|
|
Post by AlexWestCollects on Jul 11, 2011 14:12:07 GMT -5
Triple H wishes he could have been half the draw Hogan was. That's one thing that has always bugged me about Triple H, I like him as a wrestler but he (and his family machine known as the WWE) try to make it like he's one of the top 3 greatest of all times when in fact it could barely break the top 10....and i do mean barely if at all. I like HHH. One of my favs of all time but I do get that same feeling like they try to push him to greater level than he really was at. I still think he is in the top 10 of all time tho. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 11, 2011 14:27:24 GMT -5
Hogan should have never had that run he was so washed up by then. Only old man I have no problem with holding a belt is Flair. Why? Hogan was more over then then Flair ever was in the WWE/F flair can still 'go'. that'd be a pretty good reason why.. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jul 11, 2011 15:27:15 GMT -5
Why? Hogan was more over then then Flair ever was in the WWE/F flair can still 'go'. that'd be a pretty good reason why.. Problem w/ that is in 2002, Hogan was a draw, and Flair wasn't. By 2002, Flair was also a shell of his former self and didn't seem relevent IMO until he teamed w/ HHH in the 2nd half of 2002. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 11, 2011 15:43:31 GMT -5
flair can still 'go'. that'd be a pretty good reason why.. Problem w/ that is in 2002, Hogan was a draw, and Flair wasn't. By 2002, Flair was also a shell of his former self and didn't seem relevent IMO until he teamed w/ HHH in the 2nd half of 2002. that's fair to say, but doesn't dispute my point of rather flair could go or not as compared to hogan. andre the giant would be a huge draw today, but that doesn't mean his lifeless body can pull of a decent match. |
|
|
|
Post by BV on Jul 11, 2011 15:53:24 GMT -5
Pretty much like others said, Vince was looking for a ratings boost. Seeing how WWF was falling due to the sh*t invasion angle, he needed someone to boost the ratings back up. Due to Hogan having a great reaction at Mania, he thought it was him. HHH shouldn't of lost the title.
To go off topic for a second, I would of had HHH hold it up to Summerslam, to drop it to HBK. Just have Lesnar win the WHC and have that as the SD title. HATED how the Undisputed belt changed hands so much in 02.
|
|
|
|
Post by machoking on Jul 11, 2011 17:23:17 GMT -5
Why? Hogan was more over then then Flair ever was in the WWE/F flair can still 'go'. that'd be a pretty good reason why.. Yea but that's really bad business. I mean I love Flair and all but you go with the guy that brings the $$$. If I had a choice to put the world title right now on John Cena or Daniel Bryan...Im taking Cena just cause he puts asses in the seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 11, 2011 23:34:16 GMT -5
Hey everyone. To make it as short and simple as possible, I began watching the WWE in January of 2002. Hulk Hogan was my favorite wrestler, and when he returned to the red and yellow I was a full on Hulkamaniac. My question is this: I wasn't aware of dirt sheets, politics and things of that nature, I was a kid that was a pure fan. Looking back, I was wondering if anyone could share some info on Hogan's 02-03 run, such as politics (WWF Undisputed Title run), things of that nature. Any info is appreciated. Thanks. Let me preface this by saying that I don't respect Hogan on or off screen. Take what I say with that in mind. At WM18, the always-contrary Canadian crowd sided with Hogan over Rock. Vince took this as the entire WWF fanbase feeling this way (which it didn't) and quickly put the belt on Hogan. It didn't sit well with many main event players in the locker room since Hogan had been the spearhead of the competition just a couple of years prior. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jul 12, 2011 0:08:12 GMT -5
Hey everyone. To make it as short and simple as possible, I began watching the WWE in January of 2002. Hulk Hogan was my favorite wrestler, and when he returned to the red and yellow I was a full on Hulkamaniac. My question is this: I wasn't aware of dirt sheets, politics and things of that nature, I was a kid that was a pure fan. Looking back, I was wondering if anyone could share some info on Hogan's 02-03 run, such as politics (WWF Undisputed Title run), things of that nature. Any info is appreciated. Thanks. Let me preface this by saying that I don't respect Hogan on or off screen. Take what I say with that in mind. At WM18, the always-contrary Canadian crowd sided with Hogan over Rock. Vince took this as the entire WWF fanbase feeling this way (which it didn't) and quickly put the belt on Hogan. It didn't sit well with many main event players in the locker room since Hogan had been the spearhead of the competition just a couple of years prior. While your right that not the entire fanbase was behind Hogan, to be fair, he was getting some pretty big pops constantly after WM18. Hogan was one of the biggest draws in the WWE at the time, and it was a smart business move to put the title on him to try and boost ratings that were constantly falling since the Invasion angle. The only person that I've read that wasn't happy w/ Hogan's title run was HHH himself, though thats just what I've heard and maybe others wern't happy about it either. |
