WWE Region, Fourth Round, Hell in a Cell: (1) Hulk Hogan vs. (12) Brock Lesnar

[Thriller Ant]

Hold on, I'm gonna use an excuse the Hoban fan boys love to use.

"When Lesnar lost to Cena and Triple H, well he wasn't in his prime anymore." Also, he beat Trips 2 out of 3 times, he beat Angle in their most important match at WM 19, Angle had also beaten Hogan and made him tap at the King of the Ring the year before, he only lost to Eddie because of Goldberg, and Goldberg was able to beat nWo Prime Hogan. Lesnar has also defeated CM Punk who was arguably still in his prime, and he beat the streak. Try to diminish that fact all you want but it was and is still incredible that he did it.

Hogan is out, Vote Lesnar.

*sigh*

Hogan was almost 20 years past his prime when Angle and Lesnar beat him. Sorry, but nothing during that Hogan run works as an argument against Hogan in this match. Taker was well past him prime when Lesnar ended the streak this year. The Punk win was probably the best of his current run, but he did need Heyman to interfere.

Also, why would Hogan supporters want Lesnar's losses to Cena (the modern day Hogan) and Triple H (one of the most old school style workers around) to not be considered his prime? And the A>B and B>C, therefore A>C argument is one of the most moronic arguments that can be made.

Please enlighten me as to how this post is anything but mindless nonsense.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

And the A>B and B>C, therefore A>C argument is one of the most moronic arguments that can be made.

There are times when that is the case, when there is no logic in the choice of 'B' (like 'Taker here because he has no correlation to either Lesnar or Hogan). However, comparisons can be useful were the similarities are pretty obvious (like Cena being this generation's Hogan).

So while I fully agree that "Lesnar beats Hogan because Taker beat Hogan (with loads of outside interference) and Lesnar beat Taker both in HiaC (with outside interference against someone with a less than stellar HiaC record) AND for the streak (against a majorly past his prime Taker who has buffered his record in recent years against fellow past their prime opponents)!" I have no problem with saying that Hogan and Cena are blatantly comparable entities and that if John can take Brock in a match seemingly attuned to 'the Beast' then, logically, Hogan would have done exactly the same.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Hold on, I'm gonna use an excuse the Hoban fan boys love to use.

"When Lesnar lost to Cena and Triple H, well he wasn't in his prime anymore." Also, he beat Trips 2 out of 3 times, he beat Angle in their most important match at WM 19, Angle had also beaten Hogan and made him tap at the King of the Ring the year before, he only lost to Eddie because of Goldberg, and Goldberg was able to beat nWo Prime Hogan. Lesnar has also defeated CM Punk who was arguably still in his prime, and he beat the streak. Try to diminish that fact all you want but it was and is still incredible that he did it.

Hogan is out, Vote Lesnar.

Wrong Lesnar's career has been his prime. He's been in WWE for what five years and he's been booked the same way. Lesnar lost to Big show, Eddie, and Cena (who is this ages hogan) beating a guy at 49 is not the same as beating his at 30. In a one off Hogan beats lesnar, you can say the streak is as impressive as you want. And try to make Taker out as more than he ever was but the fact is Taker nor Lesnar were ever that good, and Taker beat Hogan yes, but had it been a one off in Hogan's prime Taker has no chance.

 

[Rayne]

If anything for me, this thread has been a renewed revelation in how professional wrestling continues to be a successful business, despite the full knowledge of its fans understanding that it is scripted entertainment for their enjoyment.

You go through life understanding that there are people in the world who are just completely ignorant. It's no fault of their own; blame bad genetics, bad upbringing, too much experimentation with MDMA and bad acid, whatever. You know those people are out there, but you don't live a life which causes you to meet with them on a regular basis.

And these discussions are where they all come out.

No disrespect to the people who just don't want Hulk Hogan to win. If you can be honest with yourself and say that, I've rooted for Barry Horowitz to be in this tournament before because, fuck people.

