Should Hogan have put over Michaels and/or Orton at Summerslam?

[straightedge martyr]

With Hbk it could have gone either way. its not as if either really needed the win. The two of them combined had the biggest egos in the business today and they had the reputation to put behind it. Sure Hbk did act like a dick but i wold put money on the fact that Hogan would have done similar if he was booked to lose. So either way didn't matter too much as neither of them wold have had their reputations burned by losing that match. They were both some of the biggest names in the business so you could call it either way.

Orton on the other hand is a different story. As unlike hogan and Hbk, he cold have greatly benefited from the win. What did hogan have to really prove at that point seriously. All the people he beat in his career; one more either way doesn't really make a difference to me. Would anyone have said that it would have tarnished hogans reputation by losing to a guy who was on his way to the top on the business. As compared to Hogan who was on his way back down. There is the point that Orton wasn't ready to go over a star like hogan, that he hadn't deserved the win yet. And those that say that do have a point. And maybe it wold have been too much in the early stages of his career. But looking at him now as the main event star that he is. if you could say that he defeated hulk hogan, it would have really been a great achievement for his early career.

So you could go either way with either of them, but imo it was a bad move to have hogan go over both of them, why did he need to win over two superstars that still had a lot to give to the business. it was the wrong move the way i see it but hey, i could be wrong.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think the wrong decision was made both times. Hogan is the most famous wrestler ever, losing two matches wouldn't hurt his credibility. What could Hogan possibly have gained from these two victories? Nothing. Michaels should have won his match against Hogan because it would have been one more great moment for Michaels. Sure he's not as big a name as Hogan, but HBK is still a legend and deserved the win against Hogan. Orton didn't quite deserve a win as much as Michaels, but he was still in his "Legend Killer" mode. Hogan had NOTHING to gain from a victory in this match, Hogan should have put over Orton, who would go on to be a multi-time world champion. Orton could have gotten MASSIVE heel heat from bragging about defeating Hogan. They made the wrong decision in my opinion and both guys should have won these matches. Hogan was no longer on the roster full-time and had absolutely nothing to gain from these victories, he had already done everything he could possibly have done in the WWE by that point.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I think the wrong decision was made both times. Hogan is the most famous wrestler ever, losing two matches wouldn't hurt his credibility. What could Hogan possibly have gained from these two victories? Nothing. Michaels should have won his match against Hogan because it would have been one more great moment for Michaels. Sure he's not as big a name as Hogan, but HBK is still a legend and deserved the win against Hogan. Orton didn't quite deserve a win as much as Michaels, but he was still in his "Legend Killer" mode. Hogan had NOTHING to gain from a victory in this match, Hogan should have put over Orton, who would go on to be a multi-time world champion. Orton could have gotten MASSIVE heel heat from bragging about defeating Hogan. They made the wrong decision in my opinion and both guys should have won these matches. Hogan was no longer on the roster full-time and had absolutely nothing to gain from these victories, he had already done everything he could possibly have done in the WWE by that point.

So what if it would have been one more great moment for Michaels? Is his career going to mean any less because he couldn't defeat Hogan? Hogan should have won and HBK decide to whine about it and act like a complete ass in the ring so he deserve what he got.

Orton got plenty of heat enough as it is tagging with Edge and feuding with HHH and HBK. Orton was in no position to defeat Hogan. He had a 60-day suspension and got done being made Kurt Angle's bitch at One Night Stand before feuding with Hogan. Losing to Hogan didn't hurt him as he became a champion later now did it? I've said before the Legend Killer gimmick was so awful because he didn't kill any legends. Hogan should have beaten Orton and the right decision was made both times.

 

[jmt225]

When it comes to those two matches, wins/losses don't matter. What matters is the quality of the match, and in one case, unprofessionalism kept a match from being good, while the other was just pure shit.

Beating Hogan would have done nothing for Orton and HBK's careers. Orton had already started to get rid of the Legend Killer stick by that time and moving on, while HBK hasn't needed to beat anybody since his fucking return in 2002.

Those two matches were the last two in Hulk Hogan's WWE career. Who won, who lost... it didn't matter. All that mattered was that we get a good show. And like I said, Shawn's overselling ruined the first match (which would have been a great match without that stupid shit, btw), while Orton vs. Hogan was just horrendous.

So, my point is, no Hogan shouldn't have put either of those guys over. The damn thought should have never registered any of the wrestler's minds. The only thing HBK and Orton should have been worried about was carrying an old guy, with a horrible hip, to a great match for fans to remember him by. But they both failed, and that's their fault.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

Hogan doesn't have to put anybody over. He's the biggest star in wrestling history and if he wants to win, he wins. Now, i'm not his biggest fan and I don't defend him often but in this case, Hogan did nothing wrong.

I know it's been said here already but I'll say it again because it's completely true. HBK didn't need to go over Hogan and Orton didn't deserve to at the time. Beating Hogan would have been just one of several accomplishments of HBK's. Infact it probably would have been forgotten amongst greater achievements. It made alot more sense for the returning legend to go out with a win, especially after the build up including the superkick and the Hogan impersonation.

