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

[DarksideEric]

You say this as if you don't think Hogan would be willing to toss Lesnar off the top of the cage. Remember: Hogan may be a "good" guy, but he's not a nice guy. He'd have few qualms about knocking Lesnar off the top of the cell if he had to.

When has Prime face Hogan ever done something that would even suggest he'd throw a heel off the top of a Cell?

It was believable for the Undertaker to do... Prime Hogan was near to the Superman Boy Scout territory.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

If Hogan can't climb a ladder, how is he going to be able to climb the cell? He can't! So Brock can't throw him off the top of the cell. Hogan wins lol

 

[Con T.]

Hulk Hogan did this to The Giant off of Cobo Hall:

[YOUTUBE]ynS7_YN6420[/YOUTUBE]

So throwing Brock Lesnar off the cell? Ha! Don't make me laugh. Hogan throws Lesnar off the Empire State, and wins.

 

[nightmare]

One thing I have learned is that people will praise their red & yellow hero for all his victories, but largely diminish the importance of his defeats when it goes against their stance.


Hulk Hogan can lose. It happens rarely, but it does happen. Whether at 15 or 50, a victory over Hulk is a big deal. Often Hogan is unscathed by the defeat & rallies to right the wrong.


Until he met Brock Lesnar. Until Hulkamania was crushed & taken out of action. How many have been able to lay claim to that in history? Not many. So why then, are people now trying to say Lesnar's victory isnt that big of a deal? Why, because he was older? Who gives a shit. The man just came off a hot streak of having the Undisputed WWE title & the tag titles. So, now I am to believe was a good enough old man to win those belts, but its cool if he loses, because you know- he is old.


Bullshit. If he was so old that a victory over him does not matter, then why was he considered a threat to those titles? Its because, at any age, Hulk Hogan is a badass & beating him is a big deal.


With the type of logic some of you are using to justify a Hogan loss, then maybe we should just throw out all the wins\losses for anyone over the age of 50. If beating a legend isnt a big deal because they are old now, then maybe they all should just become jobbers. Show up with a wave of nostalgia & ride out with a pat on the head and a pudding cup.



This argument to invalidate Lesnar beating Hogan is not only bullshit, but it also kind of diminishes the Hogan legacy. If being old is an excuse to lose, then why would you fear an old guy in the first place?


Beating Hogan is a big deal- no matter when or what your name is. Brock Lesnar beat Hogan. Putting asses in seats or selling some t-shirts does not change the outcome of a match after the bell. If you win, it isnt going to be erased if the other guy happens to sign more autographs.

 

[wrestlingislife]

I can't vote on this poll but I'd have to say that i think Brock would go over Hulk even with his lack of experience in the cell, it is still the kind of environment for his character, a UFC fighter and a stand out football player in college, he is extremely physical and i think he goes over here..

 

[GI Cake]

When has Prime face Hogan ever done something that would even suggest he'd throw a heel off the top of a Cell?

By this same logic, has Brock shown any ability to climb a cage? I never seen him of a cage, hell the last time I saw him at the top rope he broke his neck. So by this logic, Brock Lesnar fears heights.

It was believable for the Undertaker to do... Prime Hogan was near to the Superman Boy Scout territory.

Hogan can be just as brutal as anyone. He's beaten Harley Race in a Texas Death match, and beaten numerous of others in a cage match. Hogan wouldn't need to throw Lesnar off the top of the cell, because he would kick the living hell out of Lesnar.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3url9_hulk-hogan-vs-harley-race-texas-dea_sport

 

[DarksideEric]

By this same logic, has Brock shown any ability to climb a cage? I never seen him of a cage, hell the last time I saw him at the top rope he broke his neck. So by this logic, Brock Lesnar fears heights.

Sorry to burst your "logic" bubble.

http://www.wwe.com/videos/brock-lesnar-celebrates-on-top-of-hell-in-a-cell-no-mercy-2002-26156997

Hogan can be just as brutal as anyone. He's beaten Harley Race in a Texas Death match, and beaten numerous of others in a cage match. Hogan wouldn't need to throw Lesnar off the top of the cell, because he would kick the living hell out of Lesnar.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3url9_hulk-hogan-vs-harley-race-texas-dea_sport

I don't even see any blood. Much brutal. So vicious. Hide your eyes.

And Hogan's chair shots look very timid.

Why are we still discussing this?

