Martyn Nolan: "Only casual fans will name Hulk Hogan as the greatest of all time."

[Optimist Prime]

There is no way Hulk Hogan can be considered the greatest of all time because his failures diminish alot of his successes. The steroid scandal, the fall of WCW and his terrible, terrible reality show (currently being syndicated around 9:50-10:05pm every thursday) are all apart of Hulk Hogan's career and you can't take the good without the bad.

So Hulk Hogan isn't the greatest of all time because of a reality show...but Rick Flair and Shawn Michaels are considered and you are able to dismiss their personal problems, drinking and drug use?

These guys all have personal issues. They're professional wrestlers. They've been considered a traveling circus act for quite some time now. There is no off season. They take pain killers for the pain, they drink and party like rockstars on top of it, almost all of them have taken some illegal performance enhancing drug...and this also contributes heavily to why they die so young.

That being said, they ALL have "the bad" as you may call it. We're not judging them based on who raised their kids the best. We're basing this discussion on their influence on the fans and wrestling in general...and when you look at it that way - it's just not debatable in my opinion - Hulk Hogan is the greatest of all time.

 

[Perfected123]

This is possibly the most asked question in not only wrestling, but in music, films/movies and sports. You can sit there and analyse facts and figures all day long, but at the end of the day the question is completely subjective. Now obviously that opinion must have sense to it, and yes there is a difference between your favourite of all time and the greatest. For instance, calling a midcarder-for-life like Shelton Benjamin the greatest of all time would be stupid.

To me, the greatest of all time is Ric Flair. Why? because every attribute a professional wrestler needs, he had. Emotional investment from the fans as the fans wanted his ass kicked night in and night out, drawing power as he was the spearhead of the NWA throughout the 80's, promo ability with his undeniable charisma, and of course, the ability to structure a match together to the point were the fans bought everything he did/his opposition did. He was perfect for the profession.

By the time I was born, Ric Flair was part time in WCW in the mid 90's, so this isn't a case of childhood memories coming back, what a lot might base their opinion off. Stone Cold was my favourite of all time. I completely disagree with basing the greatest of all time off of the highest drawing wrestler of all time, wouldn't they, well, fall into the category of biggest draw. I thought to be the greatest at something you need all characteristics to be better than others, which Hogan never had, Flair did. I compare this to football (soccer) in which the current debate is who is a better player, Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi? Apparently Cristiano is consisdered a better player by others because he has achieved the pinnacle of success in the Premier League, when in actuality if you look at all-round play Messi is better, in my opinion of course. I think the OP really takes the IWC's views on wrestling to heart too much, basing this on previous posts.

 

[dakikko049]

If you are talking about CHARACTERS, then saying Hulk Hogan is the greatest of all time is absolutely fair enough. Its been said before he made the WWE what it is today, and without his signature "Hulking up", his famous tales of defeating evil villains, his famous red and yellow outfit, who is to say if pro wrestling ever would have kicked off the way he did.

However, what if somebody like Randy Orton, or Ryback, or HHH had of been there first? What if the WWE made of those guys up to be a super hero-esque megastar, who rips off their shirt before hitting their moves of doom, and telling kids to eat your vitamins and say your prayers, back in Hogan's day? Hogan by no means brought anything to the table that the guys i mentioned didn't. Apart from a gimmick. A gimmick of this heroic, must see megastar, in this wacky world of pro wrestling. Are you trying to tell me that pro wrestling kicked off mainly because of the talent of Hulk Hogan? The like of which we have not seen since, not in Austin, not in the Rock, not in Michaels, not in Cena.

Personally I say no. Hulk Hogan may well be the greatest CREATION in the history of pro wrestling but I dont think HE is the greatest pro wrestler. To me, he is merely a guy, with a reasonable amount of talent to connect with a crowd dont get me wrong, who was chosen to usher the sport into this boom period by becoming the Hulkster. Guys who have come since dont stand a chance of being called the greatest of all time as they never had the chance to be the face of this fresh new exciting trend, they have to change things up, try and keep the business going after this initial inevitable boom.

 

[wCw/nWo Ireland]

That being said, it's really hard to say who the greatest of all time is. Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, The Rock, Stone Cold and The Undertaker are all in the conversation. I would probably have to go with Flair or Michaels. Both of those guys are respected by every personality within the pro wrestling universe because they were the very best at the art of pro wrestling.

stone cold,the rock,the undertaker and micheals?? your a wwe fan anyway. lol

how about DDP,sting,piper,terry funk??

think about it the names above cant compete with flair or hogan.
the only two in the conversation are flair and hogan.
my heart would say flair but like other people who have posted my head knows its hogan!

