|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on May 12, 2009 11:54:04 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. Wait...your argument for not putting over someone is because he already put Warrior over? So he only had to put one person over in his career and so he no longer has to, granted it is Warrior and anyone putting him over is a miracle initofitself, but still. How can you sit there and say that a person who has as you put it been built to such heights of success is too good to put someone over so that the business can continue? I seriously don't see how you can see the wrestling business in that light. That be like Chief Jay Strogbow never helping out Flair and someone saying that Strongbow was too good, which by the he was and he didn't have to help Flair out.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 12, 2009 12:12:22 GMT -5
"Putting over" and "Passing the Torch" aren't really the same thing. Hogan put over Undertaker, Sid, and Yoko. Granted, not clean finishes, but their characters were enhanced because they overpowered, and in the case of the Undertaker and Yoko defeated, Hogan.
The topic isn't about how many people Hogan "put over". I don't disagree with the notion that he could've put over more people. I'm disagreeing with the notion of having him pass the torch to Bret. Hogan already did that for the Warrior. Hogan was barely a part timer in 1993. He didn't HAVE TO do anything for anybody at that point.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 12, 2009 13:00:48 GMT -5
in my opinion, the holder of the "torch" that is spoken about represents the main player in the company which for many years was hulk hogan. i've stated in several of my posts in this topic that i don't believe hogan truly passed the torch to the warrior. sure warrior pinned hogan clean and there may have been the notion of the warrior being the "next big thing". but several factors during and after that event lead me to believe that firstly hogan didn't pass the torch to warrior and secondly he should have put bret over and truly passed the torch.
1. as i stated previously, hogan stole the thunder of the warrior after losing to him, thus neither putting the warrior over nor "passing the torch (i.e. endorsing the warrior as the next big thing)
2. summerslam 1990 as i recall was as much, if not more so, built around hogans comeback after the brutal assualt by earthquake, as it was the warriors first title defence on ppv, thus giving the impression that hogan was still the main player in the company, or the "torchholder" if you will
3. after the warrior bombed as wwf champion it was hogan who won the belt in his sixth WM main event at wrestlemania 7. this came after his second consecutive royal rumble win in january of the same year.
4. hogan remained in the main event picture for another year until wrestlemania 8, which he was part of a double main event against sid justice, a match that not only went on last, leaving the championship match lower down the card, but was also built around the possibility of it being hogans last match. (maybe this is where he should have "passed the torch")
5. he came back for the run up to wrestlemania 9 and got involved in the main event and ended up winning the title, which was a horrible ending to arguably the worst wrestlemania in history! the only good that could have come out of this is if he'd put bret over eventually and given his endorsement.
A.G. as you stated he didn't "have" to put anyone over but in my opinion he "should" have. the above points show that hogan was still the man to beat two years after he alledgedly put the warrior over. and his endorsement of bret hart in 1993 after his year off would have done the hitman wonders with leading the new generation and could have capped off the legend of hulkamania in the wwf perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on May 12, 2009 13:40:40 GMT -5
"Putting over" and "Passing the Torch" aren't really the same thing. Hogan put over Undertaker, Sid, and Yoko. Granted, not clean finishes, but their characters were enhanced because they overpowered, and in the case of the Undertaker and Yoko defeated, Hogan. The topic isn't about how many people Hogan "put over". I don't disagree with the notion that he could've put over more people. I'm disagreeing with the notion of having him pass the torch to Bret. Hogan already did that for the Warrior. Hogan was barely a part timer in 1993. He didn't HAVE TO do anything for anybody at that point. But to pass the torch you have to put over. Why you are bringing up Warrior when Warrior's time had already past and there was no other person to carry the WWE save for either Bret or the every growing in popularity HBK. WWE had made Hogan as much as Hogan helped bring the WWE into the mainstream. It's called doing what is good for business. Doing the promotion a favor that got him so over with the fans. Bret needed just a little bit more to be over with the fans and Hogan could have done that for him. You bring up Warrior as if passing the torch to Warrior was the only thing Hogan owed the WWE and that was it. Forget about how much money the WWE gave Hogan and how the WWE has built Hogan up to the point that he could get over in the mainstream. If Hogan had stayed in the AWA, I highly doubt the AWA would have gotten Hogan over as far as the WWE did and for that Hogan owes them a lot more than just putting Warrior over.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on May 12, 2009 15:12:46 GMT -5