It would have made a lot more sense for Orton to go over seeing as how he was the legend killer and a young star. However, Orton was going nowhere at that particular time. Before Summerslam, he was being beaten by Angle and afterwards he formed Rated RKO and was whitewashed at Survivor Series by DX. If Orton vs Hogan had taken place at Summerslam 2007, then I would say Orton should have gone over because he was just about to become WWE champion. But it happened in 2006 and Hogan going over Orton was perfectly fine.

 

[Miko]

I suppose it'd be spam if I just said no, but there it is, HBK didnt need it, Orton didnt deserve it, it's more or less that simple. Fans got some nostalgia from seeing Hulkamania run wild all over again, everyones a winner.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

You could make the argument Orton NEEDED to beat to Hogan to give merit to his "legend killer' gimmick because let's face it, he never killed any legend. As others have said, Orton had zero momentum going into this match, and it's not like he would've punted Hogan or try to "end" his career some other way because I HIGHLY doubt Hogan would've agreed to a finish like that.

HBK would've gained nothing from beating Hogan. He already had a ton of accolades under his belt up to that point, so it's not like beating Hogan would've done anything more for him. I'm a fan of Shawn's, but the fact is, he will never be the draw Hogan was, and still is to a certain degree. Hogan would still be the immortal one, and Shawn would still be Mr.Wrestlemania, The Showstopper, and The Heartbreak Kid....nothing would've changed.

 

[Texas Rattlesnake]

the ultimate ''legend'' in the sport is facing the man known as the ''legend killer''

orton should have rko'd hogan to 2010 an won a clean match

obviously the egomaniac wouldnt allow that

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

the ultimate ''legend'' in the sport is facing the man known as the ''legend killer''

orton should have rko'd hogan to 2010 an won a clean match

obviously the egomaniac wouldnt allow that

At the time, what legends was Orton killing? Mick Foley came back to wrestle two years after Orton beat him. Randy was just coming off a suspension and being buried by Angle so why did he need to win again? Obviously the loss didn't affect Orton because he went on to feud with DX and become tag team champion in the process and WWE champion a year after facing Hogan.

 

[theHeadliner]

It really wouldn't matter if Shawn or Hogan won, but Hulk still pulled his strings because originally Michaels wanted it to be face v face with Shawn "just wanting to know if he could be Hogan" but Hulk knew win or lose if they were both going in as babyfaces Hogan woulda been booed and HBK woulda been the underdog. Thats the same reason Hogan wouldn't lose to Bret at Summerslam 1993 so Vince had to get the belt off Hulk at King of the Ring. I would have liked to have seen Shawn go over, but from Hulk's personal stand point he felt it could have hurt his credibility by losing to a smaller guy who wasn't half the draw he was. If anything Hogan should have won the first encounter and Michaels the second, but Hulk ducked out the door with an injury excuse. Thats karma for Michaels though cus he did the same thing in 1997. Even though he was supposed to lose to Sid at that Thursday night Raw, not Bret at Mania, he could have went out there and worked enough to drop the belt the right way.

 

[ThePh3nomonal1]

I think both endings to both matches were the right choice because the hogan vs shawn match started at backlash when they defeated muhammed hassan and daivari and then they started the Dream Team until michaels turned on him and turned into the perfect heel we all know he is. So it made sense to put hogan over. As for orton it is always a difficult choice but I think the E made the right choice because im pretty sure Hogan was only looking for a one night only thing and to put over his new mtv show hogan knows best thats why his family was involved, remember when Randy kissed brooke, good times.

 

[Henry Hill]

I think that Orton should've gone over, definitely. I honestly think that loss kept Orton hindered in upper mid card purgatory for a good while. What was there to gain by Hogan going over? A nostalgia pop and t shirt sales for a month or two? Hogan wasn't drawing at the time, the biggest feud at the time was Edge v. John Cena. If Orton would've won he would've been right back in the main event scene, instead he spent two months in a feud with Carlito. Yes, Carlito. I'm not saying there weren't good matches, but Orton was coming off of a feud with Kurt Angle where he came out on top, but for some reason was held back after the Hogan loss until Edge's plate cleared so they could form Rated RKO. I think Orton really needed that win and it put a big speed bump on his way to the top.

Now the HBK match on the other hand, had the right ending. Hogan should've won that one. the problem was that there should've been another match with HBK winning. split the victories and give both guys their due respect. That didn't happen though, as there was only the one match, but it didn't really hurt Michaels, so Hogan winning was fine, as HBK still looked great in that match, ridiculous overselling and all.

 

[GIMH]

I think I agree with those who say that it was fine for Shawn to lose but that there should have been a rematch (which as I understand it was the original agreement). That being said, it's pro-wrestling, and when you're Shawn you could lose every match and remain a superstar. I mean this is the guy who gets dubbed Mr Wrestlemania despite a fairly poor record in terms of wins/losses. That's not what it's about, it's about the performance.

For what it's worth, I think the flak for the overselling is slightly overdone, it wasn't really all that different from how The Rock sold most top guys' finishers (and I love that tbh). But I have to laugh when I see people commenting on how professional Hogan was in the circumstances, we are talking about a guy who no-sold a whole heap of stuff during his career, what goes around will come around. Meh, I know I'm a minority opinion on that so I won't push it, but I think it's a good match anyhow.

Can't comment on the Orton one too much, had a couple of kids and dropped out of the scene for a bit around 06/07. Will catch up that lost period one day...