|
Post by johnnyb on Sept 15, 2014 15:57:15 GMT -5
Inflation brother, AE drew more than any era I'm pretty sure. Austin is the reason we have WWE today. Inflation doesn't change how many people are in the building. 10,000 people in 1988 is the same as 10,000 people in 1998. Also--weren't you the same guy who complained about me saying Rock drew more than Punk and said that bringing up who drew more is silly unless you're a shareholder in WWE? 10,000 in 1988 is probably tougher to achieve than 10,000 in 1998, but I agree with your general point.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Sept 15, 2014 15:58:03 GMT -5
Inflation brother, AE drew more than any era I'm pretty sure. Austin is the reason we have WWE today. Inflation doesn't change how many people are in the building. 10,000 people in 1988 is the same as 10,000 people in 1998. Also--weren't you the same guy who complained about me saying Rock drew more than Punk and said that bringing up who drew more is silly unless you're a shareholder in WWE? But it changes ticket prices, therefore changing money drew. And yeah I don't like the who drew more debate but how would you suggest they decide who is better between the two?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 22:31:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 16:01:02 GMT -5
Inflation doesn't change how many people are in the building. 10,000 people in 1988 is the same as 10,000 people in 1998. Also--weren't you the same guy who complained about me saying Rock drew more than Punk and said that bringing up who drew more is silly unless you're a shareholder in WWE? But it changes ticket prices, therefore changing money drew. And yeah I don't like the who drew more debate but how would you suggest they decide who is better between the two? Well, then say it drew more money! There's no debate there, for sure. Sometimes when people say the AE "drew more", they talk about it drawing more people which is what I thought you were saying because the wording was pretty vague. But money? Yeah no, the Attitude Era wins.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Sept 15, 2014 16:12:43 GMT -5
But it changes ticket prices, therefore changing money drew. And yeah I don't like the who drew more debate but how would you suggest they decide who is better between the two? Well, then say it drew more money! There's no debate there, for sure. Sometimes when people say the AE "drew more", they talk about it drawing more people which is what I thought you were saying because the wording was pretty vague. But money? Yeah no, the Attitude Era wins. My mistake lol, whenever I say draw I mean money lol. I pay no attention to crowds size. I don't even know the attendance to anything unless it's announced
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Sept 15, 2014 16:27:19 GMT -5
Maybe in gross, unadjusted dollars. I'd have to see actual numbers to back this up. I rate this a half truth. Not gross, profit. You can rate it a half truth if you like, but it won't change the reality. Via Meltzer: If we take the high end and say $45 million was the 84-92 total, then factor in inflation, that entire eight-year period may beat one of the attitude years, but it doesn't even come close to beating two.
|
|
mrbiggs
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 5, 2014 13:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 991
|
Post by mrbiggs on Sept 15, 2014 16:37:03 GMT -5
Yeah Austin would have FOR SURE been booed. If The Rock got booed, then so would have Austin. I really don't think Austin would have been boo'd. Maybe by a few, but not as much as Hogan lovers would think. Austin always received a huge pop, and even to this day, when they even mention his name on tv, he gets a huge reaction. When was the last time you heard an in ring interview or promo that you didn't hear "What" at least a dozen times. Hell, even on ROH and TNA... Many times on the latter when Hogan was the one in the ring doing the talking?!
I read that as huge erection. LOL... That's awesome! I doubt either one of them could achieve a "Huge erection" anymore! lol Booze, drugs, growth enhancers... Their ex-wives!
