Martyn Nolan: "Only casual fans will name Hulk Hogan as the greatest of all time."

[Kliq69]

This was about 3 years since Hogan last fought. There was also a nostalgia factor at play.

More importantly, it was his first match at HIS show in nearly a decade. Hulkamania and Wrestlemania were synonymous for the first 7 years of its existence. Had Hogan vs Rock happened at the Rumble or Summerslam (not 02 in msg as the garden is definitely hogan's turf) instead of mania, I doubt the response for Hogan would have been as deafening. The only thing I wish they had done that night was Red/Yellow and Real American instead of nWo. The response Hogan had been getting (albeit nothing compared to the mania reaction) should have had them semi-drop kayfabe and just let the fans dictate the course. You think the Rock got booed as it was, imagine him standing there against Hulk Hogan instead of Hollywood Hogan.

It would be the same thing today... We might all sit here and bitch about it, but if at WM30 they had Hogan come out as a mystery participant in a match, he'd get THE loudest reaction of the night even if the match consisted only of his entrance, big boot, leg drop, celebration. I don't care if they had Jesus himself standing in the ring waiting for Hogan as soon as Real American hits the speakers at Mania, Jesus is working heel that night.

Hell we saw a sample of that a couple years ago... Bound for Glory Sting vs Hogan. The reaction that Hogan/Sting got that night compared to Angle/Roode in the main event was unbelievable. In comparison, it was like angle/roode took place in an empty building.

I still think it was poor booking in both cases as Hogan's matches on both cards should have closed out the show. Both title matches suffered as a result. I'm not a fan of anything trumping a title match normally, but as Taker/HBK showed sometimes, just sometimes, there is something more important going on than a kayfabe title. I just think in cases like these, no matter how much it goes outside "logical" booking, you just throw your hands up and give the fans exactly what they want to see. You look at some of the best moments in wrestling history, and the unifying factor is that the bookers/writers got out of the way and just let the magic happen.

 

[Tired0FthePeople]

Do you honestly think that they were speaking about anything besides in-ring ability? If you do, you're an idiot. HBK and Jericho couldn't draw a stick figure, let alone outdrawing Hulk Hogan's ticket sales and television ratings while he was at the helm.

Vince mentioned Stone Cold as being the best of all time during Austin's HOF induction ceremony. And he mentioned Stone Cold as being the greatest WWE superstar of all-time; not the greatest overall. And do you honestly think Vince would say otherwise on a WWE-televised and advertised program while Hogan was not under WWE contract?

See thats the problem with questions like this. You think there is a clear cut choice on who the greatest of all time is. This question is not a matter of fact, its a matter of opinion. If Chris jericho, Shawn Michaels and Vince Mcmahon all have their own opinion and criteria on who the 'greatest' wrestler of all time is then who are we to say their opinion is 'wrong' or based on illlegitimate criteria? The problem with these boards is everyone thinks their opinions are based on fact when its all based on opinion. Slyfox isnt any more qualified to say who the greatest wrestler of all time is than Shawn Michaels. Its all a matter of opinion.

 

[shattered dreams]

You are both wrong. If you ask a casual fan who is the greatest wrestler of all-time they will say why would anyone want to talk about that?

Just go look at what Sly did in the Cena-Hogan match in a who is the greatest of all-time tournament to see all you need to know about him. Cena mark? Yes. According to his OP here at least half ignorant about prowrestling and wrong half the time? Yes and yes.

 

[Slyfox696]

For those saying the greatest pro wrestler of all time is subjective, you're right. In kind of the same way the greatest basketball player of all time is subjective. It may be subjective, but there's only one right answer. Hulk Hogan is unequivocally the greatest of all time.

Slyfox696 recently responded to my article on WrestleZone

Good to see you finally decided to come to the forums and learn a little. Welcome.

and made a quote without really giving you any context.

My apologies, allow me to provide the full context:

I never said Cena wasn't a good wrestler, I said he wasn't GREAT. I said he needs to work on it to become a true legend of the industry, because at the moment he is just going to be remembered as another Hulk Hogan.

Hulk Hogan was the greatest pro wrestler ever. If that's how Cena is remembered, then I doubt he'd complain about it one bit. Only in the IWC could someone say something like that and mean it in a negative way. *shakes head*

Only casual fans will name Hulk Hogan as the greatest of all time.

There's the full context. It's pretty clear what you meant, and the laughter pointed your way is very deserving.

So I thought I would include a few quotes of my own from Slyfox696’s comments underneath my article where he is arguing with everyone. You can read in to these as much as you want.

“And you clearly know nothing about wrestling if you think his matches with Batista and Umaga were ‘decent at best’” – Slyfox696 regarding Cena’s ‘classic’ matches.

I'm not really a fan of Dave Meltzer, but in my experiences, I find people like you usually are. So on the chance you (or someone else who thinks like you) tend to take Meltzer's opinion as important, here is how Dave Meltzer has viewed Cenas matches with Umaga and Batista.

1/27/07 John Cena vs. Umaga (Last Man Standing) ****

4/25/10 John Cena vs. Batista (Last Man Standing) ****1/4

Link: http://starratingslist.blogspot.com/2009/09/wwe-observer-star-ratings-1986-present.html

Now, again, I'm assuming you regard Meltzer's opinion highly. If so, Dave Meltzer though very highly of both of those matches.

If you're not a fan of Meltzer, or do not agree with him here, why don't you explain to me why those matches weren't great. You know, besides the names of the guys who were in the match.

“That's complete nonsense. If Vince McMahon could make other stars as big as Cena, why doesn't he?” – Slyfox696 missing my point about John Cena and WWE becoming complacent.

For someone who was complaining about context earlier, you sure seem to be pretty relaxed about it now. Especially since that comment wasn't even directed to you.

