:xyx

 

Hey Gang.

 

There is a bit of a conversation being struck about whether Bret or Hulkster deserves to get the "pops" the do, so I thought why not find out who thinks what eh!

I have given four options so I can work out why you think someone deserves the "pops" more than you think someone doesn't and vice versa

 

 

Spiritchaser

Popping

Edited January 12, 200519 yr by Spiritchaser

"pops"?

im confungled

 

are you tryin to flim flam me?

 

YOU CAN'T STOP THE SPIRALUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pops dude crowd cheers!

 

Spiritchaser

Mark Noises

Both men do.

 

Hulk really made the WWF famous. But Bret carried WWF single handedly for 3 years. Taker really didn't take off until his feud with HBK, while Hogan had Macho, Warrior, and Andre. Bret had chraracters he made stars.

I think Hogan deserves his.

 

Bret doesnt, he should have dropped the title to Shawn at Survivor Series, but what does he do, he refuses to job not just in his hometown but the WHOLE OF CANADA!! And he's been moaning about it ever since, and if he releases he screwed himself, and came back and gave an apology (and Vince should aswell) then he may very well be on TV as we speak, but instead goes away and moans like a 10 year old getting beat on a Smackdown Game.

 

Id rather Hogan came back than Bret.

BRET HART SUCKS!!!

 

Rant Over!

Hogan is ten times better and more important to the wrestling than Hart will ever be. Hogan pretty much carried the WWF and WCW when it was awful. He was the man 20 years ago and still is. If Hogan returned tommorow he would attract a load more fans, than Hart would.

Wheras on the Bret side of things, all I see is an overrated wrestler, who still moans about Vince "screwing" him and Goldberg kciking him. I personally thin the "screwjob" was planned, and it wasnt all Goldbergs fault.

Hulk Hogan deserves the huge HUGE pops he got in his prime and got again when he returned 'home' to the WWF in 2002. He helped build the WWF into what it was, nobody else could have done that, nobody. Hulk Hogan made the company. He is the single biggest legend of all time, bar none.

 

Bret Hart is grossly over-rated as a wrestler and as a legend. He is definately not a legend, and he is definately not the so-called best technical wrestler ever. He wasnt a technical wrestler, the guy never mat wreslted! He brawled, stomps, kicks, punches and the occasional headlock, all combined with the Russian Leg Sweep and the Sharpshooter. Hardly technical wrestling, is it? All you Bret Hart marks get mad all you want, its the truth.

 

Now, as for him being some kind of legend, ha, thats crap. Bret Hart was a decent MIDCARD tag act, who then went on to have two of the most unremarkable stints as WWF IC champ EVER, and then got lucky due to the steroid scandal and was in the right place at the right time and had the WWF title given to him, because he was small, reliable and quite over with the crowd.

 

His run as WWF champion, although filled with some (SOME) decent matches, was a finacial flop and a creative bore. His matches were boring, his interviews were the main cure for insomnia in 1993 - 1995 and he couldnt draw hungry flies to warm ****. He never drew a penny, apart from on international tours, and thats not saying much, because even now, WWE are drawing internationally, its not that hard to do when you only go back to a place once or twice a YEAR!

 

A legend is a person who did great things for the business, and wil always be remembered as the greatest. Bret Hart never did a damn thing to help business, and as for being one of the greatest? Thats laughable. The only reason he is fondly remembered is because lots of kids started watching wrestling near the end of Hulk Hogans WWF run, and then grew up on a healthy dose of Bret Hart. Its because people have good memories of him, and grew up being force few by the WWF that he was some kind of God. Well, sorry to burst your bubble people, but its a crock. Bret Hart was a good tag wrestler who got lucky, and never did a damn thing to help business pick up. He was the reliable guy who could work a WWF style match in the mid 1990's, while Vince McMahon and everybody else waited for the real, legit next big star to come along, and that was Steve Austin.

 

And lastly, the guy has done nothing for the last 8 YEARS but cry, winge and bitch about being screwed, who cares?! You werent the first to be lied to by a promoter, Bret, and you wont be the last, get over it.