|
|
mrbiggs
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 5, 2014 13:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 991
|
Post by mrbiggs on Sept 15, 2014 16:44:44 GMT -5
From the comments I've seen, maybe we should just let The Winter Soldier and Rustyy slap on some "Hulkamania" and "Austin 3:16" shirts and settle this in a backyard ring somewhere! lol I didn't think it would get personal over anything like this, or anything related to professional wrestling. Truth be told, Hogan and Austin are probably sitting back somewhere having a "Steveweiser" and planning out the next move in this little "war" they have brewing. Who's to say it isn't all being orchestrated like an episode of Raw or a PPV?! The WWE could be using this as a way to get people so interested in old school and Attitude Era WWE that they are buying into the WWE Network "For only $9.99" to see how big each one is... How much of a "pop" each one gets.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Sept 15, 2014 16:49:49 GMT -5
Maybe in gross, unadjusted dollars. I'd have to see actual numbers to back this up. I rate this a half truth. Not gross, profit. You can rate it a half truth if you like, but it won't change the reality. Via Meltzer: If we take the high end and say $45 million was the 84-92 total, then factor in inflation, that entire eight-year period may beat one of the attitude years, but it doesn't even come close to beating two. $45M in 1998 (the middle of the Hogan era) is about $63M in 1999. So that point is fair. Also worth noting that the WWF made even more than that (approximately $84M) in 00-01, during which Austin was mostly inactive. WCW made, according to Eric Bischoff (who, for all of his faults, is pretty damn honest when talking about his tenure in WCW), in excess of $50M in 1997 and at least $60M in 1998.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Sept 15, 2014 17:19:39 GMT -5
Austin would definitely get cheered more today. He has a huge advantage of not being over-saturated. Injuries meant he had to stop probably 5-10 years before he would have otherwise which kept him way fresher. If he wasn't injured in 2000 and carried on a couple years after 2003 he would have an equal reaction to Hogan I expect.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Sept 15, 2014 19:05:28 GMT -5
What differentiates Austin and Hogan is that Austin has stepped away from the business and is fine with it. Hogan simply cannot give it up and its sad he is still spewing this crap all these years later. I'm a Hogan fan but there is no denying he is always flip flopping what he says to simply get a reaction. In 2002 had Hogan and Austin faced each other I think they would have receive similar reactions. Today, as WM30 showed, Austin's reaction would blow Hogan's out of the water.
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Sept 15, 2014 21:17:41 GMT -5
Inflation brother, AE drew more than any era I'm pretty sure. Austin is the reason we have WWE today. So much to unpack there... - What is the start and end date of the Attitude Era? And was Austin even that much bigger a factor than The Rock, who's probably closer to Austin than Austin is to Hogan?
- How do you measure the success? Gross dollars? Net dollars? Growth?
- The Attitude Era wouldn't have happened if Hogan didn't almost single-handedly (in terms of on-air performers) create modern mainstream pro wrestling in the 80s. Don't forget that Hogan and the nWo also jumpstarted the popularity of mid-90s wrestling.
- Or that Austin was only top dog in WWF/WWE for these years: 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002. Four years. Hogan was, without question, the #1 global draw in wrestling from at least 1984-1990, and 1996-97 as well.
- Hogan was also unquestionably a bigger star than Austin during his 2002 comeback. Crushed Austin in merch sales as red & yellow Hogan (not to mention that the nWo shirt was the #1 selling shirt in 2002 as well).
If you're talking "in total unadjusted dollars, who made more in any single year" then the answer is probably Austin in 1998 or 1999. But over their entire careers (which is how this should be measured, without a doubt) there's no way Austin has sold more tickets or made more money than Hulk Hogan. I don't think we'll ever have exact or even approximate numbers to quantify either man's entire impact on the industry, but I don't consider Austin to be in Hogan's league. Wrestling hierarchy (in terms of historical influence and impact on the industry) is really Hogan in the top tier by himself, and then Austin and about five other guys on the second tier.
Hogan owes his success to Rocky III which owes its success to the the boxer vs wrestler matches at the Showdown at Shea 1976, Antonio Inoki vs Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner vs Andre the Giant (Rocky vs Thunderlips). Austin drew more people at house shows at 3 times the price in the 90's even though inflationhad only dropped the worth of the dollar buy half that(on average from their reigns on top) and Rock never moved the amount of merchandise of either and if you look at the Wrestlemania buyrates, Austin vs Michaels at WM 14 was the the highest WM buyrate since WM 5, seeing a boost of about half a million buys from the year before. Also Austin vs Rock at WM 17 sold better than Hogan vs Rock by 175,000 buys.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Sept 15, 2014 23:04:52 GMT -5
So much to unpack there... - What is the start and end date of the Attitude Era? And was Austin even that much bigger a factor than The Rock, who's probably closer to Austin than Austin is to Hogan?
- How do you measure the success? Gross dollars? Net dollars? Growth?
- The Attitude Era wouldn't have happened if Hogan didn't almost single-handedly (in terms of on-air performers) create modern mainstream pro wrestling in the 80s. Don't forget that Hogan and the nWo also jumpstarted the popularity of mid-90s wrestling.
