QUESTION - Was Hulk Hogan more of a "team player" than Stone Cold Steve Austin?

[The Franchise]

Added to that Austin never did any of the shit like Starrcade 97 or Wrestlemania 9 that Hogan did. And arguably Hogan's biggest job ever to Warrior at WM 6 was barely a clean job. The guy kicked out at 3.00000001 AND didn't he expect Warrior to job back to him? I know it happened in WCW in like 98.

[The Franchise]

I see what Heyman is saying though, and Austin wasn't that great of a team player (compared to someone like Rock, Foley, Angle) but I still think Hogan was WAY worse.

[NeanderCarl]

Originally Posted by The Franchise Added to that Austin never did any of the shit like Starrcade 97 or Wrestlemania 9 that Hogan did. And arguably Hogan's biggest job ever to Warrior at WM 6 was barely a clean job. The guy kicked out at 3.00000001 AND didn't he expect Warrior to job back to him? I know it happened in WCW in like 98.

Yes, the plan from day one was for Hogan to win the belt back from Warrior at WrestleMania 7 in front of 100,000+ fans at the LA Memorial Coliseum.

Warrior's reign was cut short due to falling figures, and the Iraq hostilities kicked off, and the marketing genius Vince McMahon instead saw Hogan beat Slaughter for the title at WrestleMania 7 in front of... 16,000 fans at the LA Sports Arena.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The Franchise I see what Heyman is saying though, and Austin wasn't that great of a team player (compared to someone like Rock, Foley, Angle) but I still think Hogan was WAY worse.

I think as a whole, I will "agree to disagree" with a lot of posters in this thread.

To be honest however - I didn't follow Hogan's career nearly as much as Austin's (during his peak).

I also don't think Hogan "was on top" for 20 years (Hogan was top star between the years of 1984-1999....many times at which he took long sabbaticals, only made guest appearances, or wasn't even the champ).

Regardless however - I still think that Hogan, much like a LOT of other wrestlers, was selective as to who he jobbed to. Many people don't realize that there's a danger in jobbing too much (i.e. Foley, Kane). After awhile, if you do too many jobs....people can stop taking you seriously as a legit guy. Perhaps there's a reason why guys like HHH, Taker, and Hogan, chose to be selective in jobbing.

Having said that - I think people are now aware of how I feel about Austin regarding this issue. I'll leave it at that.....as I think the facts speak for themselves.

[Theo Dious]

I want to take issue with the notion of Hogan/Warrior at Wrestlemania being a "clean job." The match was one of the most meticulously choreographed in history, including an ending that saw Hogan kick out of Warrior's splash a mere fraction of a second late. Then, by his own admission (see his book, which I bought for a dollar for the laughs it was sure to contain) he insisted on handing the belt over (against the established plan) to replace Warrior's moment of victory with Hogan's moment of passing the torch.

As for Hogan's graceful act of jobbing to Goldberg... please. There was no way to avoid it at that point. Hogan's options at that point were either to do the fucking job or walk out of the company at a point where his popularity was seriously waning. At that point doing the job was the smart career move.

I'm also going to take issue with Hogan jobbing clean to Undertaker. The first time around, he dropped the belt in a terribly non-clean manner after completely no-selling what was being put over as one of the deadliest finishers on the market, only to win the belt back a week later. Ten years later, he jobbed the Undisputed Title after a pathetic and undeserved reign, in a match that saw him dead-weight a chokeslam.

Speaking of Hogan's undisputed title reign, how exactly are we supposed to praise Hogan for a job to HHH that I can't even remember, considering said title reign?

AND, as far as Angle and Lesnar go, Hogan was clearly building up credit at that point. Those two are more than negated by his treatment of his programs with Orton and HBM.

[DaVe]

Having said that - I think people are now aware of how I feel about Austin regarding this issue. I'll leave it at that.....as I think the facts speak for themselves.

We already were aware of it one post in... and clearly, the majority of us disagree.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Tedious I want to take issue with the notion of Hogan/Warrior at Wrestlemania being a "clean job." The match was one of the most meticulously choreographed in history, including an ending that saw Hogan kick out of Warrior's splash a mere fraction of a second late. Then, by his own admission (see his book, which I bought for a dollar for the laughs it was sure to contain) he insisted on handing the belt over (against the established plan) to replace Warrior's moment of victory with Hogan's moment of passing the torch. As for Hogan's graceful act of jobbing to Goldberg... please. There was no way to avoid it at that point. Hogan's options at that point were either to do the fucking job or walk out of the company at a point where his popularity was seriously waning. At that point doing the job was the smart career move. I'm also going to take issue with Hogan jobbing clean to Undertaker. The first time around, he dropped the belt in a terribly non-clean manner after completely no-selling what was being put over as one of the deadliest finishers on the market, only to win the belt back a week later. Ten years later, he jobbed the Undisputed Title after a pathetic and undeserved reign, in a match that saw him dead-weight a chokeslam. Speaking of Hogan's undisputed title reign, how exactly are we supposed to praise Hogan for a job to HHH that I can't even remember, considering said title reign? AND, as far as Angle and Lesnar go, Hogan was clearly building up credit at that point. Those two are more than negated by his treatment of his programs with Orton and HBM.