 

Hogan deserves all the accolades and pops he gets, Bret should thank his lucky stars Vince ever MADE HIM who he was in the first place, and put him in a position to be thought of as some kind of legend, which he most certainly is NOT.

all I see is an overrated wrestler' date=' who still moans about Vince "screwing" him and Goldberg kciking him. I personally thin the "screwjob" was planned, and it wasnt all Goldbergs fault.[/quote']

 

I think Harts more upset, that Goldberg, never took any of the responsibility for ending his career. Bret knows that there's always dangers whilst wrestling, but felt Goldberg could've at least called him to see how he was doing. Which to my knowledge, he never did.

 

I do agree with your Montreal thoughts though. I still think it was a work.

I think the big disagreement with McMahon happened when Owen died.

 

As for pops, Bret and Hogan deserve the pops. They've both entertained me over the years.

Beltmark I know you see the world through hulkamania tinted specs but some of us wear the hart pic shades.

 

Where you see crap boring hart matches we see good / brilliant technical based matches that build a story and try to make a good match out of any opponent. In Hogan matches all we see if the punches, a bodyslam maybe, lets chuck in some poses, then the opponent gets one punch in, gets hulked out, then it all ends with one of the lamest finishers ever, the legdrop.

 

Hogan may have put the WWE on the map but Bret Hart was the one that stopped it from sinking after Hogan and friends jumped ship.

 

Hart has every right to moan about the screw job, most sportstays go on about their career high points in autobiography etc. Well this was the high point, certainly in terms of contraversy. I like to hear accounts of the screw job, in fairness Hart is alot more articulate, Brother! and so tells a good story without saying Brother! every sentence. Where as all we read about Hogan is a 20 year career of hogging the limelight, one example, WM6, he has admitted that he walked into the ring after the match etc to kill the Warrior's limelight, how pathetic is that.

 

So Belty I know your shrine to Hogan will tell you otherwise, but please remember that we are all entitled to our opinions.

Beltmark I know you see the world through hulkamania tinted specs but some of us wear the hart pic shades.

 

Thats fair enough, still doesnt make any of what I said wrong or false.

 

Where you see crap boring hart matches we see good / brilliant technical based matches that build a story and try to make a good match out of any opponent. In Hogan matches all we see if the punches' date=' a bodyslam maybe, lets chuck in some poses, then the opponent gets one punch in, gets hulked out, then it all ends with one of the lamest finishers ever, the legdrop.[/quote']

 

And please explain to me how they are technical? They are technical because you were forcefed crappy Bret Hart promos when you were an impressionable little kid who knew no better TELLING you he was a technical wrestler. If you open your eyes, you will realise he is nothing more than a brawler with a wrestling hold as a finisher and very few other wrestling holds EVER used. And his matches told a story? How? Because he would work a leg with stomps and punches? Great.

 

As for Hogan matches, I'm not disputing what you say, because I can see it like it is, and I know all Hogan did (in the USA, anyways) were punches, kicks, slams, suplexes, backdrops, atomic drops and then his finish sequence. I dont deny it, because thats true, plus thats what made him famous.

 

Hogan may have put the WWE on the map but Bret Hart was the one that stopped it from sinking after Hogan and friends jumped ship.

 

No, thats completely wrong. Bret Hart didnt stop ANYTHING from sinking. Bret Hart, the Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Razor Ramon, Sid, Goldust, Yokozuna, Davey Boy Smith, Owen Hart, Lex Luger etc ALL had a part in creating a somewhat over, but exceptionally poor drawing company, stay afloat until the likes of Steve Austin, the Rock, HHH etc came along and blew the place wide open again. Dont think for one second that your precious Hitman kept anything going by himself, because the nam couldnt draw a penny, you dont keep a company alive if you cant draw.

 

Hart has every right to moan about the screw job' date=' most sportstays go on about their career high points in autobiography etc. Well this was the high point, certainly in terms of contraversy. I like to hear accounts of the screw job, in fairness Hart is alot more articulate, Brother! and so tells a good story without saying Brother! every sentence. Where as all we read about Hogan is a 20 year career of hogging the limelight, one example, WM6, he has admitted that he walked into the ring after the match etc to kill the Warrior's limelight, how pathetic is that.[/quote']

 

Yeah, he had every right to be pissed off and he had every right to complain WHEN IT HAPPENED, but 8 YEARS later, its all we are still hearing from the miserable little git.

