Championship Region, Tournament Final: (1) John Cena vs. (1) Hulk Hogan

[CleverName51]

It's funny, because it's the only defense I see for voting for Hogan here.

I'll say it one more time: This is a one-night tournament. Hogan comes in here after a war with Undertaker and a tough match with Bruno having sustained 66% more damage then John Cena has. I realize people either don't like this aspect when it comes to their personal preference, or will choose to ignore it, but it puts the advantage heavily in John Cena's favor. I've yet to see a John Cena match in his 8 years on top when he lost when the odds were in his favor so heavily.

Otherwise, I can see the logic in voting for Hogan, but not here.

This is beyond true, if this was a clean one on one, both guys fresh match, Hogan wins. But at this point, there's no logical way I can defend Hogan.

Cena's proven he can counter any type of leg related move into the STF.

Cena lives in a TV based era where he wrestles more often

Cena has cardio skills that destroy Hogans

Cena loses to screwy endings

Cena has more weapons in his arsenal than Hogan does

The only 2 times I can think of, in a WWE ring where Hogan faced a Mega-Face in a huge match were Wrestlemania 6 and WM18, Hogan lost both times.

Does Hogan pass out or does Hogan tap out? Who knows, who cares...vote Cena

 

[Bdubbs]

It's funny, because it's the only defense I see for voting for Hogan here.

I'm not buying your stance that the only benefit for Hogan winning is personal preference. Drawing power, revolutionizing the business, barely ever losing in his prime, and other factors put Hulk miles ahead of Cena.

I'll say it one more time: This is a one-night tournament. Hogan comes in here after a war with Undertaker and a tough match with Bruno having sustained 66% more damage then John Cena has. I realize people either don't like this aspect when it comes to their personal preference, or will choose to ignore it, but it puts the advantage heavily in John Cena's favor. I've yet to see a John Cena match in his 8 years on top when he lost when the odds were in his favor so heavily.

Although the 1 night tournament set-up applies to this match, I think you're putting too much stock into the damage carrying over. I understand your stance on Hogan having the disadvantage with the previous round's voting. However, prime Hogan doesn't lose clean. Overcoming the odds has been seen many times in wrestling, and this match would be no different.

John would make a good showing, but I have no doubt that Hogan, arguably the greatest wrestler of all time, would overcome the odds. Hogan would hulk up and finish off Cena. This match will probably end up close in the voting, but I don't believe it should. Vote Hogan!

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Cena loses to screwy endings

He's been beaten clean more times in his prime than Hogan has. Batista has picked Cena off as well as Orton, HHH, HBK, and even Khali. Cena does lose to screwy endings but who is most likely to go down clean? That would be John John.

 

[8thwotwATG]

Finally, it has come to this; the single greatest professional wrestler of this era vs. the greatest professional wrestler of all time. No one could ask for a more marquee main event in this tourney than what we have here. I see both guys selling for each other, I see see multiple false finishes after both guys hit their finishers, but at the end of the day, I had to ask myself , if I were the booker, who do I think the fans want to see win the whole thing? Cena is the best in the business today, he doesn't take a back seat to anyone, but here, he faces the greatest professional wrestler in the history of the business. I believe that most fans here would be looking for the Hogan win. Actually, the fact that he had such a tough time getting to the finals would set him up as somewhat of an underdog. After a fairly even first part of this match up, Cena would take over on the Hulk; maybe even getting him in the STF. However, like he did against the Iron Sheik, Hogan would find a way out of the STF, then the power of Hulkamania would bring him over the top of Cena. as a booker, you should probably go with the guy who put the most asses in the most seats, and here, as always, it's Hulk Hogan. After nearly getting crucified at the hands of Cena, the Hulkster comes back, escapes from the STF, no sells a series of right hands, then nails Cena w/ three rights, a big boot and a leg drop to win the whole thing. Hogan was on top for over twenty years, he led two companys to profit and did it as both a heel and a face. I'm surprised he's never won this WZT tourney before, but he certainly deserves to win this time.


Vote Hogan.

