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?