I'd rather see a longer feud come out of it, not just a 2 week "Raw" buildup leading up to 'Mania 25. Hold off until Summerslam, that way, there's more media exposure to it, and more anticipation that way.
If they were to start the feud right now, it would be more than enough time for an incredible feud at Wrestlemania.
The feud sells itself, there's not a lot that needs to be done to build it.
If Hogan put Orton over by winning then how did Angle and HHH bury him by doing the same. Orton even beat Angle at the next PPV.
It's the way in which the feud/match plays out.
With Hogan, Orton was a serious challenger, and a serious player in the feud. There's basically NO ONE who will dispute Triple H's burial of Orton, not even the die hard Triple H fans. Most people know that the Orton face turn and feud against Triple H was very poorly done. Similarly, have you seen the Orton match against Angle? Orton was made to look like a bitch. Angle was literally bitch slapping him in the ring. Orton was nothing more than a jobber in his match against Angle.
However, his feud against Hogan is what set Orton up again as a top rate bad guy. It's where Orton was finally getting his heat back, and was finally being considered a true top heel.
That's the difference. It's not just win/lose, it's how the feud progresses. Putting someone over is completely different than losing to someone. You can put someone over, without losing to them.
So would it be ok for Hogan to lose to Mike Adamle? Honestly I wouldn't blame Hogan for passing on that either, but if you are saying not wanting to job to Michaels or Orton is the same as not wanting to job to Coach, you are out of your mind.
You're dealing in a hypothetical, not a fact. The fact is that Austin agreed to participate in Taboo Tuesday, and then backed out when he found out he wasn't going to win. He refused to put someone over.
And, it IS a completely different deal with Michaels and Orton. It mades more sense for Hogan to go over Michaels, and Orton hadn't earned the right, at the time, to go over Hogan. If the match were to happen NOW, then I would agree Orton should be put over Hogan. But, at the time, Orton wasn't deserving of being put over the greatest in the history of wrestling.
And, from a financial standpoint (in both Hogan's and Vince's eyes), it made more sense for Hogan to win than Michaels. Michaels' drawing power, at this stage of his career, is not going to change, as long as he's a regular member of the WWE, and especially losing to the greatest wrestler in the history of wrestling. However, Hogan's could. See Mick Foley and Ric Flair as proof of that. It makes much more sense to preserve Hogan's still significant drawing power, and the risk of losing nothing from HBK's.
Thus, Hogan going over in both of those situations made sense.
Really, what work did he do at Wrestlemania 21? Oh that's right, he didn't. He came out and buried the random midcarder of the night. Or the RAW 15th Anniversary...same thing.
He did nothing at 21...but his actions at WM 21, built to the match at Backlash 2005, where it was HBK and Hogan vs. Hassan and Davairi, which then led to the mega matchup at Summerslam. So, it still served a purpose.
But, when was the last time we saw ANYTHING from Austin serve a purpose? It's just the same thing everytime...finger, Stunner, beers, and another undercard worker not getting put over.
Again, Hogan didn't put Orton over. Hogan went in got his win, then left. Bailed on the rematch like he did with Michaels claiming knee problems both times (which is why he should have lost first, won second. You're right, Orton did almost get a win, but after that Hogan just pretty much got up like nothing happened and won.....that's burying.
Not even close, and I explained this above.
He broke his neck again in 99. Which led to long term pain. That's a big injury to overcome, and wrestling for 4 more years didn't make it any better.
The injury occurred in '97, and he had surgery in '99, if memory serves correctly. But, even if you are correct, that's four years of wrestling after his surgery.
So, my original point remains intact.
Hogan worked where he could make money.
As do all professional wrestlers. What's your point.
He had a great body and was offered money. Tell how does having Bret Hart drop the title to Yokozuna, then Hogan drop the title to Hogan 2 minutes later help the business?
Ask Vince McMahon, he's the one who made the decision.
And, how does it help the business? Hulk Hogan was STILL the biggest draw in wrestling, and Vince was hoping that another Hogan reign would help pull the company upwards, at a time the WWF needed a good role model and some good business. Did it pay off? No, but you can't say that it wasn't a logical idea.
