I had a feeling you would go there. You're right. Hogan's contributions to the business are enormous and he was the biggest draw. I don't see how that's relevant here. If you want to use that to support your vote then so be it. If that's going to be the argument why are we even having this tournament? If we're using who contributed most to the business, sold the most tickets, and made wrestling what it is today, a tournament is not necessary as Hogan would be the obvious winner. Based on that you must have made up your mind that you were going to vote for Hogan no matter who he came up against in any type of match before this tournament even started.
I am trying to use my imagination to see how this match would play out. I don't think Hogan would get slaughterd by any means, but I do see him losing a hard fought match. I think the match would be close and losing would not damage Hulk's reputation. I see him walking out even more respected like Steve Austin at WrestleMania 13. I have been very complimentary of Hogan and stated I wasn't sure what it would take to get me to vote against him. He happened to draw a bad combiniation by getting Taker in last man standing.
By the way I don't appreciate being grouped in with those who might argue "Takerz does the sitz upz!!!" There may be those who are brainwashed by such things, but consider that someone who disagrees with you might actually have a legitimate argument and an original thought. You don't have to agree with it, but don't group me in with those who use one sentence of misspelled and poor grammar. I may make mistakes at times. I may have started out a little weak in this thread, but I think since you called me out my posts have been at least respectable.
EDIT: I don't know if the last paragraph was necessary. If you were not grouping me in with that group I apologize.
Hulkamaniac, I get it. Sometimes thing go that way in a debate like this. It's easy to slip in that direction. It's cool.
Umm.... I said you were actually worth the response man. Meaning, you don't rely on the Taker does the sit up argument. I mean, it gets annoying when you see someone do it. You're one of the few here that hasn't lean on the sit up like a fat man stumbling on the Titanic.
God it's late. Anyway, what we boil down to is taste. You're looking strictly from kayfabe. I can't hate you, because it's the way you feel the tournament should be. I don't agree with you, but I get where you're coming from. I do, in fact, believe that if you're going to be declared a winner of this tournament, at some point, you have to sell the tickets. That's why, God bless him, Shawn will never get my blessing to be a winner of this thing. Great wrestler, never drew.
You're Austin logic is a tad flawed. First of all, up to this point, Austin had the whole Dallas Mavericks complex going. By that, I mean that Austin won big against the lightweights, but when fighting champions, he would typically come up short. It would be that way until Wrestlemania 14. Hogan's character, however, is based on always winning. Always. Austin got the sympathy from the fans, because he had still yet to win that big match. Hogan made a career out of absorbing punishment, and coming back. Granted, that's why his character was stale by 1993, but for that eight year period, it drove people bat shit crazy, and it always willed Hogan on. And the bigger the opponent got, the more he rallied. See: Bundy, Andre, Savage, etc. Sure, you could say Taker is a better wrestler than these men, but the character is already set. It's what Hogan did to everybody, regardless of the character he faced. The Undertaker, for all his capabilities, isn't immune either. Great big man have become stepping stones for Hogan. Don't believe me? Ask Vader; he'll point you out to the way Hogan does things, once he gets around to finding the career Hogan caused him to lose.
We're quibbling on taste, now, Brain. We've established that while you like Vanilla, I like strawberry. We both love ice cream, just different flavors. And unfortunately, that's not really something you can debate. How you vote this tournament is completely your call. I do, however, feel it's negligent to ignore drawing. It doesn't have to be a deciding factor, but it has to be weighed. If it weren't, Kane would win this tournament every year for his kayfabe run in 1998. Do you really believe that should be the case?