Spoiler

Now, I'd hate to just call you an outright liar, so I'll give you the chance to apologize for your own confusion.

“The WWE pushes guys all the time, and they prove they AREN'T as good as Cena.” – Slyfox696 thinks nobody on the roster is as good as John Cena.

Oh, I'm sorry, is there someone who draws more on the WWE roster I'm not aware of?

“CM Punk was the World Champion for over a year, at least half of which was a face, and he didn't come close to generating the overall revenue Cena did.” – Slyfox696 forgetting about Punk’s ‘Best in the World’ T-Shirt which didn't even come close to Cena’s merchandise sales??

So one shirt now means he sold as much? Let's do a little example:

Let's pretend CM Punk had only one shirt on sale and Cena had 100 shirts on sale. 30 people could buy CM Punk's one shirt and one person could buy each of Cena's 100 shirts. Would CM Punk's shirt be the top seller? Yes. Would CM Punk have sold as much merchandise as John Cena? Not even close. And does CM Punk selling 30 shirts mean he sold even one ticket? Nope.

Now obviously those numbers are heavily exaggerated to make my point, but my point is 100% correct, when you move the numbers to more realistic levels. When CM Punk's Best in the World shirt topped Cena's top shirt, Punk didn't have a fraction of the merchandise for sale that Cena did. And Punk selling one shirt didn't mean he sold tickets. It didn't mean he sold advertising. It didn't mean he sold movies or music. And it didn't mean he sold face recognition.

Your mention of 1 shirt is incredibly misleading. Though, from someone who has consistently shown ignorance to pro wrestling, I'm not surprised.

“If he could make Kofi Kingston as big as John Cena, why wouldn't he?” – Slyfox696 forgetting that I’m arguing that WWE are complacent and not driving to push other people.

Spoiler

You know, when you did it the first time I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But now it is pretty clear you are just dishonest.

“NUMEROUS guys have come out of a feud with Cena MUCH better than when they come in.” – Slyfox696 seems to be forgetting an awful lot of the past few years.

Uhh, what? Did CM Punk not come out better? Did Wade Barrett not come out better? Sheamus? The Miz?

“And again, if other guys on the roster can do those things as well as Cena, why don't they? They don't, because they can't. Because they lack the overall greatness of John Cena.” – Slyfox696

Yup, 100% true.

“Cena makes guys look great, he can't help it if they aren't good enough to continue without him.” – Slyfox696

Yup, again, 100% true. When a rookie like Wade Barrett is considered to be World Champion material because of his feud with Cena, that's pretty clear evidence Cena made Barrett look great. The fact Barrett hasn't done anything since says far more about Barrett than anything. Well, I guess it also says a lot about Cena, that he was able to make someone like Barrett look credible, when Barrett has shown very little ability to do that himself.

“I'm guessing you think Daniel Bryan is one of the greatest workers around” – Slyfox696 (Yes, I do think Daniel Bryan is ONE of the greatest workers around.)

Again, for someone who was whining about full context, you seem to lack in wanting to do it yourself:

Again, I'll offer my invitation for you to come to the forums and take time to actually understand what pro wrestling is all about. I'll be more than happy to teach you. That's not me being a jerk, that's an honest invitation. Aren't you the least bit interested in someone explaining to you why the wrestling world works the way it does, despite it working oppositely to what you think it should? Don't you ever sit back and say, "Well, I think Cena sucks, but he's been unquestionably the top guy in the company for 8 years now...how does that happen?" Don't you ever just sit and think how wrestling works in real life doesn't match up to how it works in your head?

At some point, you have to adjust your thinking, when you look and see it doesn't match up to how things work. I'm guessing you think Daniel Bryan is one of the greatest workers around, and yet he's currently stuck in the midcard as part of a tag team. Why? How come CM Punk was champion, and still playing second fiddle to Cena, Rock and Lesnar, not to mention Taker vs. HHH? How come Sheamus is mega over, but Dolph Ziggler couldn't get heat if he fell into a bonfire? At some point, don't you have to re-adjust your thinking?

By the way, I have no idea who you think is good, I just know your judgment on Cena is inaccurate.

“You obviously don't know how the wrestling business works, and it becomes more apparent with every post you make. For example, you're claiming Cena is complacent” – Slyfox696 (Yes, I am. It was the whole point of my article.)

Yes, it was the point of your article, and your article is my point about you having no idea how pro wrestling works.

“You do need pro wrestling lessons from me.” – Slyfox696

And some honesty lessons from me wouldn't hurt either.

“There was ZERO interference, once more your ignorance shines through.” – Slyfox696’s opinion on Cena and Punk’s match at MITB in 2011. (I would say that Cena having to punch Johnny Ace at ringside preventing him from stopping the match as someone interfering in the match.)

But Johnny Ace was going to intercede on Cena's behalf! Not Punk's, Cena's! Cena could have won the match through "screwjob", but his pride got the better of him. Cena rolling out of the ring was his choice. That's not interference.

So you can say that all you want, but it won't ever be true.

Now I’m not going to put everything Sly said up here but you can check them out in the comments section under my article.

Yes, please do so. On one hand, you'll see someone who has an incredibly limited understand of pro wrestling, someone who does not understand how the business works and someone who thinks the fact he writes for a wrestling site means his knowledge is infallible, despite the fact it does not align with reality.

On the other hand, you have me. Who continues to point out all the above.

As for the quote made about Hulk Hogan. "Only casual fans will name Hulk Hogan as the greatest of all time."

I made that statement as I was frustrated with the constant messages from Sly telling me how ignorant I was and you can see it all in the comments section if you want to see what lead up to this point.

Say fewer ignorant things? Or, just don't reply to me? Sorry, avoidable frustration is never an excuse for ridiculous comments.

This is all opinion but I would imagine that if you went up to a casual fan and asked them who is the greatest wrestler of all time then 90% of them would say Hulk Hogan as he is the household name.