 

[pessimism101]

"Only casual fans will name Hulk Hogan as the greatest of all time"

Hmm... I think people are taking this quote much too literally. To me, I think what Martyn Nolan meant by that is, if you ask someone who doesn't follow wrestling regularly who they think of when they hear "wrestling", more often than not, the response you'd get would be "Hulk Hogan". On the other hand, if you asked someone who watches wrestling regularly who they think of when they hear "wrestling", you're likely to hear a mixed bag of responses including the likes of Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, CM Punk, Steve Austin, and even John Cena, etc.

I won't debate if Hogan is the greatest of all time because, frankly, there are hundreds of threads about that already and everything has pretty much been said on this topic. Like I said, I just think that people are reading too much into the quote.

 

[#tamale]

This is all opinion but I would imagine that if you went up to a casual fan and asked them who is the greatest wrestler of all time then 90% of them would say Hulk Hogan as he is the household name. Whereas the smart fans would be less likely to say him and may go with other options such as Undertaker, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, Kurt Angle and HBK. That is all. My article is a point of view.

Okay, what makes Bret, HBK, Flair, or any of them better than Hogan?

Did they over outdraw Hogan? No.

Did they have more people want to see their main events more than Hogan's main events? No.

Did they ever have as much crossover appeal to the mainstream audience as Hogan? The only case that can be made for that is The Rock and that wasn't until after he left wrestling and focused on acting.

Where they ever the cornerstone and the top draws for not 1, not 2, but 3 (people forget about his AWA years) wrestling companies? No.

In ring work? The reaction Hulk would get when he would "hulk" up, point that finger, and make his comeback is still to this day the biggest reactions I ever heard.

So, in what areas are those guys better?

What some don't realize is that by saying Hogan is the best, it's not belittling the accomplishments HBK, Savage, Flair or anybody else. It's just saying that their accomplishments as great as they are don't reach that of Hogan's.

 

[The Butcher]

Okay, what makes Bret, HBK, Flair, or any of them better than Hogan?

Did they over outdraw Hogan? No.

Did they have more people want to see their main events more than Hogan's main events? No.

Did they ever have as much crossover appeal to the mainstream audience as Hogan? The only case that can be made for that is The Rock and that wasn't until after he left wrestling and focused on acting.

Where they ever the cornerstone and the top draws for not 1, not 2, but 3 (people forget about his AWA years) wrestling companies? No.

In ring work? The reaction Hulk would get when he would "hulk" up, point that finger, and make his comeback is still to this day the biggest reactions I ever heard.

So, in what areas are those guys better?

What some don't realize is that by saying Hogan is the best, it's not belittling the accomplishments HBK, Savage, Flair or anybody else. It's just saying that their accomplishments as great as they are don't reach that of Hogan's.

Here's the kicker, though- wrestling is performance art. The best performers don't always make the most money.

Would anyone in their right mind say that The Rock is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis? I should hope not; but I can guarantee that The Rock's films make more money than Lewis' films. Is Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus better than Cirque du Soleil? Are the Rolling Stones better than the London Symphony Orchestra?

This is art, people. If you want to boil it down to dollars and cents, fine. If you want to say, "x has more mainstream appeal than y, therefore x is better," that's fine. It lacks insight, critical thinking, and appreciation for the art and the artist, but if that's how one wants to gauge things that's fine.

Beans, myself, and a lot of wrestling fans aren't doing that, though. And that's fine, too. This isn't a topic that has a consensus answer, and we really need to stop treating it as such.

 

[MAHGAWD]

Hogan was the greatest at pulling the fans close to him. He was the first real wrestling ENTERTAINER, so naturally he was gonna be really popular. As far as his in ring work, he wasn't the greatest by far. But you have to understand that Vince limited his moves severely to reduce the risk of injury. Occasionally you would see him in a few big spots ( Suplexing Big Boss Man off the cage back in 89, etc.) But his moves were limited. Back when Hulkamania took off, Hogan was wrestling every night not to mention going everywhere and anywhere to promote the WWF. If you watch some of Hogns matches in Japan you would see that the dude actually could wrestle. So in closing, he was the best in terms of star power and being able to connect with the fans, but he wasn't the greatest in between the ropes.