And, I'll tell you how else it helped the business. Heels never carry a promotion. Faces are what draw. Even in the old NWA, it was the face of the territory that drew, Flair just went around to each promotion as the bad guy, so the good guy would have someone to compete against. And so, having Yokozuna win (by cheating, no less), just to get pinned by Hogan, does NOTHING bad to Yokozuna, AND it saves Bret Hart from getting pinned by Hulk Hogan.
Thus, you preserve Hart's reputation, as he was cheated out of the title and didn't lose to Hogan, and you put the belt on the biggest draw in wrestling history. It's not like it was a bad idea. It just didn't work.
Well, by your logic that probably put Hart over more than all 3 of them. And look at Bash At The Beach 2001. Instead of doing what was best for the business by making a new star in Jarrett (that's a different argument there) he wanted the title.
Length of time has nothing to do with amount of care for the business. But, no one is going to wrestle for 30 years if they don't care about the business. It's a completely asinine thing to say. Brock Lesnar and Bobby Lashley didn't care about the business, and they left. And they came along in a time that was MUCH better for workers than when Hogan started.
Hogan doesn't care about the business, he cares about money.
Hogan does care about the business, he is just smart enough to make the money while he does it. That's like saying that Michael Jordan didn't care about basketball, just the money. It's ridiculous.
Again, that was his charisma. Selling? Please, one of his signatures was NOT selling.
Do you understand what charisma is? Charisma is your ability to connect with the crowd. Hogan had some of the greatest charisma in the history of the world. But, so did Bobby Heenan, and he wasn't a top drawing wrestler. Charisma and working ability are two entirely separate things.
Professional wrestling is all about "working" the crowd. It's about selling the illusion of the real fight, and making the crowd believe that what they are seeing could actually be real. It's about connecting with the crowd, and drawing them in to the story you are trying to tell in the ring. And Hogan did that better than anyone. You can't tell me, if you watch a Hogan match, that almost every fan in the audience is intently watching his match, and cheering/booing his actions. You can't tell me that, because it's not true. You can't tell me that people didn't want to watch Hogan work, because that is certainly untrue as he was the best draw in the history of wrestling.
At the end of the day, anyone with a basic understanding of the way wrestling REALLY works, understands that Hogan was a very good professional wrestler.
As far as the selling thing goes, yes, he did the "Hulk Up" routine. But, one of the reasons the hulking up worked so well, is because he sold the beatdown so well. I mean, if you never believed that Hogan was about to get beaten, would you have cared about him hulking up? The answer is no. People came unglued, because there was ALWAYS that shadow of a doubt that Hogan might actually get beaten. And that is a sign of good storytelling and good selling.
No, that's popularity. John Cena has just as charismatic as Hogan but can wrestle way better than Hogan, he BLOWS Hogan out of the water. And he cares about the business. THAT'S great workrate. Not, "hey, my name is worth money, pay me for shitty wrestling."
Bad wrestlers don't become popular, because bad wrestlers don't know how to make the fans care about them. The only way you can make fans care about you is by being a good wrestler. Whether they boo you or cheer you, they do so because you, the wrestler, have made your matches something they are emotionally involved in. And, if you're emotionally involved in that wrestler, you're going to pay to watch him. And if you're paying to watch a wrestler, so you can become emotionally involved in his work, then that man is a good wrestler.
Professional wrestlers are actors. And just like any other actor, the best performance is done by the guy who you believe in the most. And Hogan was the master of making people believe in him.
And that's my point exactly, a horrible match is probably the biggest match ever....why? Because WWE hypes it? That's all it had was hype.
And thus, Austin vs. Hogan would be on track to become the NEW biggest match of all time.
I don't see what your point is. My point is that Hogan vs. Austin could become the biggest match of all time if it were to happen, and that Hogan vs. Andre could very well currently be the biggest match of all time. No where did I mention quality, just the magnitude of the match.
This coming from a Warrior and Hogan fan....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Yes, a fan of the guy who was the biggest draw in wrestling history, and a fan of one of the few guys to beat the biggest draw in wrestling history clean in the middle of the ring.
I find it ironic you're mocking me for thinking that two of the biggest name wrestlers in history were good at what they do. Tell me, what is your opinion on a good wrestler? Someone who works for peanuts at the local flea market in 97 minute matches that no one cares about?