 

As for Hogan killing the limelight, yeah right, thats all we hear about isnt it? How he killed and hogged the limelight? Rubbish, thats all Hogan bashers like yourself want to think, but your so full of it, its unreal. Lets not foget who built the WWF and gave Bret Hart the opportunity to work in such a well known stage, Hulk Hogan. Lets not forget he made wrestling just what it became, broke down every barrier put in front of him and destroyed the stigma which was then attached to wrestling and made it a socially acceptable form of entertainment. Lets not forget the record ratings, buyrates and attendaces he put up...As for him killing the Warriors limelight, lol, thats a joke. The Warrior got cheered out the building and when Hogan walked in there and handed him the belt, he got even louder pops. Just because Hogan said that crap in his book, doesnt mean a damn thing, Hogan said alot of things in his book which arent true, I dont base my opinions on fiction, like you obviously do.

 

So Belty I know your shrine to Hogan will tell you otherwise' date=' but please remember that we are all entitled to our opinions.[/quote']

 

Yes, you are, and I am entitled to mine, and I gave you my opinion, which you have decided to argue out against, so please, dont expect me to sit quiet while you do, if your not going to back up your claims that Bret is the greatest without a shred of evidence or fact.

Edited January 12, 200519 yr by The Beltster

Hogan without a doubt IMO.

 

Without him there would be no Bollion-Dollar Company. Why do you think McMahon bought Hulkamania from the AWA? He knew that this was the ultimate champion.

For me, I'd say that Hogan is always going to get bigger pops unless WWE is in Canada. However, I favour Bret more. Hogan is the kind of guy that you'd love as a kid, because he could come back from the dead and manage to beat the evil heel. Bret is the kind of guy that as an adult you love watching, because his matches tell a story, and he's had some incredible wrestling matches over the years. If you're looking at things like psychology, build and a well worked match, Bret is pretty much untouchable by almost anyone else in wrestling history.

 

If Hogan and Bret both returned, Hogan would get the louder reaction. Hell, I'd rather see Hogan back than Bret, at least he could work a match. But in terms of my overall favourite of the pair, it's undoubtably Bret.

Beltmark no offence, but I'm getting rather tired of your incredibly bias I love Hogan, but hate Bret comments. Both are legends , and for every bad thing you say about Bret, you can say about Hogan, and vice versa on good things.

 

Whatever you think Hogan did hog the limelight, why do you think WCW crumbled when they pushed nobody knew when Hogan had all the power? Or even WrestleMania 9, when Hogan inexplicably won the title, when he had nothing to do with it. Hogan did overshadow Warrior and Rock, by doing the old round of applause, hugging, hand shake, instead of just leaving and having them win. By doing all that it took away from the winner, and made you go, oh isn't Hogan great and gracious, and that takes away from the purpose of the match.

 

You forget that Bret as the main guy with Austin in 97, built the WWE back up to it's greatness by early 98. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. And if he couldn't draw, then why did he draw in 97 in WWF? In 1992 when Hogan leaves, there is a steroid scandal, I doubt anyone would draw. Heck Hogan himself wasn,t cause of all the backlash, so it'a an irrelevant example.

 

The amount of moves you use has no bearing on if your a great wrestler. Bret v Bulldog, Austin, Benoit, Owen, Flair, Hennig were all great matches, as judged by majority of wrestling fans alike.

 

For every great thing Hogan did, he also stayed around way too long, stopped pushes, and refused to job and work with people.

 

Sure Bret still whinges, has problems with jobbing and whatever, but both have their plus and minus points, but to be honest I'm just sick and tired of hearing this incredibly bias love Hogan, hate Bret view. Both are legends, and a decent opinion is a well rounded one.

