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

[FromGlasgow]

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.

This is worse than I thought thanks to George Steele's message you just sound completely insane HeenanGorilla. I'm not trying to be harsh but reading this you sound mentally unstable.
I hate bullies and I'm not letting a little troll like you talk down to me like you do with others on here.
I like when people don't agree with me and debating our opinions but no need for the personal insults not just to me but all the others you insult, Thats including all the fake names or personalities you come on this message board with, you freaking schitzo.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

This is worse than I thought thanks to George Steele's message you just sound completely insane HeenanGorilla. I'm not trying to be harsh but reading this you sound mentally unstable.
I hate bullies and I'm not letting a little troll like you talk down to me like you do with others on here.
I like when people don't agree with me and debating our opinions but no need for the personal insults not just to me but all the others you insult, Thats including all the fake names or personalities you come on this message board with, you freaking schitzo.

Just the one name, pal. I’m not surprised your read of the situation is so off. Since this is our last time speaking, I’d like to leave you with some life advice. Just keep in mind, when life presents you with a fork in the road and your choices are Hogan or Austin, remember to use all of the intelligence in your brain and choose Vince McMahon.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

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.

In Bret Hart's book, he mentions the first time he met Vince McMahon.

It was at a NWA board of governors conference. Stu invited Bret to come down with him for the conference that year for a few reasons. A nice father/son trip. A good chance to show Bret off to the type of people that could help both his career, and Stu's own business. A chance to teach Bret more about the family business.

It was also the first one after Vince had purchased the WWF from his dad. This was significant because the rumblings were already out there that he didn't plan on respecting the traditional boundaries and the old promoters that made up the NWA board of governors weren't going to put up with that.

They all sat down and laid out how things weren't going to change, how New York was going to respect the traditions, what would happen otherwise. And McMahon listened to it all, then stood up and walked out of the room.

That was in 1982. Years before Wrestlemania. Back when Hulk Hogan wasn't Hulk Hogan. He was just an up and coming heel. It was still another year before Thunderlips and Rocky 3. He hadn't gone to the AWA yet to fight Bockwinkel and show how over he could get as a good guy. Hulkamania didn't exist.

And still Vince McMahon was planning his great expansion. He didn't have his foundation yet, but he was still starting to build.

McMahon was going to go for it with or without Hogan. He didn't even know a Hogan existed when he made that decision. Without Hogan? The entire thing never stands a chance and they fail.

In the 90's with Austin, I have a couple problems.

First one is that I think it's been overstated how dire the WWF's situation was before Stone Cold broke through and captured the public's conscious. We know what he told Bret Hart when he wanted to break his contract. But then very shortly after, they were still able to pay millions to Mike Tyson on what was really a massive gamble. I don't think they were in great shape, but I don't think they were as bad as they told Bret they were. That was just an excuse to get him to leave because they'd made up their minds to back Shawn Michaels over him.

The second one, is that Austin himself got the chance to break through because of Hogan and the NWO. They were the ones that got people interested in wrestling again. Before Hogan and the NWO, public interest in wrestling was at a very low point. Without Hogan reigniting that public interest, does anyone other than the die hards who never stopped watching even notice Stone Cold Steve Austin? That's actually debatable.

Sure Mike Tyson helped in this regard, but in January 1998, Mike Tyson was turning people off. He was a convicted rapist. His boxing license had been revoked. He was a side show. If casuals had already not started watching wrestling again to some degree (because of Hogan), then it's hard to say that Tyson would have been able to give Austin a big enough stage to make the same mark that he did.

This is taking absolutely nothing away from Steve Austin. He was incredible, and absolutely brought the WWF to new heights, and ushered in a new golden era for that company.

But the question who was more integral to the WWE not going under? The answer is Hulk Hogan.