In the early 2000s, no. I'm pretty sure being a tag team champion hurt his pride.
You don't think that Hulk Hogan could have just quit if he didn't want to do that stuff? That's ridiculous. Hulk Hogan is arguably the richest wrestler in history. He has mainstream name and as we've seen, can make a good life for himself on TV. Hulk Hogan didn't need the money, he could have pulled a Steve Austin and gone home at anytime.
But, he didn't. He stayed around, and put guys over, guys like Lesnar and Angle and Edge. But, people don't want to talk about that. No, we'd rather make excuses for why Austin can't put over guys, and ignore all the guys Hogan has put over.
The early 90's it was obvious....he refused to lose clean to Undertaker.
But, he still put him over in a big way.
He was able to talk Vince into having him win the title at WM9 in a 2 minute match from someone who had JUST won the match.
I think it was Triple H who said that NO ONE makes Vince McMahon do something he doesn't want to do.
And I've already explained how it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to try.
If HBK refused to lose, then why did he lose?
Because Vince wanted Hogan to win more than he wanted HBK. For the money reasoning I've already explained.
He may not have wanted to, but Hogan had a clause in his contract stating that he could choose what he wanted. Vince didn't side with Hogan, Vince COULDN'T side with Shawn. It was either Hogan win or the WWE was in breach. The decision was ALL Hogan's, and he didn't make the right one.
Sure Vince could have sided with Shawn. He just didn't. The WWE could have just fired Hogan, and not payed him a dime, like they do to workers all the time. But, Vince didn't. He wanted the Hogan payday, and so he took Hogan's side over Shawn's. Why? Because it was good financial decision.
Neck injury>knee injury. Austin's prevents him from working well. Hogan's does too. The difference, Austin knows he can't put on a good match, so he doesn't want to put on a match at all. There's no point in having a "big match" if it's going to suck.
But, it wouldn't suck. It would be epic. In this match, you'd have two guys who know how to work the crowd, and who know how to sell a story in the match. You have two guys who know how to connect with the fans.
It'd be like Wrestlemania 18, except on a bigger scale.
I don't feel like going into Slyfox's entire posts. I might do so later, but just the fact that he credits Randy Orton jobbing to Hogan at Summerslam 06 the fact that Orton won the belt at No Mercy 2007.
By that logic, John Cena became the champion at WM21 thanks to Chris Jericho jobbing to him at Vengeance 2003.
Orton didn't job to Hogan though. The problem here is that people don't understand the wrestling terms they use.
Jobbing is when you go out to the ring, for the sole intention of making your opponent look good. That's not what happened in Hogan vs. Orton. Orton looked VERY good in his feud AND match with Hogan. Orton one-upped Hogan at just about every turn, even getting the disputed 1-2-3 against Hogan. Orton was VERY close to beating the greatest of all time.
That's not jobbing, that's credibility.
1) He didn't job to The Coach. Wow, the very fact that he tries to defend this position proves he is no qualified to argue about this subject.
No, my position is that people complain when Hogan doesn't lose matches, but when Austin doesn't, then it's ok.
And, I think I have proven my point.
and 2) That Austin refuses to job to anyone, also citing Brock Lesnar on a throwaway match on Raw.
I never said anything about Brock Lesnar. That was someone else who brought that up. As usual, your reading comprehension has failed you.
I think Austin deserved the same.
Vince McMahon didn't. Just like Vince didn't think that HBK or Orton should go over Hogan.
But, I guess that's different right? Could you be any more blind to truth?
His last official match with the company he put OVER The Rock.
LOL, no he didn't.
By Wrestlemania 19, Rock was the bigger name of the two. He didn't put over Rock, he just lost to him. Rock was already more over than Austin.
Once again, people use terms, they don't truly understand.
Steve Austin has put over just as many people as Hulk Hogan.
Which means that Hulk Hogan has put over just as many people as Steve Austin, right? In your mind, this sentence says that Hogan has put over as many people as Austin, since Austin has put over as many as Hogan.
Thus, trying to say that Hogan hasn't put over people is, as you put it, "assinine" [
sic].
What's funny is that in your attempt to mock me, you actually proved my point. So, I thank you for that. Never let it be said that incompetence still can't serve a purpose.
