Hogan would be willing to.....

[Quintastic One]

Its truly sad, because I actually AGREE with slyfox for the most part here. Like I said, I am a huge Hogan fan, and agree with slyfox that he is one of the greatest ever. Which is why I am glad this debate turned more into Sly defending Hogan than Sly attacking Austin, because that's where I draw the line. Respect your legends people, we wouldn't be here if it weren't for Austin or Hogan.

 

[Moonlight Drive]

We're internet fans Quint, we're better than the wrestlers and know much more than them about the industry.

 

[Quintastic One]

Oh yeah that's right. For a second there I thought that wrestlers were almost human and allowed to make mistakes. Silly me.

 

[Moonlight Drive]

Hey, don't worry. At least you didn't forget they are forever in debt to us, and their life and career must go in the direction we desire as superior human beings sitting in front of a computer screen.

 

[Quintastic One]

Yeah I can never forget that much. Thats Smark Commandment number 7 bro!

 

[Moonlight Drive]

I really do need to make a list of these.

Anyway, back on topic. Austin vs Hogan would be epic in build-up, but let's try and remember something. Sometimes, with a good enough worker, a past his prime star can pull off something great but this time it's two men who simply cannot go anymore. I don't want Austin's final match to be remembered as 'that shitfest with Hogan'

 

[★Chuck Zombie★]

Also, on a side note, why is there never any talk of Taker not doing the job?

Undertaker loses all the time. He cycles switches from the main event and mid-card all of the time too. he does a ME fued, then does a mid-card feud.

I'll respond to everyone else later....too tired now.

 

[Slyfox696]

Orton never got the upperhand on Hulk Hogan. The closest of doing so was when he RKOed him at SNME, and that was only week 1 of his feud. All the other weeks he cut promos bashing Hogan, humilliating imitators, only to then have the real Hogan run him down of the ring.

As for the match, yes, Orton dominated, yes, Orton hit the RKO, they did the screwy ending. Ending of the match? Hogan got back to his feet as if nothing happened, and with a weakened leg thanks to a bad knee (highly sold during the entire match) nailed a leg drop and that was enough to finish Randy Orton, who took barely any offense during the match.

So wait...

Randy Orton, according to you, dominated the match, but somehow looked weak? Explain that. It's not like Hogan's "hulk up" routine is new, by any means, so getting beat by the "hulk up" routine isn't going to make Orton look weak. But, by your own words, Orton dominated the match. So how does he look weak?

Austin refused to job to THE COACH. Hogan refused to job to Randy Orton and Shawn Michaels. Do you notice the difference? It's not the same thing. We're not talking about the fact that they refused to job, but we're talking about the fact at WHO they refuse to job.

I think it would be better to put over Coach than either HBK or Orton, at the time they had those matches.

I mean, Coach was a talent in good standing, an intricate part of storylines, and was a good heel character. HBK would not have benefited at all from beating Hogan nor lose from getting pinned by Hogan, and Orton wasn't deserving of a pin over Hogan. Coach was more worthy, and would have helped the WWE more, than either HBK or Orton.

And, I'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and Austin had gone over HBK and Orton, while Hogan walked out on Coach.

The thing here is, Hogan is not a bad worker. We're not talking bad in a Khali level. But he's certainly not in the level of HBK, in which only his matches could justify his feuds. Hogan certainly didn't put crapfest after crapfest, but I'll be damned if I see any match that just by the in ring quality went over 3 stars.

Hogan was better than HBK. Why do I say this? Because people would rather watch Hogan than HBK. We saw this as proof in '96.

Wrong, they cheer Hulk Hogan for what he represents. People don't cheer Hulk Hogan because of what he does inside the ring, but the whole aura he has around him, and the entire persona he has been able to create.

But, that persona is DEVELOPED in the ring.

People want to pretend that there is some kind of quality to a match that doesn't involve a crowd. And that's silly. Wrestling is ONLY for the crowd. And what Hogan did, for the crowd in his matches, was better than anyone else in history.

Wrestling quality is not like figure skating. There are no judges at ringside, to judge the quality of the choreography. The only judge are the people who pay to go to the shows, and people payed to watch Hogan more than they ever payed to watch anyone else.

Lol, just, lol.

Summerslam 2005 was almost purely based on the fact of seeing HBK vs Hogan for the first time, and you even say that they could have replace that with HBK vs Batista?

And one of the biggest draws to Taboo Tuesday was going to be Steve Austin vs. Coach for JR's job.

Angle prided himself on the fact that he was the better wrestler between the two, so every move he applied, was a demonstration of him being better than Cena.

But, that was bad heel psychology. The heel is supposed to make the face look strong. That's why wrestling works the way it does.