And they would be right.

Whereas the smart fans would be less likely to say him and may go with other options such as Undertaker, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, Kurt Angle and HBK. That is all.

If a "smart" fan said that, then they wouldn't be smart.

There are way to many pseudo-"smart" wrestling fans (smarks) on the Internet, people who think that knowing the names of moves and reading wrestling rumors means you understand pro wrestling. Unfortunately, there are FAR fewer wrestling fans who understand that those they would term "casual fans", particularly the children, understand pro wrestling FAR better than the "smarks" do.

It really is kind of funny when you think about it. How many other mediums of knowledge exist, where the more people know, the less they understand? It isn't until these "smarks" take the time to sit back and evaluate just how ridiculous some of their positions are, that those fans can TRULY become smart marks.

Luckily, here on the forums, we have several posters who understand the true nature of pro wrestling. You should hang out here more often, Martyn Nolan. Hang out here long enough, and allow yourself to be open minded, and I think you are intelligent and passionate enough to become one of them. But right now, you're not.

My article is a point of view. You can agree with it or disagree with it, that’s up to you. I never spend time in my article telling people they are wrong or how they should feel.

Which is good, considering how wrong you were.

Normally I wouldn't be concerned but I don’t appreciate someone telling me constantly that I know nothing about professional wrestling

You don't, really.

Don't take it as an insult, but a challenge. Come to the forums and read my wrestling posts. And instead of reading with the idea I'm always going to be wrong, read my posts with the idea of "well, Slyfox said this, does it match reality? When he says Cena is the best wrestler, is there evidence of it (like main-eventing or wrestling for the World title at every Wrestlemania for the last 9 years, or being the top draw, etc.)."

Do that. See how often my philosophy plays out in reality. Then compare your philosophy and see how it plays out in reality. Then you can decide just how much you know, compared to how much you have to go to understand.

and that they have to make sure they get the last word to make them self sound intelligent.

Uhh...do I need to point out the hypocrisy of this statement?

 

[ilapierre]

First off I have to agree with the OP on Martyn Nolan's columns. Tried to see where he was going with the Cena rant but couldn't after a while. As for the question of greatest wrestler ever though I see what Nolan was saying and I don't completely disagree. Hogan is considered by most people, however, the most important wrestler of the modern era of wrestling entertainment. He's the biggest name in wrestling history. He was and probably still is the biggest television/attendance draw. He carried the WWE in its pivotal years turning it into a worldwide enterprise. Hogan is to wrestling what Babe Ruth was to baseball, what Wayne Gretzky was to hockey, what Pele was to soccer, what Michael Jordan was to basketball, what Tiger was to golf, what the Beatles were to music etc etc.

He is most likely the best wrestling entertainer in history. He's not exactly the greatest in ring wrestler. But the OP means best and most important wrestling entertainer. Beyond all the stuff I mentioned above, it's a pretty subjective thing. If you grew up with Hogan in the 80s and 90s, like I did, then he's the majority pick. But what if you grew up in the Attitude Era and were 9 or 10 when Stone Cold was born? He'd be hands down your guy. What if you're 12 or 13 now? Perhaps Punk or Cena is the best? What if you grew up before Hogan and you fell in love with wrestling when Bruno Sammartino was champ for 8 years? It's all subjective once you look past the fact that during Hogan's reign as top draw wrestling evolved out of the dark ages into the sort of thing it is today.

So, when you look past everything Hogan did for wrestling or is credited as doing because of being in the right place at the right time, is Hogan really the best wrestler/wrestling entertainer ever? I think he was the best ever in the history of all wrestling during 1996-1998 as Hollywood Hogan. Stone Cold was a close second. Ric Flair has been perhaps the most entertaining for the longest period of time. Randy Savage is my personal favourite and he played a huge role in making the WWE what it is today too/making Hogan as big as he is. I find it strange how people just look past him. In 20 years no one's gonna look past Rock when they think of the Attitude Era and no one will look past Punk when they think of the PG Cena era. Savage was there for every step of the way in the early years of WWE and he was far and above a better wrestler/entertainer than Hogan in their WWE days. Mind you, Hollywood Hogan in 96/97/98 was better than anyone ever in my subjective opinion. Although at that same time anyone valuing WWE over WCW would have preferred Austin to NWO Hogan.

So yeah, it's all really subjective. It's a little less subjective when you look at things like overall importance or impact but it's completely subjective when you look at best wrestler/entertainer. My objective and subjective vote there will always be Randy Savage or Ric Flair for their work over their entire careers. Hon mentions: Hollywood Hogan circa 96-98 or Austin circa 96-99.

 

[ilapierre]

Here's another way to look at this. All the athletes that represent their sport either had an arch rival or just as big a name who came before or after. And no matter what there will always be healthy debate. Anyone who thinks it's a closed book thing is close minded. Was Gretzky really better than Lemieux or Howe? Howe played when hockey was tougher and Lemieux would have put up similar stats as the Great One had he not been injured all the time and only played half the games. Was Babe Ruth really a better overall baseball player than Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds (before roids)? Were the Beatles better than the Stones? Artistically yes, performance-wise nope. They were amazing, don't get me wrong, but the initial hype was out of this world and has never really been matched. Was Tiger really better than Jack Nicklas? The present day hype machine will make you believe so in the name of selling the sport. Certainly these guys were the most marketable and have had a much greater impact on public consciousness due to overall hype. In the case of Hogan, I'm just not sure it's as much of an objective matter as the OP thinks it is. Beatlemania, Hulkamania, Jordanmania, Tigermania. It's hard for anyone else in any of these sports (or music) to outdo a peer's legacy when the hype machine exhausted itself completely on someone year before for the sake of money.