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Yea, I'm not "tearing anyone a new one" or anything here. It's just baffling that Lesnar is seen as someone that is on par with Hulk Hogan. He's not. Lesnar's career has been short and dominant. So was Ultimate Warrior's, but we dismissed Warrior real quick when it came down to brass tax. Even though he beat Hogan during the height of Hulkamania.

Lesnar owns a win over Hogan, which is no small feat, but age does factor into that. You can't say that Hogan in his prime would fall to someone like Brock Lesnar. No matter the stipulation. Hogan's as brutal as anyone can be and to underestimate Hogan's mean streak is absurd. Lesnar's a beast, but many wrestlers were booked to be strong against Hogan, only to fall to him.

Lesnar would be no different. I know he ended Taker's Wrestlemania streak, but Hogan ended Andre's 15 year undefeated streak. So that - in my mind - makes those things offset each other. So then you compare drawing power, box office, and mainstream influence and Hogan is untouchable. Then you want to go into an actual match. Hogan didn't take but one clean loss in his prime. Lesnar's taken quite a few losses. Cena beat him in a Street Fight, and everyone compares Cena to Hogan these days. Who's to say Hogan wouldn't find a mean streak and find something and clock Lesnar with it, hit the leg drop and let Hulkamania run wild to the next round?

Just make sure you think about this when you vote. You're voting a man who's had a career that's equaled about five years versus a wrestler that's spanned three decades of MAIN EVENT success.

No matter the stipulation, Hogan should win this.

 

[DarksideEric]

Yea, I'm not "tearing anyone a new one" or anything here. It's just baffling that Lesnar is seen as someone that is on par with Hulk Hogan. He's not. Lesnar's career has been short and dominant. So was Ultimate Warrior's, but we dismissed Warrior real quick when it came down to brass tax. Even though he beat Hogan during the height of Hulkamania.

Lesnar owns a win over Hogan, which is no small feat, but age does factor into that. You can't say that Hogan in his prime would fall to someone like Brock Lesnar. No matter the stipulation. Hogan's as brutal as anyone can be and to underestimate Hogan's mean streak is absurd. Lesnar's a beast, but many wrestlers were booked to be strong against Hogan, only to fall to him.

Lesnar would be no different. I know he ended Taker's Wrestlemania streak, but Hogan ended Andre's 15 year undefeated streak. So that - in my mind - makes those things offset each other. So then you compare drawing power, box office, and mainstream influence and Hogan is untouchable. Then you want to go into an actual match. Hogan didn't take but one clean loss in his prime. Lesnar's taken quite a few losses. Cena beat him in a Street Fight, and everyone compares Cena to Hogan these days. Who's to say Hogan wouldn't find a mean streak and find something and clock Lesnar with it, hit the leg drop and let Hulkamania run wild to the next round?

Just make sure you think about this when you vote. You're voting a man who's had a career that's equaled about five years versus a wrestler that's spanned three decades of MAIN EVENT success.

No matter the stipulation, Hogan should win this.

I took that all into account.

If I relied on that for every match, the tournament winner every year would be Hogan, Austin or Cena.

Hogan's a Mary Sue'd infallible/invincible hero. I'm looking past that because that type of booking/writing defies logic and makes "who's the best" annual tournaments moot and pretty pointless.

Hogan vs. Bryan/Bret/Angle/Benoit/Backlund in a Submission Match?

Hogan doesn't give up brother, I'd find a way to lock them down until they scream Uncle, jack!

Hogan vs. Foley/Funk/Taz in a Hardcore Match?

Hogan doesn't care how many weapons you bring with you dude, because none of them can withstand the power of these 24" pythons brother!

Hogan vs. Thesz/Sammartino/Michaels/Hart in an Iron Man Match?

Hogan won't die little Hulkamaniacs! It doesn't matter if it takes 10 minutes or 10 days dude, at the end of the match Hulkamania will be running wild with the win!

An infallible/invincible hero defies all logic... so why would you rely on it in a logical discussion?

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Pro wrestling by its very nature defies logic. It's a big part of why it draws in so many people, especially those of a young age. In that world of logic defying men, a few guys stand tall over others. Hogan was one of those guys. There is no way in the world that a prime Hulk Hogan would lose to any version of Brock Lesnar. Fresh next big thing heel Lesnar? Nope. Stupid goofy babyface Lesnar? Nope. UFC Brock Lesnar? No way. NFL hopeful Brock Lesnar? Give me a fucking break. Current show up to cash a check Lesnar? Nope.

