WWE Region, Fourth Round, Hell in a Cell: (1) Hulk Hogan vs. (12) Brock Lesnar

[DarksideEric]

Everyone has their own gut feelings but (and I have to ask), do you believe you would have felt this if he hadn't just ended the steak?

Not as much so, no.

Post HHH/Punk is when I'd start to give the nod to him but just barely, and only in a match where he's not confined to normal rules.

With the Streak beaten, for me he's a 55% win chance over Hogan at most.

While the Streak ending is a factor, it's not what makes him defeat Hogan in my eyes, if he even does.

 

[GI Cake]

People buy Lesnar hype for like 6 months than when the WWE realized they weren't drawing a dime with him they toss him to the wayside. Remind me, what was Cock Chestner doing before he beat the streak? Hulkimania is arguably the biggest draw in Wrestling history, hell his title reigns are longer than Lesners entire wresting career.

This shouldn't be close, let alone Brock winning.

 

[DarksideEric]

People buy Lesnar hype for like 6 months than when the WWE realized they weren't drawing a dime with him they toss him to the wayside. Remind me, what was Cock Chestner doing before he beat the streak? Hulkimania is arguably the biggest draw in Wrestling history, hell his title reigns are longer than Lesners entire wresting career.

This shouldn't be close, let alone Brock winning.

What was the Undertaker doing before he beat Hulk Hogan?

One thing Lesnar was prior to beating the Streak was the youngest WWE Champion.

 

[GI Cake]

What was the Undertaker doing before he beat Hulk Hogan?

Not tattooing erect dicks onto his chest.

One thing Lesnar was prior to beating the Streak was the youngest WWE Champion.

Randy Orton was also the youngest WWE champion at one point in time. Does that mean he should go over the most recognizable face in professional wrestling?

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Look at some of the names that have scored a win over Brock Lesnar.

Now I know that line up is a real murderer's row of champions, but I'm not sure they stack up to Hulk Hogan.

I mean come on people, a mother fucker with one leg has a win to his name over Brock Lesnar, no way does the biggest name in professional wrestling history lose to him.

 

[DarksideEric]

Not tattooing erect dicks onto his chest.

I fwe judged wrestling ability on tattoos, man so many people probably never would have made it anywhere.

Randy Orton was also the youngest WWE champion at one point in time. Does that mean he should go over the most recognizable face in professional wrestling?

Youngest World Heavyweight Champion.

If it would make logical sense he should.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

I just don't get how Lesnar can be beating Hogan here. Lesnar beat Taker at Mania, that's great and all but Hogan beat Zeus who was clearly a God. How many men can say that they beat a God? Not many, not only did Hogan beat Zeus but he did it when Hercules and others couldn't. It's clear to me how this should go. Lesnar beats dead people while Hogan defeats Gods. Not even a fair contest.

 

[GI Cake]

I fwe judged wrestling ability on tattoos, man so many people probably never would have made it anywhere.

Kinda like Brock Lesnar's legacy compared to the Hulksters, right?

Youngest World Heavyweight Champion.

If it would make logical sense he should.

It doesn't make sense at all, which is exactly the point. Brock could have won the WWF title when he was 16 and was just starting to grow pubes on his chest dick, he falls flat in every area imaginable when compared to Hulk Hogan. Other than the oblivious amount of people who have massively bought into the "Beat the streak" garbage.

 

[DarksideEric]

Kinda like Brock Lesnar's legacy compared to the Hulksters, right?

When did I ever say Lesnar's legacy outshines Hogan's? A few people who have less significant legacies than Hogan have wins over him.

It doesn't make sense at all, which is exactly the point. Brock could have won the WWF title when he was 16 and was just starting to grow pubes on his chest dick, he falls flat in every area imaginable when compared to Hulk Hogan. Other than the oblivious amount of people who have massively bought into the "Beat the streak" garbage.

Every area? Fairly certain Lesnar is a better in-ring wrestler than Hogan in terms of athletic ability.

I've not fallen into the area of "omg, he beat the Streak!" as even with the Streak under his belt, I think he'd only barely beat Hogan if he even can.

To me, he just shares many, many similarities with people who have beaten Hogan to give him a chance.

