Jump to content


Photo

Undertaker > Hogan


  • Please log in to reply
395 replies to this topic

#1 Sidebottom

Sidebottom
  • Members
  • 1114 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

I was thinking about this one earlier. Does anybody think Undertaker is a bigger star than Hogan? I think when it comes to name recognition, Undertaker is as a known name as Hogan, amongst fans and non fans. When Paul Bearer died it was shocking that so many people knew who he was, so I have little doubt normal folk know who Taker is, if only for being that Wrasslin guy. Taker also gets bonus points because the general impression I get is that he is more respected than Hogan. No big star has ever bad mouthed Taker. As a man, he's made and saved his millions, has never been in any dodgy scandals and as far as in ring work goes: he can lay claim to having some of the greatest matches of all time. Longevity is also a factor here. So I'm saying Undertaker > Hogan. Agree or disagree?

#2 Zero

Zero

    World's Strongest

  • Members
  • 370 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:50 PM

Strongly disagree. Hogan has much stronger name value to non-wrestling fans. I don't really get the respected part or how that effects star power?

#3 thebrainfollower

thebrainfollower
  • Members
  • 1215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central MA
  • Interests:Doctor Who, Star Wars, classic horror, politics, history, theater, and that wrestling thing we are here for.

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:52 PM

I'm an Undertaker mark. As a kid I loved the old Universal horror movies and when the Undertaker debuted he was like a character from those movies come to life (watch Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, see how Dracula interacts with the monster and tell me he and Paul Bearer didn't get the idea from that movie) and I was an instant fan. I was the only kid cheering in the Worcester Centrum when he first challenged Hulk Hogan and his six day world title run in 1991 were some of my crowing moments in our schoolyard. Other than Bikertaker I've stayed a fan since. And even I wouldn't say he was ever a bigger star than Hulk Hogan. More respected by a larger % of his peers? Absolutely (though I am sure DDP has a different viewpoint). Had better matches over a longer number of years? hmmm maybe. I would say Hogan 82-87 was doing better work than Taker except for his very best matches. But more known or as known to the public? Not a chance in hell. Hulk Hogan is the biggest star in US wrestling of the last 50 years by a MILE. He made wrestling national. He literally drew half the house in match after match. His merchandise sales ushered in the modern era of wrestling. And when he was stale, dull as dishwater and "washed up" he turned heel and turned a good angle white hot and kicked his older mentor's ass in the ratings for 2 years. Those are accomplishments even the Undertaker can't come within a mile of reaching. And I love and respect him tons more than I do Hogan.

#4 Sidebottom

Sidebottom
  • Members
  • 1114 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

Strongly disagree. Hogan has much stronger name value to non-wrestling fans. I don't really get the respected part or how that effects star power?


Wasn't trying to relate the two, just looking at the whole package as a fan.

#5 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11315 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:08 PM

My answer comes in the form of this series of images.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

That tells you everything you need to know.

Undertaker = wrestling icon.

Hogan = cultural icon.

#6 El-P

El-P
  • Members
  • 8710 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

No.

#7 Kil

Kil
  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:42 PM

Does anybody think Undertaker is a bigger star than Hogan?



I literally don't understand how anyone can possibly think that.

#8 PeteF3

PeteF3
  • Members
  • 8970 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:45 PM

I dunno, I think it's a closer call than people are giving credit for. 'Taker doesn't have as much muscle mass but he's taller than Hogan by a few inches. That is what we're talking about, right?

#9 jdw

jdw
  • Members
  • 8040 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:52 PM

I was thinking about this one earlier. Does anybody think Undertaker is a bigger star than Hogan?

[...]

So I'm saying Undertaker > Hogan. Agree or disagree?


Disagree. Not remotely close. One could say that all of the Attitude Era wrestlers combined weren't/aren't bigger than Hogan.

Hulk Hogan was Pro Wrestling on a national level in the 80s. Stone Cold, Rock, Taker, HBK, Foley... collectively they were for a stretch in the 90s. Excepting of course that when WCW topped the WWF for a stretch, it was that Hogan guy who was WCW when they were winning.