 

[EastCoastFan]

How you rate Hogan depends on what you watch pro wrestling for. If you watch for athleticism and 5-star matches, he is probably not your guy. If you watch for "entertainment" (meaning skits, promos, showboating and the like), Hogan is definitely one of the top ten of all time.

When Vince McMahon took over the WWF from his father (he bought the company from him in 1982-83), Bob Backlund was champion. Bob was a fantastic wrestler, but he was very bland on the mic and did not have a great look (people used to call him "Howdy Doody"). Plain and simple, he was not a guy Vince could sell to a nationwide audience, especially not to people who weren't already wrestling fans. He needed someone who could grab the attention of the general public and mainstream media (especially that of the MTV Generation), and Hogan was that guy.

 

[Justinian]

I am real leery of calling Hogan the best of all time. It would be real stupid for anyone to sit here and say that Hogan didn't bring wrestling to the forefront of popular culture, but I myself wouldn't say he's the greatest because of that. Ric Flair was just as charismatic and popular as Hogan...and he has 16 world titles. CM Punk, The Rock, Austin, and Shawn all kill him both in the ring and on the mic. Bret Hart was insanely popular and would wrestle circles around Hogan. He is ONE of the greatest, not the greatest.

 

[Ovaltine]

Hulk Hogan is the most popular wrestler of all time- not the greatest, but due to his popularity in the 80's, 90's and early 2000's people will say that he was the greatest of all time. It's just the way that it is. There may have been better, but none were as popular and as relevant for as long as he was.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

OK, first of all I know Martyn of old from WZ and while I don't agree it's "The British" point of view, it is "A British Point Of View". Which is exactly what his column is meant to be. I don't always agree, but I nearly always read and digest...occasionally I'll argue and that goes back a long time, even before the Crave era that ruined WZ as a place for column writing IMHO.

As to the argument at hand, I can't agree THAT only casual fans will see Hogan as the best ever...but can see why many would think, believe or even be able to "prove it".

Hulk Hogan was a legitemate cultural phenomenon, not the WWF in the mid 80's, Hulk Hogan... he was in a major movie sequel, beating up THE 70's and 80's hero Sly in Rocky 3. Then people realised he was a real wrestler and Vince was smart enough to capitalize. Hogan opened doors others couldn't, but so did The Rock years later, so dd Brian Pillman by making Heenan swear on TNT, cracking the door that Austin kicked open.

To say "best ever" is a misnomer however you start, without the frame of reference it's a joke to even try. Best "worker", best "wrestler", Casual fans will say Hogan is the "best" as for most over the age of 35 it's the first name that comes into their head when they think "wrestler" and the one they are most likely to have seen wrestle. for those under 35 it'll be Stone Cold, The Rock or maybe Undertaker...on an outside bet Goldberg if they "tuned out" after 2001.

Just like an 8 year old today will say "Cena, Rey, Undertaker and Sheamus. Not cos they are "smart" but that's who the merch portrays as the big 4 for kids. Ask a 12 year old and they'll add Punk and Trips into the mix.

The point is "The Best" is a ridiculous notion, the entire tapestry of Pro Wrestling relies on 2 (or 4 or more) men on opposite sides, of equal skill and purpose, making you believe that one is superior to the other on that given night, be it by domination, by sheer will or by fluke/cheating.

Trying to pick one is something a casual fan will never care enough to do, they won't care that Ric worked 60 minutes repeatedly for 15 years AND beat a broken back, they won't care Kurt Angle won a Gold Medal or Hulk Hogan slammed Andre The Giant. They will pick the first name that they remember as being "unbeatable" or who did a spot they remember or jizzed their pants for (Mick Foley I am looking at you here...)

Just like a "true believer" of Marvel will know every in and out of every character they'd still be hard pushed to say "Spiderman is the best" or "Wolverine is the greatest" and they'll always say both piss on Batman. What is presented is a selection of talent that fits a time, they are 99% a product of and part of that time. A few do creep through, Undertaker, Hulk Hogan, The Rock who actually cross a couple of generations. Is Cena better than Hogan or vice versa? It's like asking is Adam West or Michael Keaton a better Batman than Christian Bale? They are of their time and equally good in the role they are playing.

There is a framework (Hero, play to the fans, American Focus and simplicity/heel, bait the fans), all Austin ever did was make hero "anti hero" but the formula is the same. The Cena's and Hogans are there to be superhuman, take every finish, "nip/Hulk up" and get the win and most crucial, connect with the fans AND the casual crowd on TV, once you have that you just have to have memorable villains. The Batman series got crap once it got to Egghead or Shame, same as WWE gets bad when heels don't match the heroes they create. Cena to his credit is doing a tough job,someone referred to the "Cenacan'trana" and yeah, it was a surprise but anyone who really thinks Cena hasn't been "dumbing down" his abilities or capable of more than the 5 moves of doom is plain wrong, I am sure that little spot, like the piledriver was there for those who care to spot and comment on and Cena to enjoy.

Cena is at that point now where, if he is on top for 2 more years, he crosses that generation border, but he has never achieved half the mainstream success that others have. Now yes, Cena gets perhaps a "bum rap" in that he/WWE found a formula early and he is rarely allowed or feels able to step away from it, just like Hogan couldn't go heel in 1989 like he should have done - stealing Liz from Randy. I am sure John Cena the man would love a heel run to shut us all up, but business says no. A heel run would be counter productive now - he was a heel, it was a pretty lame heel run and his "thing" is he is a good guy, if he goes heel he can only fail to live up to what Hogan did with the NWO (which wasn't that much other than bask in reflected glory and use shock factor) the risk for Cena is to stay face, end up unfashionable and uncool... if he can still make that work, even to half what he is now then fair play. Taker went through it, Bret did and even Hogan did in 92-94.