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 12, 2011 3:59:22 GMT -5
Let me preface this by saying that I don't respect Hogan on or off screen. Take what I say with that in mind. At WM18, the always-contrary Canadian crowd sided with Hogan over Rock. Vince took this as the entire WWF fanbase feeling this way (which it didn't) and quickly put the belt on Hogan. It didn't sit well with many main event players in the locker room since Hogan had been the spearhead of the competition just a couple of years prior. While your right that not the entire fanbase was behind Hogan, to be fair, he was getting some pretty big pops constantly after WM18. Hogan was one of the biggest draws in the WWE at the time, and it was a smart business move to put the title on him to try and boost ratings . I disagree. Hogan was never athletic and by 2002 (he was 47 or 48 by that time), he was clearly having mobility problems. I'm of the firm opinion that the guy holding the belt needs to be putting on classic matches every time he laces the boots. Aging legends should be used sparingly to keep their acts and body fresh. Hogan's feud with Kurt Angle was a good example of what WWE should have done with him after the NWO disbanded. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 12, 2011 8:17:20 GMT -5
I don't remember any wrestler being more over than Hogan was during this run, especially the first 4-5 months of it. So of course he deserved the run. There isn't much more to it than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 12, 2011 8:25:45 GMT -5
once again, i bring back the point of why don't we put the title on snooki? she's more over than 99% of the wwe roster, and if it's all about ratings and business, then wtf?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sexy Psychotic on Jul 12, 2011 8:36:51 GMT -5
-WM VIII The world title should always go on last. It should ALWAYS be the main event...Instead Savage wins the belt half way through and Hogan ends the event. I agree-that was a shame.savage beating Flair should have finished up WM8 NOT Hogan vs Sid-which was dreadful But didn't that go on last because they wanted to have the big return of Warrior and the fact they thought Shango was to be a huge deal. To me, this match should have been ME, you couldn't have Warrior and Shango coming out mid way through. However maybe putting the title on one of the two on the road to WM would have been better, still keeping Flair/Savage. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 12, 2011 8:39:16 GMT -5
once again, i bring back the point of why don't we put the title on snooki? she's more over than 99% of the wwe roster, and if it's all about ratings and business, then wtf? Not with the wrestling audience, who regularly spends money on the product. Could you be missing the point any more? |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 12, 2011 8:40:38 GMT -5
I mean hell, WWE should put the title on Brad Pitt. He's more over than anybody on the roster. What a huge mistake they're making.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 12, 2011 8:43:07 GMT -5
McRib should have an annual title reign, because it is more over than anyone on the WWE roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 12, 2011 10:15:07 GMT -5
I don't remember any wrestler being more over than Hogan was during this run, especially the first 4-5 months of it. So of course he deserved the run. There isn't much more to it than that. There is more: the future health of the company. In-their-prime main eventers should never be fed to overrated, over-the-hill legends. |
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jul 12, 2011 10:53:38 GMT -5
