Who Was More Integral To Preventing WWE From Going Under- Hogan Or Austin?

[RIPbossman]

Who was more integral in preventing WWE from going under- Hogan or Austin?

I am not asking which was more popular. I am asking which wrestler, given what they contributed to WWE in their respective circumstances, was more integral to preventing WWE from going out of business.

When Vince McMahon made WWE a national product, it was a big risk. He toured across the nation, outside the north east, unfamiliar territory for the company. He spent lots of money raiding other territories and risked the company going under with the first WrestleMania. If WWE didn't do great business back then they may very well have gone out of business. No wrestler played a bigger role back then for making WWE successful than Hogan.

In 1996 WWE started on a huge losing streak in the Monday Night War. Many say they were on the brink of going under until they made their comeback against WCW. 3 Raws after Austin won the championship, they finally won again in the ratings. For a very long time afterward Austin got more focus than any other WWE wrestler, all the while WWE sustained much needed momentum in the Monday Night War.

So given what Hogan and Austin did for WWE in their respective circumstances, who did more to prevent them from going under?

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Between being the conqueor and being the one that's being conquered, the first is considered to be a better position to be at.

WWF was the conqueor with Hogan and the one that was being conqueored by WCW, with Austin.

With that being said, Austin saved the WWF. Austin had a bigger impact when it comes to "preventing WWE from going under".

Think of it in this way: would WWE had started raiding other territories, had they not had Hogan? The answer is no. They would have stayed put. Vince got Hogan, who was already a made star by the time he got into the company, and then Vince started his tour of dominance.

I'm not taking anything away from Hogan. There was and will forever be only one Hulk Hogan. But Austin and Hogan played different roles IMO. The first helped WWE survive and the second helped WWE expand.

 

[kwig2121]

No wrong answer here, it just depends on your point of view. I would say Hogan.

The reason is because every great idea has to have a starting point, a foundation, and something that took that idea globally.

Vince McMahon was the genius with the idea. He wanted to unlike his father expand wrestling beyond territories. It was impossible to do under his father, not only do to the expansive costs, but the great wrestling promoters like Jerry Jarrett, David Crockett, Bill Watts, The Von Erichs in Texas, Verne Gagne etc.

To make it happen, you had to have the IT factor in the product to sell it globally and nationally and that product was Hulk Hogan. McMahon had talents before, Bruno, Andre, Morales, Backlund, Graham, even Dusty Rhodes.

But Hogan sold Vince's dream. He took it to national tv with Saturday Night's Main Event. Took it to Hollywood with Rocky III. He took it to the Rock N Wrestling Connection with Cyndi Lauper which ultimately sold the dream of something called WrestleMania. Once Wrestlemania was a success it sold Vince's dream and ultimately led to putting the other territories out of business and led to the talent influx the WWE would later have from these promotions to then expand the machine.

Yes, Austin and the Monday Night Wars and Attitude Era the overcame the threat of a rising WCW but I doubt it would have put the WWE out of business.

IF Hogan failed, perhaps the WWE would have at the least remained a Northeast territorial promotion, and Crockett, Watts, Jarrett, Gagne, & the rest would still be alive and there would be No Wrestlemania's, No Summerslams, No Weekly TV shows, No 20k arena house shows, No cable deals, just your weekend, off peak hour wrestling shows.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

If we are talking just Attitude Era then Austin. After Nash and Michaels were failures as top guys Austin(as biggest star in company) was a breath of fresh air that brought WWE over the competition that had Hogan.

If we are talking in general its Hogan(with Vince at helm) who put wrestling on the map. Without him who knows if we would have wrestling as we know in the first place. Vince gambled with first Wrestlemania. If it wasnt such success we might as well had bunch of territories now and modern wrestling entertainment as afterthought.

 

[tdmoon]

IF Hogan failed, perhaps the WWE would have at the least remained a Northeast territorial promotion, and Crockett, Watts, Jarrett, Gagne, & the rest would still be alive and there would be No Wrestlemania's, No Summerslams, No Weekly TV shows, No 20k arena house shows, No cable deals, just your weekend, off peak hour wrestling shows.

Man, now you're making me wish Hogan had failed. I much preferred when I was able to see the AWA, World Class, NWA, WWF and Memphis regularly.

Of course there are more factors than just Hogan and maybe they would have met their demise anyway due to other issues, but the WWF's success with Hulk probably sped up the process.

 

[Azane]

Hogan has a double contribution here.