Wrestling is Good Guy vs. Bad Guy. You don't ever want the Bad Guy to look better than the Good Guy. You want fans to believe that the Bad Guy might be able to win the day, so when the Good Guy comes back to beat him, everyone is happy. It's the same thing you see in movies all the time.

At the end of the day, the Good Guy has to reign supreme, because that's what fans wanted. And, for the Good Guy to reign supreme, the bad guy has to do things that make the fans not like him. But, doing high impact, crowd-popping moves will make fans cheer you. And thus, doing them is poor heel psychology.

He agreed to a two match feud, in which Hogan would get the first match, and HBK would get the rematch.

Hogan agreed, only to then, close to the event, backed down claiming to be injured, and he would only wrestle the Summerslam match, the one booked for him winning.

CLAIMED to be injured? The man had knee surgery just a couple weeks later. There was no claiming, he was legitimately hurt.

That's why HBK oversold during the entire match, so that Hogan was to make looked as a fool, and that's why HBK cut that promo the night afterwards.

First of all, I have NEVER heard a reliable source that says they were scheduled for two matches. That has ALWAYS been an Internet rumor, and one I don't believe.

But, even if it were true, HBK didn't oversell during the match because Hogan backed out, because Hogan couldn't have backed out yet, since he hadn't had surgery yet. HBK oversold because he was completely unprofessional and was acting like a big spoiled baby.

Now, let me finish with this.

Do you hear Hogan talking about WWE any other time on the year than when it benefits him? No, in fact, he didn't talk about the WWE for the entire 2008, and now, he's starting to do so just so that he can get the big WM paycheck.

Hogan cares for the money, not wrestling itself. Of course he has some love for it, he has to be after all the time he spent on it, but what he sees on wrestling is money, not personal satisfaction.

Hell, on 2007, since Vince kept him out of the WM23 card, he joined Big Show and the entire build up for their match at Memphis Wrestling was bashing VInce Mcmahon and the WWE.

Stone Cold on the other hand, griefs by the fact that he can't wrestle anymore. That's way he doesnt do anything more than appear, stunner somebody and leave, because that's the only thing he's physically able to do right now.


Also, the fact that you compare Hogan refusing to job to HBK and Orton to Stone Cold refusing to job to Jonathan Coachman is beyond stupid. Seriously. Like I said before, it's not the fact that you don't want to job, but it's AGAINST WHO you don't want to job.

All I read here is Hogan=criticism, Austin=pass, You=hypocrite

I just wanted to point out that there is no evidence Hogan refused to job to Orton.

And, in all honesty, Vince probably wanted Orton to lose to Hogan, as continuation punishment for his suspension.

But, no one on the Internet will believe that, so I usually don't bring it up.

Also, on a side note, why is there never any talk of Taker not doing the job?

Because these fans grew up with Undertaker, and he's their idol, so he's immune to such criticism.

It's the same reason that people refuse to admit the fact that HBK hated putting people over for title belts, unless they were his friends. Heck, apparently, he still does.

Its truly sad, because I actually AGREE with slyfox for the most part here. Like I said, I am a huge Hogan fan, and agree with slyfox that he is one of the greatest ever. Which is why I am glad this debate turned more into Sly defending Hogan than Sly attacking Austin, because that's where I draw the line. Respect your legends people, we wouldn't be here if it weren't for Austin or Hogan.

You agreed that Hogan had put over his fair share of people. And that was my point all along.

As long as you agree with that, I have no problem. Feel free to kick in on the Hogan support.

I don't want Austin's final match to be remembered as 'that shitfest with Hogan'

It wouldn't be.

It would be a match for the ages. Neither of these guys do anything fancy. They punch and kick, scratch and stomp. There's no reason why these guys couldn't put on a good match, considering their respective injuries really wouldn't hamper their styles at all.

 

[The Rated R CMStar]

Randy Orton, according to you, dominated the match, but somehow looked weak? Explain that. It's not like Hogan's "hulk up" routine is new, by any means, so getting beat by the "hulk up" routine isn't going to make Orton look weak. But, by your own words, Orton dominated the match. So how does he look weak?

He looked weak by the fact that he's a 27 year old, not getting any attacked during the match, dominating the entire match, and he Hogan just needed a big boot and a leg drop to finish him.

I think it would be better to put over Coach than either HBK or Orton, at the time they had those matches.

I mean, Coach was a talent in good standing, an intricate part of storylines, and was a good heel character. HBK would not have benefited at all from beating Hogan nor lose from getting pinned by Hogan, and Orton wasn't deserving of a pin over Hogan. Coach was more worthy, and would have helped the WWE more, than either HBK or Orton.

