erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Nov 23, 2006 11:50:55 GMT -5
In the several decades both have been in the ring, who has, in your opinion, put more butts in the seats?
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Nov 23, 2006 11:55:46 GMT -5
It has to be Hogan, anyone that thinks differently, in my opinion, is drinking their own juice.
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Nov 23, 2006 12:00:05 GMT -5
Hogan, it's not even close. The only other man who can claim such a accomplishment is Austin. But Hogan had more years on top, so...who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Torch Man on Nov 23, 2006 12:21:07 GMT -5
Yeah dude, this isn't even a close call. It's like asking "Who is the greenest superhero, Incredible Hulk or David Guest?"
Hogan has been a draw for over 20 years, and a major draw in MAJOR markets all over the world.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Nov 23, 2006 12:29:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 23, 2006 12:50:33 GMT -5
Hogan made more money, Flair put on better shows. Looking back, I'd rather watch Flair DVDs than Hogan DVDs. Yet at the time, Hogan had far more people paying to see him than Flair. It's not really a level playing field, as Hogan had a huge marketing machine and bright lights behind him, while Flair was wrestling hour-long matches every day, twice on Sunday, sometimes in front of less than a thousand people. It's more marketing than anything. There you go, Ric Flair said it better than me.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Nov 23, 2006 13:17:16 GMT -5
Sadly it was Hogan.
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 23, 2006 13:22:18 GMT -5
If the positions had been reversed, would Flair had surpassed Hogan's level of 'money drawn' and fan interest? Or would it have been less?
Flair can wrestle far, far better matches. They aren't in the same league, and I think very few people will disagree with that. But Flair's thing was that he'd get his ass kicked for an hour and escape by the skin of his teeth. Hogan was putting guys out with the boot and the leg drop.
Would casual fans get behind Flair like they did Hogan? By 'casual', I don't mean the people that watch wrestling on a regular basis. I mean the people that fill out massive, fifty thousand seater arenas to see a wrestling Event and are there purely for spectacle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 13:25:44 GMT -5
If the positions had been reversed, would Flair had surpassed Hogan's level of 'money drawn' and fan interest? Or would it have been less? Flair can wrestle far, far better matches. They aren't in the same league, and I think very few people will disagree with that. But Flair's thing was that he'd get his ass kicked for an hour and escape by the skin of his teeth. Hogan was putting guys out with the boot and the leg drop. Would casual fans get behind Flair like they did Hogan? By 'casual', I don't mean the people that watch wrestling on a regular basis. I mean the people that fill out massive, fifty thousand seater arenas to see a wrestling Event and are there purely for spectacle. If Flair was in better shape, yes.
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 23, 2006 13:30:23 GMT -5
What do you mean, by better shape? I don't mean RIGHT NOW, of course. I mean in the 80s and 90s, when both guys were at the peak of their physical shape, popularity and the like. Flair is a genetic marvel, for doing all the crap that he did and still being able to take suplexes off of fifteen foot ladders and even GET in the ring at nearly sixty years old. A lot of people say 'oh, all he can do is bump and chop now'. My dad, at 55, would DIE if he took a regular back body drop. The fact that Flair can do that, and still be entertaining (not as great as he was, but still good damn it), is amazing. So, when Flair was 25, 35, 40, he was in better shape than he is now. Oh, wait, I just realized that by 'better shape' you meant 'more muscles'. Am I right? Sorry for rambling. In THAT case, well, I've never put any stock in how good a guy looks, to some extent. Flair had a good enough body. I mean, if a guy is a big slob or a skinny rail, or otherwise doesn't look credible as a tough guy, yeah. But Flair wasn't supposed to be a muscleheaded monster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 13:53:31 GMT -5
What do you mean, by better shape? I don't mean RIGHT NOW, of course. I mean in the 80s and 90s, when both guys were at the peak of their physical shape, popularity and the like. Flair is a genetic marvel, for doing all the crap that he did and still being able to take suplexes off of fifteen foot ladders and even GET in the ring at nearly sixty years old. A lot of people say 'oh, all he can do is bump and chop now'. My dad, at 55, would DIE if he took a regular back body drop. The fact that Flair can do that, and still be entertaining (not as great as he was, but still good damn it), is amazing. So, when Flair was 25, 35, 40, he was in better shape than he is now. Oh, wait, I just realized that by 'better shape' you meant 'more muscles'. Am I right? Sorry for rambling. In THAT case, well, I've never put any stock in how good a guy looks, to some extent. Flair had a good enough body. I mean, if a guy is a big slob or a skinny rail, or otherwise doesn't look credible as a tough guy, yeah. But Flair wasn't supposed to be a muscleheaded monster. I don't mean to sound like creative, but a musular guy can get fans. If he does nothing, maybe not. But if Flair was cut, and I dont mean Bobby lashley cut, Johhny Nitro cut, John Cena cut, or 80's Rude cut, but with enough muscle definition to look dangerous to casual fans and marks, he could've been bigger than WWF Hogan if they had swapped spots.
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 23, 2006 13:57:44 GMT -5
I think the thing is that Flair WASN'T dangerous. He was smart.