 

[GI Cake]

Every area? Fairly certain Lesnar is a better in-ring wrestler than Hogan in terms of athletic ability.

Know the only real difference between Lesnar and Hulk's "athletic ability?" People actually paid to see Hogan in the ring.

I've not fallen into the area of "omg, he beat the Streak!" as even with the Streak under his belt, I think he'd only barely beat Hogan if he even can.

Then you are in denial.

To me, he just shares many, many similarities with people who have beaten Hogan to give him a chance.

He also shares so many similarities to people who Hulk has beaten time, and time again. To Hulk, Brock is just another big growly bad guy that beat a few big names so he could face Hulk in the main-event only for Hogan to Hulk up, and beat with a leg drop.

 

[DarksideEric]

Know the only real difference between Lesnar and Hulk's "athletic ability?" People actually paid to see Hogan in the ring.

Okay... so this suggests that someone like say, Shelton Benjamin is a shit wrestler. Angle would be too, since far more people paid to see Hogan than Angle.

Then you are in denial.

And yet, again, people with a smaller legacy than Hogan have defeated him. Hell, Jay Leno has a tag team victory over Hogan.

He also shares so many similarities to people who Hulk has beaten time, and time again. To Hulk, Brock is just another big growly bad guy that beat a few big names so he could face Hulk in the main-event only for Hogan to Hulk up, and beat with a leg drop.

Then why didn't Taker lose the first time they fought? Warrior also shares a large amount of similarities to those "big growly bad guys," but he beat Hogan too.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Shelton Benjamin was a shit wrestler. It doesn't matter how many moves you can do or how many flippies you can pull off if no one in the crowd gives a shit, and no one gave a shit about Benjamin. He is best remembered for getting his head kicked off my HBK on Raw in one of the best spots ever, and for having a racist stereotype mother.

Hulk Hogan had about five or six moves, and he held the crowd in the palm of his hand. He could do more to work a crowd with a scoop slam, a big boot, and a legdrop than Lesnar can with all his suplexes, all his MMA moves, broken neck shooting star presses and dick tattoos.

 

[GI Cake]

Okay... so this suggests that someone like say, Shelton Benjamin is a shit wrestler. Angle would be too, since far more people paid to see Hogan than Angle.

Shelton Benjamin is very much in fact a shit wrestler. Angle is slightly less shit because no one save for the Rock or Stone Cold could say they were bigger draws than Hogan.

And yet, again, people with a smaller legacy than Hogan have defeated him. Hell, Jay Leno has a tag team victory over Hogan.

A lot of people beat nWo Hulk Hogan. Funny you should mention a match that Hogan main-evented that drawed more money than anything Lesnar has ever done in his life.

Then why didn't Taker lose the first time they fought? Warrior also shares a large amount of similarities to those "big growly bad guys," but he beat Hogan too.

You make yet another completely irrelevant point. However Taker and Warrior are far bigger draws than Lesnar. Care to actually argue reasons why Lesnar would beat Hogan or do you want to keep throwing out random names and hope something sticks?

 

[DarksideEric]

Shelton Benjamin is very much in fact a shit wrestler. Angle is slightly less shit because no one save for the Rock or Stone Cold could say they were bigger draws than Hogan.

Probably a sign that people should be debating logic based on more than just drawing power if we're to have an annual tournament. Otherwise, what's the point? How in the world did Hart. Michaels and Undertaker win these tournaments?

A lot of people beat nWo Hulk Hogan. Funny you should mention a match that Hogan main-evented that drawed more money than anything Lesnar has ever done in his life.

And? Two people beat Prime/Near Prime Hogan, one of which has no where near the drawing power of Hogan.

You make yet another completely irrelevant point. However Taker and Warrior are far bigger draws than Lesnar. Care to actually argue reasons why Lesnar would beat Hogan or do you want to keep throwing out random names and hope something sticks?

I already have, you just keep shoveling them aside and treating them as meaningless. You cited drawing power... so why in the world did Undertaker beat Hogan? Even with interference he hardly "deserved" to have a win against Hogan in the early 90s, let alone taking the title from him.

How is it a "completely irrelevant point"? I stated the similarities that Warrior, Undertaker and Lesnar share. I've stated them several times. You keep citing drawing power. Someone with a hell of a less drawing power beat Hogan for a title, yet you say it's completely impossible for the same situation to happen again now.

