|
Post by k5 on May 9, 2009 21:37:27 GMT -5
Ugh. I won't really state my opinion since this is not really a thread related of someone passing the torch, but about you wanting to bash Bret Hart. sums it up nicely.
|
|
|
Post by DTP. on May 10, 2009 11:52:17 GMT -5
How Hogan let Yokozuna go over Bret at KOTR 1993 and never Bret Hart is beyond me.
|
|
Raine
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 8, 2006 12:11:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by Raine on May 10, 2009 12:05:33 GMT -5
How Hogan let Yokozuna go over Bret at KOTR 1993 and never Bret Hart is beyond me. Something to do with Yoko being more believable to beat Hogan than Bret would.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 6, 2024 8:24:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2009 20:16:35 GMT -5
How Hogan let Yokozuna go over Bret at KOTR 1993 and never Bret Hart is beyond me. Something to do with Yoko being more believable to beat Hogan than Bret would. Yoko was pushed as the 'monster heel' back then, and this would reverberate again at the '94 Rumble, with the Casket Match against the Undertaker.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on May 10, 2009 23:58:12 GMT -5
Something to do with Yoko being more believable to beat Hogan than Bret would. Yoko was pushed as the 'monster heel' back then, and this would reverberate again at the '94 Rumble, with the Casket Match against the Undertaker. Boy, Yokozuna sure looked like a 'monster heel' there, didn't he? What, with needing an entire locker room of heels to put the Undertaker in the casket, he really looked powerful and unstoppable. I'll never understand that, that was so stupid. There's no reason why a guy with the size and strength of Yoko would need assistance from EVERY heel to put away the Undertaker. His character was suffering after that, he shouldn't have played cowardly.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 11, 2009 9:34:13 GMT -5
Not the same situation, not even close. Hogan was the star and the face of the company that was growing from a regional sideshow to a GLOBAL entity. Hogan was the meal ticket for all the "other guys". As long as he was winning and giving the fans what they came to see, it wasn't a matter of choice in terms of putting him over. In the 80's, no Hogan meant no WWF. Bret or even Austin had other big names running with them and the established popularity of the WWF brand. Popularity that was built on Hogan in the 80's.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 11, 2009 13:02:50 GMT -5
Not the same situation, not even close. Hogan was the star and the face of the company that was growing from a regional sideshow to a GLOBAL entity. Hogan was the meal ticket for all the "other guys". As long as he was winning and giving the fans what they came to see, it wasn't a matter of choice in terms of putting him over. In the 80's, no Hogan meant no WWF. Bret or even Austin had other big names running with them and the established popularity of the WWF brand. Popularity that was built on Hogan in the 80's. i think your point you made there is the reason why hogan should have "passed the torch". hogan was the face of the wwf in the 80's, as you rightly stated, but his time was over - through his own choice no less. i remember reading in interviews that hogan was claiming to be bored with wrestling and had no interest in it. but there was a new generation (no pun intended) of superstars who needed a "meal ticket" to provide them with a living bret hart was the one chosen to be that guy and hogan should have been man enough to do the right thing for the business that made him so wealthy and the people he left behind. also usually the passing of the torch is more to do with making the new guy look good, not the person leaving looking bad, so the hulkster shouldn't have been worried about his reputation.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 11, 2009 16:42:50 GMT -5
Your point? Hogan did just that by passing the torch cleanly at WM 6 to the Ultimate Warrior.
No. Hogan passed to torch to the Warrior. Warrior not living up to that honor was NOT Hogan's problem. Period. They gave the Warrior the greatest possible achievement in wrestling at that point, a clean win over Hulk Hogan. After that, Hogan didn't owe anyone to put yet another star over that hopefully would not drop the ball. And, as history shows us, Bret really wasn't "the next guy". Shawn was.