Beltmark no offence' date=' but I'm getting rather tired of your incredibly bias I love Hogan, but hate Bret comments. Both are legends , and for every bad thing you say about Bret, you can say about Hogan, and vice versa on good things.[/quote']

 

No offence taken, to be honest I'm not at all bothered if your tired of my comments or if you like them or not, no offence to you. I speak my mind and give my opinions, as do we all. I get tired of hearing alot of things, but I wont try and stop people from speaking out. No, Bret isnt a legend, not at all. He was lucky to get the push he got.

 

Whatever you think Hogan did hog the limelight' date=' why do you think WCW crumbled when they pushed nobody knew when Hogan had all the power? Or even WrestleMania 9, when Hogan inexplicably won the title, when he had nothing to do with it. Hogan did overshadow Warrior and Rock, by doing the old round of applause, hugging, hand shake, instead of just leaving and having them win. By doing all that it took away from the winner, and made you go, oh isn't Hogan great and gracious, and that takes away from the purpose of the match.[/quote']

 

Yes, he hogged the limelight in WCW, to a point, but so did Nash, Hall, Sting, Flair etc. As for WMIX, the guy straight up admits it was his idea, to go out looking good, keep his stock high and drop it to Yokozuna, a guy he considered legit in beating him, because Bret Hart beating Hogan in 1993 would have been laughable at best, he was a bloody tag act less than 2 years before, jobbing out to the Rockers etc. Bret beat Hogan? Please! For the WWF title, no-less? Not a chance.

 

And no, he didnt overshadow the Ultimate Warrior at all, he endorsed him as the new WWF champion by beating him fair and square. He handed him the belt, raised his hand in victory and then LEFT, the Warrior stood in the ring and celebrated his win with the fans going crazy for him, while Hogan rode off, in the DARK, no lights on him to take away focus from the Warrior, and that was that. And no, he didnt overshadow the Rock by doing what he did at the end, the fans had always booed the Rock out the building, how could Hogan overshadow a man who the fans crapped all over throughout the entire match? Not possible, didnt happen.

 

Its funny, because if Hogan had just left after he lost to the Rock, people would bitch and say "Oh, Hogan could have at least shook his hand!" and when he stayed and endorsed him, people still complain "Oh, Hogan stole his thunder!" Get real. Hogan doesnt need to steal anybodies thunder, because he has it all himself already! Why? Because he is the biggest legend and biggest name superstar of all time, thats why.

 

You forget that Bret as the main guy with Austin in 97' date=' built the WWE back up to it's greatness by early 98. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. And if he couldn't draw, then why did he draw in 97 in WWF? In 1992 when Hogan leaves, there is a steroid scandal, I doubt anyone would draw. Heck Hogan himself wasn,t cause of all the backlash, so it'a an irrelevant example.[/quote']

 

Dont kid yourself, Bret Hart wouldnt even put Austin over, so lets be real here! An Austin win clean over Bret Hart would have done wonders for him, but Bret went over again and again. And they didnt build the WWF back upto greatness in 97, your crazy! The company was struggling like hell, why do you think McMahon got rid of Bret? Because he was a crap draw who wasnt worth the money he was being paid. Bret, a draw in 1997? Nope. Like I said, he got fired for that very reason, he wasnt worth his contract. If he was such a good draw, and Vince was maming so much money from him, why did he let him go? Think about it, its not rocket science is it, its simple mathmatics.

 

The WWF resurgence started in 1998 with the arrival and Mike Tyson and the Steve Austin boom, Bret had nothing to do with it, barring not putting Austin over.

 

No, maybe nobody in 1992 could draw during the steroid scandal, but in 1994 when Bret Hart still wasnt drawing, Hogan was in WCW garnering them record ratings and buyrates for that time.

 

The amount of moves you use has no bearing on if your a great wrestler. Bret v Bulldog' date=' Austin, Benoit, Owen, Flair, Hennig were all great matches, as judged by majority of wrestling fans alike.[/quote']

 

Of course the amount of moves have a bearing if your supposedly the 'Greatest technical wrestler of all time', what a rediculous thing to say! Yes, Bret vs all those guys were great matches, but dude, look at the opponents, ALL of them much better technical wrestlers, and workers in general, than the Hitman. Hell, I could go out and have 5 star matches with those guys when they were in their prime!