If you really believe that prime Hulk Hogan would lose to Brock Lesnar, then I hope you never have children, because those children will be born ******ed.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

I took that all into account.

If I relied on that for every match, the tournament winner every year would be Hogan, Austin or Cena.

Hogan's a Mary Sue'd infallible/invincible hero. I'm looking past that because that type of booking/writing defies logic and makes "who's the best" annual tournaments moot and pretty pointless.

Hogan vs. Bryan/Bret/Angle/Benoit/Backlund in a Submission Match?

Hogan doesn't give up brother, I'd find a way to lock them down until they scream Uncle, jack!

Hogan vs. Foley/Funk/Taz in a Hardcore Match?

Hogan doesn't care how many weapons you bring with you dude, because none of them can withstand the power of these 24" pythons brother!

Hogan vs. Thesz/Sammartino/Michaels/Hart in an Iron Man Match?

Hogan won't die little Hulkamaniacs! It doesn't matter if it takes 10 minutes or 10 days dude, at the end of the match Hulkamania will be running wild with the win!

An infallible/invincible hero defies all logic... so why would you rely on it in a logical discussion?

I can see Hogan falling to the likes of Austin, Thesz, Flair, or even Undertaker. That can happen. Those folks have legacies in pro wrestling that are in legendary proportion with Hogan. Lesnar's not on that level and never will be.

So Hogan's invincibility would trump Lesnar's build as a beast.

 

[DarksideEric]

Pro wrestling by its very nature defies logic. It's a big part of why it draws in so many people, especially those of a young age. In that world of logic defying men, a few guys stand tall over others. Hogan was one of those guys. There is no way in the world that a prime Hulk Hogan would lose to any version of Brock Lesnar. Fresh next big thing heel Lesnar? Nope. Stupid goofy babyface Lesnar? Nope. UFC Brock Lesnar? No way. NFL hopeful Brock Lesnar? Give me a fucking break. Current show up to cash a check Lesnar? Nope.

If you really believe that prime Hulk Hogan would lose to Brock Lesnar, then I hope you never have children, because those children will be born ******ed.

Wow Yaz, pulling out the cliched ad hominem.

We never pegged Undertaker defeating Hogan either in '91, but he did.

In a world of logic defying men, Hogan should win every single tournament. Since that's not the case, apparently people have been able to argue him out of the finals. Hart's won this tournament, you think Hart Prime ever had a shot at beating Prime Hogan? Michaels has won this tournament, Michaels Prime can beat Hogan? Taker's won this tournament, you think Taker Prime could... oh.

 

[DarksideEric]

I can see Hogan falling to the likes of Austin, Thesz, Flair, or even Undertaker. That can happen. Those folks have legacies in pro wrestling that are in legendary proportion with Hogan. Lesnar's not on that level and never will be.

So Hogan's invincibility would trump Lesnar's build as a beast.

I named a lot more people than just Austin, Thesz and Flair.

And Taker's legacy doesn't hold even half a candle to Hogan's.

Hogan's invincibility didn't stop him from being defeated at the hands of a Tombstone onto a chair, regardless if it was Taker or Flair that set it down to be used, so why is an F-5 onto that same chair so far fetched?

 

[Rayne]

Pro wrestling by its very nature defies logic. It's a big part of why it draws in so many people, especially those of a young age. In that world of logic defying men, a few guys stand tall over others. Hogan was one of those guys. There is no way in the world that a prime Hulk Hogan would lose to any version of Brock Lesnar. Fresh next big thing heel Lesnar? Nope. Stupid goofy babyface Lesnar? Nope. UFC Brock Lesnar? No way. NFL hopeful Brock Lesnar? Give me a fucking break. Current show up to cash a check Lesnar? Nope.

If you really believe that prime Hulk Hogan would lose to Brock Lesnar, then I hope you never have children, because those children will be born ******ed.

But Hogan can't cell as well as Lesnar, bro. Why even have gimmick matches if we don't use them as piss-poor excuses to vote for the current trendy favorites?

This should be a case of people looking at a match, looking at all of professional wrestling history except late '90s WCW where things got weird and the heels always won, and going "wow, tough draw, Brock. Get 'em next year." There are plenty of people who could go over Hulk Hogan- none of them are big, bad villains. Except for the Undertaker, who was only able to beat Hogan with a good deal of help, and suddenly now the cell doesn't matter.

Did you guys read the version of the Three Little Pigs where the Big Bad Wolf ended up making pork chili? Was there a version of Red Riding Hood you read where the Wolf brutally murdered Red and used her bones to make a birdcage? Have some of you been actually watching this shit????