Hogan was the entire show during the 80's, You had a few faces like Andre, Dibiase and Savage, but Hogan was the only guy people paid to see, and people paid in record numbers;

When Austin comes around, along with DX, The Rock, Taker having his 2nd wind, The reason why the WWF did so great at this time, was because of Hogan and the nWo. When they were "losing" the Monday Night Wars, they still have a great viewerbase, and the entire reason for the 2nd half of the Invasion and the product growing so big it had to spinoff more mainstream shows and produce more PPVs came from Wrestling's watch base being so large on a national level.

The Competition helped make more people watch wrestling, which in turn meant more people watching both WWF and WCW. Austin has to owe some parts of his success to the fans who started watching Nitro and Jumped ship to the Federation.

Without Hogan, I don't think Wrestling would of even had the Attitude surge, and Austin would of just been as popular as someone like Randy Orton in his prime.

 

[tdmoon]

If we are talking in general its Hogan(with Vince at helm) who put wrestling on the map.

It put the WWF on the map as the undisputed leader. Wrestling had other boom periods of great popularity well before Hulk Hogan and even the WWWF. Professional wrestling has been considered one of the top spectator sports for almost a hundred years now.

 

[sMark]

Answering your question - i think it's a draw. Hogan saved WWE for the first time, Austin for the second. Both situations was All or Nothing for WWF.

In a forever battle between Austin and Hogan however, Hogan is the winner:
- if there was no Hogan, WWF will be dead long before Attitude Era
- the whole Austin character (years before he officially became Stone Cold) was born out of anger on Hogan and WCW. Refreshing your memory - Austin in WCW wanted to feud Hogan, never got a yes from the menagement (because he was clearly midcarder at the time), got fired, went to ECW - where the character who will become Stone Cold was born, with his promo on Hogan.
- while Hogan and nWo were beating WWF (Hogan again on top of the wrestling world!) on weekly basis, Vince was losing money, talent, fans, everything and was forced to risk it all with the new talent who the fans loved (unlike today, when Roman still get push as the face, while fans clearly hate this character to win any important bout) and went with Austin after his 3:16 promo.
- Austin (and many other WWF talents) won the War, mainly because WCW didn't have the right direction going forward after nWo.
Be fair here - nWo started in 1996, Austin beat them 2 years later, when the whole nWo story was done to death. Will Austin beat Hogan in ratings, if management in WCW was better, will WWF win? Probably not. I look at this situation as it was Bischoff's inability to get the last nail into WWF's coffin, WCW simply relaxed too soon, and gave WWF an opportunity to continue their existance and get an answer.

I don't discredit Austin here at all, cause a decade earlier instead of WCW there were territories who also couldn't fight WWF because of their inability to merge at the time.

But still - if there wasn't Hulk Hogan, there will never be Stone Cold.

 

[dragonsrevenge]

Vince wanted to take the company national and shift its focus to be a multimedia juggernaut. Hogan was in the right place at the right time for that. The company wasn't in any danger of going under. If anything, Hogan almost damned the company during the steroid fiasco.

As far as the AE goes, Austin was the face of the company when they were losing the ratings war. WCW killed itself off.

 

[stingray11214]

Hogan, hands down, end of discussion. Remember, if Wrestlemania bombed, WWWF was finished. Hogan, who had reinvented himself from the Florida "surfer dude" gimmick during his first WWWF run, parlayed his Rocky III appearance into a juggernaut in the Squared Circle. VKM threw everything he had onto the back of Hulk Hogan. Had Hogan not been able to bring in the bodies, WWWF was finished.

The Attitude Era had a lot of line cooks in the kitchen. Yes, Austin was a major player. But, things did not turn around for WWF until Mankind aka Mrs. Foley's baby boy won the WWF Strap on Raw. If Austin had faltered, you still had The Rock, Foley, Trips, Taker and more. It was not one man. WWWF in the early to mid 80's needed someone with the power of Hulk Hogan. Period.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Who was more integral in preventing WWE from going under- Hogan or Austin?

I am not asking which was more popular. I am asking which wrestler, given what they contributed to WWE in their respective circumstances, was more integral to preventing WWE from going out of business.

When Vince McMahon made WWE a national product, it was a big risk. He toured across the nation, outside the north east, unfamiliar territory for the company. He spent lots of money raiding other territories and risked the company going under with the first WrestleMania. If WWE didn't do great business back then they may very well have gone out of business. No wrestler played a bigger role back then for making WWE successful than Hogan.

In 1996 WWE started on a huge losing streak in the Monday Night War. Many say they were on the brink of going under until they made their comeback against WCW. 3 Raws after Austin won the championship, they finally won again in the ratings. For a very long time afterward Austin got more focus than any other WWE wrestler, all the while WWE sustained much needed momentum in the Monday Night War.

