Maybe Hogan was right.......

[TheDieselTrain]

So I was watching the history of the undertaker dvd and it got towards the end with the BikerTaker feud with Hogan for the undisputed title and Taker said he'd be the judge, jury & executioner of hulkamania and just like I did when he originally said that I thought to myself you already did that.

I always wondered why the announcers never brought up the fact that Taker & Hogan already feuded before even if it was 10 or so years ago. So maybe Hulk's comment does have some validity.

Maybe it isnt exactly the ultimate no no in the wrestling business to remind the fans of somethng that happened 10 years earlier like Hogan made it out to be. But I guess thats why we weren't reminded that Taker already beat Hogan.

[skiller]

Well using that logic, why was Hogan so upset when Warrior mentioned their previous fight at Wrestlemania, during the build up towards Halloween Havock '98? He mentioned this in the Warrior dvd, where Warrior stated he'd already beaten Hogan before. Hogan said it was the ultimate "no-no" in the business.

[dennisisevil]

skiller said:

Well using that logic, why was Hogan so upset when Warrior mentioned their previous fight at Wrestlemania, during the build up towards Halloween Havock '98? He mentioned this in the Warrior dvd, where Warrior stated he'd already beaten Hogan before. Hogan said it was the ultimate "no-no" in the business.

Because Hogan is a petty egomaniacal asswipe who can't stand someone else being in the spotlight. The whole warrior DVD was little more than a 90 minute taffy pull occasionally interrupted by Vince McMahon Brownnosing from Hulk hogan, Bobby Heenan, Triple H, and Ted Dibiase.

[Johnny Danger (Godz)]

dennisisevil said:

skiller said:

Well using that logic, why was Hogan so upset when Warrior mentioned their previous fight at Wrestlemania, during the build up towards Halloween Havock '98? He mentioned this in the Warrior dvd, where Warrior stated he'd already beaten Hogan before. Hogan said it was the ultimate "no-no" in the business.

Because Hogan is a petty egomaniacal asswipe who can't stand someone else being in the spotlight. The whole warrior DVD was little more than a 90 minute taffy pull occasionally interrupted by Vince McMahon Brownnosing from Hulk hogan, Bobby Heenan, Triple H, and Ted Dibiase.

Or maybe it was because the match in question happened in the WWF, and Warrior brought it up in WCW. WCW was already losing the ratings by this point, why give a WWF event a free plug?

[seanwalsh]

skiller said:

Well using that logic, why was Hogan so upset when Warrior mentioned their previous fight at Wrestlemania, during the build up towards Halloween Havock '98? He mentioned this in the Warrior dvd, where Warrior stated he'd already beaten Hogan before. Hogan said it was the ultimate "no-no" in the business.

Because Hogan's a prick.

Attempt to watch an episode of HOGAN KNOWS BEST and you will see this fact glaring off the screen - and thankfully, just before the vomit in your throat builds up to uncontrollable levels.

[skskillz]

skiller said:

Well using that logic, why was Hogan so upset when Warrior mentioned their previous fight at Wrestlemania, during the build up towards Halloween Havock '98? He mentioned this in the Warrior dvd, where Warrior stated he'd already beaten Hogan before. Hogan said it was the ultimate "no-no" in the business.

Read the original post again. He's saying Undertaker and Hogan's history (1991) was NOT mentioned during their 2002 feud, which actually makes Hogan's comments in the Warrior DVD more legitimate, not less.

While I completely agree that wrestlers, not only Hogan, were reaching for excuses to bash UW in that DVD, I think the Hogan comment is overblown. Hogan was saying that no one would care about their match if WARRIOR already admitted he beat Hogan. Imagine Lesnar coming back as a face and challenging a heel Undertaker, and saying "I beat you before....and um....well....I'm here to do it again....for no particular reason.....". What would be the point?

Now if HOGAN (the heel) brought up the history and claimed that he wanted to get his win back, THEN it would make sense. Just like it made sense when Rock said he wanted to get his WM win against Austin. But if Austin had challenged Rock and said "I beat you twice at WrestleMania....and want to do it again when I have nothing to prove to you anymore", well, the reason for the match would be meaningless.

There was no need to mention Taker/Hogan's history. It was a feud put together out of necessity when Warrior left (at least it appeared that way) and Hogan already got his win back a week later at the Tuesday in Texas show. There was no reason to mention it at all.

[thesunbeast]

The thing is, is that if we've been watching for ten years, we have to remember that the majority of the product isn't going to catter to us. Hogan was talking about the majority of the fans of WCW in 1998, the ones that wer seeing Warrior vs Hulk for the first time, why tell them that Warrior already beat Hogan? Warrior talked about how he dominated what was untill then imdominable, how he beat what was until then unbeatable, and how he destroyed Hogan and that Hogan was great, but Warrior was ultimate. So he said a little more than Just, "yeah, I won once".

[Nice Guy Cody]

That rule only seems to count in Hogan's head if it's referring to a match he LOST. I've seen him bring up past wins in matches over Andre and Piper in promos while building rematches with them.

['Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada]

Well, Hogan Knows Best.

FRIDAYS AT 6/7 CENTRAL ON UPN!!

[thesunbeast]

codylockemitchell said:

That rule only seems to count in Hogan's head if it's referring to a match he LOST. I've seen him bring up past wins in matches over Andre and Piper in promos while building rematches with them.

Not 7 years later though. The big thing at Wrestlemania 3 in 1987, was that Hogan was going to slam Andre. No way in heck would Hogan mention that he already slammed Andre, even if he was lighter, in 1980.

[HMARK Center]

Nah, Hogan's comment still isn't valid, given how big the Hogan/Warrior match was in 1990. EVERYBODY knew the outcome of that match, there was zero suspense in making it seem like they had never faced each other before.

[Johnny Danger (Godz)]

thesunbeast said:

The thing is, is that if we've been watching for ten years, we have to remember that the majority of the product isn't going to catter to us. Hogan was talking about the majority of the fans of WCW in 1998, the ones that wer seeing Warrior vs Hulk for the first time, why tell them that Warrior already beat Hogan? Warrior talked about how he dominated what was untill then imdominable, how he beat what was until then unbeatable, and how he destroyed Hogan and that Hogan was great, but Warrior was ultimate. So he said a little more than Just, "yeah, I won once".

But on that note, anyone seeing Warrior vs Hulk for the first time, why should they care!? At that time, Hulk was a 40+ coward, and Warrior was a raving lunatic....the only person who WOULD have bought a PPV with Hogan vs Warrior would be someone interested in the rematch (And we all know how it turned out ,anyway) So this feud wasnt to cater to the new fans

[Sajoa Moe]

seanwalsh said:

skiller said:

Well using that logic, why was Hogan so upset when Warrior mentioned their previous fight at Wrestlemania, during the build up towards Halloween Havock '98? He mentioned this in the Warrior dvd, where Warrior stated he'd already beaten Hogan before. Hogan said it was the ultimate "no-no" in the business.

Because Hogan's a prick.

Attempt to watch an episode of HOGAN KNOWS BEST and you will see this fact glaring off the screen - and thankfully, just before the vomit in your throat builds up to uncontrollable levels.

Does he always answer the phone with "Hulk Hogan, Greatest Of All Time, can I help you"?

[The Boss]

skskillz said:

There was no need to mention Taker/Hogan's history. It was a feud put together out of necessity when Warrior left (at least it appeared that way) and Hogan already got his win back a week later at the Tuesday in Texas show. There was no reason to mention it at all.

HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN had also beaten the Undertaker (as did the Ultimate Warrior)prior to their Survivor Series encounter but they didn't mention that either because they wanted to push him as still being undefeated.

[HMARK Center]

theboss said:

skskillz said:

There was no need to mention Taker/Hogan's history. It was a feud put together out of necessity when Warrior left (at least it appeared that way) and Hogan already got his win back a week later at the Tuesday in Texas show. There was no reason to mention it at all.

HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN had also beaten the Undertaker (as did the Ultimate Warrior)prior to their Survivor Series encounter but they didn't mention that either because they wanted to push him as still being undefeated.

WWF house show principle: not televised, didn't happen.

[Nice Guy Cody]

thesunbeast said:

codylockemitchell said:

That rule only seems to count in Hogan's head if it's referring to a match he LOST. I've seen him bring up past wins in matches over Andre and Piper in promos while building rematches with them.

Not 7 years later though. The big thing at Wrestlemania 3 in 1987, was that Hogan was going to slam Andre. No way in heck would Hogan mention that he already slammed Andre, even if he was lighter, in 1980.

I'm not even referring to that. One year later, at Wrestlemania 4, the rematch, and Hogan is sure to talk up how he slammed and beat Andre. Okay, so then according to Hulk's Golden Rule, nobody should want to watch that match now because Hogan gave away how it ended the last time.

[skskillz]

codylockemitchell said:

I'm not even referring to that. One year later, at Wrestlemania 4, the rematch, and Hogan is sure to talk up how he slammed and beat Andre. Okay, so then according to Hulk's Golden Rule, nobody should want to watch that match now because Hogan gave away how it ended the last time.

That's a VERY bad example. The entire rematch was based on a "controversial count" at WM III after Hogan's failed bodyslam attempt early on. The heels questioned it, and Hogan had to beat Andre again to prove the first one wasn't a fluke. Also, this was the SAME storyline that lasted over a year due to Andre's injuries and the WWF wanting to draw out the feud a little longer. It's not like Hogan beat Andre, then ad 7 other feuds, before facing Andre again. The same feud lasted a long time. It transitioned into the Hebner storyline and WrestleMania IV. It made perfect sense.

A better example would be if Hogan or Andre had brought up facing each other in 1980 (which neither of them did).

Fact is, Warrior mentioned it eight years after the fact and in a different company. If the WCW audience already knows Warrior beat Hogan, what sense did it make for Warrior to challenge Hogan? There was no dispute. It happened in a different company almost a decade ago. It made zero sense.