I know. Lesnar's different. He's big and scary. He cells, bro.

Thank you, Lesnar voters, for keeping this whole professional wrestling scam alive and working.

 

[DarksideEric]

But Hogan can't cell as well as Lesnar, bro. Why even have gimmick matches if we don't use them as piss-poor excuses to vote for the current trendy favorites?

This should be a case of people looking at a match, looking at all of professional wrestling history except late '90s WCW where things got weird and the heels always won, and going "wow, tough draw, Brock. Get 'em next year." There are plenty of people who could go over Hulk Hogan- none of them are big, bad villains. Except for the Undertaker, who was only able to beat Hogan with a good deal of help, and suddenly now the cell doesn't matter.

Did you guys read the version of the Three Little Pigs where the Big Bad Wolf ended up making pork chili? Was there a version of Red Riding Hood you read where the Wolf brutally murdered Red and used her bones to make a birdcage? Have some of you been actually watching this shit????

I know. Lesnar's different. He's big and scary. He cells, bro.

Thank you, Lesnar voters, for keeping this whole professional wrestling scam alive and working.

You do realize that the ending of the first printed version of "Little Red Riding Hood" by Charles Perrault, the Wolf does kill Little Red, right?

It's kind of amusing that this is still being debated, especially since pretty much all of us have voted. So I thought I'd go back and see what's happened in a few past tournaments:

Hogan lost to Benoit, of all people.

And to Undertaker.

Benoit beat Hulk Hogan in this tournament.

If you think I'm voting for Lesnar as some sort of "trendy favorite," apparently you've not been doing any reading of this shit.

Little bit of extra stuff, just cuz:

Our dear sweet Yaz's reason as to why he picked Rock over Andre in the Cell:

I know that Big Show and Andre aren't the same guy, but they are fairly similar and Rock made Show his bitch more often than not, so I have a feeling that this match would play out fairly similar.

I believe, for quite a while now, I've stated that Warrior, Taker and Lesnar are "fairly similar." All three are "monster/brute" archetype. Two of the three are lesser in quality than Hogan. But Lesnar can't win with the same logic as Rock going over Andre, apparently.

 

[Tastycles]

I believe, for quite a while now, I've stated that Warrior, Taker and Lesnar are "fairly similar." All three are "monster/brute" archetype.

No they aren't. Warrior was all about charisma, Taker is all about psychology and Lesnar is all about strength. All three of them are pretty much the epitome in the history of wrestling in that respect, and to view them as similar because they're big guys who sometimes do power moves is really missing the point.

 

[DarksideEric]

No they aren't. Warrior was all about charisma, Taker is all about psychology and Lesnar is all about strength. All three of them are pretty much the epitome in the history of wrestling in that respect, and to view them as similar because they're big guys who sometimes do power moves is really missing the point.

They epitomize different aspects of one archetype.

I'm not missing any point, they still all fall under a similar larger archetype.

 

[Rayne]

I never heard about that ending to Little Red Riding Hood. Apparently it didn't cell, so they changed the ending.

Benoit going over Hogan doesn't mean that was a sane or logical decision, but it does seem to support my 'low tide of idiocy' theory in these threads. The planets and moons align just right- with people being sick of The Hulk And Eric Show era of TNA at the same time when they were wondering why the WWE was erasing its history of Chris Benoit for the silly crime of brutally murdering his family- and posters are washed up onto these threads like so many bloated, reeking beached whales.

And then Lesnar goes over Hogan, because Lesnar is a big mean bad guy. And once, a big mean bad guy went over Hogan when he was given plenty of help, and since a cell doesn't prevent that sort of behavior (and Hogan can't cell, bro), that means the big mean bad guy always goes over Hogan, because when something happens one in a hundred times, you should always count on that thing happening the next time.

The alternate universe where the bad guys always went over the good guys was called WCW, Hogan was the lead bad guy most of that time, and that universe folded in on itself in 2001.

 

[Tastycles]

They epitomize different aspects of one archetype.

I'm not missing any point, they still all fall under a similar larger archetype.

That archetype being "professional wrestler". The difference in height of the Undertaker and Brock Lesnar is the same as Brock Lesnar and Eddie Guerrero. The difference in weight between Undertaker and Ultimate Warrior is the same as Ultimate Warrior and Edge.