As I said, Hogan didn't owe anyone anything after WrestleMania 6. And Bret didn't really end up being the "next guy" anyway. Bret's time on top lasted about as long as the Warrior. Let's face it, Shawn outshined Bret in every way.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on May 11, 2009 16:58:16 GMT -5
Your point? Hogan did just that by passing the torch cleanly at WM 6 to the Ultimate Warrior. No. Hogan passed to torch to the Warrior. Warrior not living up to that honor was NOT Hogan's problem. Period. They gave the Warrior the greatest possible achievement in wrestling at that point, a clean win over Hulk Hogan. After that, Hogan didn't owe anyone to put yet another star over that hopefully would not drop the ball. And, as history shows us, Bret really wasn't "the next guy". Shawn was. As I said, Hogan didn't owe anyone anything after WrestleMania 6. And Bret didn't really end up being the "next guy" anyway. Bret's time on top lasted about as long as the Warrior. Let's face it, Shawn outshined Bret in every way. Hart had a big fan base in Canada, Germany and the UK, so no, Shawn outshined nobody. Bret was the next guy, Shawn was after Bret. Also, it shouldn't been Hogan's decision on who he puts over or not. He was about to leave, and he had pass the torch like everyone else did.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 11, 2009 17:22:34 GMT -5
Your point? Hogan did just that by passing the torch cleanly at WM 6 to the Ultimate Warrior. No. Hogan passed to torch to the Warrior. Warrior not living up to that honor was NOT Hogan's problem. Period. They gave the Warrior the greatest possible achievement in wrestling at that point, a clean win over Hulk Hogan. After that, Hogan didn't owe anyone to put yet another star over that hopefully would not drop the ball. And, as history shows us, Bret really wasn't "the next guy". Shawn was. As I said, Hogan didn't owe anyone anything after WrestleMania 6. And Bret didn't really end up being the "next guy" anyway. Bret's time on top lasted about as long as the Warrior. Let's face it, Shawn outshined Bret in every way. hogan admitted in his own book that he stole the thunder of the warrior the night he allegedly passed the torch so i don't really buy the argument that he passed it cleanly to the warrior. history may show that shawn was the better of the two (he and bret) but at the time nobody knew that was going to be the case. it was bret that was actually chosen to be the next big thing at that time. another point, if hogan had already passed the torch, as it was claimed, then that would suggest he wasn't the main man any more, so why did he have a problem letting bret win?
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on May 11, 2009 17:26:21 GMT -5
So why the hell is Bret crying that nobody passed him the torch when Flair did just that!!! You lost all credibility with that statement as even Flair in his book stated it was not a passing of the torch.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 11, 2009 17:36:34 GMT -5
Really?! Like who? Sammartino? Backlund? Or are you talking about Andre who only "passed the torch" (to already a guy who was the most popular wrester BY FAR) when he could barely walk?! I'm so sick of this crap! Everyone talks like passing the torch is something everyone else does. Gimme a break! Hogan passed the torch to the Warrior. Period. What happened to the torch after that is not Hogan's problem.
No he didn't! The handing over of the belt after the match may have gave some of the spotlight to Hogan, but it certainly created a great moment. It didn't steal anything from the Warrior.
So what? Hogan is not obligated to keep jobbing to every "next big thing" that comes along. Did Taker? Did Austin? Thank you!
Because Bret wasn't a believable guy to beat Hogan at that point. Wrestling back then was about power guys and Hogan was THE power guy. Warrior was the only one that appeared legit enough to go over Hogan. Bret wasn't.
I couldn't care less how much credibility I have on a web forum.
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on May 11, 2009 17:44:20 GMT -5
You couldn't care less and yet you want people to take your point of view seriously when you haven't given every angle complete thought. The point of Hart's answer, and if you actually had listened to the interview maybe you would have gotten it, was that a lot of the main eventers were not giving guys the rub and really only out for themselves. He wasn't even talking about about Hogan in relationship to him, he meant Hogan in relationship to anyone.
Also Taker and Austin have given plenty of guys rub by losing to them.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 11, 2009 17:56:11 GMT -5
Really?! Like who? Sammartino? Backlund? Or are you talking about Andre who only "passed the torch" (to already a guy who was the most popular wrester BY FAR) when he could barely walk?! I'm so sick of this crap! Everyone talks like passing the torch is something everyone else does. Gimme a break! Hogan passed the torch to the Warrior. Period. What happened to the torch after that is not Hogan's problem. No he didn't! The handing over of the belt after the match may have gave some of the spotlight to Hogan, but it certainly created a great moment. It didn't steal anything from the Warrior. So what? Hogan is not obligated to keep jobbing to every "next big thing" that comes along. Did Taker? Did Austin? Thank you! Because Bret wasn't a believable guy to beat Hogan at that point. Wrestling back then was about power guys and Hogan was THE power guy. Warrior was the only one that appeared legit enough to go over Hogan. Bret wasn't. I couldn't care less how much credibility I have on a web forum. if you're so sick of this crap maybe you should chill out!!!! ;D hogan admitted he was acting in his own best interests when he handed the belt to the warrior. so he never passed the torch. those with even a passing interest in professional wrestling will know there is a huge difference between losing a match and putting somebody over. but the most important fact in this debate is that it shouldn't have been up to hogan who he lost to, he's an employee. if vince thought the best thing for business was for hogan to lose cleanly to todd pettingil then hogan should have complied
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on May 11, 2009 20:03:00 GMT -5
I don't understand you. People constantly contradict every point you make and you ignore them and force your viewpoint upon them anyway. I don't believe I've seen you make a thread that doesn't praise Hulk Hogan either. We get it, you love Hogan. You're clearly biased to every topic you make anyway due to your overwhelming love of Hulk Hogan.
