|
View Poll Results: Who is the better wrestler? | |||
"The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels | 21 | 65.63% | |
Hulk Hogan | 11 | 34.38% | |
Voters: 32. You must log in or register to vote on this poll. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-13-2017, 02:49 AM | #121 |
It's all Bullshit
Posts: 6,910
|
Hogan screwed around too much backstage later in his career and while HBK wasn't much better didn't "appear"to do anywhere near as much damage to the product as Hogan did in the end.
|
10-13-2017, 03:16 AM | #122 |
b/c 5 is better than 4
Posts: 9,721
|
For as much as Hogan made WWF, he killed WCW....
|
10-13-2017, 04:00 AM | #123 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Hogan is responsible for WCW ever seriously competing with WWF in the first place.
You could easily make the case that he made WWF and then left them to make WCW to the point where it almost killed the first company he made. No other wrestler has ever been big enough to be able to control the entire industry to that extent. |
10-13-2017, 02:52 PM | #124 |
Amazon Affiliate
Posts: 42,694
|
Who did more for the business?
I'd say Hogan by bringing in millions of fans. Still prefer HBK. |
10-14-2017, 01:01 PM | #125 |
Amazon Affiliate
Posts: 42,694
|
HBK is better at wrestling. Hogan is better at being pushed as the top guy and taking steroids.
Need to clarify. |
10-14-2017, 06:42 PM | #126 |
BAY BAY
Posts: 36,524
|
I didn't actually like wrestling in the 80's and then got hooked from WCW Saturday Night on ITV when they had all their jobbers know, but they were high flying jobbers.
Only started liking Hogan after the now turn. Probably helped we didn't get the PPVs so I never had to watch him wrestle. |
10-16-2017, 11:32 AM | #127 | |
Posts: 60,894
|
Quote:
I mean, effectiveness of the work needs to be evaluated, and there have been fewer wrestlers as effective as Hulk Hogan. That was his job. To go out there and captivate people -- which he did on an undeniably huge scale. The goal of professional wrestling is to make as much money as possible. Hogan was a fucking master at that. Hogan did far more with far less than what HBK managed. I always find the best way to answer these polls is to think "If I'm trying to promote wrestling, who would I rather have on my roster, and who would I rather my rival get?" And I'm sorry, but if I draw Hulk Hogan and you draw Shawn Michaels, then I am going to win all the money. And that is painful to say, because you'd probably take Shawn Michaels over most other people on the planet, because most other guys didn't draw either. You can have great bell-to-bell guys flying around underneath. It's a shame if it's not Shawn Michaels, but them's the breaks in these hypothetical situations. That being said, you can have performative stars -- people who do get "famous" because of the quality of their work. HBK is one of those, for sure. He is the "wrestling fan's wrestler." I actually think Cena and HBK are possibly one of the best one-two punches of different types of star WWE has ever mustered. Because Cena is the one that you want to get over through media presence, etc., and HBK is the critics' choice. Everybody makes out that WrestleMania 23 drew based on Donald Trump and Vince McMahon, solely, but I think something was there in Michaels vs. Cena. Rock and Michaels would be even better. Austin and HBK would be better than Cena and HBK too. But Michaels is great for a certain part. One of the best for it, actually. That's the best argument I can mount against the drawing argument. Hogan was a certain type of star -- one that shines in our culture the brightest. But there are other types of star that can be used to make money in other ways. I don't know -- I'm trying, haha. |
|
10-16-2017, 11:37 AM | #128 |
Posts: 60,894
|
I really wish HBK had spent more time as WWE Champion in the mid-00's. I think, for the longest period there, he really was their top guy. Cena didn't draw right away. I just wonder how things would be different if Cena was chasing Michaels' spot for a few years. It was largely the tenacity of that push that people resisted. And he was so young and green when they jammed him into it. Cena was always good, don't get me wrong, but Austin said it all started to click for him about 7 years in. By then Cena was already in the stage of his career where the perception was set.
I dunno -- just thinking out loud about HBK. I wonder if he could have been a bigger star if he had come back to be on top in that period? |
10-16-2017, 11:37 AM | #129 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 50,964
|
Absolutely, but when it's either or...the answer is clear
|
10-16-2017, 11:51 AM | #130 |
Posts: 60,894
|
Yeah, I couldn't really come around on my own point there. I mean, I saw the Transformers/Spotlight analogy earlier, and I like it, up to the point where I know which one is the better *franchise*. A wrestler isn't one event. I think the movie analogy might hold up with matches, but I don't think it works when summarizing a wrestler's career.
Besides, if I was trying to produce films, I know which one I would rather produce. Transformers. Then I would have enough money to do whatever other crap I wanted. |
10-16-2017, 11:55 AM | #131 |
Posts: 60,894
|
And besides, Hogan is closer to Star Wars than Transformers. Unless you count all the Transformers, so you can have the glorious '86 stuff and the Michael Bay stuff can be his WCW run. Spotlight also made its money back. You'd probably need to compare Michaels to a movie that kind of...well, sucked a lot more, really. At least at getting people to watch it.
"Good movies" and "good wrestling" aren't the same thing, because "good movies" draw better than "good wrestling." |
10-16-2017, 01:42 PM | #132 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,411
|
Hate to be this guy, kinda, but I'm hoping #82 won't be someone with a next to guaranteed chance to go in the BW HoF. IMO, it is an honor that needs to be earned, not that Shawn didn't, necessarily, but I'm just sayin'.
|
10-16-2017, 01:43 PM | #133 |
I am the cheese
Posts: 50,964
|
Has that ever been the case?
|
10-16-2017, 01:55 PM | #134 |
Cranky Kong
Posts: 78,671
|
No, DAMN iNATOR is just a stupid bitch. You know how it goes.
|
10-16-2017, 02:41 PM | #135 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,423
|
Bladerunner 2049 is probably going to draw a net loss
|
10-16-2017, 02:48 PM | #136 |
Cranky Kong
Posts: 78,671
|
And who is that? Dolph Ziggler?
|
10-16-2017, 07:18 PM | #137 |
Posts: 60,894
|
|
10-16-2017, 07:18 PM | #138 |
Posts: 60,894
|
Gallows & Anderson? Mark Henry? Khali?
|
10-16-2017, 07:59 PM | #139 |
boop/bop/beep
Posts: 38,423
|
Bladerunner 2049 was quite good. Just over indulgent and full of itself. So yes... Dolph Ziggler.
|
10-16-2017, 08:19 PM | #140 |
Posts: 60,894
|
Haven't seen it yet. But yeah, that sounds pretty Dolphish.
|