"Putting over" and "Passing the Torch" aren't really the same thing. Hogan put over Undertaker, Sid, and Yoko. Granted, not clean finishes, but their characters were enhanced because they overpowered, and in the case of the Undertaker and Yoko defeated, Hogan. The topic isn't about how many people Hogan "put over". I don't disagree with the notion that he could've put over more people. I'm disagreeing with the notion of having him pass the torch to Bret. Hogan already did that for the Warrior. Hogan was barely a part timer in 1993. He didn't HAVE TO do anything for anybody at that point. But to pass the torch you have to put over. Why you are bringing up Warrior when Warrior's time had already past and there was no other person to carry the WWE save for either Bret or the every growing in popularity HBK. WWE had made Hogan as much as Hogan helped bring the WWE into the mainstream. It's called doing what is good for business. Doing the promotion a favor that got him so over with the fans. Bret needed just a little bit more to be over with the fans and Hogan could have done that for him. You bring up Warrior as if passing the torch to Warrior was the only thing Hogan owed the WWE and that was it. Forget about how much money the WWE gave Hogan and how the WWE has built Hogan up to the point that he could get over in the mainstream. If Hogan had stayed in the AWA, I highly doubt the AWA would have gotten Hogan over as far as the WWE did and for that Hogan owes them a lot more than just putting Warrior over. Hey. Before you type anymore, man... is he worth it? The topic isn't about how many people Hogan "put over". I don't disagree with the notion that he could've put over more people. I'm disagreeing with the notion of having him pass the torch to Bret. Hogan already did that for the Warrior. Hogan was barely a part timer in 1993. He didn't HAVE TO do anything for anybody at that point. I can't wait to hear your reasoning about Savage winning the World title at Mania IV, with Hogan's help (via a chairshot). I also want to know why Hogan spent most of the post-match celebration with the belt before handing it off, and why he stood in (what should have been) Savage's spotlight. In the span of a few minutes, Hogan completely disintegrated a chance for Savage to beat DiBiase clean by using it as a platform for his already tired feud with Andre the Giant, and a chance to say "Hey look at me, Macho couldn't have won without my help, brother!" Hogan's a legend, a great entertainer, and obviously has made himself a ton of money from the wrestling gig. But he's a prick, professionally to his co-workers. Even a Hulkamaniac has to admit that.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on May 12, 2009 17:32:30 GMT -5
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. The fact you are missing is that Hogan did not won the title because of buy rates, but because he said he would leave if he didn't. That is the real fact. Also, yes he had to lose. He was an employee, so he had to do what the writers told him to.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 12, 2009 17:56:51 GMT -5
What the f*ck does Savage have to do with passing the torch to Bret?!!!! Hogan was hugging the spotling in the 80's and Macho was a victim. But that's not the point of the discussion. You're talking about 1988 vs 1993. BIG difference. Hogan politiced, just as anyone else, to stay on top. No question there. By no means that makes him unique. The reason the idiot fans keep bashing him is because he was the biggest ever and that, for some reason, in your mind means he has to give the most back.
I'll say it again. Vince dragged Hogan back in for WM 9 because WWF was sliding down. So Hogan stuck himself in the main event to get the belt. Why the hell not? I'm so sick and tired of everyone with their sob story of "giving back to the business". Gimme a break!
You know what, WWF did make Hulk Hogan. Hulk Hogan did make WWF. Both entities made each other rich. So you know what, that makes them even. It boils down to the simple FACT that Hogan didn't HAVE to do anything for Bret. Period!
And while we're on the subject, tell me who put Hogan over. And no, don't give me names of all the midcard roster in the early 80's. Pleanty of people jobbed to Bret. I'm talking about BIG NAMES. Who?! NOBODY! Did Graham? Did Backlund? Did Sammartino? Not even Piper! The only guy that did was Andre, and that was 3 years after Hogan came in and with Andre being in a horrible health condition. Not that it really even mattered... Hogan was already a bigger star than Andre in every way. So, there was no torch passing to Hogan of any kind. He made the freaking torch and ran with it for 10 years making the company a national entitiy. He didn't owe anyone anything.
