Was Hulk Hogan's 2002 Title Run Needed?

[Ruthless-RKO]

Triple H defeated Chris Jericho at WrestleMania X-8, to be awarded a brand new Undisputed WWE Championship belt.. Then the 'E' decide 'eff it' let's make it a short title run and give the title to Hulk Hogan after a month..

Was this really needed at the time? Was it a nostalgic moment? If they wanted Taker to win the belt so badly, should be they have just have him defeat HHH instead off putting Hogan in between?

IMO, I kind if liked it, when I heard.. Voodoo Child play on Smackdown..

[YOUTUBE]3kOSpQDZXN0[/YOUTUBE]
Had to post it!

The crowd went nuts, even Triple H had a smile on his face, even though he was trying to hide it..

Even after Hogan won the title, his feud with Taker was actually a small favourite of mine.. and I thought it was pretty cool that back in 1991, Taker pinned him for the title, and then 11 years later, Taker pinned him yet again!

So what do you guys think of this 1 month title run that Hogan got back in 2002?

 

[Just Do It]

It was logical, because everybody was smart enough to realise the white hot reactions would soon die out, which they did. So Hulk got a mini run with the belt when he was the hottest thing in the company. Smartly, he never went near it again and was sued in a feud per basis categoy moving forward.

 

[KingOfKings249]

I think it killed the point of Triple H's big wins at the Rumble or WrestleMania ... they could've atleast waited until Judgement Day then have Taker gain it at King of the Ring

Most of the champs that year only had it for a month anyway

 

[Just Do It]

I think it killed the point of Triple H's big wins at the Rumble or WrestleMania ... they could've atleast waited until Judgement Day then have Taker gain it at King of the Ring

Most of the champs that year only had it for a month anyway

How did it kill any of those moments off. The story ended with him winnign the belt at Mania. In highlight packages and retro looks over the last 10 years since, that's the story. Him winning the belt again wasn't meant to be the begining of anything, and a heel turn was in the works anyway (and he treaded water until he did turn heel a couple of months later).

 

[KingOfKings249]

How did it kill any of those moments off. The story ended with him winnign the belt at Mania. In highlight packages and retro looks over the last 10 years since, that's the story. Him winning the belt again wasn't meant to be the begining of anything, and a heel turn was in the works anyway (and he treaded water until he did turn heel a couple of months later).

I realize that, but he does all that, to lose it to a older Hogan a month later made it look bad in my opinion

 

[vampirek]

I realize that, but he does all that, to lose it to a older Hogan a month later made it look bad in my opinion

The thing was he didn't lose to a older Hogan clean. He had that match won and was stopped by Undertaker. In terms of storylines it made more sense to go with the Undertaker v Hogan for the title rather than having to find another opponent for HHH. This allowed HHH to start turning back into more of his old self rather than being a face and at the same time allowed Undertaker to carry the belt and putting others over... such as the early test of running with Jeff (although his personal problems prevented this for years)

One thing I did think about when this question came up and only just noticed, could HHH have told that he didn't want to appear on both shows now the split was in place... considering the injury he just came back from it could explain the quickness of him losing the title to allow him to have longer rests than he would have carrying the title. Don't think thats ever been asked to him or Hogan for that matter.

So from those points of view, was his run needed... well if HHH didn't want the belt then yes as it allowed the final clash between him and the Undertaker, whilst setting up Hogan v Vince at Wrestlemania. Don't think it would work the other way with Undertaker beating HHH and then feuding with Hogan

 

[HBKistheHOF]

no. No. NO. AND HELL NO!

I was just thinking about this when watching Jericho vs. Hogan on SD from 2002 when Hogan was champion. And I forgot just how terrible Hogan & his title reign were in 2002.

Hogan's 2002 title reign was awful AND an awful idea. He didn't need the title & it did nothing but added a cluster of titles changes during those months & IMO it slightly hurt Triple H's big title win at Mania. HHH didn't regain his steam until HBK returned (which even then HHH lost the World Title pretty fast before regainging it in a epic match that I think most would agree HBK WAY outperformed him in & should have won).