But if you actually think that a prime 1980's Hulk Hogan would ever lose to Brock Lesnar whatever edition, you are the reason professional wrestling continues to be successful. It needs people who believe the same bullshit, time, and time, and time, and time and time and time again. That the big, bad villain will beat the biggest hero because this time, the hero is faced with insurmountable odds. Someone has to be buying into this shit.

Lou Thesz is beating the Undertaker, so fuck it. Maybe we'll find out next round that he can't climb ladders.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Talk all the shit you want about Lesnar, however, this current run of his is not his prime. Idc what you moronic Hogan supporters spout out it just isn't his prime. Why? Becuase he's not winning championships or competing full time. You people can say all you want that this is the classic case of big badass bad guy vs the hero with unbelievable odds stacked against him but it's not. Lesnar has never, in is fucking career, been booked as the classic monster heel. The monster heel spends weeks attacking the hero only to inevitably be defeated in the big match. When has Lenar ever been booked that way? Lesnar, in his prime, which was his initial run, defeated everyone in the WWE and he was unstoppable. Just as godly as Hogan. So you Hogan supporters can spout all the shit you want about how this will be classic, however, if you go by the way Lesnar was booked in his prime then this will not be the classic monster heel vs the demi god face.

This is Superman (Hogan) vs Doomsday (Lesnar). Vote Lesnar.

 

[DarksideEric]

If anything for me, this thread has been a renewed revelation in how professional wrestling continues to be a successful business, despite the full knowledge of its fans understanding that it is scripted entertainment for their enjoyment.

You go through life understanding that there are people in the world who are just completely ignorant. It's no fault of their own; blame bad genetics, bad upbringing, too much experimentation with MDMA and bad acid, whatever. You know those people are out there, but you don't live a life which causes you to meet with them on a regular basis.

And these discussions are where they all come out.

No disrespect to the people who just don't want Hulk Hogan to win. If you can be honest with yourself and say that, I've rooted for Barry Horowitz to be in this tournament before because, fuck people.

But if you actually think that a prime 1980's Hulk Hogan would ever lose to Brock Lesnar whatever edition, you are the reason professional wrestling continues to be successful. It needs people who believe the same bullshit, time, and time, and time, and time and time and time again. That the big, bad villain will beat the biggest hero because this time, the hero is faced with insurmountable odds. Someone has to be buying into this shit.

Lou Thesz is beating the Undertaker, so fuck it. Maybe we'll find out next round that he can't climb ladders.

Have you missed all the times where the heroes have lost during wrestling to the villain?

I'm in the camp of continually citing Hogan as the Immortal One is ultimately flawed logic because it's a Mary Sue'd character. Mary Sue'd characters are Infallible/Invincible Heroes that are made specifically not to be beaten, which means that 95-99% of the time they can't lose to anyone, no matter what.

That's terrible, terrible logic to continually rely on because it defies logic.

I've said, several times now, the Immortal Hulk Hogan has lost to people that are greater than Lesnar in some areas but lesser than him in others, but generally are the fairly same gimmick.

Warrior is a brute/monster face. He's just a tad shy of being the same level of Invincible Hero as Hogan.

Warrior is more popular than Brock will ever be, but it was only Warrior's popularity that put him over Hogan. Warrior can't wrestle better than Hogan (let alone Brock), his mic skills are lesser than Hogan's, his overall career is not as much as Hogan's, etc, etc.

Undertaker is a brute/monster heel. He was, for quite a lot of his career, the Invincible Villain to some extent.

Undertaker is more popular than Brock, he can't wrestle as well is Brock, has better mic skills (?) and his career is better than Brock's.

How in the world, with all those pros/cons and similarities does Brock not have a chance to beat Hogan in a Cell?

Brock's a brute/monster heel (just like Warrior and Taker) and he's got more in-ring ability than all three (Hogan, Warrior, Taker). He falls short of popularity (just like Taker) and falls short in overall career (just like Warrior and Taker).

How does that not compute to having a chance to beat Hogan?