 

[oneguy]

I would have to go with Austin. While there is no denying that Hogan made WWE what it is today, and it can be argued that it never would have gotten as big in the 80's without Hogan, WWE was never under threat. All of the wrestling promotions at that time, save NWA, were still territories. They didn't have the money to seriously challenge WWE, and they didn't.
Fast forward to the 90's and WCW came along. And they did have the money to challenge WWE. And they did challenge WWE. So much in fact that they beat WWE for 86 straight weeks or something like that. What's more, they were able to take superstars away from WWE much like WWE did to other promotions. Things were looking dire for them, but then Austin was an integral part in turning things around. He helped reverse the trend. So yeah. I would definitely go with Austin. Like you said, it's not based on who was more popular, because I believe Hogan was. But WWE was never really under threat when Hogan took the reigns.

 

[Wolf Pac]

While I will always agree that Hogan was MUCH more important to the history of the company than Austin was.

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.

LMAO, coming from someone named "HeenanGorilla", I'm not surprised your biased ass would say something so ignorant like this and then you have the nerve to complain, asking people not to talk about who is more popular when you just did it yourself.

Not only was Austin on Hogan's level and just as important to the business as he was, if not more important to the business than Hogan was, he surpassed Hogan and was more popular & got bigger pops than he did. Now feel free to cry some more.

As for the answer to this question, it's Austin, hands down.

Without Austin, pro-wrestling is dead and buried today along with its history. Wouldn't even be a memory and some of you wouldn't be on this forum today spewing your ignorant garbage in this thread about how Hogan was more intergral or popular or whatever. Fact is had Austin not been there to save the WWF from WCW, the WWF would've gone under and WCW would've eventually gone under too from their own fuck ups and Turner pulling the plug on them. Austin made more money for the WWF than Hogan, took it global and to bigger heights where it became a public company, when Austin started the second boom for the WWF in the US, he also made wrestling a mainstream pop culture phenomenon over in the UK as WCW never did anything for the UK or any country outside of the US. Wrestling also got big in other countries during the Attitude Era.

As for the other ignorant comment that Austin had others to help him, do you really think anybody else could've replaced Austin in that feud with McMahon? Do you think it would've been the same with another person in Austin's role? Austin was the perfect character and guy to be feuding with McMahon, no one could have pulled it off the way he did. Not Rock, not Mankind, not Undertaker, not Triple H, not anybody. Someone said Mankind vs. Rock on January 4th but what was the feud interwined with Mankind vs. Rock to help it put WCW in the grave, Austin vs. McMahon. Who got the WWF to that point where that show/match could take place and put WCW in it's grave? Austin. Austin saved the WWF, built momentum and got it to a point where it would do absolutely fine in his absence and do bigger numbers as the years went on. Austin beat NWO, Sting, Goldberg and by 2000, the WWF was beating some of wrestling's greatest blunders. Without Austin, WWF might not have even lasted to 2000. Wrestlemania 14 was do or die for them and without Austin there, it fails and WWF dies along with the rest of wrestling.

 

[Wolf Pac]

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

And if there wasn't Stone Cold, there'd be no Hulk Hogan to remember.

 

[Wolf Pac]

Not surprised someone with a Snoop Dogg profile pic can’t read. I know you must be upset because you never met your father, but to say wrestling would have died proves how lost you are. I disagree that Austin was bigger than Hogan, but that isn’t the question.

LOL, resorting to racial stereotypes. Shows how much more ignorant you are than I thought. What are you gonna tell me next, that I need to log off and go eat some chicken? You not only showed yourself to be a dumbass but you also showed you're a racist.

And you can disagree on Austin being bigger than Hogan all you want, it ain't gonna change the fact that he is objectively bigger than Hogan, so you can continue with your biased shit opinions.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

It's kinda of a hard question to answer because both brought the product to bigger height but looking when you look at everything surrounding their success, I have to go with Hogan in the end.

