How is Hulk Hogan overrated?
Jack-Hammer said:
Ok, I just did. He's still overrated. Showing some wrestling ability once or twice every decade and a half or so is some sort of measuring stick? Anybody can look good a few times but consistency would have gone a long way. Hogan chose his path, but just don't anyone to drop trou, bend over and take it up the tailpipe just because of a few bright moments scattered over years and years.
Really you have no room to talk because your knowledge on Hogan is very limited. You haven't followed Hogan through his whole career but yet somehow you think you're eligible to judge his true inring ability.
Go build on your wrestling knowledge, catch up on your videos of Hogan in Japan and then tell me he can't wrestle because Hogan's career in the US isn't the end all and be all of his career. So until you do that your opinion is null and void.Jack-Hammer said:
People used to eat up Disco as well but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the greatest thing in the history of music either.
Well, disco is in the conversation because there was a period when it ruled. But other genres of music have come or existed beforehand that were probably greater, so no it's not the greatest thing in the history of music. That is not the case with Hogan. No other superstar has had the impact he has had on the business and on pop culture for as long as he has. Until then, we can call him the greatest thing in wrestling.
Jack-Hammer said:
Ring psychology and storytelling...you mean the idea of him "hulking up" after being beaten for much of the match, making the comeback and vanquishing the forces of evil while doing his little hand to the ear gesture before breaking into a posedown for the masses? As far as his arsenal goes, I never said I wanted a huge arsenal. But it would be nice for the biggest star in the business to do more than what anybody could learn to do within a week of training. Forgive me, but Hogan's punch/big boot/leg drop triple play just didn't blow up my skirt.
The fact that Hogan is in the greatest conversation with only a few moves just proves how great he is. There's a saying that goes "Sometimes, it's just the simple things in life that gets you by."
This man's charisma in the ring along with ability to draw and become an American icon, hell a global icon outweighs anything a technical wrestler or a guy with an arsenal of moves could or has brought to the table. All of this is just a testament to how great he was.
Jack-Hammer said:
Yeah, I don't know about that. Flair was someone that could actually wrestle and often did quite well.
How? Because he worked on some body parts in his match and did a submission or 2 and worked long matches? Is that your prerequisite of being "able to wrestle"?
Jack-Hammer said:
If you were to take Ric Flair circa 1985 and put him into a ring today, he'd still be able to wrestle a great match. He could still have matches with Kurt Angle, HBK and others that would bring the house down. If you put Hogan at 30 years old in the ring today doing his thing, he'd get even less respect than John Cena does.
Yes, but look at the opponents that Flair faced. Flair faced nothing but great seasoned men throughout his career and as a result he had classic bouts with them. These are guys that were his equal in experience and size. From Windham, Funk, Rhodes, Harley Race, etc. Can you say the same for Hogan who faced large or sometimes inexperienced wrestlers like King Kong Bundy, Andre The Giant, Zeus
, Ultimate Warrior, Undertaker, and Yokozuna? And with all of that, Hogan was still able to put on bouts with each of these guys that were tolerable to even classic. That takes much more talent imo. Not taking away from Flair but I doubt Flair could do the same if put in the same boat with the same amount of time Hogan was given?Jack-Hammer said:
If, and I'm saying IF, Hogan could but chose his own limited style, then that's his problem. You can't expect anyone to be blown away by Hogan's ability IF he ultimately chose not to show what he could really do.
That's what you don't seem to get. Hogan's character wasn't meant to blow you away with his ability. His requirement was to draw in the crowd psychologically when he was getting pummeled and to rise to the occasion, leave the winner, and leave the crowd happy. Hogan was booked as a hero facing villains. Why do you think most of his opponents consisted of giants, big men, evil characters, etc? It's the same way as Ric Flair's job was to be the dirtiest player in the game and to get a victory at any cause. The fact that this man captured the hearts and imagination of the globe doing this is something we may never see.
Jack-Hammer said:
Flair would, on occassion, at least job sometimes or win most of the time in ways that made his opponents look like they were credible contenders and threats to him. Between 1984 and 1990, Hogan jobbed cleanly a handful of times that were count outs and only one pinfall and that was to the Ultimate Warrior. Even then, Hogan was still the center of attention in the WWF and made sure that his program would outshine whatever feud the Warrior was in.
Okay. So what? What does this have to do with the topic of Hogan being overrated? WWE always booked him as a constant winner because everyone literally wanted to see him always win and to overcome. Back then was not like today. No one wanted to see him lose so it was smart on WWE's behalf to keep the crowd happy and to keep their biggest moneymaker as champion.
Jack-Hammer said:
Not really. Jordan and Ali were the best in their fields but Hogan wasn't. If Hogan could work as well in the ring as Jordan played on the court and Ali did in the ring, then nobody would even dare to think of Hogan as overrated.
So by your standards, since wrestling ability is everything to you, then I guess it's safe to say that Dean Malenko is the Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali of wrestling.
ncG1vNJzZmien6fCrr%2BNsKmeq6Shsru7zZ5lnKedZMGpvsSam6xnmKTEbrXSZp%2BupJtitbCzwKdkqK6Vp7%2BiwMSdZXFtaG2EcA%3D%3D