And, I'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and Austin had gone over HBK and Orton, while Hogan walked out on Coach

Gosh, it really seems you prefered Coach to be put over.

The thing is, Coach isn't, wasn't, and wasn't going to be a wrestler. He didn't deserve to be put over, hell, he shouldn't have been in a match in the first place, so to claim that your number one guy in history (Stephanie Mcmahon's words, not mine) needed to job to a commentator, is rather stupid.

Hogan was better than HBK. Why do I say this? Because people would rather watch Hogan than HBK. We saw this as proof in '96

Hogan was a better draw than Shawn Michaels. Not a better wrestler.

But, that was bad heel psychology. The heel is supposed to make the face look strong. That's why wrestling works the way it does.

Wrestling is Good Guy vs. Bad Guy. You don't ever want the Bad Guy to look better than the Good Guy. You want fans to believe that the Bad Guy might be able to win the day, so when the Good Guy comes back to beat him, everyone is happy. It's the same thing you see in movies all the time.

At the end of the day, the Good Guy has to reign supreme, because that's what fans wanted. And, for the Good Guy to reign supreme, the bad guy has to do things that make the fans not like him. But, doing high impact, crowd-popping moves will make fans cheer you. And thus, doing them is poor heel psychology

Incorrect, it depends on the storyline for the feud. The storyline for that feud was that Kurt was a better wrestler, so he included all those moves to prove to that point.

It was the same storyline used for WRestlemania 22. Triple H said he was the better wrestler, so the entire match was HHH showing he could outwrestle John Cena.

What you said is partially correct, but it mostly depends on the storyline being told.

All I read here is Hogan=criticism, Austin=pass, You=hypocrite

When has Austin refused to job to a WRESTLER?

When has Austin publicly bashed the WWE?

When has Austin started talking about the WWE around this time so that he's considered for a Mania match? Hell, he even declined a match or to be involved at Mania 24.



In all honesty, we don't know shit about this, about comparing Austin to Hogan and about who is the better wrestler. So I'll let someone who knows about wrestling, Stephanie Mcmahon, do the talking. This is taken from the transcript of what she said to the Congress:

Basically, hard work and perseverance and overwhelming
the audience. It is really up to the talent.
Stone Cold Steve Austin tells this story all the time. I
don't know if you are familiar with Stone Cold, but he was
probably one of the biggest superstars that we ever had, bigger
than Hulk Hogan. I am sure you have heard of Hulk Hogan.
Mr. McDevitt. Hulk would disagree with that.
Ms. Levesque. Of course. But Stone Cold, I mean, huge

.

When someone walks out on that stage, they either connect
with the people or they don't. If you walk out on stage and
nobody cares and you don't have any presence, you are never going
to be a main‐event guy. But if you walk out and you make the
people notice you, you can be a main‐event guy.
You really don't even have to be a good wrestler. Hulk Hogan
was a terrible wrestler, and he still is.
Q For the record, I am sure he would disagree with that
too.
A I am sure he would disagree with that. I forget this is
all public. But, you know, he was. He was a terrible wrestler.
But what an incredible psychologist and what an incredible
charismatic person. There is no denying Hulk Hogan is one of the
biggest stars in the history of our business and will always be
25
perceived as such. But he was not a great wrestler, not a great
technician.
Q What makes a great technician, a great wrestler?
A The craft of wrestling itself, which is more mechanical
than it is showmanship

So if you had an unskilled wrestler and there was some
concern that ‐‐ you have described, I think, Hulk Hogan as not a
very good wrestler.
A Right. Which I didn't really realize I was on the
record and wasn't thinking about that. But yes, he ‐‐
Q I want the record to reflect that was your description.
A Correct.
Mr. McDevitt. Technical performer.
Ms. McMahon. Terrific performer, charisma oozing out of
everywhere, just not a great technical wrestler.
BY MR. COHEN:
Q A scenario where you had a wrestler who was not a great
technical wrestler, and you are concerned about perhaps the
protection of the other wrestler in the ring with that individual,
are you in a position to script the moves of that match to protect
a wrestler?
117
A We would never put anybody in a ring that didn't know
what they were doing fundamentally. When I said Hulk Hogan wasn't
a great wrestler, I didn't mean he didn't know how to do the
moves, the move technically. He just had three moves. And that
is all he did. That is what I meant. It wasn't an exciting,
technical display of reversing holds and, you know, multiple
different maneuvers. It was a very basic match. Psychologically,
it worked every time. The crowd got behind Hulk. But he was
skilled in how to perform those moves. We would never put anybody
in the ring who was an unskilled wrestler to the point where we
were concerned about the safety of those in the ring. We wouldn't
put anybody in jeopardy that way.

