Chuck Conry
Dennis Stamp
zombies DON'T Run
Posts: 3,733
|
Post by Chuck Conry on Oct 29, 2014 21:15:51 GMT -5
Chosen or not, Hogan IS the embodiment of American pro wrestling and is the greatest of all-time. Austin can be a close second, but he wasn't and never will be what Hogan was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 21:36:51 GMT -5
eeehhhhh Hogan's still number 1 of all time I think. Austin and Rock just behind. (yes I know Rock's a huge movie star now, but he wasn't bigger than Hogan as an active wrestler). No. Austin accomplished more in the world of wrestling. Hogan was chosen to be the man. Austin wasn't and had to prove himself. Even Vince has stated that Austin is the #1 guy of all time, both from intangibles like being better in the ring, a better promo, and also sold a helluva lot more merchandise. It also helps Austin that he was the #1 guy during the biggest boom period in the business' history. The WWE made far more money with Austin in the position than they did with Hogan. Austin has also never tainted his legacy by doing things like TNA. Hogan was the first megastar in wrestling and no one can take that away from him, but Austin did it almost completely within the confines of WWE. I'm not saying Hogan doesn't deserve credit. He proved that guys can crossover and be amazingly popular outside of wrestling (and Rock has surpassed him there) and also had a hugely successful reinvention with the nWo, but purely within the confines of wrestling, Austin surpassed Hogan in almost every facet from being a draw, to merchandise, etc. Hogan is Johnny Unitas to Austin's Peyton Manning. Different eras, but there are still areas where they can be compared. 1. Hogan being chosen to the man happened because Hogan was already a big draw in the AWA and Japan prior to winning the title at MSG. He was also in Rocky III so he had some crossover recognition at that point. To suggest he was handpicked by Vince (like Cena or Reigns is today) is ridiculous. Vince pushed Hulk because he was already a big star by the time he put the strap on him. 2. How can you possibly say Austin made more money when you don't even know how to adjust the comparison due to inflation and market environment? I doubt even Vince knows or cares enough to do that type of comparison. Austin gets credit for 12 PPV's a year, the internet boom creating a new vehicle to sell merchandise (and create awareness in general), a more established global brand (1998 vs. 1984 are like night and day when it comes to TV exposure and worldwide brand recognition), and also inflation which drives up cost in any era. Hogan was around when the company was trying to create the brand it is today, with far less at their disposal in terms revenue generators. inflation alone will prove your statement false without any backing, never mind the rest of the factors. 3. Hogan/Andre on NBC in 1988 drew 33 million viewers. He was selling out 60,000-70,000 seat arenas wrestling Paul Orndorff before the peak of his run (which was arguably 1987 with the Andre feud), and obviously the WM 3 gate which was huge regardless of which figure you want to believe. How in the world was Austin a bigger draw? I'm not trying to pick on you here, because your opinion above is shared by many, but it's narrative, not reality. People are so happy to push Hogan off the #1 spot that they'll probably be arguing that Cena is a bigger star soon enough. It's hearsay and wishful thinking, not reality.
|
|
|
Post by edgestar on Oct 29, 2014 21:48:22 GMT -5
I love Hogan interviews.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Oct 30, 2014 1:09:42 GMT -5
Hogan revolutionised wrestling twice (late 80s and nWo). Purple thought he was done and he led the industry to one of its biggest boom periods ever. He's the most recognisable wrestler ever. Austin had many advantages in his time, such as more available merchandise.
I prefer Austin personally but to say he's a bigger star in wrestling is flat-out wrong in my opinion. Any way you cut it and in whatever you consider to be attributes of the greatest ever, Hogan has it all
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 4:18:27 GMT -5
Hogan was by far the biggest draw. His WM5 match with Savage held the WWE buyrate record until WM15 in 1999, even though the number of homes who could get PPV in 1989 was small compared to the number of homes who could in 1999. Who else could get 33 million people tune in to a wrestling match? He sold out big-events and stadiums without needing the whole publicity of a Wrestlemania to do it. All it needed was "Hogan vs Orndorf? Yeah, I'm there."
As big as the Attitude era was I'd doubt if they'd have been able to do that for what was essentially a taped house-show.
He walked in to a territorial promotion who were making tentative overtures to other markets due to cable television and when he left it was the number 1 promotion in the world with multiple national and international television programmes, world tours, PPV events, had become part of the national/global consciousness, a popular cultural phenomenon and wrestling was then the 'go-to' hobby for virtually every boy in every school yard in every 'western' country.
Austin made more money but by the time that happened they'd been all of the above and more for 11 years or more. Of course they were in a position to make more money.
Look at it like this: The Stones make more money on tours today than they did from tours back in the 60s. But it's beyond reasonable to call 2014 Stones 'bigger' than 1969 Stones. They're simply not and no amount of "but 2014 Stones make more money" can alter the logic of that.