- Or that Austin was only top dog in WWF/WWE for these years: 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002. Four years. Hogan was, without question, the #1 global draw in wrestling from at least 1984-1990, and 1996-97 as well.
- Hogan was also unquestionably a bigger star than Austin during his 2002 comeback. Crushed Austin in merch sales as red & yellow Hogan (not to mention that the nWo shirt was the #1 selling shirt in 2002 as well).
If you're talking "in total unadjusted dollars, who made more in any single year" then the answer is probably Austin in 1998 or 1999. But over their entire careers (which is how this should be measured, without a doubt) there's no way Austin has sold more tickets or made more money than Hulk Hogan. I don't think we'll ever have exact or even approximate numbers to quantify either man's entire impact on the industry, but I don't consider Austin to be in Hogan's league. Wrestling hierarchy (in terms of historical influence and impact on the industry) is really Hogan in the top tier by himself, and then Austin and about five other guys on the second tier.
Hogan owes his success to Rocky III which owes its success to the the boxer vs wrestler matches at the Showdown at Shea 1976, Antonio Inoki vs Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner vs Andre the Giant (Rocky vs Thunderlips). Austin drew more people at house shows at 3 times the price in the 90's even though inflationhad only dropped the worth of the dollar buy half that(on average from their reigns on top) and Rock never moved the amount of merchandise of either and if you look at the Wrestlemania buyrates, Austin vs Michaels at WM 14 was the the highest WM buyrate since WM 5, seeing a boost of about half a million buys from the year before. Also Austin vs Rock at WM 17 sold better than Hogan vs Rock by 175,000 buys. No offense but I just don't agree with this perspective at all. Hell, you could make a very strong case, if you believe all that you wrote, that Austin "owes his success" to Mike Tyson, whose involvement in WM14 is what really put the show in the mainstream's eye.
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Sept 15, 2014 23:09:59 GMT -5
To be honest Austin would probably get cheered over Hogan. Austin can still open up a can of that whoop ass. Hogan idk about that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 22:31:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 23:11:24 GMT -5
Oh for goodness sake, they're both great. Why does one have to be better?
|
|
mrbiggs
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 5, 2014 13:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 991
|
Post by mrbiggs on Sept 15, 2014 23:18:35 GMT -5
Oh for goodness sake, they're both great. Why does one have to be better? I agree... This is turning into a "Which is better, the Whopper or the Big Mac?" kind of thing. Coke or Pepsi?
I guess there is no right answer and no matter how much the Austin guys try, or the Hogan fans... Opinions are not going to change. Hogan fans will always think Hogan's the best and Austin fans will always vote for the Rattlesnake! To each his own...
Either way, neither is wrestling anymore, so there will never be a Hogan Vs. Austin dream match, and even if there ever was, neither guy would lose to the other, so there would never be an end to this debate anyway.
|
|
mrbiggs
Superstar
Joined on: Aug 5, 2014 13:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 991
|
Post by mrbiggs on Sept 15, 2014 23:20:59 GMT -5
... unless Hogan goes on "Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge" and they battle it out on the Skull Buster! lol
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Sept 15, 2014 23:34:34 GMT -5
Hogan owes his success to Rocky III which owes its success to the the boxer vs wrestler matches at the Showdown at Shea 1976, Antonio Inoki vs Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner vs Andre the Giant (Rocky vs Thunderlips). Austin drew more people at house shows at 3 times the price in the 90's even though inflationhad only dropped the worth of the dollar buy half that(on average from their reigns on top) and Rock never moved the amount of merchandise of either and if you look at the Wrestlemania buyrates, Austin vs Michaels at WM 14 was the the highest WM buyrate since WM 5, seeing a boost of about half a million buys from the year before. Also Austin vs Rock at WM 17 sold better than Hogan vs Rock by 175,000 buys. No offense but I just don't agree with this perspective at all. Hell, you could make a very strong case, if you believe all that you wrote, that Austin "owes his success" to Mike Tyson, whose involvement in WM14 is what really put the show in the mainstream's eye. Up until 1983, Hogan was a nobody in professional wrestling. He had been kick to the curb by Vince Sr. for accepting to do Rocky III. Hogan only made it because he was cast in a role in a popular movie based on a WWWF event. I hate the "if it weren't