 

[GI Cake]

Probably a sign that people should be debating logic based on more than just drawing power if we're to have an annual tournament. Otherwise, what's the point? How in the world did Hart. Michaels and Undertaker win these tournaments?

Shawn Michaels has actually won this tournament before, and so has Bret Hart if I remember correctly.

And? Two people beat Prime/Near Prime Hogan, one of which has no where near the drawing power of Hogan.

But has far more drawing power than Lesnar.

I already have, you just keep shoveling them aside and treating them as meaningless. You cited drawing power... so why in the world did Undertaker beat Hogan? Even with interference he hardly "deserved" to have a win against Hogan in the early 90s, let alone taking the title from him.

Perhaps it's because they're all completely meaningless?

How is it a "completely irrelevant point"? I stated the similarities that Warrior, Undertaker and Lesnar share. I've stated them several times. You keep citing drawing power. Someone with a hell of a less drawing power beat Hogan for a title, yet you say it's completely impossible for the same situation to happen again now.

The only thing that matters is the bottom line. When Hulk Hogan was dominant for nearly a decade, the WWE made a shit ton of money. When Lesnar was dominant, nobody cared enough to watch him break his neck or talk with his stupid lisp on TV, let alone sellout pay-per-views or arenas. The WWE will forever always go with the man that will make them the most cash and that man isn't and will never will be Brock.

 

[DarksideEric]

Shawn Michaels has actually won this tournament before, and so has Bret Hart if I remember correctly.

I know... that's kinda why I mentioned them. Undertaker has too. The three of them combined don't have Hogan's legacy or drawing power, so how in the world did they win?

But has far more drawing power than Lesnar.

And still less than Hogan, so how did they win?

Perhaps it's because they're all completely meaningless?

Perhaps you should answer why Undertaker beat Hogan.

The only thing that matters is the bottom line. When Hulk Hogan was dominant for nearly a decade, the WWE made a shit ton of money. When Lesnar was dominant, nobody cared enough to watch him break his neck or talk with his stupid lisp on TV, let alone sellout pay-per-views or arenas. The WWE will forever always go with the man that will make them the most cash and that man isn't and will never will be Brock.

Incorrect. WWE wanted Lesnar to go over Austin with no hype, whatsoever, on Raw in a Qualifier for KotR. How long had Austin been dominate and how much money had he earned compared to Lesnar? And if they "always go with the man that will make them the most cash," how in the hell did Show, Henry, Shemus, Miz, ADR and Swagger get World/WWE titles?

 

[The Brain]

Have you seen the tattoo on his chest? He's got a big old penis right in between his moobs. Brock would still be remembered as that musclebound dumb ass who tattooed a cock onto his chest.

Remind me, what was Cock Chestner doing before he beat the streak?

Not tattooing erect dicks onto his chest.

Brock could have won the WWF title when he was 16 and was just starting to grow pubes on his chest dick

You've got a strange obsession here man. I wonder why this is so distracting to you.

Funny you should mention a match that Hogan main-evented that drawed more money than anything Lesnar has ever done in his life.

I'm not going to argue that Lesnar drew more money than Hogan at any point in his career but this is just flat out wrong. What makes you think Hogan's match with Leno drew more money than anything Lesnar ever did? What do you base that on? There are plenty of reasons to vote for Hogan so there is no need to make things up. The Road Wild show drew a gate of zero dollars. It was a free show. It had a strong ppv buy but considering there was no gate it didn't draw more money than WrestleMania XIX.

This could so easily go to Hogan but I voted for Lesnar and stated why several posts back. Hogan is great enough for you to be able to support him without tearing Lesnar down so much. You damage your credibility when you reduce someone like Lesnar to nothing to attempt to strengthen your argument. Of course Hogan had a much bigger impact on wrestling. Of course he drew more money. Of course he was more popular. Considering the way Brock Lesnar was booked in 2002 is it really that far fetched that he would get a victory over Hogan? Unlikely maybe, but certainly not impossible. Lesnar went over all the top stars at that time and was booked to go over Austin too. This was all in one year. Lesnar had a very short career and that makes it hard to support him against some that's been a huge name for thirty years. I think if you actually think about how the match might go down instead of just using the drawing power argument over and over you could find a way where Lesnar could be booked over Hogan.