 

[DWFJT]

I'm voting for Hogan in what will be one of the most boring and predictable matches of the tournament. Super Cena vs Hulkamania. Yea this is pretty easy

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

It is damn near impossible for me to remove my bias for this tournament finals match. I don't like Hulk Hogan - I've always been very outspoken on this. I've watched probably 100 of his matches from all across his career, and I just don't enjoy his matches, his comebacks; I honestly just don't "get it". It's fine. I'm alright being the guy who doesn't "get" Hulkamania. I was born in 1990, I watched WCW in the late 90's, and I tuned out of WWE when he was making his last comeback. I was just never on the Hulk bandwagon; it is what it is.

That being said, I've been a wrestling fan for the entirety of John Cena's career. I watched matches when he was coming up in OVW, and I remember his match against Kurt Angle on Smackdown. RUTHLESS AGGRESSION! I'm the first to say that his shtick gets boring and his promos for the last two years - Rock's feud withstanding - have been phoned in, and borderline on cringe-worthy. But I'm also finding myself popping when he does come back and win, or when he's up against somebody I just don't like. I popped when he won the WWE title, because Rock ruined the belt for me after Punk's reign, and I wanted him GONE.

All that to say...I have nothing objective to say. Everything I can add is purely subjective and opinionated garbage. I've got no stats to say "Hogan is better in ____" or "Cena can ____ more than Hogan here". I think Cena's had an easier route to the finals, and has proven himself much more physical in the ring than Hogan was on average. My ignorance might be showing here, but you take the beatings Hogan took, and compare them to some of the ones Cena has taken and come back from...I think SuperCena has the greatest stamina and track record of resiliency.

The thing that comes to mind most recently was his Extreme Rules match against Brock Lesnar in 2012. Most ugly beatdown I've ever seen him take, and he popped back up, hit him with a chain and used the AA on the steel steps to pick up the victory. Crowd popped like a cherry; I was there. It was awesome.

I'm going with Cena. But I don't fault anyone for siding with Hulkamania either. LIke I said, my opinions are vastly subjective here, and there are others that can do a much better job of breaking this down - you should listen to them, not me.

 

[Papa Pillman]

2. How do you define Hulk Hogan's prime?: To me, that's the bigger question that needs to be answered here. When he landed in WCW and won his first World Title there, he was 41. Cena, on the other hand, is 36, so the age difference isn't that much apart.

When Hogan turned 36 he was in the middle of a year long title reign, and had held the title for over four of the previous five calendar years.

Secondly, Hogan won more titles in WCW then he did in his first run with the WWF. I'm hard pressed to see the argument for Hogan being out of his prime with that being the case. And during that time, he suffered losses to Ric Flair, Sting, Goldberg, Roddy Piper, Lex Luger, and The Giant(Big Show). Some of those losses came by submission as well, including Luger, Sting, an Piper, all names Cena has surpassed. So the thought of Cena beating Hogan by submission isn't as far a stretch as some might think, or want to believe.

That's because his last four reigns totaled about 200 days.

He didn't rack up larger numbers of title wins in WWF because his reigns were so dominant. One reign lasted four years. His average reign was a year long. Not counting Cena's latest win, his average reign with the same belt is less than four months.

Hogan didn't tally as many title wins in the 80s as a guy like Flair(or Cena in this past decade) because instead of having three or four 4-10 month title reigns in a four year stretch, he just held the title himself the whole time. He was booked to be more dominant.

While his WCW reigns averaged less than 200 days. Hogan was past his prime and still winning multiple championships though, further testament to his greatness and why he deserves to win one of these tournaments.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not allowed to vote, but I would pick Hogan. Cena is basically Hogan-lite. Unlike Austin and Rock, he doesn't really add anything new, he's literally Hogan for the current era. That's fine, but why chose an imitation over the original? Vote for Hogan!

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I have read every single post in this thread, to see all arguments and I am leaning towards Hogan.

As the poster above has said, Cena is a Hogan-lite. He is the Diet Coke version of Hulk Hogan. Not as popular, not as dominant, doesn't have the same connection with the fans and the CeNation is a pale immitation of Hulkamania.

Cena is good though, he has overcome the odds on more occasions than I can count, as Hogan did. Cena has the advantage of this being a 1-night tournament as he has had the shorter, easier matches to get this far so will be fresher. I would say he has better stamina than Hogan anyway.

