Hogan interview draws heat from internet marks..

[bob_barron 0]

No.

 

I think Hogan v. Andre would still be bigger.

 

I don't want to see Hogan v. Austin at all- it'd just be a horrible trainwreck.

[bob_barron 0]

Just one thing. Hogan has to share some of the blame for the fall of WCW. Austin never ruined a company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WCW was on borrowed time before Hogan was brought in because they were NEVER making money and would have gone under anyway if the nWo angle didnt take off like it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. As long as Ted Turner owned the company, WCW was never going to go under regardless of whether the nWo angle clicked or not.

[Black Lushus 0]

No.

 

I think Hogan v. Andre would still be bigger.

 

I don't want to see Hogan v. Austin at all- it'd just be a horrible trainwreck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Irregardless of sucky ringwork, I think it would far surpass Andre/Hogan...the top Icons of two seperate eras...one made the WWF a household name while the other made it a corporate juggernaut...though it may have been better to have had this match 3 or 4 years ago, but whatever...

[cabbageboy 0]

It'd be a big draw type match but I don't think the match itself would be worth a shit unless Patterson does every booking trick he can think of to make both guys look good.

 

About Austin though, the guy had a peak drawing period from roughly WM 14 till SS 99. Also, what does it really say about Austin when the WWF made perhaps MORE money in 2000 without him? The Rock was just as big of a draw.

 

Sure I loved Austin's heel antics in 2001 but would anyone try to make a serious claim that his heel schtick drew money? Critical success, commercial flop.

[RedJed 0]

Just one thing. Hogan has to share some of the blame for the fall of WCW. Austin never ruined a company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you fucking stupid?? WCW NEVER made money when they were running exept for a short period between 1996 and 1998 where, you guessed it, Hogan was on top with the nWo angle. WCW died because the booking got incredibly stupid between 99 and late 2000 that even when things picked up in early 2001 it was too late to save the company, and Hogan wasnt even around for late 2000 and was only used speradically before then. WCW was on borrowed time before Hogan was brought in because they were NEVER making money and would have gone under anyway if the nWo angle didnt take off like it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're acting naive if you think Hogan at least wasnt part of the problem that led to WCW's demise. He, along with others such as Nash, Bischoff, Russo, Brad Siegel, etc - they were all responsible in their own little ways. I dont think anyone needs to give reasons or examples why, it should have been obvious for anyone who followed WCW back in the day and/or read that Death of WCW book.

[Downhome 0]

I think it would be:

 

Hogan/Andre

 

Hogan/Flair

 

Hogan/Rock and/or Hogan/Austin

 

You see, this is another point. When you think of a list of the truly "big" wrestling matches, Hulk Hogan is a part of quite a few of them, and his name is always up at the top of the list. I would even add Hogan/Goldberg to that list somewhere, not at the top, but somewhere on there. Then you have Hogan/Warrior as well. How about Hogan/Savage? Not to mention Hogan/Sting, that one had some of the greatest buildup of all time. Even Hogan/Slaughter had a lot behind it going in.

[Black Lushus 0]

Hogan/Flair wasn't a big deal at all when they were doing it in the mid 90s, bro...sure it was big for WCW, but it didn't garner the media attention Hogan/Andre got...the E should have done it when both guys were still super hot and working in the same company in 92...

[Downhome 0]

It wasn't a huge deal to the entire country, but to wrestling fans it was "the" dream match that people had always wanted to see.

[RedJed 0]

About Austin though, the guy had a peak drawing period from roughly WM 14 till SS 99.  Also, what does it really say about Austin when the WWF made perhaps MORE money in 2000 without him? 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It really doesnt say shit at all. Austin was the main force that drew the interest in the product going into 2000. If he wouldnt have been a draw in 99 that peak in 2000 wouldnt have been hit. His return at Backlash for HHH v. Rock also generated a large buyrate which could at least partly be attributed to him. And his return later in the year drew respectable numbers.

[swan 0]

I'm surprised no one has talked about him main eventing in the AWA. Riots nearly started because Hogan wasn't going over with the belt. The beginning of the end started when Vince signed Hogan away from Verne.