Also I felt it kind of brought, what was supposed to be the most prestiges title ever in WWE history, the Undisputed WWE World Championship way down having a middle aged man hold it. All while having sub-par matches he shouldn't be winning (or even wrestling with his broken joints) & putting him mostly on Smackdown when there was only one title. It felt cheap, rushed, & pointless.

Besides that decent match with Y2J I stated above, his match with VKM & getting destroyed by Brock, Hogan's whole 2002-2003 WWE run was just terrible! IMO

 

[Antichrist]

It would have made sense if it had of gotten the nWo and, you know, anything nWo related - The Kliq, DX, Stephanie over. The draft that year The Rock was #1, SCSA was #2 and then Undertaker was 3 AND NwO was 4 right? or was Hogan picked before the nWo. If Hogan had of successfully given Hall, Nash, HBK, HHH, The Big Show, Xpac a rub and Bischoff too then it would been a success, and Lesnar should have beaten Hogan not Undertaker, the WWE should have given Lesnar the Belt after his first month, he shouldn't have faced RVD when he was feuding with The Hardys and Hogan when he was feuding with RVD. Lesnar should have beaten RVD for the I.C title at Backlash and faced Hogan for The Undisputed Championship, but not have beaten Hogan because of nWo interference, probably HHH joining the nWo at King of the Ring.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Hulk Hogan is Hulk Hogan, the title belt was just an additional exclamation point to add to the white hot nostalgia run that he had when he came back to the then-WWF. I was pretty disappointed with the fact that Triple H's inspirational return from a legit career threatening injury was stifled by Hulk Hogan's return, but the timing was something we could thank for that.

Personally speaking, I'm still torqued that the WWF felt they had "no choice" but to turn Hulk Hogan face due to the response he got when he came back with Hall and Nash to form that bastardized version of the nWo. The WWF I felt could have done more to ensure that the nWo could have worked around the adoration of Hogan, but a one month version of the nWo in WWF with the original three showed itself to be disappointing. But again what can you do, there was some positives to the Hogan return, and the title reign while not absolutely necessary, wasn't totally needed, Hogan was going to be Hogan period.

There were bigger gaffes than Hogan's sixth WWF World Title reign to mention throughout this whole period.

 

[Leveller]

The only reason I have said it was a good idea is because of the business it got WWE. The pop alone in that video shows just how good for business it was. Like it or not Hogan will ALWAYS bring in a huge pull purely for the fact he is Hulk Hogan. This means it will always be good for business but it doesnt always mean its good in the long run.

However, the whole situation of taking the belt off of HHH after a month did seem to make his win over Jericho completely pointless.

 

[HBsam31]

I think it comes down to Vince just wanting to get as much out of the reaction Hogan was getting at the time. A lot of things did surprise me during that time though. Hogan getting removed from the NWO right after Mania for one. I think they could have gotten more out of that with the fans cheering Hogan than they did. I was also surprised HHH lost to Hogan so fast after winning the title, but it did make sense. Firstly HHH didn't lose clean. Taker got the assist on that one, and being that Taker was getting the next title shot, and him being a heel at the time, it kind of made it look like Taker thought facing an older Hogan would be more favorable for him than facing HHH. Also it was cool to see Taker and Hogan one more time. Brock destroying the legend Hogan was a good spot too during that time. Did Hogan need to win the title? No. I am sure however most of us expected with the pop he was getting and Hogan being Hogan that he was bound to carry the strap at least one more time in his comeback. I don't think it was a horrible idea even though it wasn't necessary.

 

[thesubverse]

Who cares about need? It's what the fans at the time wanted. That's reason enough right there.

 

[lowandmighty]

It was absolutely necessary for Hulk Hogan to win the belt for Hulkamania to truly be back, Vince McMahon's own words.

Don't worry about it killing Triple H's big wins. You see this is the way it went in wrestling: when Hulk Hogan is wrestling someone its not about the other guy.