So don't give me this crap.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 12, 2009 18:00:37 GMT -5
What the f*ck does Savage have to do with passing the torch to Bret?!!!! Hogan was hugging the spotling in the 80's and Macho was a victim. But that's not the point of the discussion. You're talking about 1988 vs 1993. BIG difference. Hogan politiced, just as anyone else, to stay on top. No question there. By no means that makes him unique. The reason the idiot fans keep bashing him is because he was the biggest ever and that, for some reason, in your mind means he has to give the most back. I'll say it again. Vince dragged Hogan back in for WM 9 because WWF was sliding down. So Hogan stuck himself in the main event to get the belt. Why the hell not? I'm so sick and tired of everyone with their sob story of "giving back to the business". Gimme a break! You know what, WWF did make Hulk Hogan. Hulk Hogan did make WWF. Both entities made each other rich. So you know what, that makes them even. It boils down to the simple FACT that Hogan didn't HAVE to do anything for Bret. Period! And while we're on the subject, tell me who put Hogan over. And no, don't give me names of all the midcard roster in the early 80's. Pleanty of people jobbed to Bret. I'm talking about BIG NAMES. Who?! NOBODY! Did Graham? Did Backlund? Did Sammartino? Not even Piper! The only guy that did was Andre, and that was 3 years after Hogan came in and with Andre being in a horrible health condition. Not that it really even mattered... Hogan was already a bigger star than Andre in every way. So, there was no torch passing to Hogan of any kind. He made the freaking torch and ran with it for 10 years making the company a national entitiy. He didn't owe anyone anything. So don't give me this crap. the world heavyweight champion the iron sheik?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on May 13, 2009 1:38:35 GMT -5
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. 1. I was stating that people provide valid arguments to your statements, but you either pass by them or disagree due to your personal love bias for Hogan. You act as if you want a discussion but you really just shove your viewpoint down everyone's throat, and anyone that disagrees is automatically incorrect. 2. Wrestlemania 9 should have been Hulk Hogan putting over/passing the torch to Bret Hart. Yes, the company WAS built around Hulk Hogan, and the whole point was to have Hogan put over Bret to help build Bret as the main star of the company. Hogan wouldn't do so, and the bullcrap that was Wrestlemania 9 happened. Fact! 3. Taker's win over Hogan is barely mentioned these days. It wasn't a milestone considering his Championship win lasted all of 6 days before they decided it wasn't a clean win. Vince wanted Hogan to not just be a part of WM 9, but to put Bret over so Bret could be built up to draw in the US because he was a fresh main eventer who didn't have the following Hogan did and could have sure as hell used the boost. He should have put Bret over. Hogan was on his way out and his light was fading fast. It's not about how many people you have put over, it's about how important they seem. You'll always disagree because you love Hogan and I'll always say that because I feel it was the right business move to do at the time. I really don't get why you make these Hogan-loving threads. They always go the same way.
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on May 13, 2009 1:46:14 GMT -5
I'll say it again. Vince dragged Hogan back in for WM 9 because WWF was sliding down. So Hogan stuck himself in the main event to get the belt. Why the hell not? I'm so sick and tired of everyone with their sob story of "giving back to the business". Gimme a break! You know what, WWF did make Hulk Hogan. Hulk Hogan did make WWF. Both entities made each other rich. So you know what, that makes them even. It boils down to the simple FACT that Hogan didn't HAVE to do anything for Bret. Period! Okay, pay CLOSE attention. Hogan should not have gotten the belt back because it was for selfish reasons and not in the interest of the company. If he wanted to act in the interest of the company, he would have come back to put over the guy who they were planning on building the company around, Bret Hart. Did Bret Hart draw? No. Would he if he went over the biggest star for the last 8 years who was LEAVING? It sure wouldn't have hurt. No, Hogan didn't HAVE to job to Bret. Nobody put a gun to his head and told him to lie down in the ring or else. But, it "boils down to the simple FACT" that Hogan SHOULD have put Bret over. It would have been the sensible thing to do; the selfless thing to do. But Hogan was/is a greedy bastard. Him getting the belt was nothing more than to stroke his own ego. Nothing more. Nothing good would have come out of that Championship win since he wasn't planning on staying anyway. Can you wrap your head around that? Hulk Hogan was NOT planning on staying in the WWE. Like you said, they had to "drag" him into Wrestlemania 9 (which I'm sure was hard to "drag" him in with a nice paycheck), so he wasn't exactly a focal point anyway. Why would you give the WWF Championship to a guy who wasn't planning on staying around? There is NO business-savvy logic in that whatsoever. "Period!"