It's important to note WWE themselves have now gone on a tangent, they are now going hell for leather to convince us that Bruno is the best ever after spending 15 years telling us it was Bret or Shawn or Flair and ignoring their foundation. Is Bruno the best ever?, hell no but he was among the best of his time at what he did and that is the best anyone can hope for as a wrestler, that for your time, you're considered among the best at what you do... It's why Chris Jericho is pretty clever, he will be remembered cos he told us all along he was just that (even if it is jobber to the stars for two months a pop in the end.) you don't see Hogan, Cena, Taker, Austin or any of the other "best" embracing that role like say Ted DiBiase did do you?

 

[H33LTurn]

Hulk Hogan is the most popular wrestler of all time- not the greatest, but due to his popularity in the 80's, 90's and early 2000's people will say that he was the greatest of all time. It's just the way that it is. There may have been better, but none were as popular and as relevant for as long as he was.

I completely agree with this, and for the record let me say Nolan was spot on about Cena. Anyway...

As a ring worker Hogan isnt anywhere near the top of the list, that much is evident. When his popularity is called into question Hogan will always trump the majority of wrestlers because he was the one, after all, who brought wrestling into the mainstream during the 80's. As an 80's icon and pop culture trendsetter, Hogan's name is always going to be synonymous with professional wrestling. He will always be the most popular wrestler because he made wrestling popular.

However, Hulk was the proverbial big fish in a small pond. Knocking off Andre when he was near death, "passing the torch" to a self-destrictive Ultimate Warrior, and sharing the spotlight Piper who didnt have the look or Bret who didnt have the mic skills, Hogan was engineered for success. His competition eliminated itself. What can be said about men like The Rock and Steve Austin. Rock has been able to transition smoothly between Hollywood and wrestling all while maintaining his physique, remaining virtually injury free, and lets not forget the amazing connection with the fans he still has today. Or Austin, who brought brought the WWF into a new era, playing a role similar to the one Cena plays today. Or Shawn Michaels, who ushered in the Attitude Era. Shawn's mic skills are topped only by his in ring ability. These men, in my opinion, appear in Hogan's shadow only for the simple fact that they faced competition the likes of which Hogan never came close to experiencing during the 80's.

Discussions like this almost always lead no where because everyone has their personal favorites. To me The Rock embodies the charisma that one needs to posses to be considered the greatest of all time. Ric Flair and Steve Austin were the workhorses of their respective eras and always remained true to the business. Steve Austin brought the WWE to new heights. Where Hogan opened the doors for the wrestling industry Austin built a permanent home.

Hogan's antics outside of the WWE have also caused his stock to drop drastically, so I have to agree with Nolan. Casual fans will call Hogan the greatest for having the most recognizable name in the industry, but as far as talent and what was done for the business, I can think of a myriad of other names that surpass Hogan's.

 

[8thwotwATG]

I find it very, VERY, difficult to disagree w/Sly on this one. Hulk Hogan, for whatever politics he played(or still plays, for that matter, it's not like he's the first or only wrestler to do this), for whatever knocks there are that exist about him, the fact remains that this guy carried TWO wrestling organizations on his shoulders, brought along a whole host of lesser performers on his coattails, making them much wealthier people than they would have been without his presence, and did this for nearly twenty years. I'm not now, nor was I back during his climb in the eighties, a fan. I do believe, however that there is no single wrestler that had as much impact or influence as the Hulk. Face it folks, he put more asses in more seats for a longer period of time than any other grappler. Hogan may not have been the second coming of Bob Backlund in terms of scientific wrestling knowledge, but he was a better in ring performer than most people give him credit for. Check out some of his matches that took place in Japan, and you'll see that he was capable of much, MUCH more than just three punches, big boot, and a legdrop. The bottom line still remains that Hogan is still the man, nearly 30 years after he won his 1st title. I have no axe to grind w/ anyone, but Martyn Nolan is off base with that statement. Like the saying goes, it is what it is, and what it is is that Hulk Hogan is the G.O.A.T.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Here's another way to look at this. All the athletes that represent their sport either had an arch rival or just as big a name who came before or after. And no matter what there will always be healthy debate. Anyone who thinks it's a closed book thing is close minded. Was Gretzky really better than Lemieux or Howe? Howe played when hockey was tougher and Lemieux would have put up similar stats as the Great One had he not been injured all the time and only played half the games. Was Babe Ruth really a better overall baseball player than Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds (before roids)? Were the Beatles better than the Stones? Artistically yes, performance-wise nope. They were amazing, don't get me wrong, but the initial hype was out of this world and has never really been matched. Was Tiger really better than Jack Nicklas? The present day hype machine will make you believe so in the name of selling the sport. Certainly these guys were the most marketable and have had a much greater impact on public consciousness due to overall hype. In the case of Hogan, I'm just not sure it's as much of an objective matter as the OP thinks it is. Beatlemania, Hulkamania, Jordanmania, Tigermania. It's hard for anyone else in any of these sports (or music) to outdo a peer's legacy when the hype machine exhausted itself completely on someone year before for the sake of money.

One thing to take away here, at least with regards to athletes, statistics alone do not make you "greater" than your counterpart ? Gretzky has the stats but Lemieux was on pace to top them all before injuries derailed him. Tiger had a short period of domninance that was impressive but so far the sum of his career isnt near Jack Nicklaus or a handful of others. Jordan was great but he didnt dominate the way Chamberlain did and at his peak before back injuries slowed him down Larry Bird was awfully close to MJ.

It really all boils down to what criteria and what importance you give them when discerning something like this

 

[FlairFan2003]

I completely agree with this, and for the record let me say Nolan was spot on about Cena. Anyway...

As a ring worker Hogan isnt anywhere near the top of the list, that much is evident. When his popularity is called into question Hogan will always trump the majority of wrestlers because he was the one, after all, who brought wrestling into the mainstream during the 80's. As an 80's icon and pop culture trendsetter, Hogan's name is always going to be synonymous with professional wrestling. He will always be the most popular wrestler because he made wrestling popular.