However, does anyone really believe that John Cena would be booked to go over an in-prime Hulk Hogan in a match of this magnitude? I don't see it being the case. Hogan is the biggest draw in the history of the business, he just DID not lost in his prime except on one or two occasions and I see no reason why that would change here.

He is the bigger name, the bigger draw, the bigger icon. Vote Hogan

 

[HBsam31]

Hulk Hogan is simply the better man here. He would find a way to win this match more fatigued or not. I like the post that said if Hogan needs to turn heel he will do so. He would do absolutely anything it takes to win, and I don't believe Cena would do that. I admit I have always been a Hogan fan, and when I saw he was going to go deep in this tournament I wanted him to win. Even still, he is the biggest star ever in the sport and he deserves to win this one.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

He is the bigger name, the bigger draw, the bigger icon. Vote Hogan

And he's by FAR the more versatile. I'm surprised at how little attention this is getting, as it's really the only way that Cena loses during his highest point: From April 3, 2005 to October 2, 2007, Cena held the WWE title for 793 days, lost it twice briefly only because of dastardly heel tactics, and then watched his massive reign of dominance end merely because of injury.

Comparing the primes of the two is really an exercise in futility. I see that the arguments in favor of Hogan winning generally consist of, "UH, he took wrestling to the next levelz and Czena would not be where he is if not 4 Hogan." Hogan wins because he will win by any means necessary...including turning heel.

 

[LSN80]

When Hogan turned 36 he was in the middle of a year long title reign, and had held the title for over four of the previous five calendar years.

That really wasn't the question I was asking. I was asking "How do you define Hogan's prime?" I argued that it was a combination of his tenure in the WWF and WCW, based on his resumes in both. I don't think that's a stretch.

And when John Cena turned 36, he was holding the WWE Championship for the 13th time. I'd say that holds up fairly well compared to anyone.

He didn't rack up larger numbers of title wins in WWF because his reigns were so dominant.

Cena's done both. His first title reign went from WrestleMania 21 on April 3rd to New Years Revolution 2006 on January 8th, which is 275 days. In the modern era, that's a hell of a run. Especially when you consider he lost the title only due to a MITB cash-in, and won the title right back three weeks later at the Royal Rumble.

Further, his third title reign, beginning at Unforgiven 2006, lasted over a year, and was only ended due to injury. John's been pretty dominant himself in defending the title.

While his WCW reigns averaged less than 200 days. Hogan was past his prime and still winning multiple championships though, further testament to his greatness and why he deserves to win one of these tournaments.

I've made no argument against Hogan's greatness, or his dominance. As I said previously:

. But looking at things with everything being equal, this is a match Hogan should win.

That's not to discredit John Cena, or to concede here. But Hogan's first tenure in the WWF is unlike anything we've ever seen before.

Outside of Bruno Sammartino, Hogan is the most dominant champion in WWWF/WWF/WWE history, bar none. My problem with the way people are looking at this match is twofold.

1. Failing to take into account the tournament aspect: This is a ONE-NIGHT tournament, with damage carrying over. Do people honestly believe that a Hulk Hogan that's essentially a third of his best would beat a 90-95% John Cena?

2. Dismissing his tenure in WCW: I don't see the argument for his time in WCW being 'out of his prime.' I know I'm repeating myself, but he was a six time champion there. He headlined PPV after PPV. He was the focus of every major storyline for years, and much like his WWF tenure, he had a monopoly on the title. The only difference? He lost more, and quite a few times, he tapped out.

Any guesses as to who's made essentially every star he's faced in his era tap out? That would be John Cena. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that a 90-95% Cena could make a 30-40% Hogan tap out, or at least pass out?

It at least needs to be considered.

 

[Prometheus]

2. Dismissing his tenure in WCW: I don't see the argument for his time in WCW being 'out of his prime.' I know I'm repeating myself, but he was a six time champion there. He headlined PPV after PPV. He was the focus of every major storyline for years, and much like his WWF tenure, he had a monopoly on the title. The only difference? He lost more, and quite a few times, he tapped out.

Any guesses as to who's made essentially every star he's faced in his era tap out? That would be John Cena. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that a 90-95% Cena could make a 30-40% Hogan tap out, or at least pass out?