 

For every great thing Hogan did' date=' he also stayed around way too long, stopped pushes, and refused to job and work with people.[/quote']

 

He should have stopped in 1998, I agree with that. Up until then, he was doing great business in WCW, but then let me put it to you this way. Your in Hulk Hogans position, worked your ass off early in your career to get yourself in that position with the name value you have, are earning upwards of $250,000 PER NITRO and more per PPV, but some fans think you should walk away, what would you do? Its money, and big money at that, you cant blame Hogan for not leaving, nobody can.

 

As for stopping pushes, yeah he did, in favour of helping his own friends out. Was it good for business? No way, 99% of the time it wasnt, but again, people help their friends, its as simple as that and it happens in all walks of life. If you are in a good position and can help your family and friends, you do it, without question.

 

Lastly, as for refusing to job, you name me 1 person (apart from maybe the Rock) who got to the top of the business, and didnt refuse to job! Austin refused to work with Jarrett, Hogan and refused to job to the Rock several times. He also refused to job to HHH at SummerSlam 99, which is why Mankind took the belt and HHH took it the next night on RAW. Bret himself refused to job to Diesel!!! Diesel, a guy who is 7' tall and a badass, somebody who the fans saw as a legit guy who could beat him down. Bret is no political angel, believe me.

 

Sure Bret still whinges' date=' has problems with jobbing and whatever, but both have their plus and minus points, but to be honest I'm just sick and tired of hearing this incredibly bias love Hogan, hate Bret view. Both are legends, and a decent opinion is a well rounded one.[/quote']

 

Like I said, I cant help if your tired of hearing it, and I'm not going to stop giving my opinions just because you are. If you dont like what I say, dont read it, but it you do read it, you will see its not bias, I have said many many times the things I think Hogan did wrong, I wouldnt try and make out he was some kind of perfect God, he has done alot of things in the business which have sucked, but he is also the man who made the business and gets crapped on by Hogan bashers like its going out of style, and he gets alot of un-due critisism, and its rediculous.

 

My opinions are just that and I explain them without sugar coating them, thats the way it is, I'm sorry if you dont like it.

As a draw, Hogan is easily the better of the two.

 

As a wrestler, Hogan doesn't hold a candle to Hart.

 

As for who entertains me most, Bret by a country mile. Hogan is boring to me, and his matches are unbearable unless there's either tonnes of heat or an opponent who can carry him.

 

But Hogan has done more for the business, unarguable. They're as bad as each other though when it comes to backstage stuff. Anyone can claim Bret refused to put Shawn over.. I don't blame him. If a guy accused me of having a real life affair on live TV and flat-out stated that he wouldn't job to me a year after I put him on the map, I'd tell him to f*** himself (and probably stab him). Shawn's lucky that he even got a match out of Bret. But then you have all of Hogan's political pulls - deciding to win the Rumble instead of Hennig, getting Warrior hired in WCW just to get his win back, refusing to put Bret over on his way out and giving the belt to Yokozuna instead, etc etc. Bret has a column of many rants. Hogan has a book of many lies. It's a shame, but to look at their backstage stuff is pointless when both are nearly as bad as each other. I look at the box office and the entertainment factor. For me, Bret drew in 97, just one year, whereas Hogan drew through the 80s and mid 90s in WCW when the product was both crap (1994) and fantastic (1996-1998). And yet Bret entertained me tenfold, whereas I never marked for Hogan, even as a young kid (I prefered Papa Shango).

 

But if we're talking pops, Hogan did more, so he deserves the credit. Not that both can't get them at the same time.

somebody really needs to call a waaaaaaambulance for all the moaning and b****ing that Bret Hart has done since he got screwed by Vince and had his career ended by 'Greenberg'.

Give me Hulk Hogan over that crybaby any day of the week.