 

[relentless1]

Hogan deserved to hold the undisputed title for two reasons; 1. his nostaliga run was so huge thatit practically demanded he hold the belt, and more importantly he is arguably the greatest WWF champion of all time (coincidentally also the LAST WWF champion ever too) and he deserved this thank you for his epic career. on another note, id have kept him with the nWo and have him win the belt and keep it via nWo interference

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Hogan was terrible in 2002. At that point, five or six minute matches were the best you were going to get out of him. His matches with HHH and Undertaker were atrocious. The title run would have only been a good idea if he would have managed to last until Summerslam where Brock would take the title off of him. However, I believe that Vince saw the writing on the wall and took the title off of Hogan as soon as possible and thank goodness for that. Who he lost to didn't do no better with the title but that's 2002 for you.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I think Hulk Hogan winning the Undisputed WWE Championship was absolutely necessary at that exact moment in time. WrestleMania X8 is the only proof you need to understand this. The crowd reaction the “real” HHH (Hollywood Hulk Hogan) got was better than the crowd reaction the actual HHH got and Hogan lost his match against the Rock, while Triple H won the Undisputed WWE / WCW World Heavyweight Title. Naturally and locally, turning him face with the Red and Yellow, and putting the Belt on Hogan was the next step. I personally would have dragged out the turn much longer than that and delayed the Title run to a later date, but that’s just me.

Now, with that being said, going with the Title change at Backlash, I would have rather had Hogan defeat Undertaker at Judgment Day, and then lose the Title to the Undertaker at the King Of The Ring, in a Fatal Four Way match with Triple H and Kurt Angle, extending his run to 2 months, instead of one. Then, as history would go, continue as normal from there.

Either way, I’m glad Hulk Hogan got that 12th and final run at the top as Undisputed WWE / WCW World Heavyweight Champion.

 

[Evolution1991]

At the time, I wasn't that much of a huge fan of Hogan's. I'm too young to have experienced it first time round and I just never really 'got it'. But even with that said, I thought it was brilliant to bring back someone of his stature and actually give him one more title run.

When you look at the sheer magnitude of the crowd reactions, I think it made sense to give him one more short term title, just so they could run with it a bit more. In the same vein of thought, this is why I feel Rock's potential title reign after Rumble is a great idea. WWE is a business, and money comes first. Hogan's title reign then equalled money, and the Rock's now will do the same. (Granted Hogan was far more full time circa 2002 than Rock is now, but there are still clear similarities)


Also just as a side note, watching that video from Smackdown made me sad for the state of that show now.

 

[thebarber]

Even though Helmsleys return was the focal point in early 2002 and subsequent title win, even he knew how OVER Hogan was. Hogan is wrestlnig, and giving him that one title run made him at the time a 6 time and only 6 time champ in WWE history. Hogan's reactions in Canada alone were enough for WWE to go with the flow. HHH got his belt back once the Hogan show died off in August and he was hand gifted a belt. Sure Hogans matches were vugly to watch, but he put over Undertaker, Jericho, Angle, Lesnar and Helmsley between May and August 2002, something he had NEVER done before during any run in any company. He did the right thing for the boys and the company once they brealised he was bigger than the nWo, especially with Nash unmable to wreslte at the time and Hall being fired.

 

[Wald]

I don't think Triple H was comfortable in the top babyface in the company role when he returned and I don't fans took to him either.

So to get him back on track as a heel losing to Hogan was needed, it gave him the opportunity to turn his back on the fans for making him weak. In that regard, and to put the title on the then heel Undertaker, it was needed.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It was not. Hogan may have been over but he did not need the belt by that point. The World Championship is meant for the very best and Hogan's prime was already far behind him. He was just not believable in the role of being the Undisputed best in the federation. There is no denying how over he was at the time, that shouldn't be all it takes to put the belt on someone. Simply giving him a title shot against Triple H would have sufficed.

Hogan was so over that Triple H retaining would not have damaged him in the slightest. I'm not a fan of nostalgia runs with a world title, I'd rather give legends wanting a nostalgia run a midcard title so that the actual top guys can all go for the top belt. A run with the United States Championship would have been better for not only that particular belt but also a perfect fit given Hogan's american hero persona. Hogan winning the Undisputed Championship was not a title win that I agreed with at the time and I still think that was a bad decision..