It at least needs to be considered.

How are you going to argue that Hogan's prime is his WWF *and* his WCW runs? You do realize that the entire point of specifying someone's "prime" is to target a specific part of their career? That doesn't work if you just encompass everything significant he's ever done. And I think your assertion that Cena would be at 95% is disingenuous too, Andre The Giant is no joke.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

How are you going to argue that Hogan's prime is his WWF *and* his WCW runs? You do realize that the entire point of specifying someone's "prime" is to target a specific part of their career? That doesn't work if you just encompass everything significant he's ever done.

I doubt anyone is really considering the red and yellow days of wcw to be "prime." But why, considering that Hogan had two vastly different characters that were both at the top of the wrestling industry for extended periods of time, does Hogan's "prime" have to be some isolated and condensed time period? Where are the rules that say what "prime" specifies?

And you're still ignoring the fact that Hogan wins because he can turn heel...which lobbies to the notion that Hogan could have two different "primes."

 

[BelieveInTheShield]

Damage has to be considered as both are in-separable apart from that I think. Cena steamrolled past the last two rounds whilst Hogan went to war with Taker', which would take a lot out of him. So much so that Bruno should have beat him but again Hogan conquered in a tight affair. Now against a relatively Cena there can only be one winner!

VOTE CENA.

p.s. joined the site just before wrestlemania so unaware of who won previous years tournaments, anyone fancy informing me, thanks.

 

[LSN80]

How are you going to argue that Hogan's prime is his WWF *and* his WCW runs? You do realize that the entire point of specifying someone's "prime" is to target a specific part of their career? That doesn't work if you just encompass everything significant he's ever done.

Which I didn't. I made no mention to the time Hogan returned to the WWE, where he won another WWE Title.

It works both ways too. In the case of Cena, I don't throw out the year and a half he was between championships, his prime is WrestleMania 21 until today.

Again, how can you argue against WCW being his prime? He took a short break and went from the WWF to WCW. Tell me what changed? What happened in his first WCW match? He won the World Championship. How exactly does that signify him being out of his prime?

You want it both ways. You want his period of dominance where he "never lost" to be his prime, but won't accept a time of equal accomplishments as his prime, because he lost more. Not only that, he lost clean, and he tapped out.

Because it's not in his favor, despite the facts, you dismiss it. It's that simple.

And I think your assertion that Cena would be at 95% is disingenuous too, Andre The Giant is no joke.

76-25. That's the margain of victory of Cena over Andre. Let's split the difference and leave Cena at 75%, which is the percentage of the vote he took from Andre.

Is it fair to say that a 75% Cena would defeat a 40% Hogan?

Sure is.

 

[jmt225]

You guys remember how it was such a huge deal that CM Punk held the WWE Title 434 days just this past year? Remember that? It's an impressive feat, one not even John Cena could accomplish.

Hulk Hogan held the WWE Championship for 1474 days. 1474 days! Let that sink in for a minute.

Let's remember that he did this at a time when you worked almost 320 days a year, if not more, not to mention doing two-shots on some days. And Hogan kept that title around his waist regardless of that for 1474 days. That's fucking unbelievable.

That's the only argument I need kayfabe wise. If Hogan was able to win every title match he had in 1474 days during arguably the WWE's hottest period ever, then why should I ever buy that he would lose in this big match situation? Especially when it's against a guy like John Cena, who some nights looks unstoppable and other nights looks like he has a mental block? John Cena is one of the most inconsistent long-term champions WWE has ever had. You never know what you're going to get with him.

Hulk Hogan, though? In his prime? You know what you're going to get from the Hulkster, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it, including the wonderful John Cena. So, I refuse to hear any bullshit about the "kayfabe" aspect of this match. Prime Hogan beats prime Cena every time in a big match situation.

Now, as far as working ability... in-ring they're hand and hand. Both are great and have their classics under their belt. Promo wise... easily Hogan. And drawing wise, of course, you give the BIG edge to Hogan there as well. Cena's drawing ability is severely underestimated, but it still doesn't come close to matching Hogan's.

