And knowing Hogans' loss tally in 1997-98 is proper education?

Yes. Know your stats.

So relatively weak losses, then.

Losses are losses, especially when you're Hogan, the guy that hardly ever lost as a good guy.

So 7 losses from 7 different people, and 17 between guys like Luger, Goldberg, Sting & Savage and a lot of them being DQs is him on a losing streak that I'm supposed to take seriously?

It's pro wrestling. Why would you ever take it seriously?

Including house shows?

That would bump it up to 31.

And Kidman was supposed to get over from it, which is why Hogan sandbagged. I'm suggesting a series of storylines about Hogan seeking redemption. How on earth is he going to sandbag that?

He's Hulk Hogan and it's 1998. That's a good place to start.

 

[MrHashasheen]

We're practically married. Same thing.

I thought you were married/dating Mustang Sally?

Losses are losses, especially when you're Hogan, the guy that hardly ever lost as a good guy.

Except he's a bad guy in the era we're talking about. Granted it's WCW where the heels live on for years at a time, but still. DQ losses aren't losses to a guy like Hogan. They're more like "I let you win".

It's pro wrestling. Why would you ever take it seriously?

You're the one who gave it such weight and importance when it barely resembles a losing streak.

That would bump it up to 31.

I'm not sure if you're messing with me or not.

He's Hulk Hogan and it's 1998. That's a good place to start.

Hulk Hogan does good business by Hulk Hogan. Him going over ex-nWo heels as a form of repentance while the crowd cheers him on is good business, and it's easy business.

 

[Slyfox696]

Four losses in three or four years of domination? Meh.

4 losses over the course of roughly 14 months.

Hogan had already been put down. That's the point. Warrior didn't have to be the one to do it, because it had already been done.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

1. Saying that someone is the guy Hogan never beat is what you do when you want to cheer for Hogan. People naturally cheer for underdogs. If you've never beaten someone, you're the underdog.

2. Goldberg and Sting had already been the man that took Hogan down. It had already been done.

I see what you're saying. I was originally responding to the point that it's a harder sell if you mention the past history, because the fans want to see two equals in a big match. Using Hogan from this time period probably isn't the best example... especially like I said before when the only reason the Warrior was even brought in was so Hogan could get his win back from him.

My scenario works fine if Hogan's a dominant heel and they either want to put the Warrior over as the new top guy... or they just want to tease that Hogan's finally going down only to have him come out on top anyways. You can absolutely build up the heel as the underdog and still not give him sympathy... it just has to be done right.

In the actual Warrior/Hogan scenario... I don't know. Considering what the plan actually was, there wasn't much reason for Warrior to say anything, except to give Hogan the rub when Hogan beats him. The fans still were invested in seeing Hogan lose at the time, even if it had been happening more and more recently, so there's some excitement to that rematch no matter what. It never helped though, that Warrior had such a batshit character that fans of the time had a hard time getting behind.