Oh yeah, Awesome_Miz is going to vote Brock, so there's that.

And what if he voted for Hogan? The joke is old. At this point I feel we could all use this against you.

 

[The Brain]

Look at some of the names that have scored a win over Brock Lesnar.

Now I know that line up is a real murderer's row of champions, but I'm not sure they stack up to Hulk Hogan.

I mean come on people, a mother fucker with one leg has a win to his name over Brock Lesnar, no way does the biggest name in professional wrestling history lose to him.

Ya know I really didn't give this much consideration but you've convinced me this match is actually extremely relevant in this discussion.

[YOUTUBE]4f5VI7PVz3E[/YOUTUBE]

Lesnar may have lost to a guy with one leg (by DQ because Lesnar nearly murdered him) but Hogan lost to Lesnar. You made a strong case but based on your post I don't see how you could possibly argue against this.

 

[Dragon Chief]

The only thing that matters is the bottom line. When Hulk Hogan was dominant for nearly a decade, the WWE made a shit ton of money. When Lesnar was dominant, nobody cared enough to watch him break his neck or talk with his stupid lisp on TV, let alone sellout pay-per-views or arenas. The WWE will forever always go with the man that will make them the most cash and that man isn't and will never will be Brock.

Ignorance is bliss, you're acting as if Hulkamania was created in a day, it wasn't, nor was it created in a year, nor in two years. Brock Lesnar on the other hand was molded into the new face of the company from the moment he stepped into the company, sure he doesn't have the drawing ablity of Hulk Hogan in the WWE and that's because he was only with the company for two years and left before becoming a true staple in the business. It took Hulk Hogan nearly seven years to become the face of the WWE, much like most wrestlers he had to pay his dues. Brock Lesnar didn't do any of that, it took him two years, literally two years to transition from pinning high caliber athletes on the mat to beating the likes of The Rock, something which Hulk Hogan failed to do by the way. The funny thing about your point is that it's right most of the time, except when it comes to Brock Lesnar. Brock Lesnar went over countless talent, who probably made more money for the WWE at the time than he ever could. Brock Lesnar went over the tops draws of the company with ease, even though according to you he couldn't draw a dime, which is even more embarrassing for Hogan when he got destroyed by Brock "the can't draw a dime" Lesnar. Hogan had to be a draw to be a winner, Brock could have all the bad tattoos he wants, not sell any merchandise and still beat top talent. Ain't that something.

As for the other posters ranting on and on about how Hulk Hogan wasn't in his prime when he lost to Brock Lesnar, they need to consider this, prior to beating Hulk Hogan, Lesnar was feuding with mid-card talent such as RVD and The Hardyz. It's rather humiliating for a legend like Hulk Hogan, to get demolished by a rookie Brock Lesnar (not even having a championship title to his name or one years worth of experience). Not only that but Hulk Hogan did win the WWE title from Triple H not too long prior to getting beat by Lesnar. Winning the WWE title usually means you're the best wrestler at that point and time. So that victory Lesnar has over Hogan has a hell of a lot more value than most users think.

Both Hulk Hogan and Brock Lesnar were pushed to be unstoppable, the only difference is Brock Lesnar was pushed that way from day one not after several years of proving himself. Which leads me to believe Brock Lesnar would go over Hulk Hogan if this match were to occur while both men were wrestling in their primes. There was never any hesitation in feeding top tier talent to Brock Lesnar even as a rookie, there was no hesitation in allowing Brock Lesnar to headline WrestleMania 19 over the likes of Stone Cold, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Triple H (who are all better draws according to most) in his rookie year. It's pretty incredible when you think about it, Brock Lesnar isn't a great talker, he isn't as big of a draw as other talent, so why was he molded into the next big thing? Why leave the faith of your company in the hands of not just any rookie but Brock Lesnar? WWE knew exactly how they wanted to book Brock Lesnar and that exact booking is exactly why he'd go over Hulk Hogan.

Vote Brock Lesnar.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Brock Lesnar is an unstoppable force. He's beaten the likes of HHH, Rock, Hogan, Flair, and the list could go for days. He's even beaten Randy Couture for the UFC Heavyweight Title. He ENDED UNDERTAKER'S STREAK! So he should logically go over the greatest professional wrestler of all time right?