However, Hulk was the proverbial big fish in a small pond. Knocking off Andre when he was near death, "passing the torch" to a self-destrictive Ultimate Warrior, and sharing the spotlight Piper who didnt have the look or Bret who didnt have the mic skills, Hogan was engineered for success. His competition eliminated itself. What can be said about men like The Rock and Steve Austin. Rock has been able to transition smoothly between Hollywood and wrestling all while maintaining his physique, remaining virtually injury free, and lets not forget the amazing connection with the fans he still has today. Or Austin, who brought brought the WWF into a new era, playing a role similar to the one Cena plays today. Or Shawn Michaels, who ushered in the Attitude Era. Shawn's mic skills are topped only by his in ring ability. These men, in my opinion, appear in Hogan's shadow only for the simple fact that they faced competition the likes of which Hogan never came close to experiencing during the 80's.

Discussions like this almost always lead no where because everyone has their personal favorites. To me The Rock embodies the charisma that one needs to posses to be considered the greatest of all time. Ric Flair and Steve Austin were the workhorses of their respective eras and always remained true to the business. Steve Austin brought the WWE to new heights. Where Hogan opened the doors for the wrestling industry Austin built a permanent home.

Hogan's antics outside of the WWE have also caused his stock to drop drastically, so I have to agree with Nolan. Casual fans will call Hogan the greatest for having the most recognizable name in the industry, but as far as talent and what was done for the business, I can think of a myriad of other names that surpass Hogan's.

Hogan's popularity, or at least him being recognized as the front man when wrestling in general was gaining popularity and WWE was going national, certainly benefited the industry, at least WWE, to great end. Certainly when one factors in things like backstage politics, creative control, etc Hogan's resume takes a hit.

I do disagree with the "Hogan opened the door...Austin built a permanent home", "Austin took WWE to new heights". Steve Austin, a great as his peak was, did not take WWE to new heights. The idea of 20 million people watching Austin on network TV (like Hogan-Andre II) seems outrageous, at it's height WWE RAW was drawing 7 million per week in 1999. The numbers for WM 3 were off the charts. If anything Austin, Rock, et all elevated WWE back up near a level on par with that, after years of decline and falling behind a rising WCW.

I do think maybe Hogan gets a bit too much credit. Vince McMahon was the marketing genius who devised the national expansion, and the show as a whole was seen as an event, although admittedly Hogan was the biggest star. It was like going to a stadium show where Nickelback, Justin Timberlake, Kelly Clarkson, & Maroon 5 are all performing. For the sake of argument we'll say JT is the biggest draw but he wouldnt be filling that stadium without the others. There was a brief window in 86-87 where Hogan could draw big crowds regardless of his opponent. It was surreal, but it didnt last forever.

As much as Brett Hart & "New Gerneration" get blamed for the decline in wrestling popularity and WWE in particular in the 90s fact was WWE was already seeing decline in 1990-91 when Hogan was around and champ pretty much the whole time. The show in general and Hogan in particular were getting stale. WWE did comparable business in 92 with Savage and Flair fronting most of the year and Hogan barely around. In WCW, Hogan vs Flair drew big (although crowds often favored Flair over Hogan despite a clear booking strategy elevating Hogan as the hero), once Flair was gone (retired in the storylines) Hogan was not drawing and the windfall of signing HulkaMania was not panning out, forcing WCW to bring Flair back sooner than expected and change plans from the two uniting as partners to having Flair as his main nemesis. I wouldnt say for the sum of their careers Flair was bigger nationally than Hogan but Hogan, wether it was a weak roster, poor booking, stale character that older fans no longer cared for, the fact much of the audience was anti WWE, whatever, he had trouble generating interest in WCW when he wasnt facing Flair, at least until the NwO started. If anything his re invention with the NwO may have saved his career from a truly lackluster fade. Some people will argue the importance of the unified WCW and the presence of Nash & Hall in the equation, but again just like the early days of national expansion, Hogan was the onscreen centerpiece.

Still, in terms of the general public Hogan is wrestling's most recognizable star. If that is your top criteria for "Best Ever" then it's hard to argue on behalf of the other 5 or 6 legit contenders for the crown.

 

[Tired0FthePeople]

This board shows that people, no matter how smart they think they are, dont know the difference between a fact and an opinion. How can you say the greatest wrestler of all time is subjective and then follow that up with saying there is only one true answer and Hogan is unquestionably the greatest of all time. Thats makes so sense. In fact its a direct contradiction.

Also Hogan being the greatest basketball player of all time is nothing like saying Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. Jordan has championships, Points Per Game, Assists Per Game, Slam dunk titles, team winning percentage, buzzer beaters made, clutch points per game and a host of other stats in a real sport to back up a claim that he's the best ever. The comparison of an athlete in a pro sport to a pro wrestler is just plain wrong. The proper comparison of a pro wrestler would be to an actor like DDL or Tom Cruise as someone already pointed out. Why are some people unwilling to compare wrestlers to actors instead of real athletes? Next thing you know we'll be saying you can compare Hogan to Muhammed Ali.

But I do recognize by reading this thread that the vast majority understand that there is NO right or wrong answer to this question and thats its 100% subjective. I guess some would say Hogan is the greatest ever because he drew the most money. You wanna say he who's draws the most money is the 'greatest' then thats your right. Its one way of coming up with a subjective opinion.

 

[Slyfox696]

Also Hogan being the greatest basketball player of all time is nothing like saying Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. Jordan has championships, Points Per Game, Assists Per Game, Slam dunk titles, team winning percentage, buzzer beaters made, clutch points per game and a host of other stats in a real sport to back up a claim that he's the best ever.

As opposed to being the biggest draw in pro wrestling history, being the greatest face and arguably the greatest heel ever, selling out shows all across the country, being the reason the WWE is the monopoly it is today, establishing the wrestling merchandising business, being a household name, making the PPV business work for pro wrestling, etc.?