[swan 0]

Just one thing. Hogan has to share some of the blame for the fall of WCW. Austin never ruined a company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. The blame goes to the large guaranteed contracts that were given to everyone, the crappy house shows, and a downturn in wrestling in general. WCW was never a money maker. The major stars would only work PPV's and Nitro. The wrestlers ran the show, and it ran it straight into the ground.

[RedJed 0]

Just one thing. Hogan has to share some of the blame for the fall of WCW. Austin never ruined a company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. The blame goes to the large guaranteed contracts that were given to everyone, the crappy house shows, and a downturn in wrestling in general. WCW was never a money maker. The major stars would only work PPV's and Nitro. The wrestlers ran the show, and it ran it straight into the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WCW was a money maker for about a 2-3 year period in the 90s, cmon now.

 

So you are saying Hogan shouldnt share some of the blame but in the same breath you say the wrestlers ran the show (and dont tell me Hogan wasnt one of those) and ran it straight into the ground? Thats a total contradiction of your argument that Hogan isnt partly to blame for WCW's fall.

[Downhome 0]

I'm surprised no one has talked about him main eventing in the AWA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I indirectly did.

[Darthtiki 0]

and how that orange skin of his is the result of the sun shining out of his ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So I guess nighttime only occurs because either Ed "The Bootyman" Leslie, Brian Knobbs or insert Hogan lackey here is kissing it

[Ripper 0]

I still think that The Rock coulda out drawn both of them.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Rock was never given the run of Hogan or Austin on top so we won't ever tell but I doubt he could've touched their numbers. The fans connection with Hogan and Austin ran way deeper then anything they had with Rock.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Did he really change ENTIRE shows, though? Or just the stuff that had to do with his character?

 

Even if Hogan changed one thing -say his opponent- and that opponent was working a tag match previously, think of all the wrestlers are effected because of that and how the structure of the show would have to be realligned.

[Ripper 0]

Austins "RUN at the TOP" was not all Austin.

 

Just because the Rock didn't have the title on his shoulder didn't mean people weren't tuning in for him. Honestly, the Rock was more known before Scorpian King than Austin has ever been. He could talk just as well or better than Hogan and Austin, he was/is better looking (brings in da LAYDEES) and save a couple of heel runs by Austin, he was the superior worker in the ring.

 

People were there for the Rock just as Much as Austin, but Austin gets all the credit.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It was a regular occurance where the bookers would put together a Nitro, and then Hogan would come in that afternoon and change everything around. In March of 1996, for example, when Hogan was going to leave for a while and they were building Giant up, an angle was put together for Giant to chokeslam Hogan and leave him laying to write him out. Hogan then got there and changed it to Giant chokeslamming Sting and Luger to leave them laying, and Hogan would then run Giant off and beat up Jimmy Hart as well and be left standing tall, and that was how he would be written out.

[notJames 0]

Sounds like Hogan's getting a head start on that Wrestlemania 22 build.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i was thinking that exact same thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Y'know, if this match actually gets booked, would you guys agree that (in terms of star power) it would be the biggest match in the history of professional wrestling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll bet Tony Schiavone would agree.

[Ripper 0]

Just one thing. Hogan has to share some of the blame for the fall of WCW. Austin never ruined a company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. The blame goes to the large guaranteed contracts that were given to everyone, the crappy house shows, and a downturn in wrestling in general. WCW was never a money maker. The major stars would only work PPV's and Nitro. The wrestlers ran the show, and it ran it straight into the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WCW was a money maker for about a 2-3 year period in the 90s, cmon now.

 

So you are saying Hogan shouldnt share some of the blame but in the same breath you say the wrestlers ran the show (and dont tell me Hogan wasnt one of those) and ran it straight into the ground? Thats a total contradiction of your argument that Hogan isnt partly to blame for WCW's fall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The checkbook is what ran Nitro into the ground. the show was still doing decent rating numbers and was making a huge amount of money on ad revenue, except with 10-15 guys making 7 figures a year, and another 20-30 making mid to high 6 figures a year, the cost to keep the company running outweighed the money they were making.