Look, Brain mentioned the fun in this tourney is to think of some unusual outcomes and vote Lesnar over Hogan for the reasons he mentioned. The problem is every reason mentioned for Lesnar to win can be debunked.

"HIAC is Lesnar's playground?"
Really? Because Hulk Hogan's never been inside a steel cage before.

"But... but it has a roof on it, Lariat!"
Because that matters right? No it doesn't.

"But Lesnar's beaten Hogan once already and even covered himself in Hogan's own blood."
Yea, a Hogan that was over 50 years old. Not impressed.

"Brock Lesnar is a BEAST! LOOK AT THE MAN/!!?!?!
And Andre the Giant wasn't?

People come and go. Hogan is the reason we are discussing wrestling on the internet. His influence on pop culture, the way wrestling is now, and his overall drawing power simply dwarf Lesnar in any shape and form.

In his prime, Hogan lost clean once. The rest of those losses took place due to outside interference. There won't be any interference in Hell in a Cell. And there is no logical reason to book Lesnar over Hogan in any kind of match.

 

[Dave]

Brock Lesnar is an unstoppable force. He's beaten the likes of HHH, Rock, Hogan, Flair, and the list could go for days. He's even beaten Randy Couture for the UFC Heavyweight Title. He ENDED UNDERTAKER'S STREAK! So he should logically go over the greatest professional wrestler of all time right?

Look, Brain mentioned the fun in this tourney is to think of some unusual outcomes and vote Lesnar over Hogan for the reasons he mentioned. The problem is every reason mentioned for Lesnar to win can be debunked.

"HIAC is Lesnar's playground?"
Really? Because Hulk Hogan's never been inside a steel cage before.

"But... but it has a roof on it, Lariat!"
Because that matters right? No it doesn't.

"But Lesnar's beaten Hogan once already and even covered himself in Hogan's own blood."
Yea, a Hogan that was over 50 years old. Not impressed.

"Brock Lesnar is a BEAST! LOOK AT THE MAN/!!?!?!
And Andre the Giant wasn't?

People come and go. Hogan is the reason we are discussing wrestling on the internet. His influence on pop culture, the way wrestling is now, and his overall drawing power simply dwarf Lesnar in any shape and form.

In his prime, Hogan lost clean once. The rest of those losses took place due to outside interference. There won't be any interference in Hell in a Cell. And there is no logical reason to book Lesnar over Hogan in any kind of match.

The roof of the cell doesn't make a difference? Tell that to Mick Foley. It can and certainly does make a difference if the match goes that way. If both men were to climb their way to the top of the cell, provided that they get out of the confines in the first place, there is only one man I see either coming through it and plummeting into the ring, or indeed being tossed off of it and that is Hogan. Lesnar just has that merciless streak in him that is completely uncaring of other people's health. The same streak that put Triple H over Foley in their illustrious HIAC cell matches.

Drawing power doesn't mean much if you ask me. It just means that he's putting asses on seats. But tell me how that is going to change the outcome of this match. The Undertaker was a massive draw, and was arguably the biggest draw at WrestleMania ever. His streak was arguably more impressive than anything else to ever happen at WrestleMania and Brock defeated him; a feat that no one thought could happen. And personally, I don't even think that Brock's prime is now!

To me, like many others, this match comes down to sheer brutality and I just think Brock holds the edge. This is certainly a match that will suit the beast.

 

[Danger Burger]

Brock Lesnar is an unstoppable force. He's beaten the likes of HHH, Rock, Hogan, Flair, and the list could go for days. He's even beaten Randy Couture for the UFC Heavyweight Title. He ENDED UNDERTAKER'S STREAK! So he should logically go over the greatest professional wrestler of all time right?

Agreed. (Sorry, always liked these witty responses to clear sarcasm.)

The problem is every reason mentioned for Lesnar to win can be debunked.

You seem like a chipper enough sort, and I'm up for a laugh here... But my reasoning for a Lesnar vote (which has been sadly overlooked) is relatively straight forward, and I'd rather appreciate a good ripping from a member as qualified as yourself.