Stats are stats. Just because people like you don't consider statistics in the same way you do for sports, doesn't mean the stats do not exist.

I guess some would say Hogan is the greatest ever because he drew the most money.

In addition to other factors, yes. And since that's the entire point of pro wrestling, always has been, what else needs to be said?

 

[Tired0FthePeople]

Drawing money is the entire point of any performing art, not just Pro Wrestling. And right now Rhinna has sold more records than Janet Jackson, Prince, and Stevie Wonder, despite only being a recording artist for a fraction of the time as the others.


But Im comfortable with having different point of views and dont feel the need to debate it to death, But I do have a question for you. Why did you say Hogan was the greatest face ever but only 'arguably' the greatest heel? Me personally I like putting the 'arguably' in front of it because I believe anything to do with who's better/greater in a performing art is arguable. But since you dont seem to think his being the greatest face ever is arguable,( as I do) why do you believe its arguable that he was the greatest heel? Why isnt it unquestionable?

 

[pshanbhag92]

Someone saying that there is just one right answer to who the greatest pro-wrestler of all times is just plain ignorance.

 

[The Butcher]

In addition to other factors, yes. And since that's the entire point of pro wrestling, always has been, what else needs to be said?

Sly, I gotta say you're weirding me out. Not that I know anybody here particularly well, but it seems strange that a normally pretty open-minded, liberal-leaning individual like yourself would be so vehement about shutting down the marketplace of ideas and declaring that the point of an artistic exhibition is strictly monetary gain. With all the dissenting voices to your opinion in here, I would have hoped your opinion could've evolved by now.

I think my Sideshow Bob deal from the other thread caught your eye because maybe it's true. Everybody is a dictator deep down.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

As opposed to being the biggest draw in pro wrestling history, being the greatest face and arguably the greatest heel ever, selling out shows all across the country, being the reason the WWE is the monopoly it is today, establishing the wrestling merchandising business, being a household name, making the PPV business work for pro wrestling, etc.?

Stats are stats. Just because people like you don't consider statistics in the same way you do for sports, doesn't mean the stats do not exist.

In addition to other factors, yes. And since that's the entire point of pro wrestling, always has been, what else needs to be said?

I tend to disagree with people that say Hogan made WWE the monopoly it is today. If I remember correctly, he left in the early 90's to WCW. For years Hogan and WCW very nearly put WWE out of business until the Austin phenomenon.

Determining who the greatest ever in pro-wrestling is like determining the greatest in any sport. Everyone has a different opinion. You have some that are going to say Bruno Samartino or Bob Backlund. Would they be wrong in that? No because both men sold out MSG many times back in the day. Both carried WWE for many years before Hogan came along. I'd agree that Hogan was the greatest in his era or at least one of the greats. I'd put Flair right up there with Hogan because people wanted to see those two feud. It's impossible to get a general consensus because for everyone that says Hogan, the next person will say Bruno and so on and so forth. It's all based on opinion.

 

[Slyfox696]

Drawing money is the entire point of any performing art, not just Pro Wrestling.

Not necessarily. But it is in pro wrestling.

Why did you say Hogan was the greatest face ever but only 'arguably' the greatest heel?

Hogan's heel run was fantastic, leading a company that had only just begun turning a profit into one that was making $300 million a year. He turned the clear #2 WCW into the clear #1, while simultaneously putting the WWF on the verge of bankruptcy.

However, no one can say Hogan's heel run compares to his face run, in terms of dominance of the industry. And the fact is Hogan's heel run only lasted a couple of years, while others did it longer.

Hogan has my vote for greatest heel, but I'd be far more willing to entertain arguments against him being greatest heel than I ever would greatest face or greatest wrestler.

Sly, I gotta say you're weirding me out. Not that I know anybody here particularly well, but it seems strange that a normally pretty open-minded, liberal-leaning individual like yourself would be so vehement about shutting down the marketplace of ideas and declaring that the point of an artistic exhibition is strictly monetary gain. With all the dissenting voices to your opinion in here, I would have hoped your opinion could've evolved by now.

Because you can have all the ideas in the world that you want, it won't change the truth.

Until you start seeing non-profit wrestling promotions spring up and run for a sustained period of time, there is no way you can say that pro wrestling does not exist for the sole purpose of making money. Pro wrestling exists because a promoter is willing to pay people to get in the ring and wrestle. And the promoter is only willing to do that for a sustained period of time if he/she can make a return on his investment.

Pro wrestling fans like to pretend there's more to pro wrestling than there is. Maybe because wrestling fans grow up having to "defend" pro wrestling from those who don't understand it and just yell "fake" every time it's brought up. Maybe that causes fans to try and find other ways to validate pro wrestling in the eyes of the disbelievers. I don't know.

But at the end of the day, pro wrestling exists for one reason, and that reason is to make money. If pro wrestling was about using "moves", then a guy like Shelton Benjamin would be main-eventing Wrestlemanias. Shelton Benjamin is a former collegiate wrestler with amazing athleticism. But Shelton Benjamin can't even main-event in ROH. Why? Because he just isn't that great.

Pro wrestling does have an "art" to it. The "art" in pro wrestling is knowing how to make people care about you. This "art" is something understood by wrestlers of all sorts of styles. Bret Hart was good at making people care. John Cena is good at making people care. Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Triple H, Brock Lesnar, Rock, Austin, etc....different styles, different wrestlers, but all know how to make people care about them.

And who has been the greatest of all-time about making people care? Hulk Hogan. That's why Hulk Hogan is the greatest draw in pro wrestling history. And that is what makes him the greatest professional wrestler of all time.

 

[The Butcher]

Because you can have all the ideas in the world that you want, it won't change the truth.