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

It was not. Hogan may have been over but he did not need the belt by that point. The World Championship is meant for the very best and Hogan's prime was already far behind him.

If it's meant for the very best, then why did Jericho and HHH hold it before Hogan? Do you think Jericho and HHH were the very best?

He was just not believable in the role of being the Undisputed best in the federation.

Why wasn't he believable? Honestly, he wasn't any less believable than HHH.

There is no denying how over he was at the time, that shouldn't be all it takes to put the belt on someone.

That's a pretty big factor. You want a champion that is over. Hogan was over. Therefore, I had no problem with him winning the title.

Simply giving him a title shot against Triple H would have sufficed.

But it didn't.

Hogan was so over that Triple H retaining would not have damaged him in the slightest. I'm not a fan of nostalgia runs with a world title, I'd rather give legends wanting a nostalgia run a midcard title so that the actual top guys can all go for the top belt.

Fuck that. If they want a nostalgia run, I'm putting them straight at the top. Besides, the only other options were HHH, Austin, and Undertaker. I'm putting Hogan slightly behind Austin for 2nd. Maybe even 1st.

A run with the United States Championship would have been better for not only that particular belt but also a perfect fit given Hogan's american hero persona. Hogan winning the Undisputed Championship was not a title win that I agreed with at the time and I still think that was a bad decision..

Except for the fact that the title was brought back after Hogan left the WWE. Learn your title history.

 

[Dagger Dias]

If it's meant for the very best, then why did Jericho and HHH hold it before Hogan? Do you think Jericho and HHH were the very best?

Jericho won it at first because Triple H was injured. The first Undisputed Champion would have been Triple H had he been available, besides Jericho was still a fine choice.

Why wasn't he believable? Honestly, he wasn't any less believable than HHH.

Hogan was past his prime, HHH was in his. It's that simple.

That's a pretty big factor. You want a champion that is over. Hogan was over. Therefore, I had no problem with him winning the title.

Yes, a champion being over is important. However, being believable in the role of being the best is also highly crucial. This was 2002, not the 1980's or 1990's. Hogan was no longer believable in that role.

Fuck that. If they want a nostalgia run, I'm putting them straight at the top. Besides, the only other options were HHH, Austin, and Undertaker. I'm putting Hogan slightly behind Austin for 2nd. Maybe even 1st.

Why put them straight to the top? Say Bret Hart was coming in for a nostalgia run. He's one of my all time favorite legends, but I wouldn't want him to be WWE or World Champion. Why? He's no longer believable in that role. Neither was Hogan 11 years ago, let alone today. Legends should not hold a world title again once they are no longer believable in that role. Midcard or tag team belts are another story. By your logic I imagine you'd make Hogan the TNA World Champion, wouldn't you? This is why I rarely agree with your posts.

Except for the fact that the title was brought back after Hogan left the WWE. Learn your title history.

So what? They owned the rights to the title. What if Hogan had brought it back? Now THAT would have made for an awesome crowd reaction, man.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Jericho won it at first because Triple H was injured. The first Undisputed Champion would have been Triple H had he been available, besides Jericho was still a fine choice.

Average choice given how that reign went especially with all the stars around. Also, Lucy the dog. And they actually thought aligning with a McMahon would help Jericho.

Hogan was past his prime, HHH was in his. It's that simple.

HHH's prime was 1999-2001. He was never as good as he was during those years.

Yes, a champion being over is important. However, being believable in the role of being the best is also highly crucial. This was 2002, not the 1980's or 1990's. Hogan was no longer believable in that role.

Big Show, JBL, Cena, Rey Mysterio, Booker T, Edge, RVD, Kane, Khali, Swagger, Miz

Those are some of the guys who have held world titles since 2002. At the time they won, how many do you think were believable in the role of being the best? Punk's been the champion for over a year and yet there are still many who continue to hold his stature against him.

If you're over and you can come up with a good story, than believability of being the very best matters less and less. See Mankind in 1999.