You asked if Andre is not as much of a beast as Brock Lesnar, and I say thee NAY. He simply is not. Andre was a large man, strong, and tough to crumble, but he does NOT compare to someone with the athletic edge of Brock Lesnar. No man as strong as Lesnar that Hogan ever faced moved as fast as Lesnar.

Hogan picking up Andre for a scoop slam was a hell of a moment. You could see the effort it took written all over Hogans face, the legs almost giving way, his poor back STILL having surgeries done from the damage it caused. There was nobody (kayfabe) able to do what Hogan had done. Brock lifts guys like Big Show and Mark Henry up and tosses them across the ring like pillows. Hogan was the pinnacle of strength in his era, but here is vastly out matched.

I've heard tales of Andre being a pretty spry devil in his day... Hitting shooting star presses off the top rope, no doubt? Nope, wait, that's Lesnar, the beast of a man. Name me a guy Hogan faced that moves like Brock does? Maaaaybe Randy Savage with his elbow drops and his crossbodies, but still nothing compared to the strength, speed and agility of Brock Lesnar.

One guy who did move pretty fast, hit pretty hard and had a decent amount of power was the Ultimate Warrior, y'know, the guy who got the first clean win over Hulk Hogan. And Brock is more agile, stronger, and a tonne more ruthless.

I've seen Hogans greatest victories. WM3 for example, what was that, ten minutes? Hogan endured some punishment, no doubt... Two scoop slams, a few clubs to the back, an Irish whip and a bearhug... God knows how he ever managed to mount a comeback after all of that. Wrestling has changed from Hogans prime. I don't think a scoop slam and a leg drop can really be expected to take out a guy like Lesnar.

People come and go. Hogan is the reason we are discussing wrestling on the internet. His influence on pop culture, the way wrestling is now, and his overall drawing power simply dwarf Lesnar in any shape and form.

BORING. This is a hell in a cell match, not a business meeting.

And there is no logical reason to book Lesnar over Hogan in any kind of match.

Here's a list of names... I'm sure you'll spot their relevance.

Thezs
Taker
Austin
Angle
Cena
Sammartino
Sting
Bret Hart
Misawa
Andre
The Rock
Shawn Micheals
Hulk Hogan

Here's another list:

HHH
Ric Flair
Brock Lesnar

What kind of lunatic books a pro-wrestling tournament with barely any heels in the final two rounds?

Anyway, Lariat, you're a smart man... tear me a new one, will ya?

 

[The Brain]

I just want to point out that some people have mentioned ending Taker's undefeated streak is not impressive because Taker is past his prime. Those same people mention that Hogan ending Andre's undefeated streak is more impressive despite Andre clearly being well past his prime. If you're going to ignore WM30 when it comes to Lesnar then you have to ignore WM3 when it comes to Hogan.

 

[ocekit]

The roof of the cell doesn't make a difference? Tell that to Mick Foley. It can and certainly does make a difference if the match goes that way. If both men were to climb their way to the top of the cell, provided that they get out of the confines in the first place, there is only one man I see either coming through it and plummeting into the ring, or indeed being tossed off of it and that is Hogan. Lesnar just has that merciless streak in him that is completely uncaring of other people's health. The same streak that put Triple H over Foley in their illustrious HIAC cell matches.

You say this as if you don't think Hogan would be willing to toss Lesnar off the top of the cage. Remember: Hogan may be a "good" guy, but he's not a nice guy. He'd have few qualms about knocking Lesnar off the top of the cell if he had to.

 

[Dave]

No, I do actually think that Hogan would do it. What I am positing is that Brook would be the more likely to throw Hogan from the top of the cell. And since we can only talk about theoretical situations, that is what seems more likely to me. He is known as "The Beast" for a reason and his reputation is built upon completely decimating his opponent.

As far as I see it, the top of the cage is just an opportunity for Lesnar to deal major damage to Hogan's chances of getting through the match. But I don't want to get caught up in one detail by any means.

For me, this match suits Lesnar more. And since numerous other people in this thread have the same idea, then I'm not likely to be considered crazy for thinking that. In most other match types, I would likely have voted for Hogan. But to when I think about how this match would go, I simply cannot see past the stipulation. It's what swings the match in the favour of Lesnar.