Hogan would be willing to.....

[Slyfox696]

Bahahahaha!

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. And, honestly, this could be a sarcastic remark, so please specify.

If you're serious, then we have a problem. How do we measure what story is better? Well we could sit here for hours and talk about our opinions. Or we could look at facts. We could look at ratings, PPV buys, overall success of a company, and other cold-hard facts. Hulk Hogan (whom I very much dislike, by the way) is a FAR better story-teller than Shawn Michaels (whom I like very much). Again, I point out that the story is NOT only what goes on from bell to bell. The match itself is crucial to the story, but it is not the story alone.

And if there is really any dispute, I think one look at 1996 should be all the proof needed.

The ONLY thing that is completely ridiculous is Slyfox wanting Austin to put over Coach. The argument is null and void. Not just because its outside the box, but because its utterly stupid. Would you really, honestly, totally want an announcer, ANY announcer, to be put over one of your biggest stars in history?

If Austin didn't want to do it, why did he agree to the angle in the first place? The simple fact is that Austin agreed to a match, and then when he found out he'd have to put over another talent, he didn't want to.

But, with you, it's a moot point, because you're not trying to criticize Hogan's putting people over. So, I really don't care.

WHAT precisely IS that benefit?! What would Coach do with that? Who would he put over in return? Nobody? So he would just sit there and do nothing with that?

Coach was being groomed into an overall talent, not just announcer. He wouldn't work matches, but like he did as acting GM, the WWE wanted him to be talent. And, Coach wasn't bad at it. And having a win over Steve Austin through cheating would have given him good heel heat, which he could then have parlayed into putting others over on the mic, whether it be on commentary or as the GM.

Seriously, if your THAT outside the box that you totally can't even see the reality of that anymore, you need to get a little bit closer to the edges so that you can see for yourself that putting over an announcer over a wrestler is NOT good for the business.

Except, you weren't putting an announcer over a wrestler, you were putting an on-screen talent, who both deserved and could use a rub, over a guy who has nothing left to give.

At least Hogan still works matches. What does Austin do?


If it comes down to Coach, HBK and Orton, at the time it happened, Coach was more deserving and more in need than the other two, if for no other reason than the process of elimination. Now, if we were going to pick someone to go over Austin now, Matt Stryker or Randy Orton, then obviously it's Orton. He's deserved it at this point, has proven he can stay out of trouble for a while, and is a legit main-eventer. But, back when it happened, you couldn't say the same thing.

 

[Moonlight Drive]

And if there is really any dispute, I think one look at 1996 should be all the proof needed.

That's hardly a fair comparison. Even though Hogan got monster ratings, Shawn was selling out arenas week after week. Shawn is a lot younger than Hogan, and I really don't think he hit his prime till the 2002 return. Hell, I'm a blind HBK mark so I'm not gonna bother arguing.

Coach was being groomed into an overall talent, not just announcer. He wouldn't work matches, but like he did as acting GM, the WWE wanted him to be talent. And, Coach wasn't bad at it. And having a win over Steve Austin through cheating would have given him good heel heat, which he could then have parlayed into putting others over on the mic, whether it be on commentary or as the GM.

So, let me figure this out. You think, that one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, should be used to put over an 'on-screen talent'? What the fuck are you smoking? Hey Adamle, come and pin Cena, we want to build youo up. That's how you build a wrestler, and even if he was GM, what would make him anymore of a credible 'on-screen talent' if he beat Austin?

 

[Quintastic One]

Under this logic you might as well have Joey Mathews, since he just won a slammy and is being groomed into the next generation of commentators, go over the Undertaker. It makes about as much sense in my opinion.

 

[The Rated R CMStar]

You mean Todd Grisham

 

[Quintastic One]

Well now that Jack Swagger is champion I may feel compelled to watch ECW every now and then. lol

 

[Slyfox696]

That's hardly a fair comparison. Even though Hogan got monster ratings, Shawn was selling out arenas week after week. Shawn is a lot younger than Hogan, and I really don't think he hit his prime till the 2002 return. Hell, I'm a blind HBK mark so I'm not gonna bother arguing.

Selling out the local VFW Hall is hardly an impressive distinction.

So, let me figure this out. You think, that one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, should be used to put over an 'on-screen talent'? What the fuck are you smoking? Hey Adamle, come and pin Cena, we want to build youo up. That's how you build a wrestler, and even if he was GM, what would make him anymore of a credible 'on-screen talent' if he beat Austin?

Sure it would. It would give him great heel heat, especially since he would have to do it through cheating. I HIGHLY doubt that Austin was going to lose clean to Coach. What probably would have happened is like what happened with JR beat Triple H. Interference, cheating, etc. And THAT would lead to much better heat, and people would care more about him.

And since Austin isn't ever going to put anyone over again, how could it have hurt? What good is Austin's credibility if no one ever gets to benefit from it? Like I said before, at least Hogan worked feuds and matches with these other guys. Austin just takes his years of credibility and overness and does nothing with it.