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on May 13, 2009 2:05:56 GMT -5
But to pass the torch you have to put over. Why you are bringing up Warrior when Warrior's time had already past and there was no other person to carry the WWE save for either Bret or the every growing in popularity HBK. WWE had made Hogan as much as Hogan helped bring the WWE into the mainstream. It's called doing what is good for business. Doing the promotion a favor that got him so over with the fans. Bret needed just a little bit more to be over with the fans and Hogan could have done that for him. You bring up Warrior as if passing the torch to Warrior was the only thing Hogan owed the WWE and that was it. Forget about how much money the WWE gave Hogan and how the WWE has built Hogan up to the point that he could get over in the mainstream. If Hogan had stayed in the AWA, I highly doubt the AWA would have gotten Hogan over as far as the WWE did and for that Hogan owes them a lot more than just putting Warrior over. Hey. Before you type anymore, man... is he worth it? All arguments are worth it to me I enjoy them. It's not like it ruins my day and possibly the person I'm arguing with and I come out better for it. It's better than me going out and punching people in the gut in public like I did when I was a youngin.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 13, 2009 9:47:31 GMT -5
Well, we can argue about the Bret thing in 1993 'till the end of time, we won't reach an agreement. You feel your way, feel mine.
However, I did notice that you guys avoided my earlier question. Who passed the torch to Hogan? Seriously, what big time star put him over and passed the torch? Some fool said that the Iron Shiek was the one. LMAO! Shiek was a transitional champion! So do tell.
What the difference between the Backlund > Shiek > Hogan configuration and the the Hogan > Yokozuna > Bret configuration? Seems EXACTLY the same to me! Nobody gave Hogan the torch. Did Sammartino? No. Did Backlund? No. Some can say Andre, but that would be false. By WM 3 Hogan was already the biggest star of the company and Andre never really had a torch to pass.
What pisses me off is that all you crybabies complain that Hogan didn't pass the torch to Bret. And yet, are perfectly content with Backlund never passing the torch to Hogan. Somehow that doesn't matter. And this isn't even the first time this has happened. Here is some more of the narrow-minded garbage I've seen from you people:
* Hogan vs Undertaker in 1991 compared to Austin vs Kane in 1998. NO DIFFERENCE!!!! And yet Austin could do no wrong!
* Hogan no selling vs Undertaker no selling. BOTH have "indistructable" characters, and yet it's only OK for Taker to do that.
* Hogan not putting over people vs Austin no putting over people. Hogan jobs rarely, but when he does it means a lot to the business (Warrior, Sting, Goldberg, Rock). What major job did Austin do to put someone over? And I'm talking about during his popularity run. Hell, didn't Austin come in and beat up the ECW and WCW roster by himself during the Invasion angle?! Gimme a freaking break!
* Backlund > Sheik > Hogan arrangement vs Hogan > Yokozuna > Bret arrangement. NO DIFFERENCE. And yet it's a travastie that Hogan didn't pass the torch even though nobody passed it to him!
The main reason all you nay-sayers hate Hogan so much is because, like it or not, none of your favorites will EVER reach his level! And that drives your nuts!
