|
Post by royboy8 on Jan 7, 2007 19:31:09 GMT -5
And Ian, I didnt call you a moron, I merely said you are a moron if you don't think Trips has any sort of a workrate. Kind of a general statement.
27-17 Trips, the crowd has spoken
|
|
nothing
Bubba Ho-Tep
nothing can stop me now because i do not care anymore.
Posts: 593
|
Post by nothing on Jan 7, 2007 20:02:42 GMT -5
^ Ian, your a moron if you think Trips is a bad performer. Yes Hogan was great, but Trips was THE champion during the E's biggest boom in years. That speaks for something. What Trips did was harder as well because he was being featured on tv MUCH more then Hogan due to having two weekly(at least) shows compared to Hogan being on tv a Handfull of times in 1987. I didnt even get into ppvs. I'm sorry, you're saying Triple H had a harder situation? In 2000, the WWF had FIVE hours of original TV every week (Raw, SD, Heat). They had 12 PPV's a year. They had dramatically more modern technology (internet, PPV's, more marketing capabilities, etc). In 1987, how many hours of TV did the WWF have per week? 1? 2? A SNME once every 2-3 months? Not to mention back then they weren't selling PPV's, they were selling house shows, usually multiple shows per day. They also didn't have anywhere near the marketing ability to market their product and merchandise as they did in 2000. Hogan had it easier? Are you kidding? Hogan MADE all those things happen. Where would the PPV market be without Hogan's name headlining the shows in the late-80's? Where would Raw be without SNME breaking ratings records when Hogan was the featured performer? Where would the merchandise machine be without Hogan's face being plastered on every merchandise idea Vince McMahon had? Hogan was there in the BEGINNING of wrestling's pop culture acceptance. He started the damn thing. Everything that came after him had it MUCH easier, because wrestling had a bigger platform to work with after Hogan's prime. I realize some of you probably weren't even fetus' in 1987, much less wrestling fans, but you have to take historical context into account here. I just want to say that, while Hogan did make much more money and put wrestling in the mainstream, look at his audience: a bunch of little kids and their families. How could he not sell out arenas with that fanbase? HHH, meanwhile, had the smaller teen/young-adult fanbase (who are basically the little kids from the 80's that kept on watching wrestling, by the way), so he didn't put wrestling as much in the mainstream. Besides, HHH was a pure heel on 2000, and that was a big difference from Hogan in '87. Why? Because a face will ALWAYS outsell a heel, since the whole thing is based on the good guys ultimately defeating the bad guys. To make an 80's comparison, how would have things turned out if it was Piper instead of Hogan headlining Wrestlemania? Not as good. And ultimately, the real reason for the product in 2000 not to sell as much as in 1987 was that there were no pure faces as big as Hogan. Austin was barely there, and The Rock, while not taking anything from him, was no Austin nor Hogan (to make another 80's comparison, the Rock was like Randy Savage, and Piper vs. Savage didn't draw as much as Piper vs. Hogan). There weren't any other good faces other than the ones from WCW, which Vince wouldn't push no matter what they did, so HHH came to be on top as the last thing Vince trusted. Finally, it is funny how you mention all the "smark beliefs" without remembering one of the most important ones: the utterly irrational despisement of HHH. Must have been because you believe it too. EDIT: And I vote for HHH, I find him better overall. No, I didn't watch Hogan in his prime, but I wouldn't have liked him that much anyway if I had seen him: I am not American, so I wouldn't have really liked the American Hero gimmick he had. And I would have only marked for him because he was a big guy if I was a little kid (By the way, the older fans of wrestling who were raised as kids in the territorial eras of the 60s and 70s didn't seem to like Hogan, nor the WWF....seems familiar to those who love Hogan and hate Attitude, or those who love Attitude and hate Cena....well, that's nostalgia to you....)
|
|
Johnny Danger (Godz)
Wade Wilson
loves him some cavity searches
Lord Xeen's going to kill you.
