Guest savagerulz Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?acti...LING15-12-15-05 Despite his age (52) and an artificial hip, Bollea showed earlier this year that Hulkamania is still running wild by being a major part of WWE's two most-successful pay-per-view telecasts of 2005. After playing a supporting role at Wrestlemania XXI, Hogan proved his drawing power when a headline match against Shawn Michaels drew a reported 534,000 buys for August's SummerSlam event. "It was kind of a match nobody thought they would see," said Hogan, who won the bout. "Plus, the fans have seen so many of the main wrestlers over and over, week after week. It's almost like a novelty when Hulk Hogan wrestles Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin or an opponent like that." Hogan said he had no interest in pursuing what would have been a financially successful rematch after Michaels' made unprofessional comments about him the following night on Monday Night Raw (9 p.m., USA Network). Michaels' poked fun at Hogan's limited in-ring mobility and claimed The Hulkster would only return to WWE when given the chance for another lucrative payoff. Such comments were surprising to Bollea considering how Michaels (real name Michael Hickenbottom) touts himself as being a born-again Christian. "Shawn had expressed how much he wanted a dream match. Things were cool and we had a good match," Bollea said. "That's pretty much where we left it at. There was always room to have a Hogan vs. Michaels II and III, but Shawn went on TV and kind of made fun our match and I didn't want to pursue working with him any more. "I think there's a lot of the old Shawn Michaels in the new Shawn Michaels." Bollea has publicly lobbied to wrestle Austin, but ego could keep it from happening because both sides would have to agree upon the match finish. Bollea said he also has special interest in facing three other WWE performers _ John Cena, Kurt Angle and Paul "Big Show" Wight. "I wouldn't mind working with a young guy who would like to learn how to put butts in seats," said Bollea, who is expected to appear at Wrestlemania XXII in April. "If you have an ego or you're worried about technical wrestling, I'm not interested. I'm worried about the bigger picture. It has to do with business and generating revenue, not being robots." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Oh My God, I actually agree with every single word of an article about HULK HOGAN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Why do you care about revenue and business? Are you getting kickbacks or something? You should be wanting entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Shawn Michaels does nothing to entertain me. No one knows how to compel me to buy a show anymore. It's why I haven't bought one in years. Hogan is 100% right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Why do you care about revenue and business? Are you getting kickbacks or something? You should be wanting entertainment. Says the guy who thinks Vince is a creative genius..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Why do you care about revenue and business? Are you getting kickbacks or something? You should be wanting entertainment. Oh, and these two things go hand in hand. A good product will draw money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 A good product doesn't have Hulk Hogan refusing to job as any part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 It seems like Hogan is talking about creating emotion in the ring, especially when he says "not be robots". Did Edge ever turn on Hogan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 A good product doesn't have Hulk Hogan refusing to job as any part of it. Considering Hogan ushered in the two biggest wrestling booms of the last 50 years I'd say that statement is totally false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Hogan can be cancerous at times, but I was referring more to the points he was making about wrestling and Shawn Michaels, not his own current value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 A good product doesn't have Hulk Hogan refusing to job as any part of it.Actually a good product doesn't allow Shawn Michaels to turn back babyface after his match with Hogan and then cut a shoot promo a day later bashing Hogan that flew over most fans heads. The most fun I've had all this year as an online fan is reading so many people saying Hogan should have put over Shawn when Shawn is 40, plays an ill fitting heartthrob gimmick, isn't really that over considering how hard he's pushed, won't work as a heel and doesn't put over properly the young wrestlers he feuds with. So what's the point, especially as most fans bought the show for nostalgia and so wanted to see Hogan Hulk up and win. Also if you protect Hogan you may get another one or two big buy rates out of him, whereas Shawn doesn't have any fresh or dream matches on the horizon that could draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Shawn's only potential money match at this point is with The Rock, and Rock wants nothing to do with him, which is humorous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 I found it funny too but then why would he want to work with Michaels at all. Michaels really isn't that big a deal overall considering his big run was when WCW was killing the WWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Why do you care about revenue and business? Are you getting kickbacks or something? You should be wanting entertainment.Oh, and these two things go hand in hand. A good product will draw money. Just a thought, when you say "good product" do you mean "good wrestling" ? I don't think a promotion needs to have a lot of great matches up and down the card to draw money. The WWF from 1984-1989 and from 97-99 prove that you don't need a lot of great in ring work to draw money. Would you consider the product "good" in those years? I think this goes back to the "presentation" vs "content" argument. The WWF's presentation of their product in those years is what drew, not the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 My definition of "good wrestling" is different than some of the people you'll find online. I don't mean "good wrestling" as in lots of crazy highspots and shit like that that a lot of people consider good wrestling, but rather just wrestling that makes sense. Booking