 

[GameOver]

Stupid comment, the ultimate goal of a Pro Wrestler is to be a global name and draw the largest crowds and to be remembered for along time after you are retired, Hogan has done that

He may not have been the best in ring but he certainly made up for it with his massive crowd appeal, PR for media that was beyond the wrestling world.

Now the later years are certainly not a good PR for Wrestling in general but thats not his only partially his own fault, just his family and friends that he's attached to screwed him.

Hogan is among a generation of guys that can withstand decades in the business and still be relevant and still drawing something. New Breeds come and go and are quickly forgotten unless you are a die hard fan. Hogan can still go anywhere and a large chunck of people in the world would know who he is

 

[Lowdown]

Martyn is a writer putting down his opinion, which he's entitled to. But Hogan appealed to folks worldwide in his heyday, propelled most likely by his appearance in Rocky III. No he's not the most gifted, but during the 80's no other wrestler had the following he had. He was all over the place on TV, from talk shows to the A Team. I considered myself diehard when I was coming up, and I was a huge Hogan mark. Nolan is a tad off base, yet I hear where he's coming from.

 

[The Butcher]

Stupid comment, the ultimate goal of a Pro Wrestler is to be a global name and draw the largest crowds and to be remembered for along time after you are retired, Hogan has done that

You betray either a lack of experience, worldliness, or both with this statement, dude. The ultimate goal of some pro wrestlers is to be a global name or to draw the biggest crowds. Just like the goal of some actors is to be a global name or have the highest grossing films. Just like the goal of some musicians is to be a global name or fill the biggest arenas. So on and so forth throughout all the performing arts.

Not every artist desires wealth and fame, though. Few would or have turned those things down, certainly, but that doesn't mean it was their motivation for entering the field. Especially when the chances of such success are so slim. It's most common that someone does something like become a professional wrestler because they enjoy it. They love the craft and the lifestyle. Again, it's the same throughout the arts.

To me, Hulk Hogan is the G.O.A.T. Like I said before, though, I'm biased. We all are thanks to the time in which we live. No one has bothered to run the numbers or adjust for inflation. Few have taken into account the fact that Hogan was a product of a marketing machine. Fewer acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, people who actually wrestle might know what they're talking about. I've said my piece, plus some. I'm leaving this alone now.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

Greatest of all time ? I would say during his time, yes. Ever ? I don't know. It also depends on what criteria we're using to measure his 'greatness'. Are we talking about name recognition ? Money at the gate, television ratings, ppv buyrates merchandising, etc. ?

Growing up, while not a fan of Hogan's during his era, he clearly was the biggest star at that time, greatest money maker in terms of merchandising, sold out arenas etc at that time. No wrestler is more recognizable outside of wrestling than he was (That probably changes now that Rock is in Hollywood and doing quite well there).

Was he as effective a draw at arenas as Bruno was ? or Lou Thesz ? He wasn't as great at the art (at least,not the matches I saw him in) as a number of performers who weren't nearly as profitable as he was. Have Austin and Rock surpassed him in terms of revenue in the short period of time they were in the WWE main event ? I mean I don't have those answers which leads me to having difficulty giving Hogan or any other performer the 'GOAT' title.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

I had a feeling that Sly was going to make this thread. It was just a matter of time.

But on topic. It's a vague and subjective question. It really depends on the person and who that person considers the greatest of all time. Samartino, Backlund, Hogan, and Flair are all in the conversation because of drawing power, and longevity. If you put in ring ability, then Hogan gets eliminated but then again, Hogan made WWE what it is today. The WWE wouldn't be here today without Hogan, or Samartino, or Backlund. But if you go off of who's done more for wrestling as a whole, Hogan put it on the map. But it's purely subjective and dependent on the person. I'm a Flair fan obviously and I've never liked Hogan. It's between the two of them with Samartino and Backlund in second.

 

[lowandmighty]

I love the last line of this thread!

Sometimes there is a correct and an incorrect answer and the correct answer is yes Hulk Hogan is the greatest, even people who hate him often admit it.

One could only assume that Hulk Hogan is not world famous because of pro wrestling but pro wrestling is world famous because of Hulk Hogan.