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Talk all the shit you want about Lesnar, however, this current run of his is not his prime. Idc what you moronic Hogan supporters spout out it just isn't his prime. Why? Becuase he's not winning championships or competing full time. You people can say all you want that this is the classic case of big badass bad guy vs the hero with unbelievable odds stacked against him but it's not. Lesnar has never, in is fucking career, been booked as the classic monster heel. The monster heel spends weeks attacking the hero only to inevitably be defeated in the big match. When has Lenar ever been booked that way? Lesnar, in his prime, which was his initial run, defeated everyone in the WWE and he was unstoppable. Just as godly as Hogan. So you Hogan supporters can spout all the shit you want about how this will be classic, however, if you go by the way Lesnar was booked in his prime then this will not be the classic monster heel vs the demi god face.

This is Superman (Hogan) vs Doomsday (Lesnar). Vote Lesnar.

You're right it'll be just like that time Lesnar faced Cena and Lesnar dominated and LOST.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Talk all the shit you want about Lesnar, however, this current run of his is not his prime. Idc what you moronic Hogan supporters spout out it just isn't his prime. Why? Becuase he's not winning championships or competing full time. You people can say all you want that this is the classic case of big badass bad guy vs the hero with unbelievable odds stacked against him but it's not. Lesnar has never, in is fucking career, been booked as the classic monster heel. The monster heel spends weeks attacking the hero only to inevitably be defeated in the big match. When has Lenar ever been booked that way? Lesnar, in his prime, which was his initial run, defeated everyone in the WWE and he was unstoppable. Just as godly as Hogan. So you Hogan supporters can spout all the shit you want about how this will be classic, however, if you go by the way Lesnar was booked in his prime then this will not be the classic monster heel vs the demi god face.

This is Superman (Hogan) vs Doomsday (Lesnar). Vote Lesnar.

Oh, okay - we're using the Lesnar who either destroyed enhancement level guys or required outside interference from Paul Heyman and injuries to defeat upper midcard (and his feud with RVD was far from conclusive)/ main eventers then?

Then when he won the WWF Title, he dropped it to a Big Show who'd been a joke in the couple years prior to this. Three title runs that, totaled, amounted to less time than Diesel's single solitary reign or Hogan's average reign?

This Lesnar? That was far from dominant against RVD, Kurt Angle, the Undertaker, Big Show, Eddie Guerrero or Bill Goldberg? Whose biggest victories were against three PART TIMERS (by your own definition past their prime), in the Rock, Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker (and all three victories were tainted)? We definitely using this Beast?

 

[SSJPhenom]

Oh, okay - we're using the Lesnar who either destroyed enhancement level guys or required outside interference from Paul Heyman and injuries to defeat upper midcard (and his feud with RVD was far from conclusive)/ main eventers then?

Then when he won the WWF Title, he dropped it to a Big Show who'd been a joke in the couple years prior to this. Three title runs that, totaled, amounted to less time than Diesel's single solitary reign or Hogan's average reign?

This Lesnar? That was far from dominant against RVD, Kurt Angle, the Undertaker, Big Show, Eddie Guerrero or Bill Goldberg? Whose biggest victories were against three PART TIMERS (by your own definition past their prime), in the Rock, Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker (and all three victories were tainted)? We definitely using this Beast?

You're right, we're using this Lesnar. The Lesnar that caused Austin to quit because Austin didn't want to job to him on Raw. The Lesnar that defeated the Rock for the Undisputed WWE Championship. The Lesnar that defated the Undertaker on numerous occasions and broke his hand. The Lesnar that defeated Angle At WM 19. An Angle in his prime btw. A Lesnar who ran through all of the WWE. Yes he lost to Big Show due to Paul Heyman but Hogan lost to 'Taker.

How was he far from dominant against 'Taker? He never lost to 'Taker and all those other losses you mentioned took outside interference for Brock to lose. Yep, I'll take that Beast.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Have you missed all the times where the heroes have lost during wrestling to the villain?

I'm in the camp of continually citing Hogan as the Immortal One is ultimately flawed logic because it's a Mary Sue'd character. Mary Sue'd characters are Infallible/Invincible Heroes that are made specifically not to be beaten, which means that 95-99% of the time they can't lose to anyone, no matter what.