Posts: 27,736
|
Post by Johnny Danger (Godz) on Jan 7, 2007 20:05:24 GMT -5
I basically agree with everything skillz, Cousin Judge, and Ricabo-...Ricca-....Ian have said so far. I'm a Triple H fan so dont get me wrong but 30 minutes every week of "I AM THE GAME, I AM THE GREATEST WRESTLER ALIVE TODAY, I RETIRED MICK FOLEY, I AM THE CHAMPION, I RETIRED MICK FOLEY" is hardly legendary.
But yeah, this IS the internet, so, even if someone made a poll asking "Who sold more red and yellow t-shirts, Hulk Hogan or CM Punk" somehow CM Punk wins with 89% of the vote.
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on Jan 7, 2007 20:21:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry, you're saying Triple H had a harder situation? In 2000, the WWF had FIVE hours of original TV every week (Raw, SD, Heat). They had 12 PPV's a year. They had dramatically more modern technology (internet, PPV's, more marketing capabilities, etc). In 1987, how many hours of TV did the WWF have per week? 1? 2? A SNME once every 2-3 months? Not to mention back then they weren't selling PPV's, they were selling house shows, usually multiple shows per day. They also didn't have anywhere near the marketing ability to market their product and merchandise as they did in 2000. Hogan had it easier? Are you kidding? Hogan MADE all those things happen. Where would the PPV market be without Hogan's name headlining the shows in the late-80's? Where would Raw be without SNME breaking ratings records when Hogan was the featured performer? Where would the merchandise machine be without Hogan's face being plastered on every merchandise idea Vince McMahon had? Hogan was there in the BEGINNING of wrestling's pop culture acceptance. He started the damn thing. Everything that came after him had it MUCH easier, because wrestling had a bigger platform to work with after Hogan's prime. I realize some of you probably weren't even fetus' in 1987, much less wrestling fans, but you have to take historical context into account here. I just want to say that, while Hogan did make much more money and put wrestling in the mainstream, look at his audience: a bunch of little kids and their families. How could he not sell out arenas with that fanbase? HHH, meanwhile, had the smaller teen/young-adult fanbase (who are basically the little kids from the 80's that kept on watching wrestling, by the way), so he didn't put wrestling as much in the mainstream. Besides, HHH was a pure heel on 2000, and that was a big difference from Hogan in '87. Why? Because a face will ALWAYS outsell a heel, since the whole thing is based on the good guys ultimately defeating the bad guys. To make an 80's comparison, how would have things turned out if it was Piper instead of Hogan headlining Wrestlemania? Not as good. And ultimately, the real reason for the product in 2000 not to sell as much as in 1987 was that there were no pure faces as big as Hogan. Austin was barely there, and The Rock, while not taking anything from him, was no Austin nor Hogan (to make another 80's comparison, the Rock was like Randy Savage, and Piper vs. Savage didn't draw as much as Piper vs. Hogan). There weren't any other good faces other than the ones from WCW, which Vince wouldn't push no matter what they did, so HHH came to be on top as the last thing Vince trusted. Finally, it is funny how you mention all the "smark beliefs" without remembering one of the most important ones: the utterly irrational despisement of HHH. Must have been because you believe it too. EDIT: And I vote for HHH, I find him better overall. No, I didn't watch Hogan in his prime, but I wouldn't have liked him that much anyway if I had seen him: I am not American, so I wouldn't have really liked the American Hero gimmick he had. And I would have only marked for him because he was a big guy if I was a little kid (By the way, the older fans of wrestling who were raised as kids in the territorial eras of the 60s and 70s didn't seem to like Hogan, nor the WWF....seems familiar to those who love Hogan and hate Attitude, or those who love Attitude and hate Cena....well, that's nostalgia to you....) Very well thoughtout and written. I like the argument about there being no true faces, yet, I'd like to point out that the Rock hosted Saturday Night Live and is known in the mainstream. He was a HUGE face in the states, comparable to Steve Austin. Once Austin left, he pretty much inherited his fans, and gained even a bit more. This is how I saw things, but I understand where you are coming from. And as for the Smark beliefs, there seems to be an acceptance of Triple H in the smark community as he has slowed down his TV time and stopped putting the belt on himself. I dunno, again, this could be me just pretending things are happening that really aren't. -Ian