I really, really do just out of arrogance want to come up with some excuse why Hogan is not the greatest but... there just isn't one. He is the greatest and in something close to the Hulkster's own words somewhere in the late 90's all other wrestlers should worship the ground he spits on.

 

[dman1373]

Do you honestly think that they were speaking about anything besides in-ring ability? If you do, you're an idiot.

When did i ever talk about drawing ability? This was never the discussion. You were saying that you know nothing about the business if you don't think hogan is the greatest wrestler of all time. I just showed you people in the wrestling business saying someone else is. And yes they might say it because there better workers, or better in ring performers. Whats so wrong about that. Its like saying someone like merryl streep is the best actress of all time. She may not have drawn the more money then say a julia roberts, but she is definity a better actress.

Your Superiority complex is starting to make you sound like mark madden. Who whether he likes to admit it or not is mark just like all of us. Even more so because would rather have a match that draws alot of money than a match that is more entertaining. Hell he got mad at people for wanting there guy to win.

Sorry about that, i went of a little bit of a tangent, but I think my arguement still stands. Just because a wrestler isn't the biggest draw, doesn't mean he isn't the best wrestler.

 

[The Warlord]

People throw around the word "great" loosely. Its easy to pick the greatest in a real professional, competitive sport. You look at stats, win percentage, championships, etc. However this business is different..

Do we look at drawing power? Do we look at most popular, or most merchandise sold? Do we look at PPV buyrates over the course of at least a decade?? Or do we judge them on a more athletic basis as far as in-ring performance goes?

Pro wrestling/sports entertainment can get really tricky when talking about "greatest" when we dont even know what we're really looking at.

 

[Headman]

In a fake sport wouldn't the best of all time be the most popular? If being able to roll around on the mat with a guy for an hour doesn't make you more popular, is it actually good? In my opinion a guy who does nothing but punches and bear hugs who gets huge pops is a better pro-wrestler than a sound technical wrestler who gets no reaction whatsoever.

 

[Chopper]

In terms of drawing money and ratings, Hulk was the guy that put wrestling on the map. Had he not, I do not think the WWE would of succeeded at all. So that means no Undertaker, No HBK, no "Hitman" Bret Hart (he already established himself in Stampede Wrestling, and was starting out in WWE at the time Hulk did).
But, the best ever in terms of talent is without a doubt Lou Thez. I do not think I need to explain why. Do your research.

 

[The Warlord]

In terms of drawing money and ratings, Hulk was the guy that put wrestling on the map. Had he not, I do not think the WWE would of succeeded at all. So that means no Undertaker, No HBK, no "Hitman" Bret Hart (he already established himself in Stampede Wrestling, and was starting out in WWE at the time Hulk did).
But, the best ever in terms of talent is without a doubt Lou Thez. I do not think I need to explain why. Do your research.

True...in terms of drawing, money and ratings...yes, Hulk put wrestling on the map. Now do we reward Hogan for being the greatest for turning the sport more mainstream...or is it Austin we give the "greatest of all time" crown to for breaking those records and being even more successful???

The one thing you Hogan has going for him is that he was on top of the business for much longer than Steve was. So over the course of a decade he might have been more successful. Again, it's all in how you look at it.

 

[Headman]

True...in terms of drawing, money and ratings...yes, Hulk put wrestling on the map. Now do we reward Hogan for being the greatest for turning the sport more mainstream...or is it Austin we give the "greatest of all time" crown to for breaking those records and being even more successful???

The one thing you Hogan has going for him is that he was on top of the business for much longer than Steve was. So over the course of a decade he might have been more successful. Again, it's all in how you look at it.

If Austin broke any of Hogan's records it was because he was benefiting from a wrestling boom that Hogan started. Hulkamania started the wrestling boom of the 80's and Hogan's heel turn and creation of the nWo created the boom of the 90's. Austin was the most popular guy during a period where wrestling was trendy and he can thank Hogan for most of that.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

In a fake sport wouldn't the best of all time be the most popular? If being able to roll around on the mat with a guy for an hour doesn't make you more popular, is it actually good? In my opinion a guy who does nothing but punches and bear hugs who gets huge pops is a better pro-wrestler than a sound technical wrestler who gets no reaction whatsoever.

Can we say the same thing about playing make believe and fighting aliens? If being the most popular is what makes you the greatest in wrestling, than the same applies to movies.

Can we use the same premise when naming the greatest in music? Does being the most popular make Justin Bieber the greatest musician of all time?