Austin only really had one storyline throughout his peak run. Yes he feuded with many but the 'Austin/McMahon' tension was the backdrop to pretty much all of it. Part of me thinks that post WM17 a reason why Austin's popularity nose-dived is because that dynamic wasn't there any more.
|
|
|
Post by "Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix on Oct 30, 2014 4:40:33 GMT -5
Hogan revolutionised wrestling twice (late 80s and nWo). Purple thought he was done and he led the industry to one of its biggest boom periods ever. He's the most recognisable wrestler ever. Austin had many advantages in his time, such as more available merchandise. I prefer Austin personally but to say he's a bigger star in wrestling is flat-out wrong in my opinion. Any way you cut it and in whatever you consider to be attributes of the greatest ever, Hogan has it all I totally agree. Believe me, I miss Attitude more than anything and Stone Cold helped define my teenage years, but Hogan helped bring pro wrestling to a level that gave us Stone Cold. The Rock. Cena. HHH. Yes, even Undertaker. To make it big in WWE is one thing. To redefine the very f***ing industry, though... Austin did it for six years. Hogan did it for (arguably) two generations (80s hero era and Monday Night War era). It's tough to compare that.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 5:00:08 GMT -5
Six years is VERY generous to Austin.
98-01 is pretty much it.
And even throughout much of 1998 wasn't Hogan/NWO/WCW the bigger draw?
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 30, 2014 5:03:05 GMT -5
Six years is VERY generous to Austin. 98-01 is pretty much it. And even throughout much of 1998 wasn't Hogan/NWO/WCW the bigger draw? Yes. Also, Austin was gone for 10-11 months from late '99 to late '00.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Oct 30, 2014 5:15:49 GMT -5
Six years is VERY generous to Austin. 98-01 is pretty much it. And even throughout much of 1998 wasn't Hogan/NWO/WCW the bigger draw? Wheres 1997 gone?
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 5:16:18 GMT -5
Six years is VERY generous to Austin. 98-01 is pretty much it. And even throughout much of 1998 wasn't Hogan/NWO/WCW the bigger draw? Yes. Also, Austin was gone for 10-11 months from late '99 to late '00. So really late 98-late 99 (1 year) and the late '00 to mid (generous) 01? I got criticism in my thread for calling Austin a 'fad' (e.g something/someone hugely popular for a short period of time without really having a long-term impact or durability) but given that in the 3 years he was on top he basically took a year out it seems a fairly accurate description. Also when people talk about Hulk being 'chosen' by McMahon - the character who got to beat up his boss on weekly television was never going to be exactly a hard-sell, was it?
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 30, 2014 5:18:04 GMT -5
Yes. Also, Austin was gone for 10-11 months from late '99 to late '00. So really late 98-late 99 (1 year) and the late '00 to mid (generous) 01? I got criticism in my thread for calling Austin a 'fad' (e.g something/someone hugely popular for a short period of time without really having a long-term impact or durability) but given that in the 3 years he was on top he basically took a year out it seems a fairly accurate description. Also when people talk about Hulk being 'chosen' by McMahon - the character who got to beat up his boss on weekly television was never going to be exactly a hard-sell, was it? Yes. Although in fairness, WWF business was going up through '98 with Austin as 'the guy,' it's just that WCW was ahead, because the wrestling business as a whole was HUGE at the time.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 5:18:20 GMT -5
Six years is VERY generous to Austin. 98-01 is pretty much it. And even throughout much of 1998 wasn't Hogan/NWO/WCW the bigger draw? Wheres 1997 gone? Hogan/WCW out drew Austin/WWF in 1997 and it wasn't really even close.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Oct 30, 2014 5:20:15 GMT -5
Hogan/WCW out drew Austin/WWF in 1997 and it wasn't really even close. I'm not talking about the biggest draw, I'm just saying Austin's run as a mega star includes 1997 as you see him quickly becoming the WWF's biggest star, primed to be champ.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 5:20:35 GMT -5
So really late 98-late 99 (1 year) and the late '00 to mid (generous) 01? I got criticism in my thread for calling Austin a 'fad' (e.g something/someone hugely popular for a short period of time without really having a long-term impact or durability) but given that in the 3 years he was on top he basically took a year out it seems a fairly accurate description. Also when people talk about Hulk being 'chosen' by McMahon - the character who got to beat up his boss on weekly television was never going to be exactly a hard-sell, was it? Yes. Although in fairness, WWF business was going up through '98 with Austin as 'the guy,' it's just that WCW was ahead, because the wrestling business as a whole was HUGE at the time. But then couldn't it be argued that the business boom also benefited Austin. He was never charged with creating an audience but really capitalising on the one that had already been created. Whereas Hogan was the guy promoted as the innovator of the genre in terms of drawing new fans in during his peak, Austin was like the 4th Avengers movie. The audience was already there, the task was just to get them to come across to their side.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 5:23:53 GMT -5
Hogan/WCW out drew Austin/WWF in 1997 and it wasn't really even close. I'm not talking about the biggest draw, I'm just saying Austin's run as a mega star includes 1997 as you see him quickly becoming the WWF's biggest star, primed to be champ. I'm not sure he broke out into 'mega star' territory until the thing with McMahon started in the WM14 build. He was becoming the biggest star in WWE at the time but that accolade by itself wasn't hugely significant. HBK and Bret had held the same spot very recent to that also. I don' think much of 97's ratings were hugely different to 96's There's a difference between being or becoming the WWF's biggest star and being a mega-star that he'd become when WM14 plans started to take place. Otherwise HBK would get mention as would Bret and Warrior, various others just being the 'top guy' in a promotion isn't by itself that significant.
|
|
|
Post by sonofblaine on Oct 30, 2014 5:50:08 GMT -5
Hogan is just a chonric exaggerator. It's no big deal, but I really think it's done on purpose, though at this point it's just an automatic thought for him. Are you telling me that Hogan didn't gorilla press a 2 ton Andre the Giant in front of 500,000 people at the Superdome, Brother?
|
|