As for the topic, I don't care if you call it passing the torch or doing the right thing for business. Hogan did not need the WWF Championship at Wrestlemania 9. It is viewed as one of, if not the worst Wrestlemania, largely because of the way it ended. Bret didn't even get a televised Championship win but it was clear they were grooming him to be the next big thing. Hogan should have done what was right for business, been selfless, and put Bret over. It would still be talked about to this day and nobody would be looking down on Hogan for doing it; it would be a historic moment. It's not about "hey, Hogan HAS the pass the torch," it's about the fact that he should have put Bret over. /endstory.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 12, 2009 9:49:15 GMT -5
Do tell! Exactly who did Taker put over in the 90's?! Or Austin during his time on top, or even after the Rock eclipsed him as the biggest star?
He lost the match cleanly to the Warrior. That's passing the torch. Handing the belt to the Warrior and raising his hand took something away from the moment? Or from the Warrior? You're insane!
LOL! No, when you build your company around a single individual for almost a decade, that's not "just an employee". Further more, if that "employee" decided to leave and go to a competitor, that could hurt you a lot... as Vince quickly found out. Bret was an employee. Shawn, Taker, Rock, Austin... those were emplyees. Hogan... was on a completetely different level.
Oh I see... so it's OK for you to dismiss my point of view but I'm required to accept yours?! Hell no!
Did I ever say he did? What does WM 9 have to do with the passing of the torch topic? Vince asked Hogan to be at WM9 to help the buy rates because his "next big thing" didn't draw sh*t in US. Fact!
Hogan put over the Warrior, clean. Hogan put over the Undertaker only a year into his WWF career. Not a clean finish, but they were starting a Flair feud. And Taker's win over Hogan is a MAJOR milestone in his career. Fact is, he didn't take the belt back from Taker clean, so it didn't hurt the Deadman a bit. Hogan even made Sid look very legit without having a clean win over him. From 90 to 92 Hogan wasn't rolling over people and helped put talent over. Would've his match with Bret been a big deal? Yes. Did he HAVE TO do it? No.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 12, 2009 10:29:45 GMT -5
Do tell! Exactly who did Taker put over in the 90's?! Or Austin during his time on top, or even after the Rock eclipsed him as the biggest star? He lost the match cleanly to the Warrior. That's passing the torch. Handing the belt to the Warrior and raising his hand took something away from the moment? Or from the Warrior? You're insane! LOL! No, when you build your company around a single individual for almost a decade, that's not "just an employee". Further more, if that "employee" decided to leave and go to a competitor, that could hurt you a lot... as Vince quickly found out. Bret was an employee. Shawn, Taker, Rock, Austin... those were emplyees. Hogan... was on a completetely different level. Oh I see... so it's OK for you to dismiss my point of view but I'm required to accept yours?! Hell no! Did I ever say he did? What does WM 9 have to do with the passing of the torch topic? Vince asked Hogan to be at WM9 to help the buy rates because his "next big thing" didn't draw sh*t in US. Fact! Hogan put over the Warrior, clean. Hogan put over the Undertaker only a year into his WWF career. Not a clean finish, but they were starting a Flair feud. And Taker's win over Hogan is a MAJOR milestone in his career. Fact is, he didn't take the belt back from Taker clean, so it didn't hurt the Deadman a bit. Hogan even made Sid look very legit without having a clean win over him. From 90 to 92 Hogan wasn't rolling over people and helped put talent over. Would've his match with Bret been a big deal? Yes. Did he HAVE TO do it? No. i'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you're a Hogan fan! hogan was an employee of wwf. he didn't own any part of the company and drew a paycheque hence his status as employee. he should have done the right thing and put bret over and put him over the right way. however egomania was just as strong in 1993 and hogans fictional character couldn't stand losing to another character , in a company that the hulkster wouldn't work for again in that year, decade, era or even that century!!! hogans star wasn't shining as brightly and he knew it. i guess jealousy prevented him losing to the younger, more talented bret hitman hart!
|
|
|
Post by man on May 12, 2009 10:44:43 GMT -5
And this is "one of the opinions I should respect"? LMAO!
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 12, 2009 10:47:26 GMT -5
And this is "one of the opinions I should respect"? LMAO! i'm sure you've as much respect for this as everyone does for yours
|
|
|
Post by man on May 12, 2009 11:06:37 GMT -5
Me stating that,
- Hogan put over the Warrior clean
- WWF being built around Hogan
are not opinions, they are facts. He didn't owe anyone else anything. That included puting over Bret.
|
|