So given what Hogan and Austin did for WWE in their respective circumstances, who did more to prevent them from going under?

Hogan got it popular and got it attention in the 80's when WWE and Wrestlemania took off, and if not for his contribution (as well as others), there would be no WWF/E today.

Austin revived interest in WWE in the late 90's,by being the face of the "Attitude Era", after WWE was being beaten by Hogan and his NWO in WCW, and if not for his contribution, (as well as others), then there would be no WWF/E today.

So, both men's contributions were just as important as each others, in different ways, during different periods, but both (along with others) made WWE what it is today.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Between being the conqueor and being the one that's being conquered, the first is considered to be a better position to be at.

WWF was the conqueor with Hogan and the one that was being conqueored by WCW, with Austin.

With that being said, Austin saved the WWF. Austin had a bigger impact when it comes to "preventing WWE from going under".

Think of it in this way: would WWE had started raiding other territories, had they not had Hogan? The answer is no. They would have stayed put. Vince got Hogan, who was already a made star by the time he got into the company, and then Vince started his tour of dominance.

I'm not taking anything away from Hogan. There was and will forever be only one Hulk Hogan. But Austin and Hogan played different roles IMO. The first helped WWE survive and the second helped WWE expand.

"Rowdy" Roddy Piper once said that WWF would have had to close its doors the day after Wrestlemania 1 if it had been a failure.

A lot of Wrestlemania 1's success was due to Hulk Hogan (who had just appeared in Rocky III a few months earlier) and the mainstream attention he and his friend Mr T brought.

So, without Hogan, Wrestlemania would have failed, and WWF would have died, and there would be no WWF/E for Austin to save.

Too bad Hulk Hogan and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin never agreed to do a match at Wrestlemania one year.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Hogan, hands down, end of discussion. Remember, if Wrestlemania bombed, WWWF was finished. Hogan, who had reinvented himself from the Florida "surfer dude" gimmick during his first WWWF run, parlayed his Rocky III appearance into a juggernaut in the Squared Circle. VKM threw everything he had onto the back of Hulk Hogan. Had Hogan not been able to bring in the bodies, WWWF was finished.

The Attitude Era had a lot of line cooks in the kitchen. Yes, Austin was a major player. But, things did not turn around for WWF until Mankind aka Mrs. Foley's baby boy won the WWF Strap on Raw. If Austin had faltered, you still had The Rock, Foley, Trips, Taker and more. It was not one man. WWWF in the early to mid 80's needed someone with the power of Hulk Hogan. Period.

WWWF was renamed WWF in 1979, well before Rocky III and WrestleMania. If you're going to speak so definitively, you should do some more homework.

While I will always agree that Hogan was MUCH more important to the history of the company than Austin was, I'm not sure he is the definitive answer to this particular question.

A lot of the responses point to Hogan saving Vince's "all-in" gamble with the inaugural WrestleMania. But, Mania wasn't this going-out-of-business clearance sale where Hogan just luckily popped up and saved the day. The entire event was an investment based on Hogan's popularity. Yes, the company was apparently putting all of its eggs in that basket, but to say Hogan saved WWF is painting an inaccurate portrait of the situation.

I don't think Austin single-handedly saved WWF either. As others have said, although Austin was the biggest name of the Attitude Era, there was plenty there to pick up the slack had he been lifted out of the equation. Austin was huge, but nowhere near the level of Hogan.

However, to answer the question of the OP, I would have to say Austin prevented the company from going under more than Hogan did. Again, he was not the ONLY reason WWF turned things around in the Monday Night Wars. But, 1985 WWF was not in the pickle late 90s WWF was...so Austin is the answer by default. Hogan can't have saved a company from peril, when the whole reason the company was in any danger in the first place was this strategic investment made in Hogan. A fireman can't light a building on fire, put the fire out and then be called a hero for extinguishing it. There was no fire here until Vince decided to bet heavy on the rising star of Hulkamania. To imply that WWF was in trouble and needed WrestleMania to bail it out is misleading. WWF was fine, but Vince wasn't fine with fine. He CHOSE to go for broke and it paid off because of Hogan. But, again, to say Hogan saved this company--when he was the reason for the gamble in the first place--is incorrect.

So, disqualifying Hogan makes Austin the answer to this question.

 

[Spencesc11]

Hogan kept it from going under with the large investment McMahon had on Wrestlemania I but it was Austin who took the WWE to new heights during the Attitude Era. WWE was growing stale with all their top stars leaving for WCW and it was Stone Cold who ultimately put the company back in the driver's seat along with The Rock! Had WCW not failed would WWE be more of a TNA or Ring of Honor type promotion in 2018? Makes you wonder a bit for sure?