The simple reason is that Hogan took a regional company and made it the worldwide phenomenon we know right now. He carried the company on his back during the first few years of the expansion and you take Hogan out of wwf at the time and their no wrestlemania and no WWE right now.

Meanwhile, while Austin was the biggest star in the history of the company, he's not the only reason the company was as successful as it became during the attitude era. He was the main character but you had a lot of others characters that help the company become as popular as they became during the era.

So because of that, Hogan had a more integral part in wwe

 

[FromGlasgow]

HeenanGorilla Give it a rest you sad little troll, Being a disgusting racist has just added to a long line of negativity around you.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Both were important from the marketing perspective but one is more important overall.

Hogan was able to unlock the potential in marketing to children via colourful characters, kid friendly slogans and catchphrases and giving families a reason to go to arenas, buy merch and PPV's.

However that DID become stale and it was Austin who unlocked the true potential of the WWF as a global phenomenon for all ages. Make no mistake, WWE WAS going under if something didn't "catch on" and as much as Austin is luck over judgement, Vince was able to make his own luck to an extent with him. Attitude was clearly a plan, hence the signing of Brian Pillman - they clearly wanted to use him in the way they used Austin to unlock a more adult audience.

That Austin was the one to catch on as he did sparked interest in the product and his injury ironically helped in some ways, it forced them to be creative in how they used him and the whole Mr. McMahon feud was the result. Owen doesn't break Austin's neck and the company may still go under as that feud doesn't happen in the same way or at the same time.

Hogan loses in that while he brought eyes to the product and dollars to the coffers, he didn't actually do much to help the company and business. He politicked, refused to work/lose to certain talents who could have helped grow the business or generate NEW stars in favor of the same schtick. Hogan refused to even work Rick Rude for the title, much less lose to him.

That cost them a heel who would have been invaluable in bringing guys like Curt Hennig, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Davey Boy Smith and others up to main event level sooner and in a way that could have prevented the slump they saw in the mid 90's. "That doesn't work for me brother..." was as big a problem for the WWF as any other they may have faced.

Austin didn't have those issues, at least initially. He was open to bringing on new talent and this unlocked the TRUE potential of the company. He won the title, but within 6 months both Kane and The Rock had held the belt... Hogan would have refused to lose to both of them. Within 3 years of Austin winning that belt the first time, they had him, Rocky, HHH, Kane, Foley, Angle, Big Show AND Jericho as legit main eventers.

Austin did refuse some stuff later, but even then he did have a point in some ways and it was perhaps motivated from fear of being unable to continue in his role than ego.

All told though, while it's true if no Hogan, no Austin or WWF... the reality is that no Austin, WWF dies in 1998/1999... WCW wins the war and the WWF is now a footnote in history rather than WCW being the cautionary tale.

 

[Very Average]

I think Austin in 1998 was untouchable. 1998 was when I first started watching WWF and he was the man. However for me Hogan seemed to be the top guy for longer. I didn't watch wrestling when Hulkamania was running wild but looking back through time Hogan seemed to be on top longer than Austin. Plus by the summer of 1999 I believe The Rock was just as big, if not bigger than Austin anyway (don't feel The Rock gets nearly enough respect on here).

What I would like to know is was the WWF in big enough trouble just before the Hogan/Austin era's that they would have gone under? Watching old PPV's on the WWE Network from 1997 and the WWF didn't seem to be in that bad shape, just WCW was at that time way better. Then I could probably give my actual answer to the OP's question.

 

[GhettoV1]

Did WCW bother touring worldwide when they were ahead of WWE? It seemed that WWE would tour worldwide growing their brand outside the U.S. while WCW rarely left the U.S.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

When Hogan was on top there wasn't an real danger of them going under so while he was the key to WWE becoming a national brand he didn't help keep them from going under.

On the other hand when Austin was being set up Vince was in real danger of losing everything. WCW was winning the ratings war and no one wanted to watch...until Austin came along and changed everything.

TL;DR: The answer is Austin