And no' date=' he didnt overshadow the Ultimate Warrior at all, he endorsed him as the new WWF champion by beating him fair and square. He handed him the belt, raised his hand in victory and then LEFT, the Warrior stood in the ring and celebrated his win with the fans going crazy for him, while Hogan rode off, in the DARK, no lights on him to take away focus from the Warrior, and that was that. [/quote']

 

He admitted in his book and interviews that he went into the ring to give Ultimate Warrior the belt to steal his thunder.

Just on the WM IX thing and Hogan not wanting to drop the belt to Bret - surely it was the other way around? Hogan dropped the belt months before Bret got it, but going the other way it was like 2 mins!

 

Think about: where did the belt go? To Hogan. Where did it come from? Bret. Now if you want the belt to go from Bret to Hogan, why would they need to pass it through Yokozuna for a 2 min title reign first? Why not just have Bret job to Hogan? Unless Bret didn't want to drop it to Hogan?

 

And if you want more evidence, what is the second shortest title reign ever? Bob Backlund (joint with Kane but the belt went back to Austin, not to someone else). Where did that belt come from? Bret. Where did it go? Diesel. Did Bret drop it to Diesel? Nope, he dropped it to Backlund who then was squashed 24 hours later by Diesel.

 

Now isn't it funny how BOTH the shortest reigns ever meant that Bret didn't have to drop the belt to another top guy? And people were surprised when he refused to job to Shawn! Should have seen that one coming!

 

Ed

I'm sorry beltmark, it's not that I don't agree, it's just you are incredibly bias towards Hogan and against Bret. If you want to have an opinion about one person, then surely you have to analyse everyone else in the same way?

 

For every great aspect of Hogan, there is a great aspect of Bret. And for every negative aspect towards Bret, there are them for Hogan. It has to be well rounded. All I see you do is have a massive go at Bret, and if anyone says anything bad about Hogan you pretty much defend it. I find that incredibly contradictory, that if Bret doesn't let Austin beat him (which is the bookers choice and nothing to do with Bret), you have a go at him, yet if Hogan hogs Warrior's limelight which he admitted, and refuses to lose to Bret, Jarrett and refuses to even work with Austin etc, then it's alright. It's the same thing, yet with Bret it's terrible, but with Hogan it's acceptable.

 

That's my point, you compare them unfairly, cause of ure love for Hogan, and any bad points both have, aren't a bad point for Hogan, for some apparent reason. If you said I don't like Bret cause he never let Austin beat him, then you can also say I don't like Hogan for never letting Savage beat him. Swings and roundabouts.

 

And Ed, they'd been building up Yoko for ages, and Yoko won the rumble, so they cudnt change the main event, but didn't wanna take it off Bret. Hogan comes in, wants the title, so they gave it him at Mania. He then wants to leave, but refuses to drop it to Bret. And anyone wanting to blame Bret can't, he had no choices in the matter, he wasn't high profile enough. Where as Hogan permanently had creative control written in his contract, so could do what he liked.

 

I'm not saying either's better, but they have to be compared fairly. And beltmark, that's why your opinion is hugely bias, because if both have done something bad like not job or whatever, it's bad Bret, but excuse for Hogan, when it should be the same for both.

He admitted in his book and interviews that he went into the ring to give Ultimate Warrior the belt to steal his thunder.

 

Like I said, Hogan 'admitted' alot of stuff in his book that was BS. I tell you what, you wanr me to give you PROOF that it was scripted for Hogan to hand the belt to the Warrior? Fine, I will.

 

Go and watch the end of that match ok, and watch after the Warrior wins, the referee comes into the ring with both the WWF title and the IC title, and he hands them BOTH to the Warrior, the Warrior looks at the referee, says something to him and takes the IC and pushes the WWF belt back into his hands and walks away with ONLY the IC. The referee looks confused and hands the WWF title belt back to the timekeeper, then Hogan walks out there and gets it, and hands it to the Warrior.

 

Now, why would the Warrior push the WWF title belt away and tell talk to the referee while he was doing so? I'll tell you why, because it was SCRIPTED and he knew Hogan was handing him the belt after the match.

 

Go watch it, the footage doesnt lie, and then you can come back in here and agree that he didnt steal the Warriors thunder at WMVI.