That's terrible, terrible logic to continually rely on because it defies logic.

I've said, several times now, the Immortal Hulk Hogan has lost to people that are greater than Lesnar in some areas but lesser than him in others, but generally are the fairly same gimmick.

Warrior is a brute/monster face. He's just a tad shy of being the same level of Invincible Hero as Hogan.

Warrior is more popular than Brock will ever be, but it was only Warrior's popularity that put him over Hogan. Warrior can't wrestle better than Hogan (let alone Brock), his mic skills are lesser than Hogan's, his overall career is not as much as Hogan's, etc, etc.

Undertaker is a brute/monster heel. He was, for quite a lot of his career, the Invincible Villain to some extent.

Undertaker is more popular than Brock, he can't wrestle as well is Brock, has better mic skills (?) and his career is better than Brock's.

How in the world, with all those pros/cons and similarities does Brock not have a chance to beat Hogan in a Cell?

Brock's a brute/monster heel (just like Warrior and Taker) and he's got more in-ring ability than all three (Hogan, Warrior, Taker). He falls short of popularity (just like Taker) and falls short in overall career (just like Warrior and Taker).

How does that not compute to having a chance to beat Hogan?

Warrior doesn't compare because he was a good guy and he beat Hogan in a straight up face/ face bout - no stips, no brutality, none of the heelish tactics Hogan regularly used to counter heels in his pomp.

Taker only beat Hogan due to outside interference from a number one ranked guy in this very tournament. This shouldn't happen here.

HiaC is a larger Cage Match with the added Extreme Rules stip thrown in for good measure. Hogan excelled in Cage Matches and the most comparable guy to him defeated Lesnar in an Extreme Rules match. Plus this is only the semi-final in a WWe event in WWe's spiritual home - the WWe that garnered it's initial success on Hulkamania.

 

[Thriller Ant]

You're right, we're using this Lesnar. The Lesnar that caused Austin to quit because Austin didn't want to job to him on Raw.

My God you are a moron. Austin quit because he thought Lesnar wasn't at a level for Austin to lose clean to him on Raw. I didn't need more reasons for voting Hogan, but disassociating myself from you being added to the list.

 

[DarksideEric]

Warrior doesn't compare because he was a good guy and he beat Hogan in a straight up face/ face bout - no stips, no brutality, none of the heelish tactics Hogan regularly used to counter heels in his pomp.

Uh.. how does Warrior not compare? Warrior is a brute/monster on the Face side, often labeled as "The Invincible Hero." It was his popularity that had him beat Hogan as Hogan was better (clearly or arguably) in every other category than Warrior. In-ring ability, charisma, total career, etc, etc.

Lesnar is a brute/monster for the Heel side, often labeled as "The Unstoppable Monster." He beats Hogan and Warrior in in-ring ability and then falls short in everything else.

One person of the same archetype for the good side won because of popularity.

How is it far fetched that one person of the same archetype for the bad side could win because of in-ring ability?

Taker only beat Hogan due to outside interference from a number one ranked guy in this very tournament. This shouldn't happen here.

No, it shouldn't happen here. But then again, Lesnar can grab his own chair and doesn't need outside help during a Cell match.

HiaC is a larger Cage Match with the added Extreme Rules stip thrown in for good measure. Hogan excelled in Cage Matches and the most comparable guy to him defeated Lesnar in an Extreme Rules match. Plus this is only the semi-final in a WWe event in WWe's spiritual home - the WWe that garnered it's initial success on Hulkamania.

Yes, and lower class of wrestlers (in terms of wrestling ability) defeated Hogan in his prime/coasting era prior to leaving for WCW. And neither of them did it in a gimmick match. How does that translate into Lesnar being unable to have a chance to beat Hogan? And yes, Lesnar lost to Cena, who's a better in-ring wrestler than Hogan.

 

[DarksideEric]

My God you are a moron. Austin quit because he thought Lesnar wasn't at a level for Austin to lose clean to him on Raw. I didn't need more reasons for voting Hogan, but disassociating myself from you being added to the list.