John

#10 BrickHithouse

BrickHithouse
  • Members
  • 677 posts
  • Location:KS

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:04 PM

This thread might give me the testicular fortitude I need to finally make that Bulldog Bob Brown > Ric Flair thread. :D

#11 thebrainfollower

thebrainfollower
  • Members
  • 1215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central MA
  • Interests:Doctor Who, Star Wars, classic horror, politics, history, theater, and that wrestling thing we are here for.

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:18 PM

Using JVK's first post I will say this Undertaker is a bigger star than the Silverhawks. Anyone wanna argue that point?

#12 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10158 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:50 PM

What about Undertaker vs Hogan for, let's say, people under 25?

#13 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:34 PM

Hogan is easily the bigger star, but in the interest of steering this to a realm that is less mocking in tone, I do think Taker is underrated as a star by some. Of the non-fans I know who I can occasional con into going to watch a PPV at a sports bar with me and/or discuss wrestling around in vague ways by far the most common question is "is Taker still around?" or "when is Taker coming out."

#14 Childs

Childs
  • Moderators
  • 4391 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 10:03 PM

Where would you put him all-time among WWF/WWE stars? Behind Hogan, Bruno, Austin, Cena, Rock? Would he go above Backlund? HHH? Macho? Not making an argument so much as I'm curious what people will say.

#15 tim

tim
  • Members
  • 1223 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 10:21 PM

Undertaker has never been as important to the company as Cena has been but probably a good number more people know of Undertaker than know of Cena so that depends on how exactly you want to think of "stardom." Undertaker > HHH easy enough it seems to me. Savage > Taker probably. Guys like Bruno and Backlund are harder because of course "The Undertaker" registers with more people than does "Bruno Sammartino" or "Bob Backlund" but was Taker ever close to as important to the company than they were?

#16 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:42 PM

Undertaker is strange because much of his career - even when he was basically an active member of the roster at all times - has been spent as a "special attraction" type. He's a closer comparison to Andre then he is to anyone who was an ace for any length of time, though I don't think he is an Andre level star. Over at Classics Steve Yohe is organizing a top 100 of all time which is supposed to be based heavily on over all value/stardom, with drawing power of course being the key element. Taker is someone who is likely to make my list, and I am inclined to put him ahead of people like HHH, Shawn and Foley even though you could argue that all three of those guys had more value to the company at their absolute peak than he did (in the case of Shawn I think it's highly, highly debatable or it is at least debatable how much value that argument really has). But I admit that comparing him next to Backlund or Savage is much tougher (my inclination is to put him behind Savage, but ahead of Bob).

#17 Childs

Childs
  • Moderators
  • 4391 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:53 PM

What about Taker vs. Bret?

#18 Johnny Sorrow

Johnny Sorrow
  • Members
  • 4453 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 12:19 AM

An aside, but I'd put Macho Man ahead of everybody except Hogan as far as "big star". When TIME magazine does an Obit with a pic and "guest writer", it means you transcended wrestling.

#19 marrklarr

marrklarr
  • Members
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 12:23 AM

What about Taker vs. Bret?


That is a MUCH more interesting and thought-provoking question.

#20 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:09 AM

An aside, but I'd put Macho Man ahead of everybody except Hogan as far as "big star". When TIME magazine does an Obit with a pic and "guest writer", it means you transcended wrestling.


I love Savage, but I can't see an argument for him above Andre. In terms of how I would define a star I would put him safely behind Bruno, Austin and as much as I hate to admit it, The Rock as well.

This is really tentative, and I could be persuaded otherwise, but my tentative WWE depth chart in terms of overall value to the promotion/stardom/whatever the fuck term you want to use would be something like this:

1. Hogan
2. Austin
3. Bruno (I could possibly be convinced to flip Bruno and Austin)
4. Andre (I could see arguments for Andre higher than Bruno and Austin on an overall list not exclusive to WWE)
5. The Rock
6. Savage
7. Cena
8. Taker
9. Backlund (To me maybe the hardest guy to rate and I have the least confidence in his placement)
10. Piper
11. Foley
12. HHH
13. Michaels
14. Bret
15. Misterio
16. Morales
17. Graham
18. Orndorff
19. Slaughter
20. Dibiase

This is off the cuff without looking at roster list and it's possible I'm forgetting guys that deserve inclusion. There are other guys like Angle, Eddie, Batista, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Valentine, Patera, and others who I could see on that latter portion of this list. Maybe if I get bored I could try and draw it further.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users