No matter how you slice it, Hogan deserves this win here. The man was the true first Superhero of pro wrestling, and to this day remains the biggest and toughest Superhero the wacky World of professional wrestling has ever seen. Cena doesn't hold a candle to the man.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

First, a maths lesson.

We have been told that "damage" has occurred in the last two rounds and that margin of victory is the yardstick of how the bout went...

So, let's use John Cena vs Ric Flair as an indicator:

There was 117 votes for this match; so had it ended 58.5 : 58.5 then we can agree that the match went the 60 minutes.

Using this principle, Flair received 35 votes so the duration this would equate too would be 35 times 60 minutes divided by the medium vote (58.5). So the match went 36 minutes.

Using this calculation and applying it across the route to the final leaves us with this:

John Cena beat Ric Flair in 36 minutes and then defeated Andre the Giant in 30 minutes.

Hulk Hogan beat the Undertaker in 56 minutes and then defeated Bruno Sammartino in 44 minutes.

So, all in, John's two bouts lasted 1 hour 6 minutes and Hulk's went an additional 34 minutes at 1 hour 40 minutes.


Advantage Cena then? Not necessarily.

Let's look at the quarter final bouts. John Cena went 36 minutes with a young mobile Ric Flair and wrestling history tells us that he would have spent a large proportion of that time having his legs worked over. Hogan went 56 minutes with Taker but the prime Taker was very slow and methodical and his offense consisted primarily of strikes. As far as damage is concerned, I'd imagine that Cena came out of his match with a severely damaged wheel and as physically drained as Hulk because he was facing a far more mobile foe.

Let's move to the semi-finals then. John goes up against a guy famous for being impossible to slam and who hadn't been pinned or submitted in his career (according to Gorilla Monsoon) with a weakened leg and defeats him in 30 minutes but (again) you know that attempting and finally succeeding in slamming Andre would have provided more and more damage to the leg PLUS he probably has near had his chest caved in from collapsing under the Giant's girth. Hogan has to go an additional 14 minutes against Bruno but, again, this is likely to have been of the standard power guy style layout with the main "damage" actually being exhaustion rather than injury.

To me this actually means that both guys have a reasonably level playing field with the commentators concentrating on John Cena's injured leg and Hulk Hogan's extra 34 minutes match duration.


That bring's me to which Cena faces which Hogan. Well, I'll go with LSN's assertion that we use today's John but I don't agree with his assertion that we include Hogan's WCW spell. If we are to be fair, we take the Hogan that has been on top the same amount of time as Cena (or 1984-1992 for Hogan against 2005-2013 for Cena) because how are we to know what John will do in the next 7 years?

As such, this Hogan has three pinfall losses to his name (Andre, Warrior and Taker) of which only the Warrior loss was clean. Given that this is top babyface vs top babyface, I think we can forget outside interference or countouts or disqualifications or submissions - this match would end with aclean 1-2-3! John's record, while fantastic, simply doesn't hold up to one relevant loss in 8 years.

"Hogan put over Warrior!" Yup, he did, but Cena doesn't need put over - he's had 13 World Championships! This is to crown the best of the best... that's Hulk Hogan brother!

 

[LSN80]

Let's look at the quarter final bouts. John Cena went 36 minutes with a young mobile Ric Flair and wrestling history tells us that he would have spent a large proportion of that time having his legs worked over.

The problem with this is that while you're incorporating match length into the equation, you're not allowing for damage done. And while the idea that Flair would have worked over Cena's legs is a plausible one, the voting indicates that he did limited damage to Cena. The percentage of votes in the match equate to 29% for Flair, so how much damage did he truly do to Cena?

Perhaps Cena had a hard time putting Flair away, but the voting would indicate that this wasn't a back and forth contest. It wasn't Flair working the legs, and Cena mounting a comeback. It would be, if the match went 36 minutes, more indicative of Cena physically dominating Flair, but struggling to put the crafty Flair away.

Hogan went 56 minutes with Taker but the prime Taker was very slow and methodical and his offense consisted primarily of strikes.

What do you consider Undertaker's prime to be? Based upon his match quality and achievements, I'd consider his prime to be 2007-2010. He won the Royal Rumble, and the World Heavyweight Championship three times. And that Undertaker had a lot more in his arsenal then just 'slow, methodical strikes.' Last Ride, Tombstone, Chokeslam, and Hell's Gate, along with set-up moves such as Old School, the Guillotine Leg Drop and Snake Eyes made Undertaker a versatile, quick big man with incredible striking and a resourceful power game.

