Hogan is a greater wrestler than Flair

You know what, it's stilly to debate something that is so opinion-oriented. There is not "best wrestler" in prowrestling. Why? Because that's not what the business is all about. It's about entertainment and giving the people a show that will remember.

RIC FLAIR

Ric Flair is listed a great wrestler... why? This is pro-wrestling. It's fake. So you can't really tell me that Flair is a great "wrestler" because it's all scripted. HBK and other fast-movers are very entertaining due to the fancy moves they pull off. But Flair was not a high-flyer. Heck, neither was Bret Hart. I've yet to watch one of these "great technical" matches and not be tempted to turn it off 2 minutes into it. What made Flair fun to watch were his dirty tactics. I could care less how well he executes a headlock or a figure four. All of that is fake and non of it is interesting. But he cheats, and that is fun to watch. He sells very well to his opponents and that makes the match interesting. Nothing to do with actual wrestling abilities.

HULK HOGAN

Hogan was interesting because he stood out. You got a guy that, at the time, looked in far better shape than vast majority of the roster. He was bright, colorful, and energetic. Hogan basically personified what you saw in kids media at the time. He-man, Thundercats, as well as other shows focused on super-human muscle men. What made him interesting to watch was wondering if he could slam someone so big and "scary". Could the super-hero beat this monster? Nobody came to see Hogan doing headlocks and takedowns. They wanted to see a fun show of a super-hero fighting monsters and villains wile overcoming all obsticles. That's what made Hogan popular in the 80's.

HOGAN VS FLAIR

Prowrestling has nothing to do with wrestling abilities, NOTHING! It's all about puting on a show. Both Hogan and Flair were able to put on a great show. It was fun to watch Hogan overcome the impossible to win. It was fun to watch Flair cheat his way to victory. They gave the fans what the fans came to see. As for who was better? Such a debate is pointless. Everyone prefers different things. I've always like Hogan, but that doesn't cement it in fact that he is the best.

What would give Hogan the edge in this type of an argument would be the high-profile bouts he has had in his career that withstand the test of time. Flair vs Rhodes? Flair vs Von Erichs? Flair vs Steamboat? 20 years later, nobody but the hardcore older fans care. However, Hogan/Andre, Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Flair, Hogan/Sting, Hogan/Goldberg, Hogan/Rock... those withstand the test of time. It doesn't matter if you didn't like the match or thought it wasn't technical enough. That isn't really the goal of prowrestling. The idea is to creat a show that people will remember. In the end, Hogan did a better job of it than Flair. He did it on a much bigger scale. If Flair was in the WWF in 1986, would Hogan still be the lead? Hell yeah! Hogan was exactly what the fans wanted in the 80's. No different than what the NWO, Stone Cold, and the Rock where what was interesting to the masses in the late 90's.

It's entertainment, not a sport. It's about putting on a show, not scoring technial points. Flair is a great worker and never needed to change his gimmich. That's great, but it is also the reason why he will not be remebered as THE man later down the road. He doesn't have any MASSIVE matches, besides his final one with HBK, that people will remember and hold on to. Hogan, he was a trend. As Hulk and as Hollywood. He answered to what the times were asking for. In the 80's he was the ultimate good guy. In the 90's he was the ultimate rule-breaker. And his comeback to the WWE was a great nostalgia ride. He had matches that he will be remembered for because they defined various corner stones of the business. Flair did not.

Okay, first thing's first. Rock vs. Hogan was nowhere near a five star match. Just because the crowd is into the match doesn't make it five stars. All that match was was trading finishers.

If you're going to encompass ability into naming the greatest all-around wrestler, I can't accept Hulk Hogan. "Quite good" doesn't cut it. There's a reason people STILL talk about Flair vs. Steamboat to this day. There's a reason guys like Triple H and Shawn Michaels credit Ric Flair for getting them involved in this business.

The problem with Hogan (among many) is that so many people could have gotten that gimmick and made it work. Just like if John Cena were born 20 years earlier and worked it, it would have been the same result. Nobody can do what Ric Flair did in terms of gimmick or in the ring result. Not a single person could have pulled it off like Flair.

Flair works psychology. Hogan, the majority of his matches include getting whooped and then Hulking Up and hitting a Leg Drop to win. The fact that he's moved merchandise and sold out arenas does not make him the greatest wrestler. Ric Flair could out-promo Hulk Hogan any day of the week, and out wrestle him. Yes, Flair was a much better promo man than Hogan.

If you want to base drawing ability, why wouldn't you put Steve Austin ahead of Hulk Hogan? Not only did Steve Austin pretty much revitalize wrestling and save it in 1997-1998, he was a much better wrestler and worker than Hulk Hogan. I digress since this isn't about Austin.

Hulk Hogan is going to be shown in constant replay videos for slamming Andre the Giant. While it's a historic moment to be sure, it doesn't make him the greatest wrestler alive. Again, I have to reiterate that you talk about encompassing drawing power, charisma, mic skills, and wrestling ABILITY into the greatest wrestler alive, but you put Hogan ahead of Flair when Hogan wasn't one fourth the worker Flair was. I also put Flair far ahead in mic skills compared to Hogan, by far. Hogan being able to draw doesn't make him the greatest wrestler of all time, and that's really all he has going for him.