|
|
|
Post by bstrathie on Jan 7, 2007 20:53:55 GMT -5
Um I may have missed something but doesn't this poll ask for the better wrestler in the year listed? Trips has more wrestling ability then Hogan, Hogan was more of a sports entertainer. All arguements here seem right, but the question seems to point in HHH's favour
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Jan 7, 2007 21:00:06 GMT -5
I basically agree with everything skillz, Cousin Judge, and Ricabo-...Ricca-....Ian have said so far. I'm a Triple H fan so dont get me wrong but 30 minutes every week of "I AM THE GAME, I AM THE GREATEST WRESTLER ALIVE TODAY, I RETIRED MICK FOLEY, I AM THE CHAMPION, I RETIRED MICK FOLEY" is hardly legendary. But yeah, this IS the internet, so, even if someone made a poll asking "Who sold more red and yellow t-shirts, Hulk Hogan or CM Punk" somehow CM Punk wins with 89% of the vote. Pretty much I have to agree there. Hogan is hated to death here,so it's pretty easy to see who would win/lose in this one. It's not who knows the most holds, it's who can captivate an audience to the point where they want to shell out their money to see a particular entertainer and Hogan was that guy, he drew the big houses and is still over to this day. Trips was good, and in 2000 was on his game (no pun intended), but nowhere near Hogan, sure he may know more moves, but how far does that really go?
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 7, 2007 21:02:13 GMT -5
I just want to say that, while Hogan did make much more money and put wrestling in the mainstream, look at his audience: a bunch of little kids and their families. How could he not sell out arenas with that fanbase? HHH, meanwhile, had the smaller teen/young-adult fanbase (who are basically the little kids from the 80's that kept on watching wrestling, by the way), so he didn't put wrestling as much in the mainstream. I don't quite understand the "how could you not sell out arenas with that fanbase" argument. Marketing towards family/kids doesn't guarantee moderate success, much less the type of success the WWF had in the '80's. If it were that easy, why didn't Warrior sell as much as Hogan? Rock was as big as Austin. He should be credited for the success in 2000 because, while Hunter was the champion, Rock was the centerpiece of the promotion. Just because Slaughter was champion in 1991, it doesn't mean he was ahead of Hogan and Warrior. He was just the champion at the time. I've said before, Rock is the modern day Hogan. Austin probably drew more, but Rock was the mainstream mega star that Hogan was, except Rock was more successful in maintaining Hollywood credibility (this is where Hogan failed). Rock single-handedly brought in a crapload of newer fans to the product. He was the cross-over celebrity that wrestling promoters have naughty dreams about. He's bigger than Savage ever was or will be (and I'm a Savage fan). He's right up there with Hogan and Austin, IMO. You're right that a face will ultimately be the top guy in most cases (other than 2003 when Hunter was the top guy as a heel) but that doesn't really deviate from the point. HHH was working with the Rock. The Rock was a huge mega draw. Piper always says "did the fans pay to see Hogan or pay to see Hogan beat Roddy Piper", but ultimately, it's about the top star. A heel is interchangeable when working with guys the calibre of Hogan, Rock, and Austin. Hogan drew tons of money with every stiff and jacked up steroid abuser Vince could find. Austin drew with a variety of opponents as well, as did Rock. HHH, as stated earlier, was there for the ride. Nothing more. There are a lot of HHH supporters. There are some who refuse to acknowledge the pull that Hunter has within the company. There was Hunter hatred, especially in 2003-04, but it has died down considerably. Not to mention that you could put Bin Laden next to Hogan and most of this forum would side with Osama. The irrational hatred category relates more to Hogan than anyone else. Well, maybe Cena has the upperhand there, but Hogan is close.
|
|
nothing
Bubba Ho-Tep
nothing can stop me now because i do not care anymore.