I'm not sure if Flair's character could have gotten over with people that wanted to see their favorite kick someone else's ass, clean and simple. Flair has always been best as the hell, so maybe he needs a popular 'face' to go against to reach that top tier, even if the popular guy can't wrestle or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 13:59:59 GMT -5
I think the thing is that Flair WASN'T dangerous. He was smart. I'm not sure if Flair's character could have gotten over with people that wanted to see their favorite kick someone else's ass, clean and simple. Flair has always been best as the hell, so maybe he needs a popular 'face' to go against to reach that top tier, even if the popular guy can't wrestle or whatever. Flair could've gotten over as a face that cheated the heels. Hey, Hogan did it all the time to heels.
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Nov 23, 2006 14:13:35 GMT -5
Hogan.
|
|
|
Post by Torch Man on Nov 23, 2006 14:27:36 GMT -5
This thing about "Better matches". Surely in a kayfabe environment that wrestling is, saying something is a "better match" than something else is ludicrous. It's like saying that a book is a "better book" than another. Dito with movies, TV shows etc. Surely with wrestling the only measuring stick is:
a) Our personal enjoyment i.e personal preference, and b) The overall popularity of the performer, match and event.
If Flair really did put on better (i.e more entertaining) matches then why did the vast majority of people prefer to see Hogan's? It's a bit like the music industry, anoracks will try and tell us that it's always the albums that nobody listened to that are "better", but how can that possibly be the case? We MUST judge these things on their longevity and popularity. Anything else would be purely subjective and not really worthy of merit in discussion.
|
|
WWHHHD
Unicron
Break it down for a 5 second pose!
Posts: 3,467
|
Post by WWHHHD on Nov 23, 2006 14:30:30 GMT -5
Thank god it wasn't between Austin and Hogan because Hogan is the man and still draws. And will always draw for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Nov 23, 2006 14:31:00 GMT -5
This thing about "Better matches". Surely in a kayfabe environment that wrestling is, saying something is a "better match" than something else is ludicrous. It's like saying that a book is a "better book" than another. Dito with movies, TV shows etc. Surely with wrestling the only measuring stick is: a) Our personal enjoyment i.e personal preference, and b) The overall popularity of the performer, match and event. If Flair really did put on better (i.e more entertaining) matches then why did the vast majority of people prefer to see Hogan's? It's a bit like the music industry, anoracks will try and tell us that it's always the albums that nobody listened to that are "better", but how can that possibly be the case? We MUST judge these things on their longevity and popularity. Anything else would be purely subjective and not really worthy of merit in discussion. You hit the nail on the head, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 23, 2006 14:32:20 GMT -5
This thing about "Better matches". Surely in a kayfabe environment that wrestling is, saying something is a "better match" than something else is ludicrous. It's like saying that a book is a "better book" than another. Dito with movies, TV shows etc. Surely with wrestling the only measuring stick is: a) Our personal enjoyment i.e personal preference, and b) The overall popularity of the performer, match and event. If Flair really did put on better (i.e more entertaining) matches then why did the vast majority of people prefer to see Hogan's? It's a bit like the music industry, anoracks will try and tell us that it's always the albums that nobody listened to that are "better", but how can that possibly be the case? We MUST judge these things on their longevity and popularity. Anything else would be purely subjective and not really worthy of merit in discussion. I call Flair better because I, personally, find him to be more entertaining. Now, if I can't do that, what do I do then? Follow the majority? For the sake of your arguement, Flair wrestled longer, but Hogan wrestled in front of bigger crowds. Hogan is a bigger 'name', but Flair seems to be more respected amongst 'wrestling fans'. The simple answer is that Hogan made more money for everyone around him, and that Flair seems to have made a longer career out of it, and is still entertaining people at this stage of his life, while Hogan only makes special appearances. Then again, the whole question of this thread is 'who was the bigger draw'. The answer is Hogan, even Flair said so. So I'll stop.
|
|
|
Post by Nice Guy Cody on Nov 23, 2006 15:45:59 GMT -5
If Flair really did put on better (i.e more entertaining) matches then why did the vast majority of people prefer to see Hogan's? It's a bit like the music industry, anoracks will try and tell us that it's always the albums that nobody listened to that are "better", but how can that possibly be the case? We MUST judge these things on their longevity and popularity. Anything else would be purely subjective and not really worthy of merit in discussion. I draw this analogy: Titanic drew way more box office than the movie Shawshank Redemption, which did abysmal when it opened. Ten years+ later, which movie is held in extremely high esteem and which movie is all but forgotten? Longevity and popularity ARE subjective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 15:55:14 GMT -5
If Flair really did put on better (i.e more entertaining) matches then why did the vast majority of people prefer to see Hogan's? It's a bit like the music industry, anoracks will try and tell us that it's always the albums that nobody listened to that are "better", but how can that possibly be the case? We MUST judge these things on their longevity and popularity. Anything else would be purely subjective and not really worthy of merit in discussion. I draw this analogy: Titanic drew way more box office than the movie Shawshank Redemption, which did abysmal when it opened. Ten years+ later, which movie is held in extremely high esteem and which movie is all but forgotten? Longevity and popularity ARE subjective. Well-made point. Btw, excellent analogy, I was going to use one comparing fruit to cheese, but the Titanic vs Shawshank one is definitely better (besides...cheese and fruit?). Point is, though, that you are correct. Some things are big, but then then there are things that get progressively bigger. Flair and Hogan are much the same. many people I know outright LAUGH at the hulkster, because of his character. I don't know anyone who laughs at classic Ric, on the other hand.
|
|