And the voting bears that out. Hogan beat Undertaker by 3%, and Undertaker is out. Cena beat Flair by 40%, giving him a hypothetical 37% advantage when it comes to damage after the first round.

The second round plays out similar. Cena beat Andre by 75%, while Hogan beat Bruno by 63%. So...

Cena: 40 + 75 = 115.
Hogan 3 + 63= 66.

That essentially leaves Cena, regardless of where his damage is, 49% better off then Hogan coming into this match.

As far as damage is concerned, I'd imagine that Cena came out of his match with a severely damaged wheel and as physically drained as Hulk because he was facing a far more mobile foe.

Based on what? Flair lost handily to Cena, while Hogan was in a war.

Let's move to the semi-finals then. John goes up against a guy famous for being impossible to slam and who hadn't been pinned or submitted in his career (according to Gorilla Monsoon) with a weakened leg.

Again, what would indicate that Cena's leg was weakened? Flair did next to no damage to him.

and defeats him in 30 minutes but (again) you know that attempting and finally succeeding in slamming Andre would have provided more and more damage to the leg PLUS he probably has near had his chest caved in from collapsing under the Giant's girth. Hogan has to go an additional 14 minutes against Bruno but, again, this is likely to have been of the standard power guy style layout with the main "damage" actually being exhaustion rather than injury.

So along with being weakened 49% more then John Cena, Hogan is also more exhausted, having gone an additional 34 minutes as well. Why would Hogan win again?

That bring's me to which Cena faces which Hogan. Well, I'll go with LSN's assertion that we use today's John but I don't agree with his assertion that we include Hogan's WCW spell. If we are to be fair, we take the Hogan that has been on top the same amount of time as Cena (or 1984-1992 for Hogan against 2005-2013 for Cena) because how are we to know what John will do in the next 7 years?

If there was reasoning as to why we don't use Hogan's WCW time, I've yet to hear it. As for reasons why?

1. He won the World Championship in his first match in WCW, against Ric Flair.

2. He main evented 43 PPV's, where he won the WCW World Title 6 times.

3. He was the leader of the most successful faction in wrestling history, and the center of WCW's major storylines during his entire tenure there.

How is that not indicative of being in his prime? Until I hear a credible argument otherwise, I'm going forward with the assertion that he was.

As such, this Hogan has three pinfall losses to his name (Andre, Warrior and Taker) of which only the Warrior loss was clean.

Just in the WWF, Yokozuna says hello, albeit by interference. Have you easily forgotten the crying children when Yoko "killed" Hulkamania?

Further, I've shown pretty well how WCW is also part of Hogan's prime. And with the championships and PPV headlines came major losses, both by pinfall and submission. Luger in the Rack. Sting in the Scorpion. Piper with the sleeper. Shall I continue?

"Hogan put over Warrior!" Yup, he did, but Cena doesn't need put over - he's had 13 World Championships!

He doesn't need put over, but being that he's superior to Warrior, why wouldn't he go over?

This is to crown the best of the best... that's Hulk Hogan brother!

With all things being equal, I'm in 100% agreement. Hogan is the greatest of all-time, no doubt. But here, all things aren't equal. Hogan comes in having taken essentially 50% more abuse then Cena, and having gone 34 extra minutes as well. Hogan was no Ric Flair: He wasn't known for his cardio. His biggest victories came in under 20 minutes(Andre, Savage), while his biggest losses came in matches that went over 20(Warrior, Sting).

John Cena is exactly the kind of wrestler that would push Hogan over that 20minute mark. Combine that with large advantages in both damage and exhaustion on Hogan's part, and the only logical choice here is 13 time WWE Champion John Cena.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

The problem with this is that while you're incorporating match length into the equation, you're not allowing for damage done. And while the idea that Flair would have worked over Cena's legs is a plausible one, the voting indicates that he did limited damage to Cena. The percentage of votes in the match equate to 29% for Flair, so how much damage did he truly do to Cena?

