Which matches should Hogan have lost?

[HRH The KING]

Should have wrestled and lost to Flair at Mania VIII

[Big DSR Energy]

thestinger said:

whiteyfats said:

*shakes head sadly* cause watching the exact same match over and over is so much better than seeing someone with some actual wrestling ability

SOME actual wrestling ability is about it. I would prefer to watch Hogan, because at least there's the nostalgia factor to appeal to my inner eight year old. There's nothing that appeals to me about the other guy. You need more than 'some' ability for me to want to watch you perform.

Anyway I stand by my position that Hogan can't lose to someone he outweighs by 120 pounds.

With Shawn Michaels, the difference in size is only about 75 pounds. Also, Hogan is old as s***, and has bad knees. I think a relatively younger guy, like Shawn, could beat him realistically based on that.

I'm not gonna argue over who I find is more entertaining, because that's just opinion, and I can't argue over that. But it's not outside the realm of possibility for Shawn to beat Hogan.

[Madagascar Fred]

as some have stated before (talking about clean losses here!):

- vs. Flair at Wrestlemania VIII, instead of that lame Hogan-Sid feud/match
- vs. Vader at least ONCE in 1995
- vs. Sting at Starrcade 97 (clean job, no crap screwjob finish)
- vs. Booker T in 2000
- vs. HBK at Summerslam 05

this would have been even enough, he still could have beat many many guys in between these, but for the sake of the wrestling business, he should have laid down for these men...but you know Hogan ain´t the one who shares

[Welfare Willis]

dsr said:

thestinger said:

SOME actual wrestling ability is about it. I would prefer to watch Hogan, because at least there's the nostalgia factor to appeal to my inner eight year old. There's nothing that appeals to me about the other guy. You need more than 'some' ability for me to want to watch you perform.

Anyway I stand by my position that Hogan can't lose to someone he outweighs by 120 pounds.

With Shawn Michaels, the difference in size is only about 75 pounds. Also, Hogan is old as s***, and has bad knees. I think a relatively younger guy, like Shawn, could beat him realistically based on that.

I'm not gonna argue over who I find is more entertaining, because that's just opinion, and I can't argue over that. But it's not outside the realm of possibility for Shawn to beat Hogan.

Of course Shawn is getting up there in years too...if we remember Randy Orton's promo the night after the Hogan/Michaels match. ;D

Yes, not only that but if your looking at Shawn's career he has taken on some of the biggest names in the sport. He's been in the main event spot for many years so I just don't get where the original statement about HBK/Hogan fued not being realistic comes from.

Now Shawn holding his own against twelve guys in some night club parking lot...that's not realistic.

[thestinger]

We all know wrestling is fake, and anyone can beat anyone if the booker says so BUT they should try to keep things a little believable.

I could kick Shawn Michaels ass in a fight. And I'm not 300 lbs of muscle.

korngold said:

Yes, not only that but if your looking at Shawn's career he has taken on some of the biggest names in the sport.

Yes, and to me that never looked the slightest bit believable. On the Monday Night War thread we were discussing Bischoff's comment that he throws a "sidekick like a 12 year old green belt."

Part of me wants to quote Bret from his interviews saying how you could barely feel his punches, even when they were fighting for real, but I know that's hardly an unbiased source.

He has a talent for selling, and that's it. He has no credible offense. Neither does Hogan, so you're left with a musclebound beast against a toothpick.

[thestinger]

And just to reiterate, I loved Billy Kidman back then, and I'm not arguing that he should have beated Hogan either, so it's nothing personal.

Just my opinion on how far suspension of disbelief should extend.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Ok, let's get this off of Shawn Michaels.

Personally, I don't think Hogan should have lost to specifically Kidman. The reason I asked the question I did about the New Blood was because I believe that the babyface needs to be at least somewhat in the right in feuds.

Look at Austin in 1997- even while riding the tweener fence and stunning authority figure after authority figure, he pretty much was getting screwed a lot. Note the Raw before Vengeance 07, where everyone was pointing fingers as to who bombed Mr. McMahon's limo, and John Cena was the only voice of reason among the competitors in the 5-way.

Same with the New Blood. It's common sense that the young lions should be showcased over the old timers at a certain point, so making them evil was just completely illogical.

Heck, if I were writing it I might have had Hogan come out in support of them. (His CHARACTER, mind you- I don't want to hear about the real-life hypocrisies of that.)

[thestinger]

radioclash5150 said:

Heck, if I were writing it I might have had Hogan come out in support of them. (His CHARACTER, mind you- I don't want to hear about the real-life hypocrisies of that.)

Yeah, I agree that Hogan, Flair and Sting (who WCW fans didn't want to boo) should have been supporting guys like Booker, Kidman and Rey Jr. against guys like Sid and Nash and Luger who could still get booed.

Even then, though, you can't make babyfaces out of every young guy who wanted to be in the main event. On the flip side of Sting, who WCW fans refused to boo, there was Shane Douglas and Jeff Jarrett -- they're natural heels.

Breaking your roster up into 'young and hungry' and 'old and established' and then applying 'heel' and 'babyface' to them just can't be done easily.

[Mr. Mediocre]

thestinger said:

radioclash5150 said:

Heck, if I were writing it I might have had Hogan come out in support of them. (His CHARACTER, mind you- I don't want to hear about the real-life hypocrisies of that.)

