Who was the biggest career draw?

[Mista T]

Draw? Hogan no doubt.

And Flair > Hogan

[skskillz]

codylockemitchell said:

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.

Your analogy is also subjective. Who says Titanic is forgotten? Who says Flair is held in higher esteem than Hogan right now? That's YOUR opinion, which again, goes back to what the original poster was saying.

If I say apples taste better than oranges, that only applies to ME, not to anyone else. If I said Hogan was more entertaining than Flair (or vice versa) that again only applies to me. The argument then becomes, if wrestling is a business that is driven by money (which it is), then why should anyone hold Flair above Hogan for any reason? OK, so in your opinion Flair was more entertaining, which is fine, but why did Hogan sell out 80,000 seat arenas while Flair was lucky to wrestle in front of 80,000 people if he combined one month worth of shows? Why is the underground band that 100 people paid to see better than the group that sold out 20,000 seats arenas in every city they went to? Why was the WWF circa 1995-1997 better than WCW when the latter was killing them in financial every category? It's opinion vs. quantifiable evidence that shows what the majority preferred. Which one wins?

The point is, in business, it's all about what people want to see and buy. That is instantly perceived to be better because it carries greater demand. Even Ric Flair admitted as such.

[Magneto]

Hogan is a bigger attraction in this business than Ric Flair but when it comes to everything else, Flair is head and shoulders over Hogan.

[Nice Guy Cody]

skskillz said:

Your analogy is also subjective. Who says Titanic is forgotten? Who says Flair is held in higher esteem than Hogan right now? That's YOUR opinion, which again, goes back to what the original poster was saying.

If I say apples taste better than oranges, that only applies to ME, not to anyone else. If I said Hogan was more entertaining than Flair (or vice versa) that again only applies to me. The argument then becomes, if wrestling is a business that is driven by money (which it is), then why should anyone hold Flair above Hogan for any reason? OK, so in your opinion Flair was more entertaining, which is fine, but why did Hogan sell out 80,000 seat arenas while Flair was lucky to wrestle in front of 80,000 people if he combined one month worth of shows? Why is the underground band that 100 people paid to see better than the group that sold out 20,000 seats arenas in every city they went to? Why was the WWF circa 1995-1997 better than WCW when the latter was killing them in financial every category? It's opinion vs. quantifiable evidence that shows what the majority preferred. Which one wins?

You're putting words into my mouth and ignoring my point; that popularity and longevity ARE subjective. Subjective because popularity IS based on opinion. And things that enjoy massive, MASSIVE popularity at one point often burn out fast.

[tna]

Hogan

[Loki]

Hogan. Flair himself said so... who are we to doubt El Flair?

The whole "what if" story is good for one of those endless debates... so I'll pass

[Mayonnaise]

Hogan. He spent 20 years as a THE babyface in the business and drew in kids and their parents. Plus he helped make the n.W.o. and they were a top draw (and he as the champ people want to see get his ass kicked) for at least 3 years. His PPV buys alone are probably more than Flair has drawn.

magneto said:

Hogan is a bigger attraction in this business than Ric Flair but when it comes to everything else, Flair is head and shoulders over Hogan.

It is rare but, I whole heartedly agree.

[skskillz]

codylockemitchell said:

You're putting words into my mouth and ignoring my point; that popularity and longevity ARE subjective. Subjective because popularity IS based on opinion. And things that enjoy massive, MASSIVE popularity at one point often burn out fast.

Popularity on its own is subjective, but popularity + money isn't. My business teacher in college always used to say "you can create the single greatest product ever invented, but if no one buys it, it's useless". Obviously, Flair did draw money in his specific area, but Hogan drew considerably more. Popularity in this case can be quantified by money. Or attendance. I'm a big believer in money equaling legacy. From my own experience, I had no problem spending my (parents') money on Hogan. However, while I was a Bret Hart fan in the mid-'90's, I never paid to watch him. If a business can make a large group of consumers pay THAT much money on one guy...so much more money that it's history setting....then there's something special about that one guy.

I agree that things that are successful for a period do burn out eventually, as there are always peaks and valleys (nothing can sustain popularity forever), but Hogan has maintained popularity for two decades. To a lesser degree, so has Flair. A better example to what you're eluding to are fads; like most of the Attitude Era gimmicks, or Ultimate Warrior, and others. Hogan wasn't a fad. Flair wasn't a fad. These are both icons in the business, so it's a fair comparison.

Either way, both are great in my eyes. It's just that Hogan was better at attracting an audience. That doesn't demean Flair, it just means he wasn't as good as Hogan in that area. Other than that, the "he's better" or "he had better matches" arguments are purely based on personal taste/opinion, and therefore is somewhat meaningless.

[mainsupreme]

the sad thing is for most of the IWC Hogan > wrestling
Hogan and the rock are both bigger than the sport it self. Flair is maybe one of the best ever, he is on par with wrestling and happy with it.
just give them both a worthy retirement

[Torch Man]

I remember watching Raw last year with my brother who was visiting from Ireland. It was the June 27th Raw when Hogan came down as the suprise partner of Cena & Michaels Vs Tomko, Christian and Jericho. Throughout the show he'd been at the computer glancing over at the TV, passing comment on various things, mainly the Diva section. He'd never really been a wrestling fan. He'd known all about it and watched some shows and have some basic knowledge of everything, but not really a fan. I tell you when Hogan's music hit he sat and watched the ENTIRE match without saying a word. Of course afterwards he laughed it off and found it funny that a 52 year old man was wrestling, but he watched. Nobody else does that to non-wrestling fans to that extent.