Perhaps Cena had a hard time putting Flair away, but the voting would indicate that this wasn't a back and forth contest. It wasn't Flair working the legs, and Cena mounting a comeback. It would be, if the match went 36 minutes, more indicative of Cena physically dominating Flair, but struggling to put the crafty Flair away.

Over 30 years of watching wrestling tells me that when a face takes on a heel, the heel will dominate for the majority of the match only for the face to make a Herculean comeback.

What do you consider Undertaker's prime to be? Based upon his match quality and achievements, I'd consider his prime to be 2007-2010. He won the Royal Rumble, and the World Heavyweight Championship three times. And that Undertaker had a lot more in his arsenal then just 'slow, methodical strikes.' Last Ride, Tombstone, Chokeslam, and Hell's Gate, along with set-up moves such as Old School, the Guillotine Leg Drop and Snake Eyes made Undertaker a versatile, quick big man with incredible striking and a resourceful power game.

I would consider the Undertaker '90-'94 who only had one pinfall loss (to Hogan) to be the prime Taker because he couldn't be pinned. The one you've listed held the 'B' world title and was knocked out by the Big Show - something that would never have happened to the original Dead Man.

And the voting bears that out. Hogan beat Undertaker by 3%, and Undertaker is out. Cena beat Flair by 40%, giving him a hypothetical 37% advantage when it comes to damage after the first round.

The second round plays out similar. Cena beat Andre by 75%, while Hogan beat Bruno by 63%. So...

Cena: 40 + 75 = 115.
Hogan 3 + 63= 66.

That essentially leaves Cena, regardless of where his damage is, 49% better off then Hogan coming into this match.

Erm... Cena accrued 72% of the votes in his two bouts while Hogan accrued 58% - that's 14%, hardly insurmountable odds.

Based on what? Flair lost handily to Cena, while Hogan was in a war.

Again, what would indicate that Cena's leg was weakened? Flair did next to no damage to him.

Wrestling history dictates that a top line face does not dominate a top line heel, rather it is the other way around. Crowds need the face to struggle to get behind him to overcome the dastardly heel.

So along with being weakened 49% more then John Cena, Hogan is also more exhausted, having gone an additional 34 minutes as well. Why would Hogan win again?

49%? Try 14% and Hogan's bouts being (arguably) more exhausting due to their duration while Cena's are more injury prone.

If there was reasoning as to why we don't use Hogan's WCW time, I've yet to hear it. As for reasons why?

1. He won the World Championship in his first match in WCW, against Ric Flair.

2. He main evented 43 PPV's, where he won the WCW World Title 6 times.

3. He was the leader of the most successful faction in wrestling history, and the center of WCW's major storylines during his entire tenure there.

How is that not indicative of being in his prime? Until I hear a credible argument otherwise, I'm going forward with the assertion that he was.

The argument is very VERY simple, John Cena is 8 years into his headline career - it is unfair to go further into Hogan's headline career than that just because you can then point to his weaknesses in that period. In 2020, Hogan's career in WCW can then be accounted fairly against Cena's (well, if John is still headlining in 2020).

Just in the WWF, Yokozuna says hello, albeit by interference. Have you easily forgotten the crying children when Yoko "killed" Hulkamania?

1993 - you can bring that up next year

Further, I've shown pretty well how WCW is also part of Hogan's prime. And with the championships and PPV headlines came major losses, both by pinfall and submission. Luger in the Rack. Sting in the Scorpion. Piper with the sleeper. Shall I continue?

Please don't, I think I've highlighted how unfair you are bringing in a period of Hogan's career that Cena is yet to reach.

He doesn't need put over, but being that he's superior to Warrior, why wouldn't he go over?

Because Hogan had a greater first 8 years to his headline career? Because he overcame insurmountable odds time and time again while John was still in baby jorts? Because he's better!

With all things being equal, I'm in 100% agreement. Hogan is the greatest of all-time, no doubt. But here, all things aren't equal. Hogan comes in having taken essentially 50% more abuse then Cena, and having gone 34 extra minutes as well. Hogan was no Ric Flair: He wasn't known for his cardio. His biggest victories came in under 20 minutes(Andre, Savage), while his biggest losses came in matches that went over 20(Warrior, Sting).