Why put them straight to the top? Say Bret Hart was coming in for a nostalgia run. He's one of my all time favorite legends, but I wouldn't want him to be WWE or World Champion. Why? He's no longer believable in that role. Neither was Hogan 11 years ago, let alone today. Legends should not hold a world title again once they are no longer believable in that role. Midcard or tag team belts are another story. By your logic I imagine you'd make Hogan the TNA World Champion, wouldn't you? This is why I rarely agree with your posts.

I rather see Hart winning the WWE or WHC title than a midcard title. We saw the latter in 2010 and that was just a footnote in his career. If you could get mileage out of them for a couple of months, then I'm cool with it. It's not like there are a plethora of guys being pushed to the main event scene anyway. Couple of months wouldn't kill them.

 

[Wald]

Regardless of what you think of Hogan, the title had to be switched off Triple H and given to the Undertaker in a manner that would keep Taker heel and allow Triple H to turn heel. Triple H wasn't working as a face and he clearly wanted to return to being a heel, which is the direction they took the night after he lost the belt to Hogan. HHH also never declared that he would win his title back off Hogan, so they had also obviously decided Taker would be the champion going forward.

So it had to go through a transitional face champion quite simply. Now look back at the WWF landscape when Hogan won the title, who were the top faces?

Steve Austin: Was about to walk out on the company and was clearly disgruntled, wouldn't have been a good choice
The Rock: Was gone to Hollywood
Jeff Hardy: Not ready
Edge: Not ready
The Big Show: Could have been used
RVD: Not ready but could have been used

So it's a choice between RVD, Big Show or Hogan to carry the title for a month to drop to the Undertaker.

I would have anyway, but especially considering WM 18, chosen Hogan a hundred and one times before RVD or Big Show at that time.

 

[FlairFan2003]

The guy holding the World Title should be way over, way popular, and be able to sell tickets. If that guy is a legend in a nostalgia run then so be it. From a money making business standpoint (and this is a business built around making money) I'd rather bury the young guy who isnt yet over with fans but has potential and ride the guaranteed money train that is my way over, way popular, ticket selling legend on his nostalgia run. There is always time to build Mr Potential young guy later, the money making machine of the legend has a short shelve life, ride it while you can.

Want to know why Cena & HHH have had so many title runs in the last 12 years ?? They put more fans in seats than anyone else, simple. Want to know why Vince was always trying to find someone new to be Champ during Brett Hart's heyday...he didnt think Hart put enough fans in seats so he tried Nash & Yokozuna & eventually moved to KBK.

Hogan's title run in 2002 did not hurt one wrestler or career. It was a great selling point, the ultimate favorite son returns home and wins the gold. Did anyone's career really suffer irresversible harm due to all the attention HBK-Taker got at WM 25 & 26 ? How many future superstars saw their careers ruined by Ric Flair's Farewell Tour in 07-08 ? Please explain the damage done to all of pro wresting by having so much attention on Taker-HHH at the last two WrestleMania's ? I can tell you one side effect of each of those matches and storylines...THEY MADE WWE A LOT OF $$$$$$

Look at the NFL, no matter what young up and coming team grabs headlines the biggest ratings grabbing match ups are always the ones involving The Steelers, Patriots, Peyton Manning, etc... the old, well established, successful franchises and players who have dominated the past decade plus. Despite all their success this season what match up do you think brings the most interest, Manning vs Brady or Russell Wilson vs Andy Dalton ?? Maybe some day after years of hard work Wilson vs Dalton will be as big as Manning-Brady, but not today.

Hogan's 2002 run accomplished two major goals. It kept fans interested and it was a popular way to honor one of the industry's most successful stars. No one was damaged by it (HHH didnt suffer from that loss any major damage to his credibility or star power anymore than he did putting over HBK in 02, Flair in 05, or Taker last year). Now you can argue about wether Hogan, a notorious self promoter not known for putting over other talent or working well with others really deserved such an honor, but that is a different thread. Did Hogan's title run hurt the company ? NO - Did It help ? To a small exent YES. Was it a popular tribute to a legendary superstar that long time fans appreciated and enjoyed ? YES. I dont have an issue with it.