But Hogan has been involved in almost every single major wrestling movement of the last 25 years. Everything from his move to WWF which revolutionised the industry to him being involved in the angle which created the Attitude era before Vince McMahon when to a bald-headed midcarder and said "Steve, I have an idea".

Hogan initially drew television. In 1983 the idea of pro wrestling on MTV and NBC was as ludicrous. He then drew PPV which then became the main staple of the wrestling business. Then over ten years later he lead the way for 12 PPV's per year when he was pushing the boundries once again in WCW. Everyone else who has come before and since has really only just been tagging along for the ride. To even compre the amount of people that Hulkamania/Hollywood drew over a period of time longer than most of the LIVES of the modern day wrestling fan, to anything else is boardering on the delusional.

[erik316wttn]

Geez. I guess my question should have been between Rock and Austin then.

[Nice Guy Cody]

skskillz said:

Popularity on its own is subjective, but popularity + money isn't. My business teacher in college always used to say "you can create the single greatest product ever invented, but if no one buys it, it's useless".

Sure it's still subjective. What matter is it if that product sells hundreds of thousands, but becomes obsolete after ten, twenty years? It's been replaced by something of higher quality, few people remember it, and the money it made isn't going to last forever, especially if that one thing is the entire thing you're banking on ten years after the fact.
Someone brought up music earlier, let's use that for an example. Fad boygroups like Nsync or the Backstreet boys may have had more exposure and made more money in the brief time before they completely burned out, but does that mean they're going to be remembered more fondly years after the fact than artists like, say, Elton John. In my own opinion, no.

[Macho Dude Handy Damage]

I'd like to say Flair, but in all honesty, I think we have to give this one to Hogan. Whether we like it or not.

[Corporate H]

Hogan, but Flair is better.

[salTy]

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.

While you make a good point, you have to take into account the majority of American consumers like whatever they are told to like. That's why the TRL crap is what's popular in music, not because it's musically inclined or actually written well. Whatever is marketed the most is what's going to make bank. People don't take the time to seek out what they may actually prefer or what actually has quality. Are we actually supposed to believe that there are only twenty good songs in existence right now? The chances are there's something much better out there, and that goes for any form of entertainment.

[Jake Robert's Dealer!!!]

Hogan without a doubt.

Even though Hogan has turned into a senile old quack, the man is wrestling's biggest draw.

[Will Has 'Til Five, Ref]

Nash was the biggest draw. He has charts.

[bob]

Ric Flair

[skskillz]

codylockemitchell said:

Sure it's still subjective. What matter is it if that product sells hundreds of thousands, but becomes obsolete after ten, twenty years? It's been replaced by something of higher quality, few people remember it, and the money it made isn't going to last forever, especially if that one thing is the entire thing you're banking on ten years after the fact.

How does that relate to Hogan, though? People not only remember him, but still purchase the shows he's advertised to be on today. This is a good 20 years after his peak drawing days. Again, fads are irrelevant here. Hogan isn't one. He was the biggest star of the '80's, and had a big influence on the financial success of two seperate companies during two completely different eras (WWF-1980's, WCW-1990's).

I don't see why Hogan, or Austin, or Rock, or Flair, or whoever, should be discredited for their drawing power 20 years from now just because they've been "replaced". Things always change over time, but for that time period, they were the highest selling performers in their respective companies. If they remain the highest selling performers over time (which is the case for Hogan), then of course they'll be remembered fondly. If more people paid money to see Hulk Hogan than any other wrestler in the world, then he gave something that other wrestlers/products couldn't. That's siginficant.

You can give one human being the wrestling ability of Ric Flair, the charisma of Dwayne Johnson, and the longevity of Hulk Hogan, but if the consumers aren't buying it, then that person will be long gone before he ever cements a legacy in the business.

Someone brought up music earlier, let's use that for an example. Fad boygroups like Nsync or the Backstreet boys may have had more exposure and made more money in the brief time before they completely burned out, but does that mean they're going to be remembered more fondly years after the fact than artists like, say, Elton John. In my own opinion, no.

I don't have any record sales numbers handy, but if N'Sync had the highest selling album (for example), then yes they would be remembered down the road, fondly or otherwise. Having been in the business world, I know how difficult it is to sell a product. Consumers are fickle, and that will never change. So if N'Sync did outsell Elton John (for argument's sake), even if it was a short time period, then they should definitely be put in the same level as him when talked about. If Elton John were that good, why didn't he sell as much or more?

If a product is launched in the market place, but no one buys it, is it any good? That's the question every business owner thinks about. This is a consumer driven market. They dictate what is quality and what isn't. We all have opinions. Ultimately, what sells is quality. If it weren't quality, why would we go out and buy it? Again, I know how difficult it is to get money out of people's pockets. It's not easy by any stretch of the imagination. What Hogan did, and what Austin and Rock did, is completely amazing. Whether I like those guys or hate them, I damn well respect what they did for the business.

[8-BitAssassin]

Silly question. Hogan by a few miles. Flair is great, but nobody cares about a good wrestler (other than the IWC and guys who used to see it as a sport). It's all about making people want to see you, and big boots and leg drops + 15 minutes of showboating does wonders in that area.