Warrior won his matches by running about lots and never stopping moving. The Undertaker never runs. Warrior attempted precisely zero submission moves in most of his matches, Brock Lesnar often puts people in holds. The Undertaker would spend weeks before a big match getting in his opponents head, Lesnar almost never uses the microphone himself.

The similarities between those guys are far too dissimilar for any meaningful comparison.

 

[DarksideEric]

That archetype being "professional wrestler". The difference in height of the Undertaker and Brock Lesnar is the same as Brock Lesnar and Eddie Guerrero. The difference in weight between Undertaker and Ultimate Warrior is the same as Ultimate Warrior and Edge.

Warrior won his matches by running about lots and never stopping moving. The Undertaker never runs. Warrior attempted precisely zero submission moves in most of his matches, Brock Lesnar often puts people in holds. The Undertaker would spend weeks before a big match getting in his opponents head, Lesnar almost never uses the microphone himself.

The similarities between those guys are far too dissimilar for any meaningful comparison.

"Professional wrestler" is not an archetype.

Do you not understand what an "archetype" is?

 

[Tastycles]

"Professional wrestler" is not an archetype.

Do you not understand what an "archetype" is?

Yes. You're inability to identify sarcasm is unsurprising.

So this doesn't get modded: Lesnar lost to Cena, a wrestler who actually is similar to Hogan.

 

[DarksideEric]

Yes. You're inability to identify sarcasm is unsurprising.

So this doesn't get modded: Lesnar lost to Cena, a wrestler who actually is similar to Hogan.

Your inability to do sarcasm well is fairly expected.

Hogan lost to Warrior, a wrestler who is similar to Lesnar.

 

[Rayne]

Warrior, a wrestler who is similar to Lesnar.

Similar, I suppose, in that at one time they've both worked for Vince McMahon and wrestled in briefs. Thank you for justifying everything I have said in this thread.

I'm going to go have several drinks, and then huff some paint thinner, and see if that statement makes any more sense than it does right now.

 

[DarksideEric]

Similar, I suppose, in that at one time they've both worked for Vince McMahon and wrestled in briefs. Thank you for justifying everything I have said in this thread.

I'm going to go have several drinks, and then huff some paint thinner, and see if that statement makes any more sense than it does right now.

I'm sorry you need to put yourself through so much to understand simple archetypes.

Should I provide you some links to read up on? TVtropes perhaps?

 

[nightmare]

Well, lets not forget.... Lesnar beat Hogan, who actually is Hogan. So there is that.


Is this a promo contest? A Hawaiian Tropic tanning competition? Does this match take place at a merch stand? No? Ok, then.


In a match between Brock Lesnar & Hulk Hogan, Lesnar has a legit claim to victory. Faster, stronger & a hell of a lot better technically- Brock has a serious advantage. If you need proof please recall the image below.

That is the blood of Hulkamania smeared across the chest of Lesnar like war-paint. He destroyed Hogan & took him out of action. Does anyone else remember how this match went? Lets give you some cliff notes for those floowing along at home.



Brock started the match strong. Hogan poped up from a bdoyslam, hit a flurry in the corner & sent Brock outside with a clothesline. Hogan got crotched on the ring post a few times for his troble. Brock goes for the announce table after a little offense, but Hogan gets up & runs Lesnar into the post. He follows Brock in for the turnbuckle punches, but eats a powerbomb.


Hogan kicks out & goes for the Hulk-up & punches. Hits one big boot, Brock gets up & tries the F-5 but its reversed. Back to the big boot & finally a leg drop connects. Brock Lesnar kicks out at an early 2. Hulk goes for a second leg drop, but Heyman grabs the leg. Then Brock hits an F-5, sneers at the crowd & slaps on a bear hug- squeezing the life out of Hogan. As blood pours from Hogan, the ref calls for the bell since Hogan cant answer the 3rd arm drop.


All this took place in the real world on SD & the whole time the announcers are playing up Lesnar's lack of experience. So an inexperienced kid beat Hulk Hogan & that is somehow not impressive? An actual match victory in a decisive fashion holds no weight? Thats just bullshit. The kid is a beast in every sense of the word. Lesnar has the tools to get the job done & he has proven it. Now we put them in a sadistic match type with weapons readily available & I am not supposed to think the same happens again- yet on a bloodier scale?



Hogan can lose a match. Hogan can lose to Brock Lesnar. I'll take a fact over a hypothetical any day of the week. Lesnar wins this match. Need proof? Watch SD in 2002 & add in a chair or two. Outcome would be the same except for Lesnar being a little more sore after his victory this time.