Posts: 593
|
Post by nothing on Jan 7, 2007 21:59:39 GMT -5
I just want to say that, while Hogan did make much more money and put wrestling in the mainstream, look at his audience: a bunch of little kids and their families. How could he not sell out arenas with that fanbase? HHH, meanwhile, had the smaller teen/young-adult fanbase (who are basically the little kids from the 80's that kept on watching wrestling, by the way), so he didn't put wrestling as much in the mainstream. I don't quite understand the "how could you not sell out arenas with that fanbase" argument. Marketing towards family/kids doesn't guarantee moderate success, much less the type of success the WWF had in the '80's. If it were that easy, why didn't Warrior sell as much as Hogan? Rock was as big as Austin. He should be credited for the success in 2000 because, while Hunter was the champion, Rock was the centerpiece of the promotion. Just because Slaughter was champion in 1991, it doesn't mean he was ahead of Hogan and Warrior. He was just the champion at the time. I've said before, Rock is the modern day Hogan. Austin probably drew more, but Rock was the mainstream mega star that Hogan was, except Rock was more successful in maintaining Hollywood credibility (this is where Hogan failed). Rock single-handedly brought in a crapload of newer fans to the product. He was the cross-over celebrity that wrestling promoters have naughty dreams about. He's bigger than Savage ever was or will be (and I'm a Savage fan). He's right up there with Hogan and Austin, IMO. You're right that a face will ultimately be the top guy in most cases (other than 2003 when Hunter was the top guy as a heel) but that doesn't really deviate from the point. HHH was working with the Rock. The Rock was a huge mega draw. Piper always says "did the fans pay to see Hogan or pay to see Hogan beat Roddy Piper", but ultimately, it's about the top star. A heel is interchangeable when working with guys the calibre of Hogan, Rock, and Austin. Hogan drew tons of money with every stiff and jacked up steroid abuser Vince could find. Austin drew with a variety of opponents as well, as did Rock. HHH, as stated earlier, was there for the ride. Nothing more. There are a lot of HHH supporters. There are some who refuse to acknowledge the pull that Hunter has within the company. There was Hunter hatred, especially in 2003-04, but it has died down considerably. Not to mention that you could put Bin Laden next to Hogan and most of this forum would side with Osama. The irrational hatred category relates more to Hogan than anyone else. Well, maybe Cena has the upperhand there, but Hogan is close. Warrior didn't sell as much as Hogan because the kids had grown up a little (WWE has always had the same fanbase, it seems) and they didn't want to see things like Hogan anymore. In fact, Hogan experienced this himself in the early 90's, and if it wasn't for the NWO he would have fallen off like Warrior. About Rock, I agree in that he was the centerpiece of the show on 2000, and I never said that he wasn't. I never said in any way HHH carried the show. What I am saying is, he was not as impactful as Austin, and thus he did not DRAW as much as Austin, and HHH did not really have anything to do with that. If the product went down later it was because Rock and Austin left, all the ECW/WCW guys thrown into hell by Vince, and Hunter remaining the only guy that Vince trusts. About HHH fandom and his pull in the company: well, he is a good wrestler, and he is the one who Vince trusts the most. No, it is not because he's married to his daughter, that's too easy an explanation: it is Vince who doesn't trust anyone who is not a star raised by him. I bet that if John Cena keeps being champion for another year, he won't be accused of backstage powers. But all that is just a theory of mine. And Hogan, he should not be sanctified nor vilified.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimate Reality on Jan 7, 2007 22:11:03 GMT -5
I remember the day after Summerslam 99 when Triple H won the title on Raw, I didn't think he was ready to be a world champ, but in the year following it, he really stepped up his game to main event status.
I've never been a fan of ridiculously long promos, so that was one thing I never liked about him. Other than that, I always liked Triple H as a heel.