John Cena is exactly the kind of wrestler that would push Hogan over that 20minute mark. Combine that with large advantages in both damage and exhaustion on Hogan's part, and the only logical choice here is 13 time WWE Champion John Cena.

14% more damage is the most you can credibly argue and in this very tournament he has already beaten the Taker and Sammartino in matches well well over 20 minutes. At what stage of Hulkamania was it highlighted that Hogan had poor cardio? Plus (and you brought him up) Randy Savage was also more than capable of going 20 minutes plus and Hulk put him away in less than that period. At this stage in Cena's career, he still needs quite a bit more advantage than he has here against a home field Hulkamania!

 

[wrestlingfan]

I'll give it to Cena. Although Hogan is the bigger star, and has had arguably the greatest impact on the wacky world we call professional wrestling, IMO Cena is better than him at everything. In ring ability they're both hand in hand and are both underrated workers who you can argue which one is better, but Cena is way more innovative. He started out as Doctor of Thuganomics from 02-04. Reinvented himself as Chain Gang Cena in -5-06. Went to Marine Cena in 06-07, and is now the modern incarnation we see today in 08-present.

 

[Big Sexy]

There's no need for a long post here and no need to reiterate what everyone else has already said. Hulk Hogan is the biggest star in wrestling history. The fact that he hasn't won this fictional tournament used to crown the best wrestler ever, is a crime. He is better then John Cena in every way imaginable and I am by no means a Cena hater. Hulk Hogan wins and FINALLY gets his first victory in this tournament.

 

[Papa Pillman]

If there was reasoning as to why we don't use Hogan's WCW time, I've yet to hear it. As for reasons why?

1. He won the World Championship in his first match in WCW, against Ric Flair.

2. He main evented 43 PPV's, where he won the WCW World Title 6 times.

3. He was the leader of the most successful faction in wrestling history, and the center of WCW's major storylines during his entire tenure there.

How is that not indicative of being in his prime? Until I hear a credible argument otherwise, I'm going forward with the assertion that he was.

Okay I have an analogy as my last argument to try and dispel this Hogan/WCW prime theory. If this doesn't work, than nothing will...

John Elway made three Super Bowls, losing them all, in the span of '86-'89. That was his prime. An argument could even be made that his prime extended until '93 when he had maybe his best statistical season. Anything after, while he was still a solid player, and even put up good numbers due to the shift in the way the league approached the passing game, was after his prime and he was a declining player physically.

Yet in his final two seasons('97 and '98) years after his prime ended, and in the twilight of his career as a savvy vet who was a shell of his former self physically, Elway won his only two Super Bowl titles.

Anyone who watched at that time and had followed his career knew Elway was WAY past his prime at that point, in fact it was almost sad to see him go out there and play as so much "less" of a player. Perhaps the greatest athlete to ever have high success at the position, was now a broken old man getting it done with nothing but heart, drive, veteran knowledge, smoke, and mirrors. Yet that was when he achieved his highest level of championship success.

Hopefully that helps make the equation on how Hogan's WCW career was post-prime, despite the title reigns.

 

[wrestlingfan]

I have read every single post in this thread, to see all arguments and I am leaning towards Hogan.

As the poster above has said, Cena is a Hogan-lite. He is the Diet Coke version of Hulk Hogan. Not as popular, not as dominant, doesn't have the same connection with the fans and the CeNation is a pale immitation of Hulkamania.

Cena is good though, he has overcome the odds on more occasions than I can count, as Hogan did. Cena has the advantage of this being a 1-night tournament as he has had the shorter, easier matches to get this far so will be fresher. I would say he has better stamina than Hogan anyway.

However, does anyone really believe that John Cena would be booked to go over an in-prime Hulk Hogan in a match of this magnitude? I don't see it being the case. Hogan is the biggest draw in the history of the business, he just DID not lost in his prime except on one or two occasions and I see no reason why that would change here.

He is the bigger name, the bigger draw, the bigger icon. Vote Hogan

To be fair, Cena's only been a Hoganlite for about 5 years now.

 

[Loveless]

As if any more reason is needed to vote for Hogan, when this matchup happened last year it was Cena that won. With that in mind it's pretty clear that Hogan would be booked to win the rematch.