is probably more important to me than getting a **** match every week, not in terms of modern WWE soap opera storylines, but in terms of building and hyping big matches by protecting people and pushing guys who catch on hard. To me, that's good wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Hogan's work during his first reign is highly underrated. He had some very solid to good brawls with guys like Don Muraco and Randy Savage. He takes far more shit than he deserves over his inring ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dovi Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Hogan is tricky to pin down, work wise. I think Meltzer said that Hogan would only work as hard as he felt he could get away with. So, if he could get away with doing get beat up, hulk up, big boot/legdrop, pin, he would. Basically, Hogan is a guy who could have a lot of good matches but didn't because he felt that he didn't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Speaking of Hogan, I've seen a Hogan match against Muta in Japan. He isn't extraordinary, but it's funny to see Hogan doing stuff like an armbar and even going as far as pulling out an enzuigiri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 Hogan was passable when he wanted to be. I wouldn't ever dream of calling him good though, just because it just wasn't there. Even when he was doing technical wrestling, his work was just not effective. His selling wasn't very good, his offense looked awful and his "technical" matches never had any story telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 I think the big knock on Hogan is that he did just enough to not embarrass himself in the ring, but even he could have done more in a lot of the matches he was in. Look at WM 3, Hogan had to pretty much wrestle himself since Andre could barely move at that point. It's actually an amazing display from a guy who most consider one of the worst workers of all time. He's no Ric Flair, but he goes out there and bumps probably more than he did for anyone else in the 80s and salvages something watchable out of what had no right getting out of the negative star range. When you look at it, Hogan had a similar problem to what Taker had in the 90s: Both guys spent their prime years matched up against some of the most untalented lumps of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 When you look at it, Hogan had a similar problem to what Taker had in the 90s: Both guys spent their prime years matched up against some of the most untalented lumps of all time. Don't overstate it. Hogan WANTED it that way. He's the one that had one style of fucking match he could wrestle. He's the one that insisted that just about every match fit that mold. Hogan wasn't a "victim" of anything. When you run the "superman" shtick every match (and Undertaker did a "no sell" gimmick) then you're going to suffer, because you are, at some point, going to make your opponent look like dog shit. That's wrestling a style where OTHERS make you look like a million bucks and you make THEM look like shit. More talented performers can manage to make their opponents look daunting even when they lose, but Hogan's wasn't that good. Undertaker was better, but that's not saying much. It's telling that the guy Hogan's lost to more than anyone was Taker. It's also telling that Piper was right...he extended his run as main heel longer by never losing clean to Hogan. Hogan also avoided more skilled in-ring opponents that would demand more of him or "hit too hard" like Greg Valentine, for example. Hogan also cut the Mr. Wonderful feud short for similar reasons in spite of a huge build up. Hogan's feuds used to go into neat four month patterns. Start the feud, do the big match, have a few months of house shows with the match. As it dwindles, start a new feud, repeat. Looking at who didn't get full four month runs was an indication of who didn't fit "the mold" of soft-working limited types that Hogan could force into his easy match mold. By the way, having just watched WM III, Hogan takes ONE CLEAN BUMP in the match, and three badly done bumps. Badly done meaning he cheated the bump by going too slow and breaking the fall by putting out his hands (big no no) or just rolling to the canvas instead of falling clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 Considering the WWF was running up to three different touring groups at a time, I would think that would play a role on why Hogan didn't face certain people. I'm sure he vetoed programs against people, but Hogan's all about making money and I don't think he'd veto a program he thinks could make some money. That's why he wanted to have more than one match with Shawn. Hogan also cut the Mr. Wonderful feud short for similar reasons in spite of a huge build up. Paul himself said the arm/neck injury that ended up causing his retirement happened during the Hogan program and it ended up as bad as it was because he was afraid to take the time off to get it treated during such a hot feud. I'd wager that played a role in things ending when they did as much as any Hogan egoness did. Don't get me wrong, Hogan certainly deserves most if not all of the shit he gets from smart fans, but there were other forces in the universe that caused things to play out the way they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 Many statements and interviews were made with Orndorff and Valentine, for example, where they talked about Hogan not liking them in the ring and not wanting to work with them. Valentine was actually given a WIN over Hogan (by countout) in order to build their feud. Hogan famously complained about Valentine hitting too hard and complained about Valentine's slow-build match style. Valentine was so respected in the locker room that he couldn't be steamrolled into anything (like his old man) so Hogan just ended the program cold, without even rematching in the city where he dropped the match to Valentine in the first place. That cost everyone money, including Hogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 You're not going ot get me to take up for Hogan most of the time, and I'm not going to extend what he said about Michaels to resolve him of blame for everything else he's done that he shouldn't have. But I won't change my original stance, which was simply that he's right about Michaels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts