Round 7: Mr. Steve -vs- youngbullzeye

[Phoenix]

Which wrestler is the better asset to the Professional Wrestling World, Undertaker or Hulk Hogan?

This is a seventh round match in the Debater's League. Mr. Steve is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

Good luck.​

 

[Mr. Steve]

Here we go.

I'm choosing that overall, Hulk Hogan is the better asset to wrestling than The Undertaker, and youngbullzeye can go first.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Well, that's a day. Been disappointed seeing as the now shows are now starting to become a trend. I digress though.

Hulk Hogan was the better contribution to sports entertainment. Given the fact that he established the wrestling business, namely the WWF at the time, due to Hulkamania, his establishment as one of the greats is well spotted. Also, he was quick to see how his Hulkamania gimmick ran out, and one might say that Undertaker over Hogan was and is the better decision at that time, but let's not forget that Hogan was more versatile in his character. Evidence...nWo. He shifted AWAY from the babyface, and pretty much went ahead and raped the fan's perceptions of pro wrestling.

From Hulkamania to nWo and that weird ass Thing he's doing in TNA involvement he has in TNA, Hogan's pretty much got some level of star power (albeit one minuscule in the eyes of many today). One can certainly make the assumption that his contributions run far deeper than Undertaker's accolades, which is saying something.

 

[youngbullzeye]

First of let me say im sorry bro yesterday i got in really late from a family reunion and today i just got back from football practice.I really wish i could gone first.Now to the point at hand.

Let me start by saying that both of these men have helped out the wrestling busniss in many different ways.You can say that Hogan Single handedly made wrestling popular.The Undertaker can counter that with saying that he can be succesful with a with a single gimmick for so long and never get stale to the fans.Now lets attack your points

Well, that's a day. Been disappointed seeing as the now shows are now starting to become a trend. I digress though.

Like i said before sorry bro.

Hulk Hogan was the better contribution to sports entertainment. Given the fact that he established the wrestling business, namely the WWF at the time, due to Hulkamania, his establishment as one of the greats is well spotted.

And this is true im not going to argue this point because it is a fact and if were to debate it would look foolish.

Also, he was quick to see how his Hulkamania gimmick ran out, and one might say that Undertaker over Hogan was and is the better decision at that time, but let's not forget that Hogan was more versatile in his character. Evidence...nWo.

This is true but you might also remember that the Undertaker also went a gimmick change when he turned to the american badass.Now some people hated this but this was good for taker as he was able to do some more mic work and promos.He really was a badass and he did very well with this gimmick.

He shifted AWAY from the babyface, and pretty much went ahead and raped the fan's perceptions of pro wrestling.

This is true he did rape the wrestling industry and this was a good move that again is a good point you make but still does not prove why Hogan is better and i will tell you what seperates Taker from Hogan.

From Hulkamania to nWo and that weird ass Thing he's doing in TNA involvement he has in TNA, Hogan's pretty much got some level of star power (albeit one minuscule in the eyes of many today). One can certainly make the assumption that his contributions run far deeper than Undertaker's accolades, which is saying something.

Yeah this is true but do you see how Hogan has become more stale look at Taker,Taker is still one of the best gimmicks that has come during my years of watching wrestling witch is 9years.

Now that i have attacked the points i felt were needed to attack i am going to tell you what seperates Taker from Hogan.And that is the willingness and ability to PUT PEOPLE OVER.This is when of the things that you really need to be a top asset in any company.Hogan is known for his unwillingness to put younger guys over.Taker on the other can swallow his pride to put people over he sees Potenential to become a top asset as him.So this is what really seperates Taker from Hogan the abillity to be able to put people over.

 

[Mr. Steve]

This is true but you might also remember that the Undertaker also went a gimmick change when he turned to the american badass.Now some people hated this but this was good for taker as he was able to do some more mic work and promos.He really was a badass and he did very well with this gimmick.

Not as well as it did, actually. 'Taker's gimmick had no shelf life. It literally did good for him for about two years, then he started to make stuff up with it that pretty much didn't do it. Not for me, personally.

Yeah this is true but do you see how Hogan has become more stale look at Taker,Taker is still one of the best gimmicks that has come during my years of watching wrestling witch is 9years.

Compare the two of them: 'Taker sports the sporadical appearance at the shows. He's not carrying the same amount of dates as the rest. Hogan did that and then some back in WWF and WCW. True, you could argue that 'Taker did the same, but look at them now: 'Taker is making do with a gimmick that he pretty much knew how to store up. The injuries made him realize that. He couldn't have carried the Biker gimmick into the present time; he'd be lynched!

Which goes to show, Hogan just did a slight tweaking, not a whole revamp to which Undertaker did, and pretty much got a face pop AND a heel pop right afterwards.

Now that i have attacked the points i felt were needed to attack i am going to tell you what seperates Taker from Hogan.And that is the willingness and ability to PUT PEOPLE OVER.This is when of the things that you really need to be a top asset in any company.Hogan is known for his unwillingness to put younger guys over.Taker on the other can swallow his pride to put people over he sees Potenential to become a top asset as him. So this is what really seperates Taker from Hogan the abillity to be able to put people over.

...'Taker pup people over?! he put them over cleanly? Alright, let's realize this: NEITHER of these guys has put someone over that STAYED over. They pretty were pretty much placed in a situation where THEY were the ones that needed to be over.

Fact is: both these men had an impact on the business. But people will remember the day Hogan bodyslammed Andre rather than the time where Undertaker went 1-0. Hogan's legacy is more deep, both when he was in his hulkamania and in his heel turn.

 

[youngbullzeye]

Not as well as it did, actually. 'Taker's gimmick had no shelf life. It literally did good for him for about two years, then he started to make stuff up with it that pretty much didn't do it. Not for me, personally.

Those 3 years that he had under the badass gimmick gave us some preety good feuds bro.Now you say that Hogan was versetile.He was im not going to argue that but how long did it take for him to become stale again as the nWo leader what maybe a year or two.That is it so if you want to say the the biker gimmick was only good for two years so was Hogan's it was it cool at first but later on it was just stale and boring.

Compare the two of them: 'Taker sports the sporadical appearance at the shows. He's not carrying the same amount of dates as the rest. Hogan did that and then some back in WWF and WCW. True, you could argue that 'Taker did the same, but look at them now: 'Taker is making do with a gimmick that he pretty much knew how to store up.

You can say that Hogan did the same after he was done with the nWo in the WWE.He went back to a gimmick he had stored up as the man of Red and Yellow so that point isn't that great.

[Qoute]The injuries made him realize that. He couldn't have carried the Biker gimmick into the present time; he'd be lynched![/Quote]Same thing for Hogan do you think that if he was still wearing Black and White he wouldn't be lynched as you put it.If people already threw a bitch fit when Hogan was wrestling as the red and yellow, just imagine if he was doing it with the black and white.

Which goes to show, Hogan just did a slight tweaking, not a whole revamp to which Undertaker did, and pretty much got a face pop AND a heel pop right afterwards.

This is true he didnt do a complete 180 like the undertaker did but you cant say that it was all Undertaker's fault they wanted to try something new with the Undertaker like wise with Hogan.

...'Taker pup people over?! he put them over cleanly? Alright, let's realize this: NEITHER of these guys has put someone over that STAYED over. They pretty were pretty much placed in a situation where THEY were the ones that needed to be over.

Let me state some of the names that he helped to push along in thier carrers.JBL now he didnt lose to him but he started to get noticed more when he was with the acolytes and who were the acolytes associated with Taker.Do you think this gimmick would of worked if they were by themselves as they were before they were asociated with Taker..Hell NO.More names Kane instant feud with him.Brock Lesnar now you could say that The Rock was the first first to put him over but after he beat Taker in a HIAC match you know he meant busniss.He tried to put over Maven but lets face it Maven had athleticism but not the IT factor to make it big this was more of Maven's fault not Taker's.Another is Mr.Kennedy they had a decent feud and help Kennedy get over.

Fact is: both these men had an impact on the business. But people will remember the day Hogan bodyslammed Andre rather than the time where Undertaker went 1-0. Hogan's legacy is more deep, both when he was in his hulkamania and in his heel turn.

Now they lets see what more impressive slamming Andre or going Undefeted at Mania you tell me what seems more impresive a streak or slamming a big man.

Now something i forgot to put in my opening statement.And that it is the different matches that the Undertaker has made famous like the casket,buried alive,last ride,and the famous HIAC match.Now Undertaker for the most part participates in most of these matches.Except for the HIAC match the match is one of the fan's favorite matches it even has its own PPV.If the Undertaker did not take part in this match do you think it would still around.....Now what matches has Hogan created or established.

 

[Mr. Steve]

This is true he didnt do a complete 180 like the undertaker did but you cant say that it was all Undertaker's fault they wanted to try something new with the Undertaker like wise with Hogan.

This is more along the lines of "did the gimmick have a chance of REMAINING RELEVANT. Hollywood, yes. Given the fact that it could have lasted more than three years had WCW not placed so much stock in nWo, it could have. Look at Hulkamania. They had faith in it, but it wasn't the only thing that was ruling the show. They had other things. Hogan was at fault here. Problem is, do we count that against him in this debate? I would say no.

Let me state some of the names that he helped to push along in their careers.JBL now he didn't lose to him but he started to get noticed more when he was with the acolytes and who were the acolytes associated with Taker.[/quote]

Yeah, the acolytes had relevance. the fact that they had to repackage bears nothing on this. Yes, it did.

Do you think this gimmick would of worked if they were by themselves as they were before they were associated with Taker..Hell NO.More names Kane instant feud with him.Brock Lesnar now you could say that The Rock was the first first to put him over but after he beat Taker in a HIAC match you know he meant business.

Lesnar was put over by the Rock. SIMPLE!

He tried to put over Maven but lets face it Maven had athleticism but not the IT factor to make it big this was more of Maven's fault not Taker's. Another is Mr.Kennedy they had a decent feud and help Kennedy get over.

AHA! here we go. Well, Kennedy Kennedy got fired fired, didn't he?

Now they lets see what more impressive slamming Andre or going Undefeated at Mania you tell me what seems more impressive a streak or slamming a big man.

Slamming Andre. It's only repeated a billion times whenever Vince gets a chance.

Now what matches has Hogan created or established.

I'll do you one better: a pay-per-view and a match of the year. Remember that Wrestlemania rode on with Hogan and Mr. T vs. Orndorff and Piper. Trick is, the simple fact that Hogan was heading Wrestlemania (the very pay per view that 'Taker shines in) leaves something to be said about his involvement in the industry: It's a big one.

 

[youngbullzeye]

This is more along the lines of "did the gimmick have a chance of REMAINING RELEVANT. Hollywood, yes. Given the fact that it could have lasted more than three years had WCW not placed so much stock in nWo, it could have. Look at Hulkamania. They had faith in it, but it wasn't the only thing that was ruling the show. They had other things. Hogan was at fault here. Problem is, do we count that against him in this debate? I would say no.

I gotta call BULLSHIT! right here dude you bring up a point and when you see that i'm right you dont want to count it bullshit man!

Lesnar was put over by the Rock. SIMPLE!

Initailly yes i even wrote that.But while he beat the rock he was still dubbed "The Next Big Thing".Once he brutallly dismantled Taker in the HIAC match he was no longer the next big thing.He was "The Big Thing".To bad he backstabbed the WWE but he's doin better now.

AHA! here we go. Well, Kennedy Kennedy got fired fired, didn't he?

Yeah because of some little whiny little bitch.And how did he go up against this whiny little bitch he was established with the help of the Undertaker.

I'll do you one better: a pay-per-view and a match of the year. Remember that Wrestlemania rode on with Hogan and Mr. T vs. Orndorff and Piper. Trick is, the simple fact that Hogan was heading Wrestlemania (the very pay per view that 'Taker shines in) leaves something to be said about his involvement in the industry: It's a big one.

This only proves that Hogan is an old bastard.If Taker would have been born the same time as Hogan he couldd have also established Wrestlemania.Let me ask you something when you say the word Wrestlemania what comes to mind first Hogan or Taker/Taker's Streak.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Initailly yes i even wrote that.But while he beat the rock he was still dubbed "The Next Big Thing".Once he brutallly dismantled Taker in the HIAC match he was no longer the next big thing.He was "The Big Thing".To bad he backstabbed the WWE but he's doin better now.

Yeah, I got to deny this. It DID NOTHING! LESNAR WAS ALREADY OVER. Lesnar was carrying the title around, remember?

Yeah because of some little whiny little bitch.And how did he go up against this whiny little bitch he was established with the help of the Undertaker.

And this means what? That Kennedy was propelled to huge levels because of 'Taker? Wasn't he feuding for a mid card title after that? Wasn't he injured? Wait...you hate Orton?



This shit right here. THIS. SHIT. RIGHT. HERE.

This only proves that Hogan is an old bastard.If Taker would have been born the same time as Hogan he could have also established Wrestlemania.Let me ask you something when you say the word Wrestlemania what comes to mind first Hogan or Taker/Taker's Streak.

Why does being old have anything to do with it? What does CHOOSING have anything to do with it? I think of all those appearances that Hogan made in wrestlemania. Vince HOPED that Hulkamania was around enough so it would be successful, and it paid off big time. It propelled Hogan to Hogan levels, it propelled Wrestlemania to a huge plateau. Undertaker has a streak on the very pay per view that Hogan built. Wrestlemania made Hogan, and Hogan helped propel it to where it is right now.

Hogan's acoolades are better than 'Taker's. The second 'Taker retires, and puts a midcarder of his choosing over AND MAKING HIM STAY OVER, that's the moment that we can say "yeah, he did good" Too bad Hogan did more.

 

[youngbullzeye]

Yeah, I got to deny this. It DID NOTHING! LESNAR WAS ALREADY OVER. Lesnar was carrying the title around, remember?

So are you telling me that Shameus is over just because he has the title.Yeah ok

And this means what? That Kennedy was propelled to huge levels because of 'Taker? Wasn't he feuding for a mid card title after that? Wasn't he injured? Wait...you hate Orton?

No he wasn't propelled to the sky but he was taken as legit wrestlerAnd yeah bro im not an Orton fan or Cena fan just in case your gonna ask.OH and even though he wasn't made main eventer over night but at least Taker tried on like Hogan that cant put anyone over because his ego would be damaged.

Why does being old have anything to do with it?

It has alot of things to do what if Jackie Robinson was born earlier we would of had more black people in baseball earlier so being older does have something to do with it.

Vince HOPED that Hulkamania was around enough so it would be successful, and it paid off big time. It propelled Hogan to Hogan levels, it propelled Wrestlemania to a huge plateau. Undertaker has a streak on the very pay per view that Hogan built. Wrestlemania made Hogan, and Hogan helped propel it to where it is right now.

Im not saying Hogan isnt a huge asset to Wrestlemania but Taker could of easily done the same thing Hogan did.

Hogan's acoolades are better than 'Taker's. The second 'Taker retires, and puts a midcarder of his choosing over AND MAKING HIM STAY OVER, that's the moment that we can say "yeah, he did good" Too bad Hogan did more.

But accolades dont make you better yeah they are nice but are you going to tell me that Peyton Manning is a better QB than Marino because he won the big one.Hell NO dude so just because you have accolades that dosent make you better.You see this is the point that i think you dont understand about being a great asset.And that is putting peole over you have to make other people look good also to be a good asset.And if they ask you to do it and you dont because you have a massive ego your not the total package.Hogan did alot for the industry no doubt but Taker i more versitile all around he is the total package.You dont always have to be at the top of the mountain to be the greater asset but how you help yorself and those around you.