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 13, 2009 10:04:59 GMT -5
Well, we can argue about the Bret thing in 1993 'till the end of time, we won't reach an agreement. You feel your way, feel mine. However, I did notice that you guys avoided my earlier question. Who passed the torch to Hogan? Seriously, what big time star put him over and passed the torch? Some fool said that the Iron Shiek was the one. LMAO! Shiek was a transitional champion! So do tell. What the difference between the Backlund > Shiek > Hogan configuration and the the Hogan > Yokozuna > Bret configuration? Seems EXACTLY the same to me! Nobody gave Hogan the torch. Did Sammartino? No. Did Backlund? No. Some can say Andre, but that would be false. By WM 3 Hogan was already the biggest star of the company and Andre never really had a torch to pass. What pisses me off is that all you crybabies complain that Hogan didn't pass the torch to Bret. And yet, are perfectly content with Backlund never passing the torch to Hogan. Somehow that doesn't matter. And this isn't even the first time this has happened. Here is some more of the narrow-minded garbage I've seen from you people: * Hogan vs Undertaker in 1991 compared to Austin vs Kane in 1998. NO DIFFERENCE!!!! And yet Austin could do no wrong! * Hogan no selling vs Undertaker no selling. BOTH have "indistructable" characters, and yet it's only OK for Taker to do that. * Hogan not putting over people vs Austin no putting over people. Hogan jobs rarely, but when he does it means a lot to the business (Warrior, Sting, Goldberg, Rock). What major job did Austin do to put someone over? And I'm talking about during his popularity run. Hell, didn't Austin come in and beat up the ECW and WCW roster by himself during the Invasion angle?! Gimme a freaking break! * Backlund > Sheik > Hogan arrangement vs Hogan > Yokozuna > Bret arrangement. NO DIFFERENCE. And yet it's a travastie that Hogan didn't pass the torch even though nobody passed it to him! The main reason all you nay-sayers hate Hogan so much is because, like it or not, none of your favorites will EVER reach his level! And that drives your nuts! nobody said that they hate hogan that's just your own paranoid fantasy. and if you read the quote about the iron sheik you asked who put hogan over to which i correctly replied the Iron Sheik. earlier in your argument you stated that there is a difference between putting someone over and passing the torch then you twist that again because someone answers you and you don't like what they have to say! perhaps you should try keeping your story straight. but thanks for this post. your answers have not made much sense but have been highly entertaining and amusing ;D
|
|
|
Post by Graze on May 13, 2009 10:05:12 GMT -5
The main reason all you nay-sayers hate Hogan so much is because, like it or not, none of your favorites will EVER reach his level! And that drives your nuts! No, the reason alot of us hate Hogan is A) We've grown up and realized what a crapty wrestler he was B) Hate the fact he was a selfish prick and held back alot of talented guys who could've have made it huge in the WWF
|
|
|
Post by man on May 13, 2009 11:05:02 GMT -5
No, I asked what big name put over Hogan. Iron Sheik was not the headliner. He was a descent heel at the time, but by no means was he a major player.
My story is straight. I said that when Hogan arrived no big name put him over. The Iron Sheik, a Iranian heel of a trasitional champion, was hardly such a name. And nobody passed the torch to Hogan either, not Sammartino nor Backlund. So where is the contradition you speak of?
Further more, I noticed that once again you guys managed to avoid discussing the issues I brought up. Typical.
|
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on May 13, 2009 11:38:10 GMT -5
Y'all love you some Bret Hart huh? Can't keep his name outcha mouth. . . . jeez
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 13, 2009 11:50:49 GMT -5
No, I asked what big name put over Hogan. Iron Sheik was not the headliner. He was a descent heel at the time, but by no means was he a major player. My story is straight. I said that when Hogan arrived no big name put him over. The Iron Sheik, a Iranian heel of a trasitional champion, was hardly such a name. And nobody passed the torch to Hogan either, not Sammartino nor Backlund. So where is the contradition you speak of? Further more, I noticed that once again you guys managed to avoid discussing the issues I brought up. Typical. for sure the iron sheik was a transitional champ, but he was the champ and lost the belt to hulk. of course he didn't have the name value of sammartino or backlund but was effective in his role he played. anyway to justify my argument for the iron sheik, the role of the transitional champ had to be filled by someone CREDIBLE enough to be treated as backlunds equal, so as to take the belt off of him. i know it was under dodgy circumstances but it was also very believable for the sheik to win the belt as the masses accepted the decision. the iron sheik never passed the torch but i never said he did. the iron sheik did however put the hulkster over and made him look like a credible champ, which is more than hogan has ever done. ideally backlund should have put hogan over but back then face v face rarely, if at all happened. ( the irony here is that according to powerslam magazine, published in the uk, backlund didn't want to put hogan over he didn't feel he was credible!!). however to fast forward nearly ten years later, face v face was seen as being more acceptable having been seen at WM6 between the hulkster and the warrior, as well as warrior v savage (summerslam 92) and Bret/bulldog (summerslam 92). so there was no need to use a transitional champ. i,ve stated my reasons many times before why hogan should have put hart over so they don't need to be stated again. so that's my explanation! feel free to LYAO at it! it's just a pity the match didn't take place it would have been a cracker!