 

[LibSuperstar]

Austin b/c he helped turn things around for WWE.

 

[relentless1]

hmm well they both were equally I think but on a more concrete level you have to go with Hogan. Wrestlemania legit would've tanked the WWF as Vince put everything into that financially and if it was for Hogan, Piper and T who knows how that would've have performed.

Theres a lot of heresay about how badly the WWF was doing against WCW but they could afford to get Tyson for WM 14 so I dunno if they were really doing THAT badly to begin with. Austin certainly helped turn the tide but I dont think it was as bad for WWF financially as it could have been in 1985.

 

[Spencesc11]

The one true disappointment concerning the 2 of them though was that Wrestlemania X8 should've closed with Stone Cold vs. Hogan. As great as the Rock is these 2 icons should've had that moment with Austin going over the aging Hogan and thus officially passing the torch.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Its a difficult question as I think both are as important as I can't imagine the WWF during the 80's and the first few Wrestlemanias without Hogan, Hard to imagine someone else in Hogan's role during this time and don't think it would have worked anywhere near as good.

Equally I think if there was no Austin in the attitude era to turn it around against WCW during this time the WWE would have been in trouble, Especially when he played off against the Mr Mcmahon character so perfectly.

Really it all comes down to Vince Mcmahon and his vision, If there was no Vince Mcmahon there would be no Hogan or Austin.

 

[Kamala316]

Without Austin during the Monday Night War, WWF would have lost to WCW. Austin and his edgy, anti-establishment gimmick got people to tune in to a show that had, for lack of a better way of putting it, younger, unestablished talent (versus the star power of WCW).

 

[HeenanGorilla]

It would be nice if people answered the question that was asked instead of who was a bigger star. That is not what was asked. Who prevented WWF from going under? You can choose either for any number of reasons, but answer the question. And that “without Vince” answer by Glasgow or whatever was pathetic. You can end any debate by giving Vince the credit. Such a lame response. Horrible.

 

[enviousdominous]

I'm not a big fan of either man, so pardon my bluntness. The big question being; who did more?

Hogan filled the cliché role of a Rocky clone with an extensive shirt budget. He was phenomenal in that role, but he was Vince's pick for that role before he ever started working for him. Hogan followed his script, he did some leg drops, and he worked out with Mr. T.

Austin didn't fill a role at all, he became the hero that the WWE needed most by accident. Austin fought tooth and nail to be seen as the best in a world championship field where there was virtually no room for an up and comer. The WWE gave him a platform, he used it to create a cultural phenomenon. The Stone Cold Steve Austin character was huge because he made it huge.

I'm not going to speculate on whose contributions accumulated the most ticket sales. Steve Austin did more to ensure that the WWF would survive.

 

[FromGlasgow]

It would be nice if people answered the question that was asked instead of who was a bigger star. That is not what was asked. Who prevented WWF from going under? You can choose either for any number of reasons, but answer the question. And that “without Vince” answer by Glasgow or whatever was pathetic. You can end any debate by giving Vince the credit. Such a lame response. Horrible.

Wow you sound like a fun guy HeenanGorilla by reading all your previous posts.
It wasn't even you who asked the question but I'm guessing you must be using some sort of fake name.
I hate those who act like the big man insulting people and knocking everyones answers like a little troll behind the safety of their computer screen, Someone like you would never say these things in person to someones face.
Disagree with my answers all you want no need for the insults though.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Wow you sound like a fun guy HeenanGorilla by reading all your previous posts.
It wasn't even you who asked the question but I'm guessing you must be using some sort of fake name.
I hate those who act like the big man insulting people and knocking everyones answers like a little troll behind the safety of their computer screen, Someone like you would never say these things in person to someones face.
Disagree with my answers all you want no need for the insults though.

The OP's question was an either/or. If you feel neither, why respond? To answer a "Hogan or Austin?" question with 'If there was no Vince McMahon there would be no Hogan or Austin" is lame. No shit. Why have any wrestling debates if the acceptable answer is 'If there was no Vince McMahon there would be no Hogan or Austin". Who was a better IC champ? Tito Santana or HBK? "My answer is neither one would have been IC champ if not for Vince McMahon." Great insight! A nice obvious blanket statement that doesn't address the question asked.