 

[Mr. Steve]

So are you telling me that Shameus is over just because he has the title.Yeah ok

He is, for better or worse.

No he wasn't propelled to the sky but he was taken as legit wrestlerAnd yeah bro im not an Orton fan or Cena fan just in case your gonna ask.OH and even though he wasn't made main eventer over night but at least Taker tried on like Hogan that cant put anyone over because his ego would be damaged.

He tried and failed, my boy. Kennedy Kennedy should have gotten a bigger storyline after that. But what do I know since I'm apparently debating Michael Hayes.

It has alot of things to do what if Jackie Robinson was born earlier we would of had more black people in baseball earlier so being older does have something to do with it.

Branch Rickley. 's all I'm saying. That Branch Rickley and his vision of breaking the color barrier and inventing the helmet. Tsk Tsk.

Im not saying Hogan isnt a huge asset to Wrestlemania but Taker could of easily done the same thing Hogan did.

Doubtful. Back then, the times weren't calling for the deadman gimmick. Hulkamania was running wild, for better or worse. And it was because of Hogan.

But accolades dont make you better yeah they are nice but are you going to tell me that Peyton Manning is a better QB than Marino because he won the big one. Hell NO dude so just because you have accolades that dosent make you better.You see this is the point that i think you dont understand about being a great asset.And that is putting peole over you have to make other people look good also to be a good asset.And if they ask you to do it and you dont because you have a massive ego your not the total package.Hogan did alot for the industry no doubt but Taker i more versitile all around he is the total package.You dont always have to be at the top of the mountain to be the greater asset but how you help yorself and those around you.

You shitting me? IT'S THE WRESTLING BUSINESS, NOT BASEBALL! MONEY TALKS IN THIS BUSINESS. If you draw, you're gold and you get accolades. Think about it. I mean, REALLY think about it. Stop comparing apples to oranges. Hogan provided more for the industry than 'Taker did.

closing argument​

Simple: Hogan DID more than 'Taker is doing. He did it without making major changes to the gimmick. Sure he went from the red and yellow to black and white and back again, but in the end, Hogan was still Hogan. Undertaker had to pretty much flip from the mortician gimmick to the phantom gimmick to the biker gimmick and to the deadman incarnation we see today. That's a lot of changes. It took Hogan one simple thing and one promo to get fans to throw things at them. Has Undertaker done the same?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

youngbullzeye, you're killing me here without opening arguments and weird, pointless rants about "little bitches."

Final Score

Mr. Steve - 5
youngbullzeye - 0

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Umm, yeah, I've said it before

Point - Mr. Steve

Punctuality: youbullzeye was late with his first post

Point - Mr. Steve

Informative: Steve, as he actually provided some

Point - Mr. Steve

Persuasion: I hate to 5 - 0 one of the people that is continually coming back to debate, but Steve wins again here. Tdigles right, youngbullzeye, you keep going off topic and ranting about strange stuff, some of your posts have decent points in them though, and I say this every time but you need to work on them more.

Point - Mr. Steve

My Scores;

Mr. Steve - 5
youngbullzeye - 0

 

[Phoenix]

When I looked up this debate, I went to my colleague's scores first, usually so I have the punctuality point sorted but the scores had me in fear about how this debate was. After reading it, while I give kudos for youngbullzeye coming in as a replacement and keep continuing to contribute to this League, this was a shocking read in that this wasn't even a debate. Mr. Steve was debating and he got a shoddy performance from his opposition who has shown potential. There's little for me to break it down as it's been covered already but I have to give this a 5 point victory to Mr. Steve, sorry youngbullzeye but this was an unbelieveable read!

Final Score
Mr. Steve: 5
youngbullzeye: 0

 

[D-Man]

I think this has been explained enough by the other judges. Even though youngbullzeye was a trooper for coming in to make the replacement in this debate, his debate was just all over the place. I'm with the other judges...

All 5 points awarded to Mr. Steve.

 

[D-Man]

After a complete judge's tally, Mr. Steve is the victor with 20 points to youngbullzeye's 0.