This is the problem people make all the time with naming the greatest wrestler ever because it's simply something that cannot be done. One can say drawing power, one can say impact, one can say in-ring ability, one can say an amalgam of all three or come up with some other nebulous reason to name a guy the greatest. Only a complete fucking arrogant douchebag like the turd who started this thread would posit their opinion as fact. There will never be a consensus on this. Ever. So instead of lambasting someone for having a different opinion than you, get off your high horse and realize that not everyone agrees with you (this is directed at the OP because he comes off like an arrogant ********).

 

[Swarles Barkley]

If Austin broke any of Hogan's records it was because he was benefiting from a wrestling boom that Hogan started. Hulkamania started the wrestling boom of the 80's and Hogan's heel turn and creation of the nWo created the boom of the 90's. Austin was the most popular guy during a period where wrestling was trendy and he can thank Hogan for most of that.

No offense, but this is just fucking moronic. Hogan joined the nWo in July of 1996; Steve Austin didn't take off until January of 1998. He had his moments prior to that, but it was the confrontation with Tyson and the subsequent feud with Vince that turned Steve Austin in the drawing juggernaut that he was. Saying Hogan deserves any of the credit for Steve Austin is downright idiotic at best.

 

[pshanbhag92]

Three people who I can understand people calling the greatest of all times are Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair and Steve Austin. A case could also be made for Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker I guess.
This is the first time I have ever seen people, who i am guessing know considerably a lot about pro-wrestling, calling or even mentioning The Rock as a possible candidate for 'Greatest pro-wrestler of all times'.

Also, 20 years people will argue whether or not John Cena is the greatest of all times.

 

[pshanbhag92]

If Austin broke any of Hogan's records it was because he was benefiting from a wrestling boom that Hogan started. Hulkamania started the wrestling boom of the 80's and Hogan's heel turn and creation of the nWo created the boom of the 90's. Austin was the most popular guy during a period where wrestling was trendy and he can thank Hogan for most of that.

Wow! I'm at a complete loss of words.
The only people who should get credit for making the Stone Cold phenomena are Vince McMahon, the WWE roster at the time, the creative team and most importantly, Steve Austin.
Austin made the wrestling boom of the 90's, and not the other way around. Austin didn't ride the success wave created by Hulk Hogan, he made his own.

Sure, Hulk Hogan was the star of WWE before Steve Austin. But remember, Bruno Sammartino was the star before Hulk Hogan. Will we credit Sammartino for making Hulkamania? I don't think so.

 

[Kliq69]

Both sides have valid points. I think it's ridiculous for Martyn to say that only casual fans think Hogan is the greatest of all time because as shown above in several posts, there is a very strong case to be made for him being just that.

Now, it is equally ridiculous for SlyFox to say that only Hogan is worthy of consideration as the greatest of all time because there are several other guys (Thesz, Flair, Sammartino, Austin, Rock, HBK, Cena *shudders*) someone could make a case for and not necessarily be wrong.

Greatest of all time is such a subjective argument because there many different ways to determine worth.

In what manner are you judging them? Is it from a business standpoint? As in who drew the most fans and made the most money for the company there were working for? Is it from a critic's standpoint as in their actual ability to perform. Even that has a subsection, because talent in the ring and talent on the stick (which has become equally important) are not necessarily found in equal measures in an individual. Is it from a kayfabe stats perspective as do the amount of titles, wins, losses, achievements, etc matter? Is it from a fan's perspective as in which wrestler did I enjoy watching more than any other? Is it about memorable moments and the overall impact they caused on the industry (because if so Benoit is the GOAT as his actions literally have changed the industry forever)

It's like an argument over who is the greatest actor or director or singer, it becomes nearly futile because there is no definitive criteria in which to base an answer. Thus, no matter what criteria a person chooses, personal opinion begins to influence both the claim and the case being made for the claim.

For example, I'd be willing to wager that Michael Bay's films have made more money and been seen by more people than Alfred Hitchcock's films; however many people in the industry argue for Hitchcock as the Greatest Director of All time. By any statistical comparison, Bay beats Hitchcock however because of subjective arguments you don't see Bay's name on any list discussing greatest director of all time.
Personally, I whole-heartedly agree with JR, HBK, HHH, and many other people in the business when they say Ric Flair is the greatest of all-time. However, that doesn't mean that a strong case couldn't be made for Hogan, Austin, or a number of other guys.