Until you start seeing non-profit wrestling promotions spring up and run for a sustained period of time, there is no way you can say that pro wrestling does not exist for the sole purpose of making money. Pro wrestling exists because a promoter is willing to pay people to get in the ring and wrestle. And the promoter is only willing to do that for a sustained period of time if he/she can make a return on his investment.

Pro wrestling fans like to pretend there's more to pro wrestling than there is. Maybe because wrestling fans grow up having to "defend" pro wrestling from those who don't understand it and just yell "fake" every time it's brought up. Maybe that causes fans to try and find other ways to validate pro wrestling in the eyes of the disbelievers. I don't know.

But at the end of the day, pro wrestling exists for one reason, and that reason is to make money. If pro wrestling was about using "moves", then a guy like Shelton Benjamin would be main-eventing Wrestlemanias. Shelton Benjamin is a former collegiate wrestler with amazing athleticism. But Shelton Benjamin can't even main-event in ROH. Why? Because he just isn't that great.

Pro wrestling does have an "art" to it. The "art" in pro wrestling is knowing how to make people care about you. This "art" is something understood by wrestlers of all sorts of styles. Bret Hart was good at making people care. John Cena is good at making people care. Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Triple H, Brock Lesnar, Rock, Austin, etc....different styles, different wrestlers, but all know how to make people care about them.

And who has been the greatest of all-time about making people care? Hulk Hogan. That's why Hulk Hogan is the greatest draw in pro wrestling history. And that is what makes him the greatest professional wrestler of all time.

Fair enough. I wasn't goading you or dissing you, by the way. I like you, which is why I'm a little let down.

I just completely disagree with your "truth." Especially when you're not showing us the books and most likely haven't adjusted for inflation or taken things into account that didn't exist before Vince Jr. went national. Until someone brings some irrefutable data to the table, this is still opinion at best, the result of brainwashing at worst.

 

[Slyfox696]

I tend to disagree with people that say Hogan made WWE the monopoly it is today. If I remember correctly, he left in the early 90's to WCW. For years Hogan and WCW very nearly put WWE out of business until the Austin phenomenon.

That's true, but do not underestimate the value of the framework which was laid due to Hogan's influence. Even as Hogan was dominating in the WCW, McMahon used national television, PPVs and Wrestlemania (things which were firmly established thanks to Hogan) to make his comeback. And don't underestimate the value in merchandising, a business McMahon made a killing from during the Attitude Era, but one which really was established under Hogan.

Austin restored the WWF. Hogan built it.

I just completely disagree with your "truth." Especially when you're not showing us the books and most likely haven't adjusted for inflation or taken things into account that didn't exist before Vince Jr. went national. Until someone brings some irrefutable data to the table, this is still opinion at best, the result of brainwashing at worst.

The fact pro wrestling went national under Hogan IS data, it IS relevant. You can argue Hogan's rise coincided with several factors which made it possible, and you wouldn't be wrong, but you cannot deny Hogan DID take it national. You might say Bruno COULD have, if given the same time frame, but he didn't. We can only deal with what we know, and we know Hulk Hogan shaped modern pro wrestling into what we see today.

Hulkamania was enormous. His match with Andre drew 93,000 people, in a time long before Wrestlemania sold stadium shows. At the end of the day, the irrefutable data is all right before your eyes, you just have to be willing to see it.

 

[The Butcher]

The fact pro wrestling went national under Hogan IS data, it IS relevant. You can argue Hogan's rise coincided with several factors which made it possible, and you wouldn't be wrong, but you cannot deny Hogan DID take it national. You might say Bruno COULD have, if given the same time frame, but he didn't. We can only deal with what we know, and we know Hulk Hogan shaped modern pro wrestling into what we see today.

Hulkamania was enormous. His match with Andre drew 93,000 people, in a time long before Wrestlemania sold stadium shows. At the end of the day, the irrefutable data is all right before your eyes, you just have to be willing to see it.

I was right there in the midst of it, and in a lot of ways you're preaching to the choir. Believe you me, if someone had told me before I ever posted in this thread that I'd agree more with BeansonToastUK than with SlyFox696, I would've been very doubtful.

I'm just not about to act as if I know. I'm the lapsed agnostic of Hulkamania, if you will. I was a huge believer and still have faith, but no matter what signs are there, I can't take that and go "here, this is tangible." Because it isn't. It's evidence, but it's not proof. This isn't a closed case.

But hey, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree. Frankly this thread wouldn't be so interesting if you had relented. Keep on eating the vitamins, saying the prayers, and drinking the Kool-Aid, brother!

 

[dukes07]

I am going to put personal feelings of Hogan aside. Do I think he is the greatest wrestler when it comes to technical skill? No way. Not even close. Flair has him beaten by a country mile. In fact Hogan has never been that big south of the Mason/Dixon line.

However, his impact is HUGE. The Rock and Wrestling Connection put wrestling on the national map. His match with Andre and the Ultimate Warrior were enormous.

Sure, his influence dwindled in the early 90s....Yet his arrival in WCW was a big deal. His turn to the nWo ushered in the modern era of pro-wrestling, completely transforming the landscape. If it was not for Nitro and the nWo, the Attitude Era and the Rock and Austin would not have occurred like it did. It finally forced Vince to do something.

Hell, Hogan's return to the WWF/E in 02 was big. I read where reactions to him getting the belt were mixed as was fan response. Sure, his match with the Rock was in Canada a big Hogan stronghold....But I am currently watching July 02 and honestly he may be the most over in the WWE at that time. The pops and chants are epic and even make a jaded fuck like myself smile.

Austin may have burned brighter at times as Hogan has dipped in popularity quite a bit, such as in the early, mid and late 90s and now in TNA. But he always managed to adapt and even change when necessary. His 02 run is the first time I liked him as a face since I was a 9-11 year old kid watching the first three WM's.