In no way am I siding with Phenom for "Lesnar made Austin quit," however I thought the whole situation wasn't that Austin didn't think Lesnar was on his level to beat him clean on RAW but rather that it was such a sudden, no hype at all match that should have been on a PPV and not some KotR qualifier.

And at that time, I think, Austin was still near his prime and as big as Hogan.

And WWE wanted Lesnar to go over him with no build up.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

You're right, we're using this Lesnar. The Lesnar that caused Austin to quit because Austin didn't want to job to him on Raw. The Lesnar that defeated the Rock for the Undisputed WWE Championship. The Lesnar that defated the Undertaker on numerous occasions and broke his hand. The Lesnar that defeated Angle At WM 19. An Angle in his prime btw. A Lesnar who ran through all of the WWE. Yes he lost to Big Show due to Paul Heyman but Hogan lost to 'Taker.

How was he far from dominant against 'Taker? He never lost to 'Taker and all those other losses you mentioned took outside interference for Brock to lose. Yep, I'll take that Beast.

So, outside interference is okay if it leads to a Lesnar win - he is still the dominant beast? There was outside interference against Goldberg? There was outside interference against Angle at SS'03? Missed that... unless you're talking about Vince's interference FOR Lesnar, breaking the Anglelock when the Beast was tapping?

You pick this as prime Lesnar because he was full time but don't take Rock and (49yo) Hogan's part time status into account? Numerous occasions against part time Taker (3 PPVs; 2 wins, a draw, lots of Heyman and sneak attacking Taker to break his hand with help from Heyman AND Matt Hardy)? You'll mention Heyman's outside interference leading to Big Show's win but ignore Ric Flair's attack and Paul Bearer's distraction for Taker's?

And Austin? Really? What next - the fact that he can legitimately beat Hogan up? The only kayfabe relationship between Austin and Lesnar is Steve getting the upper hand between the two on the run up too and leaving him lying like a chump at WMXX!

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Lesnar has never, in is fucking career, been booked as the classic monster heel. The monster heel spends weeks attacking the hero only to inevitably be defeated in the big match.

Here we go.

When has Lenar ever been booked that way?

Summerslam 2003. He beat up Angle, Gowen, and Kendrick to show how bad a guy he was. What happened? Ended up tapping.

Lesnar, in his prime, which was his initial run, defeated everyone in the WWE and he was unstoppable.

He lost to Big Show in less than 5 minutes at Survivor Series.

Just as godly as Hogan. So you Hogan supporters can spout all the shit you want about how this will be classic, however, if you go by the way Lesnar was booked in his prime then this will not be the classic monster heel vs the demi god face.

This is Superman (Hogan) vs Doomsday (Lesnar). Vote Lesnar.

Lesnar was also scared of Hardcore Holly. What heel should ever be scared of Hardcore Holly?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

How was he far from dominant against 'Taker? He never lost to 'Taker and all those other losses you mentioned took outside interference for Brock to lose. Yep, I'll take that Beast.

DQ at Unforgiven.

Vince interference at No Mercy.

The same Hogan who lost to Taker at Survivor Series beat him six days later.

 

[SSJPhenom]

My God you are a moron. Austin quit because he thought Lesnar wasn't at a level for Austin to lose clean to him on Raw. I didn't need more reasons for voting Hogan, but disassociating myself from you being added to the list.

How am I a moron? Was I wrong in what I said? Austin quit because he didn't want to lose/job to Lesnar on Raw. Idc the reaoning behind it, what Austin thought or didn't think, he quit because he was gonna face Brock Lesnar and lose. So how does me mentioning something that's a complete fact make me a moron? Oh wait a sec, I forgot where I was having this discussion, the WZ Forums. Where debate tactics 101 here is if you don't agree with someone's POV, you're automatically a moron.

I'm glad you're disassociating yourself from me. Now I know I'm not on the level of moronic Hogan fan boys whose only argument for him winning is that he is Hulk Hogan. Makes me sleep better at night knowing I'm a moron for being completely correct about something that disagrees with your opinion.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Uh.. how does Warrior not compare? Warrior is a brute/monster on the Face side, often labeled as "The Invincible Hero." It was his popularity that had him beat Hogan as Hogan was better (clearly or arguably) in every other category than Warrior. In-ring ability, charisma, total career, etc, etc.

Lesnar is a brute/monster for the Heel side, often labeled as "The Unstoppable Monster." He beats Hogan and Warrior in in-ring ability and then falls short in everything else.

One person of the same archetype for the good side won because of popularity.

How is it far fetched that one person of the same archetype for the bad side could win because of in-ring ability?

Where does in-ring ability matter in a kayfabe match? Kayfabe, the best wrestlers are the ones who dominate - that means Hogan.

Hogan lost to Warrior to see if he could carry the ball (he couldn't), that decision was already made with Lesnar (via his victories over Rock and Hogan) if you're talking his prime and, like Warrior, it wasn't exactly a roaring success.

As far as comparing a hypothetical match in HiaC with Lesnar and an actual clean one on one match with Warrior, it is a huge stretch to say "Warrior beat Hogan in a clean non-stip match, so Brock would beat Hogan in a HiaC match!" because the characters are different, they are at different stages in their career, one is face/ face and one is face/ heel, they have different styles, the stips couldn't be further apart so the matches themselves couldn't be further apart. Hogan cannot put over someone who has already been put over, so it would come down to who is more likely to take this match. Had it been in the heel favoring NWA/ WCW, I probably would go with Lesnar but in the face favoring WWF/e, I have to go with the guy who specialized in beating monsters (and the reason that we cannot find a comparable guy to Brock in Hogan's prime is because he did turn every single one of them back).

No, it shouldn't happen here. But then again, Lesnar can grab his own chair and doesn't need outside help during a Cell match.

And yet he did against an injured part time Taker.

Yes, and lower class of wrestlers (in terms of wrestling ability) defeated Hogan in his prime/coasting era prior to leaving for WCW. And neither of them did it in a gimmick match. How does that translate into Lesnar being unable to have a chance to beat Hogan? And yes, Lesnar lost to Cena, who's a better in-ring wrestler than Hogan.

Again, where does in-ring ability even matter in a kayfabe match? Kayfabe, the best wrestlers are the ones who dominate - that means Hogan.

 

[SSJPhenom]

DQ at Unforgiven.

Vince interference at No Mercy.

The same Hogan who lost to Taker at Survivor Series beat him six days later.

You guys love to mention that Hogan lost due to interference, but we'll ignore that Hogan had to use ashes to defeat 'Taker 6 days later. You guys also love to mention all the wins that Lesnar had due to interference. Of course if I say that he was the heel and that's what they do, then what? He's already in a match where weapons are legal, so he'll be able to do all of the heelish monster things he can.

 

[DarksideEric]

Again, where does in-ring ability even matter in a kayfabe match? Kayfabe, the best wrestlers are the ones who dominate - that means Hogan.

This is the most important part so I'll just snag it.

Going on strictly kayfabe then, Hogan in these tournaments would only lose to Austin and Cena because, kayfabe wise, as I've stated several times Hogan is a Mary Sue'd "Invincible Hero."

It's not much of a tournament if out of all contestants, only two guys can beat Hogan.

At some point the kayfabe has to be edged out with logic, otherwise kayfabe means 99% of the time you win, which defies logic.

 

[SSJPhenom]

In no way am I siding with Phenom for "Lesnar made Austin quit," however I thought the whole situation wasn't that Austin didn't think Lesnar was on his level to beat him clean on RAW but rather that it was such a sudden, no hype at all match that should have been on a PPV and not some KotR qualifier.

And at that time, I think, Austin was still near his prime and as big as Hogan.

And WWE wanted Lesnar to go over him with no build up.

Good don't agree with me.

However, I was right. Whether it was because Lesnar wasn't on his level or because of no build, Austin quit because he was going to face Lesnar and lose.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Good don't agree with me.

However, I was right. Whether it was because Lesnar wasn't on his level or because of no build, Austin quit because he was going to face Lesnar and lose.