Yeah, I agree that Hogan, Flair and Sting (who WCW fans didn't want to boo) should have been supporting guys like Booker, Kidman and Rey Jr. against guys like Sid and Nash and Luger who could still get booed.

Even then, though, you can't make babyfaces out of every young guy who wanted to be in the main event. On the flip side of Sting, who WCW fans refused to boo, there was Shane Douglas and Jeff Jarrett -- they're natural heels.

Breaking your roster up into 'young and hungry' and 'old and established' and then applying 'heel' and 'babyface' to them just can't be done easily.

Very, very true. I think that the face-heel distinction would have been broken down in a couple of weeks, really, and that would have made for a more interesting feud. For instance, when I first heard about the feud, the first thing I thought (keeping in mind I figured the New Blood would be faces) was that Jarrett would ultimately be some sort of double agent who would turn on the group, and that Sting would ultimately align himself with the young, hungry faces after years of oppression from those in the newly formed Millionaire's Club.

[Welfare Willis]

thestinger said:

radioclash5150 said:

Heck, if I were writing it I might have had Hogan come out in support of them. (His CHARACTER, mind you- I don't want to hear about the real-life hypocrisies of that.)

Yeah, I agree that Hogan, Flair and Sting (who WCW fans didn't want to boo) should have been supporting guys like Booker, Kidman and Rey Jr. against guys like Sid and Nash and Luger who could still get booed.

Even then, though, you can't make babyfaces out of every young guy who wanted to be in the main event. On the flip side of Sting, who WCW fans refused to boo, there was Shane Douglas and Jeff Jarrett -- they're natural heels.

Breaking your roster up into 'young and hungry' and 'old and established' and then applying 'heel' and 'babyface' to them just can't be done easily.

Well, Well. That we can both agree on.


Also I want to add my support for people who said Orton and Flair.

In fact the Flair thing bugged me because if your going to do that match as many times as WCW did you'd think Flair would go over to get some kind of heat.

[mrrotten]

Hogan should of lost all of the time. I've never been a big fan of his.

[ilikeRusso.]

youstayclassy said:

Mr. Perfect at Saturday Night's Main event.

And I'm going to second the Wrestlemania IX one.... COMPLETE GARBAGE. If only Vince'd had faith in Bret back then.....

It should of went Hogan First rolls out and asks brett to go in Brett comes into then gets irish whipped to the ropes ducks under Yoko and does a flyng headbutt picks up Yokos legs in the middle of the ring and Hogan Jumps Mr Fuji Brett locks in the Sharpshooter and theres your new HOGAN!

[The Ichi]

I don't get anyone saying that HBK should have beaten him. This was a feud all about who the bigger dog in wrestling was, and it's obvious to everyone (even HBK fanboys who wont admit it) that the answer there is Hogan. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now Sting at Starcade '97 and Vader in WCW I definately agree with.

[Hiroshi Hase]

curryman said:

I don't get anyone saying that HBK should have beaten him. This was a feud all about who the bigger dog in wrestling was, and it's obvious to everyone (even HBK fanboys who wont admit it) that the answer there is Hogan. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now Sting at Starcade '97 and Vader in WCW I definately agree with.

Seriously, Hogan was higher on the pecking order than Shawn will ever be,and the fans loved it anyways.

As for Starrcade 97, I do agree that it should've been done clean.

[Fantozzi]

starrcade 97 (clean)

and about the "passing the torch" topic, i wonder how many times can you pass the torch? hogan already passed it to the ultimate warrior, than losing to bret hart in 1993 wouldn't have been the same IHMO

[Libertine]

He should have lost to the Yeti.

[Mr. Mediocre]

gigietto79 said:

starrcade 97 (clean)

and about the "passing the torch" topic, i wonder how many times can you pass the torch? hogan already passed it to the ultimate warrior, than losing to bret hart in 1993 wouldn't have been the same IHMO

That's a valid point.

I guess my answer to that is that Hogan didn't pass the torch to Warrior. WWF intended him to, but with Warrior's run flopping and Hogan back at the main event a year later, it never really materialized.

[Joekishi]

explodinglimo said:

thestinger said:

Because of their tactics. Beating someone up 12 on 1 isn't very honorable.

While their tactics did indeed make them heels, I believe the question was meant out of kayfabe - why did Russo and Bischoff decide to make the New Blood heels when they should have been the faces?

basicboogeynomix said:

If all that buildup lead to a Booker Title run, why not have Booker fued with Hogan instead of kidman.

that's the part that really irks me.

Agreed...Hogan should have feuded with Booker, who was certainly big enough to make it realistic.

I realize that Hogan was feuded with Kidman because Hogan legitimately disliked Kidman, but it would have been so much better to have him feud with the guy who was going to be the main eventer.

The biggest problem hogan had with kidman was the lack of charisma, mic skills, and size. and realism.

Book was over, he's a big and athletic dude, he had charisma and could work the crowd on the mic.

Hogan/Booker would have been an awesome fued now that I think about it.

[thestinger]

basicboogeynomix said:

Hogan/Booker would have been an awesome fued now that I think about it.

True, it would have, but Booker would have to be the heel. Hogan was hugely over as a face, which nobody expected.

In fact, after Hogan turned babyface shortly before the formation of the New Blood, he could never get booed again no matter how he was booked.

[Joekishi]

FUNB Hogan was cool though, he said ass and damn. He would go brawl with you. In Ring he was also trying harder, which was weird wasn't it? using powerbombs and lariats, and being more agressive.

actually selling moves.

that was a good time for his workrate