for blah blah, blah blah would be a nobody." That argument is a never ending cycle and it doesn't necessarily matter what got you there, it's what you do when you get there. And attributing WM 14's success to Mike Tyson is a little far fetched as the ratings for RAW were already on the rise and while Mike Tyson was a hot commodity at the time, if you look Rocky III which grossed $270 million at the box office at $3 a ticket, Mike Tyson's most recent PPV buy =rate was 1.99 Million. If you do the calculations, Rocky III was probably seen by a lot more people. Also, I noticed how you mentioned that Stone Cold missed the majority of 2000-2001, hate to break it to you, but Austin was out for November 1999 until April 2000, meaning he only missed 1/3 of 2000 and missed none of 2001.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Sept 15, 2014 23:52:21 GMT -5
No offense but I just don't agree with this perspective at all. Hell, you could make a very strong case, if you believe all that you wrote, that Austin "owes his success" to Mike Tyson, whose involvement in WM14 is what really put the show in the mainstream's eye. Up until 1983, Hogan was a nobody in professional wrestling. He had been kick to the curb by Vince Sr. for accepting to do Rocky III. Hogan only made it because he was cast in a role in a popular movie based on a WWWF event. I hate the "if it weren't for blah blah, blah blah would be a nobody." That argument is a never ending cycle and it doesn't necessarily matter what got you there, it's what you do when you get there. And attributing WM 14's success to Mike Tyson is a little far fetched as the ratings for RAW were already on the rise and while Mike Tyson was a hot commodity at the time, if you look Rocky III which grossed $270 million at the box office at $3 a ticket, Mike Tyson's most recent PPV buy =rate was 1.99 Million. If you do the calculations, Rocky III was probably seen by a lot more people. Also, I noticed how you mentioned that Stone Cold missed the majority of 2000-2001, hate to break it to you, but Austin was out for November 1999 until April 2000, meaning he only missed 1/3 of 2000 and missed none of 2001. So on one hand you hate the "if not for ____, ____ wouldn't be a star"... got it. Except for the fact that in your last post you said exactly that about Hogan. My mistake on Austin's time away... and I "hate to break it to you" but he was out from November 1999 until the fall of 2000. Made a handful of appearances in between but didn't wrestle until October 22nd, 2000. I attribute little to no 2000 success to Austin as an active participant. And with that I'm done with this conversation. It's not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by greenjack1992 on Sept 16, 2014 6:16:54 GMT -5
Well, Austin drew more than Hogan ever did. Austin>Hogan Haha, NO. When did Austin wrestle in front of 93,000 people? When did Hogan? It's common knowledge that the figure of WM3's attendance was considerably lower than the figure they throw around now. Just like Andre wasn't 7'5". The figure for WM3 was closer to 75,000 which is less than the largest crowds Austin has performed for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 22:31:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 6:27:19 GMT -5
No offense but I just don't agree with this perspective at all. Hell, you could make a very strong case, if you believe all that you wrote, that Austin "owes his success" to Mike Tyson, whose involvement in WM14 is what really put the show in the mainstream's eye. Up until 1983, Hogan was a nobody in professional wrestling. He had been kick to the curb by Vince Sr. for accepting to do Rocky III. Hogan only made it because he was cast in a role in a popular movie based on a WWWF event. I hate the "if it weren't for blah blah, blah blah would be a nobody." That argument is a never ending cycle and it doesn't necessarily matter what got you there, it's what you do when you get there. And attributing WM 14's success to Mike Tyson is a little far fetched as the ratings for RAW were already on the rise and while Mike Tyson was a hot commodity at the time, if you look Rocky III which grossed $270 million at the box office at $3 a ticket, Mike Tyson's most recent PPV buy =rate was 1.99 Million. If you do the calculations, Rocky III was probably seen by a lot more people. Also, I noticed how you mentioned that Stone Cold missed the majority of 2000-2001, hate to break it to you, but Austin was out for November 1999 until April 2000, meaning he only missed 1/3 of 2000 and missed none of 2001. Hate to break it to you, but Austin appeared at Backlash and then wasn't around until September 2000. so from Survivor Series 1999 to September 2000, he was gone for all but a handful of appearances. The figure for WM3 was closer to 75,000 which is less than the largest crowds Austin has performed for. LOL, no it's not. 75,000 is still about 7,000 or so higher than WM X-Seven, which was Austin's biggest crowd.
|
|