I don't remember any wrestler being more over than Hogan was during this run, especially the first 4-5 months of it. So of course he deserved the run. There isn't much more to it than that. There is more: the future health of the company. In-their-prime main eventers should never be fed to overrated, over-the-hill legends. You mean like how HHH and HBK constantly squashed young, up-and-coming talent over the last few years. I'm actually a HHH fan(not an HBK fan), but the WWE has done this w/ more than just Hogan. HHH, HBK, Undertaker, Kane, and other past-their-prime wrestlers have hogged the belt over the last 3-5 years while squashing young talent as well. The reason why they were allowed to is because they but butts in seats. Sure, I would have loved to see someone like Booker T or RVD w/ the title in 2002, but Hogan was putting butts in seats, so IMO putting the title on him for a month wasn't the worst idea, though it wasn't the best either. But I agree that he should have been used to put guys over more than holding the belt. He simply didn't need it, but the WWE was doing bad ratings wise, and needed to find somebody to stop the popularity fall. |
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 12, 2011 11:45:07 GMT -5
There is more: the future health of the company. In-their-prime main eventers should never be fed to overrated, over-the-hill legends. You mean like how HHH and HBK constantly squashed young, up-and-coming talent over the last few years. I'm actually a HHH fan(not an HBK fan), but the WWE has done this w/ more than just Hogan. HHH, HBK, Undertaker, Kane, and other past-their-prime wrestlers have hogged the belt over the last 3-5 years while squashing young talent as well. I think that argument on worked with HHH for a short time. With HBK, the reverse is true. He only pushed for the title in his prime and when he came back in '02, he didn't hold it enough, even when it was asked of him. Taker, as much as I admire his work, shouldn't have had his last couple of title reigns. He doesn't need the belt at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 12, 2011 11:50:15 GMT -5
once again, i bring back the point of why don't we put the title on snooki? she's more over than 99% of the wwe roster, and if it's all about ratings and business, then wtf? Not with the wrestling audience, who regularly spends money on the product. Could you be missing the point any more? you're missing mine. if the overall focus of the wrestling business is to make as much cash as quickly as possible, then yes, snooki would be a much better choice for the title than hulk hogan. BUT if you're thinking of the overall health and sustenance of a wrestling business, you need to build names, not utterly destroy them. anyone hulk hogan has 'helped' throughout the years has been damaged in the process, politicked, whatever. he more than proved in his years in wcw what his interests in wrestling were ($). yes, wrestling falls upon hard times but if it is revisioned and renewed as a product with proper creativity THAT is what draws in people, not putting all your product's focus on one (unliable) name. when the wwe was facing huge financial crisis and wcw was kicking their ass, they didn't have a hulk hogan to fall back on. they had to CREATE something new, change with the times, and they did and found more success than they had in years. imagine if that'd been the focus in 2002, after the failing of the invasion angle. i go back to my andre the giant's body would be a huge draw example. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jul 12, 2011 11:57:15 GMT -5
You mean like how HHH and HBK constantly squashed young, up-and-coming talent over the last few years. I'm actually a HHH fan(not an HBK fan), but the WWE has done this w/ more than just Hogan. HHH, HBK, Undertaker, Kane, and other past-their-prime wrestlers have hogged the belt over the last 3-5 years while squashing young talent as well. The reason why they were allowed to is because they but butts in seats. well, first off, hhh, hbk, undertaker and kane until recent could still very much 'go'. also, to accuse the undertaker of squashing young talent is the absolute goofiest thing in this thread. i'd say undertaker almost easily is the wwe's number one 'go to' guy to help build a new face in the company...hence his both kayfabe yet real statement of 'i'll make you famous' and wwe's absolute trust in putting any new talent in his hands. hhh was not fiftysomething and incompetent in the ring, same can be said for the rest of the guys you named. they were all still in their respective primes of their careers, churning out quality matches. the same can not be said for hogan, who had to be absolutely carried from one end of a match to the other and covered. hogan did not help the ratings whatsoever during his title reign. they actually went down. he did, however, help live attendance and merchandise quite impressively. he did not need the heavyweight championship to do this. |
|