Austin is not Hogan. In fact Austin lost alot more to Hogan and monsters had a far better record and track record against monsters than Austin. Hogan had more trouble with guys that weren't monsters than those who were.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

This is the most important part so I'll just snag it.

Going on strictly kayfabe then, Hogan in these tournaments would only lose to Austin and Cena because, kayfabe wise, as I've stated several times Hogan is a Mary Sue'd "Invincible Hero."

It's not much of a tournament if out of all contestants, only two guys can beat Hogan.

At some point the kayfabe has to be edged out with logic, otherwise kayfabe means 99% of the time you win, which defies logic.

This is just a rebuke to Hogan should lose because Lesnar is better in-ring. I don't always pick Hogan (in fact, I believe I rarely pick Hogan - I tried to put James Storm over him last year ) but when you are talking about two WWF/e guys fighting in a WWF/e ring in the historical home of the WWF/e then I have to go with my gut.

Now, prime Hulk was billed 6'7" and over 300lbs and Brock is 6'3" and 286lbs. Both are/ were billed to be ****** strong so size and power should be negligible either way. Brutality? Hogan was capable of threatening Piper's son and while that is in his future - a guy willing to do that or many of the things he did in the nWo would be capable of mixing it up in a cell.

I've already said that, in another promotion and venue (particularly WCW), I could see Brock go over but in the WWe and in their home venue - there would be no way Brock would go over in the semi-finals. Therefore, to me, this would always be booked towards Hulk following his tried and tested formula only ramped up to HiaC levels.

 

[DarksideEric]

This is just a rebuke to Hogan should lose because Lesnar is better in-ring. I don't always pick Hogan (in fact, I believe I rarely pick Hogan - I tried to put James Storm over him last year ) but when you are talking about two WWF/e guys fighting in a WWF/e ring in the historical home of the WWF/e then I have to go with my gut.

Now, prime Hulk was billed 6'7" and over 300lbs and Brock is 6'3" and 286lbs. Both are/ were billed to be ****** strong so size and power should be negligible either way. Brutality? Hogan was capable of threatening Piper's son and while that is in his future - a guy willing to do that or many of the things he did in the nWo would be capable of mixing it up in a cell.

I've already said that, in another promotion and venue (particularly WCW), I could see Brock go over but in the WWe and in their home venue - there would be no way Brock would go over in the semi-finals. Therefore, to me, this would always be booked towards Hulk following his tried and tested formula only ramped up to HiaC levels.

I just don't agree. When I think "Prime" Lesnar I don't think of him during just one set of X years or this last run, since his career is (what, only a 4th of Hogan's, maybe a 3rd?) much shorter I'm lumping in all his accolades to create the "Prime" Lesnar.

I feel, being as both Warrior and Taker both defeated a Prime or near Prime Hogan, Lesnar would be added to that very small list of people who at least had a chance of winning. I just think a Lesnar that was the youngest WWE Champion + the Lesnar that defeated the Streak would be capable of being that "OMG! I CAN'T BELIEVE HE BEAT HIM!" victory.

Lesnar's not a squash over Hogan, I've never thought that.

To me it would be an unexpected upset because of how far Brock would be willing to go to win.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I just don't agree. When I think "Prime" Lesnar I don't think of him during just one set of X years or this last run, since his career is (what, only a 4th of Hogan's, maybe a 3rd?) much shorter I'm lumping in all his accolades to create the "Prime" Lesnar.

I feel, being as both Warrior and Taker both defeated a Prime or near Prime Hogan, Lesnar would be added to that very small list of people who at least had a chance of winning. I just think a Lesnar that was the youngest WWE Champion + the Lesnar that defeated the Streak would be capable of being that "OMG! I CAN'T BELIEVE HE BEAT HIM!" victory.

Lesnar's not a squash over Hogan, I've never thought that.

To me it would be an unexpected upset because of how far Brock would be willing to go to win.

Everyone has their own gut feelings but (and I have to ask), do you believe you would have felt this if he hadn't just ended the steak?