Hogan did more for building the company, but by 1987, the foundation was already laid and he was just coasting along on the Hulkamania wave.
|
|
|
Post by Count Creepyhead on Jan 8, 2007 0:28:54 GMT -5
Is this topic a joke? Hogan in 87 was > all of WWE 2000
|
|
MichaelRBoh
Unicron
cowpee changed gimmick
Posts: 3,301
|
Post by MichaelRBoh on Jan 8, 2007 0:37:28 GMT -5
hulk hogan, i'd take him from back then over any wrestler ever other then the rock
i'd take the rock anyway in 2000 over triple h.
|
|
Warwolf
Unicron
Fear the Wolf
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by Warwolf on Jan 8, 2007 4:57:39 GMT -5
Trips. He can put on a good match, at least. Every Hogan match is boring. Heathen. *bricks* I vote Hogan. He's THE name in the business.
|
|
Warwolf
Unicron
Fear the Wolf
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by Warwolf on Jan 8, 2007 5:00:18 GMT -5
Is this topic a joke? Hogan in 87 was > all of WWE 2000 QFST!
|
|
|
Post by Cyberwoo on Jan 8, 2007 21:10:12 GMT -5
HHH in 2000 by far. HHH was the best he had ever been in 2000, hell he was better than anyone else in the world in 2000. Hogan in 87 was pretty much the same as he was every other year... boring.
|
|
Warwolf
Unicron
Fear the Wolf
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by Warwolf on Jan 8, 2007 23:20:07 GMT -5
^ Ian, your a moron if you think Trips is a bad performer. Yes Hogan was great, but Trips was THE champion during the E's biggest boom in years. That speaks for something. What Trips did was harder as well because he was being featured on tv MUCH more then Hogan due to having two weekly(at least) shows compared to Hogan being on tv a Handfull of times in 1987. I didnt even get into ppvs. Trips staying fresh and carrying the E, along with the Rock and Foley in 2000 while Austin was out says something for him. And Trips being the only heal out of the three makes him worthy of being more valuable at that time then Hogan was at his time.I truly believe Piper could have done Hogans job in 87 as well as Hogan did. - The correct response No, that would be the INcorrect response. You actually claim Triple H had it HARDER than Hogan. Sorry, but no. Just plain NO. Hogan had it far harder. Trips rose to the main event scene during a time when the internet made finding out about someone almst literally a snap. Hogan worked far harder and did far more at his peak than Trips did. Piper may have been charasmatic, but Hogan just WORKED, and nobody can deny that, because Hogan pretty much carried the weight of the WWF's fortunes until the early 90s. Trips has never had to legitmately carry the weight of the entire company.
|
|
Warwolf
Unicron
Fear the Wolf
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by Warwolf on Jan 8, 2007 23:28:24 GMT -5
Um I may have missed something but doesn't this poll ask for the better wrestler in the year listed? Trips has more wrestling ability then Hogan, Hogan was more of a sports entertainer. All arguements here seem right, but the question seems to point in HHH's favour Not if you watch Hogan's Japanese stuff. I've said it how many times now. The American promotions made Hogan wrestle a brawling style, despite being taught by Hiro Matsuda, a well known Japanese wrestler of his day and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) possibly someone who knew how to shoot if matches came down to that, who more than likely taught Hogan how to protect himself. Sure, Hogan says that in his book, but it's probably true, when you consider how much different wrestling is today from back then.
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on Jan 8, 2007 23:30:22 GMT -5
Um I may have missed something but doesn't this poll ask for the better wrestler in the year listed? Trips has more wrestling ability then Hogan, Hogan was more of a sports entertainer. All arguements here seem right, but the question seems to point in HHH's favour Not if you watch Hogan's Japanese stuff. I've said it how many times now. The American promotions made Hogan wrestle a brawling style, despite being taught by Hiro Matsuda, a well known Japanese wrestler of his day and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) possibly someone who knew how to shoot if matches came down to that, who more than likely taught Hogan how to protect himself. Sure, Hogan says that in his book, but it's probably true, when you consider how much different wrestling is today from back then. I definately believe it that he was taught how to protect himself, no doubt about it. -Ian
|
|
|
Post by krazysane on Jan 8, 2007 23:39:01 GMT -5
You can buy mint condition Donruss.....factory set. i really want this
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on Jan 8, 2007 23:49:30 GMT -5
You can buy mint condition Donruss.....factory set. i really want this How many do you want? I mean, there are only 26 MILLION of these in existance.
|
|
|
Post by Hollywoody81 on Jan 9, 2007 1:55:25 GMT -5
No one better Than HHH at that time ever!!!
|
|