|
|
|
Post by spawnsyxx9 on May 13, 2009 12:10:37 GMT -5
Well, we can argue about the Bret thing in 1993 'till the end of time, we won't reach an agreement. You feel your way, feel mine. However, I did notice that you guys avoided my earlier question. Who passed the torch to Hogan? Seriously, what big time star put him over and passed the torch? Some fool said that the Iron Shiek was the one. LMAO! Shiek was a transitional champion! So do tell. Andre the Giant gave the rub to Hogan. It might not have seemed important but Andre was a huge star in the 70s so even though eh was past his prime by the time WM 3 came around, it was still a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by man on May 13, 2009 13:14:03 GMT -5
Fine. Then the same can be said for Yokozuna in 1993.
Same thing with Yokozuna. In his match with Hogan he pretty much nullified all of Hogan's offensive moves. It took 3 of Hogan's finishers to finally get him down on the ground, he couldn't slam him, and Yoko even kicked out of the legdrop. Thus, Yoko became CREDIBLE as someone for Bret to beat. NO DIFFERENCE here from the Shiek/Hogan thing you brough up.
That's not the argument here. Sheik put over Hogan same as Yokozuna later put over Bret. See, that's the flaw with your argument. You're comparing Sheik/Hogan vs Hogan/Bret. That's false. What you should be comparing is Backlund/Hogan vs Hogan/Bret. That's the argument here. Sheik = Yokozuna in this particual comparison. That is why I'm right.
And I'm not fully disagreeing with you. My point, however, is that because Hogan passed the torch to the Warrior, face on face, he did NOT owe Bret anything. Nobody passed the torch to Hogan and he attempted to pass the torch to the Warrior. The fact that the Warrior didn't pan out in the long run is NOT Hogan's problem. He did not have the responsibility of putting over Bret. Would that have been a nice thing to do? Yes. But by no means was Hogan obligated to do so. That's my point.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by nibs92 on May 13, 2009 13:18:16 GMT -5
Fine. Then the same can be said for Yokozuna in 1993. Same thing with Yokozuna. In his match with Hogan he pretty much nullified all of Hogan's offensive moves. It took 3 of Hogan's finishers to finally get him down on the ground, he couldn't slam him, and Yoko even kicked out of the legdrop. Thus, Yoko became CREDIBLE as someone for Bret to beat. NO DIFFERENCE here from the Shiek/Hogan thing you brough up. That's not the argument here. Sheik put over Hogan same as Yokozuna later put over Bret. See, that's the flaw with your argument. You're comparing Sheik/Hogan vs Hogan/Bret. That's false. What you should be comparing is Backlund/Hogan vs Hogan/Bret. That's the argument here. Sheik = Yokozuna in this particual comparison. That is why I'm right. And I'm not fully disagreeing with you. My point, however, is that because Hogan passed the torch to the Warrior, face on face, he did NOT owe Bret anything. Nobody passed the torch to Hogan and he attempted to pass the torch to the Warrior. The fact that the Warrior didn't pan out in the long run is NOT Hogan's problem. He did not have the responsibility of putting over Bret. Would that have been a nice thing to do? Yes. But by no means was Hogan obligated to do so. That's my point. fair enough! i don't agree with your point but i respect you for having an opinion
|
|