 

[Axis]

Hogan was a better draw than Shawn Michaels. Not a better wrestler.

What the fuck? Being a better draw* MAKES somebody a better wrestler. A wrestler is hired to draw fans. If one man draws more fans, he is doing his job better. Since his job is to be a wrestler, he is a better wrestler. Don't get me wrong. I would MUCH rather watch Shawn Michaels' top 10 matches than Hogan's top 10 matches, but that doesn't mean that Shawn Michaels is a better wrestler. We sometimes forget that wrestling is fake; it is just a story. The man who tells the better story is the better worker, and thus the better wrestler.

*This is relational to the audience. However, since both Shawn Michaels and Hulk Hogan were appealing to the same audience, it is fair to directly compare their drawing power.

 

[★Chuck Zombie★]

I think it would be better to put over Coach than either HBK or Orton, at the time they had those matches.

I'm not even going to argue with someone who believes this. I'm done. So I'll round up my main point since we got so diverted. WWE would be better off have BIG matches with people who are good in every category of a professional wrestler. If Hogan could at least technically wrestle as well as Austin, he'd be an even bigger star. So basically I'm saying that instead of using two stars to have a match that will have a bad technical wrestling quality, why not use it for people that do have good technical quality and make THEM the stars.

EDIT: reading the transcript from Stephanie, I agree 100%

 

[Moonlight Drive]

The man who tells the better story is the better worker, and thus the better wrestler.

Shawn Michaels is far better at telling stories than Hogan.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not even going to argue with someone who believes this. I'm done.

How is it wrong?

NO ONE can dispute that the Hogan match would have done anything to HBK, either good or bad. HBK's drawing power was not going to be significantly increased, nor decreased. And, Orton was COMPLETELY undeserving of the win, seeing how he had just got back from suspension for his unprofessional conduct.

On the other hand, Coach had just been made lead announcer on Raw, and was going to be the head announcer for a while, at least that was the plan at the time.

So why WOULDN'T putting over Coach be better than HBK or Orton. Orton didn't deserve, HBK couldn't do anything with it...Coach both deserved it AND could have used it.

Think outside the box for a minute, and you'll see I'm right.

Shawn Michaels is far better at telling stories than Hogan.

The millions upon millions of fans who'd rather watch Hogan than Michaels disagree.

 

[Axis]

Shawn Michaels is far better at telling stories than Hogan.

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.

 

[Quintastic One]

Just because you are good at wrestling, doesn't mean you are a good story teller. There are tons upon tons of talented guys in the undercard and in the Indy's, but they don't have any charisma. Or if they do, it pales in comparison to Hulk Hogan. Its not just mic skills either, Hogan knows how to sell a kayfabe injury, how to work a crowd with a simple point of his finger, how to make you CARE. Generally, the smark community won't care about a match unless it goes on for 10 minutes of huge spots. But Hogan is the kind of guy who has the capacity to make a great story, a great build up. Not just based off of competition, but off of emotion in general.

HOWEVER, Stone Cold does the EXACT SAME THING. He may not be quite as good at it, but his match against the Rock where he turned heel? The whole match was just brawling, outside the ring brawling, and finisher reversals. But the STORY they told was simply amazing, it made you on the edge of your seat, BOTH of these men are legends in their own right.

Hogan has put over Undertaker, Ultimate Warrior, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Goldberg, The Big Show with actual WINS over him, not just rubs.

Stone Cold has put over Chris Jericho, The Rock, Booker T, Triple H, Kurt Angle and Undertaker with actual WINS over him, not just rubs.

Nobody in their right state of mind can honestly tell me or anybody else that either of these guys are NOT class acts. Whether your drinking the anti Hogan or Austin Kool-Aid, I highly suggest you put down the glass and realize that both of these men have rich histories in the sport of wrestling and without either of them, none of us would even be here able to bash on them with reckless abandon.

The match between Hogan and Austin hasn't happened yet obviously due to differing opinions on how the match itself should go down, as well as the feud. Trying to make it just a throwaway match with only 4 weeks of build up will be a waste. If Hogan really wants this match, he will convey with WWE SEVERAL MONTHS ahead of time, not just when he needs a paycheck. And if Austin really wants this match, he will realize that a loss to Hogan is PARAMOUNT to having a big match with him. Hogan is the biggest name in the history of wrestling, period, no argument, even Ric Flair cant touch him, and Flair admits this in interviews everywhere.

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? 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? Just continue plugging for the rest of eternity that he beat Austin? 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. Should Austin of walked out? No. But should Coach of been placed to win in the first place? Hell no.