As far as hiding behind my keyboard, I'm sorry. Is there a live WrestleZone forum arena? I don't believe there is. Using my keyboard doesn't mean I'm hiding behind it. Would I say it to your face if such an arena existed? No, because I can't imagine the gaggle of *******s that would be in attendance. But if I ever find out you're in front of me, I'll be sure to say "Your response was lame" to your face, because that is how I can prove I am not...afraid of you? Haha, I can't...I tried to play along, but the only thing sillier than your Vince answer to a Hogan or Austin question is your generic troll behind a keyboard response that has been used a billion times and doesn't apply here. Question: How are you responding to these posts? Behind a keyboard is the only way I know how, but would love to learn a new method. Respond whenever you get a chance, I'll be here wetting my pants hoping you never find me in the meantime.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I used to post here as HeenanGorilla and had my name changed to Shrubbery by an admin. I think it was my disapproval of his PPV reviews that broke the camel's back, but I'm not sure. Regardless, the reason for me not being able to post elsewhere within this forum isn't why I am writing today.

I am writing to an unknown, and possibly non-existent, WrestleZone forum reader or readers. I foolishly took anger and disappointment in certain things in my life and brought them to something that brought me a lot of joy as a kid--pro wrestling, more specifically a forum on a website devoted to pro wrestling.

My memories of wrestling are some of my most cherished. Not only the wrestlers and the matches, but all that came with being a fan back then: LJN figures, WWF Magazine, trading cards, ice cream bars, Saturday morning TV shows and heavily-hyped and equally-anticipated PPVs 3 or 4 times a year.

I was a diehard fan from the age of 7 to about 13. Sarcasm aside, I truly don't know if it was the New Generation Era or the fact that I was entering my teens that took my interests away from wrestling. I was familiar with the goings on for a few years, though not a "fan", and then came back pretty attentively during the Monday Night Wars. Since then, I watch the occasional PPV and check sites like this one for potential interviews from guys who wrestled back in that era. I will also occasionally put on RAW for a segment or two or read results of a recent event and am glad to see that WWE seems to at least be trying to right some recent wrongs with their product. Interest in the current product seems to be high, which I am glad to see...not glad for myself, but for today's fans.

For whatever reason, a lot of my posts on here would quickly go from a memory of something I enjoyed as a kid to personal shots at another poster who didn't agree with me or didn't seem to understand things in the right context. I don't mean to say they didn't "understand" in a derogatory way. I should have realized that a lot of wrestling fans of today weren't around when these things were happening. They have to depend on edited recordings or word of mouth to learn the history of certain wrestlers or angles or promotions. I've even seen some wrestling biographies, either intentionally or not, try to re-write history.

Anyway, the reason I am writing today is to apologize for those posts. I would really lay into some people and judge them for committing so much of their adult life to pro wrestling or chanting "What?" or buying/wearing merchandise. I had no right to judge these people. I see nowadays how people attack others online whether through comment sections or forums or whatever else. There's bullying and all kinds of ugliness out there. I realized that I was no better by going after some guy on here because he didn't know how to spell or got his historical facts mixed up.

This isn't a plea to get out of "prison". I will occasionally see a topic I would like to comment on and it's a shame that I can't, but that isn't this issue here. I have just read and seen so many stories of people taking great offense to what is said to them online, by strangers or people they know, that I figured if there was a chance I offended someone and they might see this post, it was worth writing it.

I hope that people enjoy wrestling anywhere near the amount I did back then. If so, good for you! It was aimed at kids back then and apparently it is aimed at kids again now...but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with all people finding entertainment in it. Enjoy the show!

Vagina

I don't know who was more integral but I would guess Austin. Sounds like WWE was in worse shape at that time and Austin, the person, had more influence over his success than Hogan did. But who really knows, I just came here to say vagina.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Vagina

I don't know who was more integral but I would guess Austin. Sounds like WWE was in worse shape at that time and Austin, the person, had more influence over his success than Hogan did. But who really knows, I just came here to say vagina.

You go back and dig up an old post from a different thread, post it here, call me a vagina, admit that is the only reason you came here...and I am the one with the problem? Get a life, man.

I have every right to point out when someone's response is off topic. I do not have to agree with everyone's opinion and I don't want everyone to agree with mine. That would be incredibly boring. But when the question asked is in reference to WWF going out of business and the only options given for this particular debate are Austin and Hogan, answers that refer to Vince or answers that address a different Hogan/Austin argument altogether are out of place and irrelevant to this thread. I am not trolling, I am not picking fights. If someone feels bad that I pointed out their foolishness, maybe they should try to make more sense. It's not like I'm in favor of Hogan or Austin and am bashing anyone who picked the other one. I'm simply pointing out that a question was posed and most of the responses don't answer it.

If I were to, for example, point out that your Manny from Modern Family/Samoa Joe joke is not only unfunny, but has been there for far too long, THAT would be douchey. But to ask that the responses answer the question that was asked, that is completely reasonable.