 

Lanny Poffo was making 300,000 a year when WCW closed. I want you to stop and think about that one. LANNY fucking POFFO was making 300,000 a year from WCW for sitting on his ass. For all the bad booking, all the bad decisions, if it weren't for money mismanagement, WCW would still be on right now.

[RedJed 0]

Just one thing. Hogan has to share some of the blame for the fall of WCW. Austin never ruined a company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. The blame goes to the large guaranteed contracts that were given to everyone, the crappy house shows, and a downturn in wrestling in general. WCW was never a money maker. The major stars would only work PPV's and Nitro. The wrestlers ran the show, and it ran it straight into the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WCW was a money maker for about a 2-3 year period in the 90s, cmon now.

 

So you are saying Hogan shouldnt share some of the blame but in the same breath you say the wrestlers ran the show (and dont tell me Hogan wasnt one of those) and ran it straight into the ground? Thats a total contradiction of your argument that Hogan isnt partly to blame for WCW's fall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The checkbook is what ran Nitro into the ground. the show was still doing decent rating numbers and was making a huge amount of money on ad revenue, except with 10-15 guys making 7 figures a year, and another 20-30 making mid to high 6 figures a year, the cost to keep the company running outweighed the money they were making.

 

Lanny Poffo was making 300,000 a year when WCW closed. I want you to stop and think about that one. LANNY fucking POFFO was making 300,000 a year from WCW for sitting on his ass. For all the bad booking, all the bad decisions, if it weren't for money mismanagement, WCW would still be on right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I agree that was a significant part of the downfall of WCW, anyone who says it's one single item of note that drove the company out of business, it's just not that cut and dry.

[Downhome 0]

We've been through this before. There were a tone of different factors that led to WCW closing it's doors. Many that we saw on our TV screens, and just as many more that went on behind closed doors.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Can someone explain to me why this topic is title the way it is? I've seen disagreement from people, but it's been done in a very civil manner. Does this Jackie Fargo person just want to stir up shit or something?

[Guest jackie fargo]

The thread is-Hogan talks about Austin's drawing power compared to his own-it's an easy enough question...

[stahl 0]

There is a thread about this at Wrestling Classics.

 

Meltzer makes some replies including this one:

 

Hogan was a big draw for more years than Austin. But Austin's grosses were so huge that his few years were bigger than all of Hogan's put together. The profit margin in Austin's best year was more than the total profit margin, in fact, significantly more, between 1984 and 1992, which was the entire Hogan WWE era.

[Downhome 0]

But it all goes back to the same thing: It's just not fair to compare the two, especially those two totally differt eras. The times were just so totally different.

[Guest JMA]

This all meaningless anyway, since Hogan is just trying to build interest for a Hogan/Austin program.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

I said in another thread, Austin was probably the biggest draw, but Rock is going to be a bigger national media star than Austin could ever even dream of being. I agree, by 99 people were definetly tuning in to see the Rock maybe just as much as they were Austin. The thing about Rock is he was such a great heel. Rock's heel stuff is just more entertaining to me than anything Austin or Hogan have ever done. And some of his promos are on another level than anything Austin or Hogan could do.

 

Austin's character is not timeless. I think alot of his popularity comes from the crazy stuff he did, all the great moments he had vs Mcmahon. Yet I don't think the character itself is even close to the timeless/eternal feel of Hulkamania. Austin was perfect for the attitude era, but I don't see drinking beer and giving the finger as anything timeless. It wasn't even original if you consider Sandman was doing it first. I'm not even sure if I see in 10 years Austin getting one of those pops where he just stands in the ring and the fans cheer the hell out of him. Those ovations Hogan gets when he's in the ring are all about respect and love, I don't know if Austin commands that. Maybe its cause in reality Austin didn't really stand for anything 'good'. Beating up your boss, drinking beer, fighting authority, that is good but it only appeals to a certain group of people.

 

I think Ric Flairs persona will be remembered and respected more than Austins.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Can someone explain to me why this topic is title the way it is? I've seen disagreement from people, but it's been done in a very civil manner. Does this Jackie Fargo person just want to stir up shit or something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you mean the part about the interview drawing 'heat' from 'internet marks', consider who made the thread.