That's fine and all.....but seriously. Why be THAT critical of Hogan, and fail to acknowledge anything that Austin did....or didn't do?

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126 You're looking at this from only one angle, that everything they've done has been the result of them pulling strings. I go back to my suggestion that Austin may have just been going with what was booked of him. He, as well as Hogan, were Vince's pet projects, and rightfully so. However, Hogan used his politics to the point that what he did was common knowledge and was bad for the business on a regular basis. Austin, not so much. Again, not saying he didn't, because I'm sure there are at least a few instances of it, but it was no where near the length Hogan took it. I think it's likely in Austin's case that it was more about Vince booking it. Remember, during pretty much Austin's entire main event run Vince was directly involved with Austin in storylines and it was best for his (Vince's) character if Austin stayed strong and dominated.

The biggest problem I have with what this post (and what most people are saying in this thread in defense of Austin....or in their criticism of Hogan), is that most of it is purely speculation.

I am only commenting on what *I* have seen....and from what *I* have seen...

A) Austin (justified or not), never made anyone else look superior to him (atleast for an extended time period).

B) Despite the time frame, Hogan still did far more clean and relevant jobs (even to the point where he was decimated by Lesnar).

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Gertner Hogan jobbed a couple times to Kidman, not clean, but I've never seen Austin job to any undercard guy.

Excellent point:

When you take into account jobs that were done (of ANY kind...whether they be clean or non-clean, take a look at some of the jobs that certain superstar wrestlers did to complete 'jabronie's'

-Hogan jobbed to Kidman

-HHH jobbed to Godfather, Jeff Hardy (when Hardy actually was a gay lesbian jobber back in 01')

-The Rock jobbed to Hurricane

-Maven threw Undertaker out of the Rumble. Last year, Taker basically opened his mouth and let Kali deposit his semen (i.e. Kali defeated Taker and even pinned him with the foot on his chest).

-Ric Flair was defeated by the old manager of Three Count (Ricardo? I can't remember his name...the gay guy...also a former manager of Billy/Chuck)

Which 'jabronie' got a victory over Austin?

None! (unless you consider Vince and Shane McMahon to be jabronie's). One time - Austin actually refused to be involved in an angle with Jeff Jarret since he felt that Jarret was not a big enough star. Austin even refused to have a MATCH with him.

[Juan]

Say what you want about Austin, but I will never consider Hogan to be a "team player"

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Juan Say what you want about Austin, but I will never consider Hogan to be a "team player"

Neither will I....nor should anyone else.

However - based on what the world has seen (and minus the speculation and rumours), results would indicate that Austin is even less of a team player.

[Xero]

Originally Posted by Heyman The biggest problem I have with what this post (and what most people are saying in this thread in defense of Austin....or in their criticism of Hogan), is that most of it is purely speculation. I am only commenting on what *I* have seen....and from what *I* have seen... A) Austin (justified or not), never made anyone else look superior to him (atleast for an extended time period). B) Despite the time frame, Hogan still did far more clean and relevant jobs (even to the point where he was decimated by Lesnar).

What you have seen are matches in a predetermined sport booked by one man (for all intent and purpose). Unless you know for a fact Austin was behind the way he was booked in the matches (which you don't), your posts are pure "speculation" as well.

What you see on TV doesn't necessarily equate to what's happening backstage.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126 What you see on TV doesn't necessarily equate to what's happening backstage.

BINGO!

Which makes it even more ridiculous, is that many posters on here are attacking Hogan while being far less critical of Austin (and mysteriously enough, bring up the argument that you brought forth to me, when one does the opposite and critique's Austin).

What you have seen are matches in a predetermined sport booked by one man (for all intent and purpose).

IN-DEEEEED!

[NeanderCarl]

Don't forget that as soon as Austin broke his neck, he (and the company) always knew he was wrestling on borrowed time and wanted to milk his worth for all they could, while they could.

I'm sure they were booking Austin to keep him strong in the mid-term and never considering the long-term because Austin really didn't have one. So Austin turned down jobs to Billy Gunn, Owen Hart and Triple H? So what? Gunn was never going to get over so it would have been a wasted rub, Austin was bitter towards Owen because of the injury (maybe he was wrong to be, but his life was changed forever because of Owen, you can't judge him for how he felt) and Triple H had lukewarm heat and wasn't over as a top guy at all, and a single win over Austin wasn't going to *make* him. Those losses would have only served to hurt Austin without helping anybody else.

Prior to the neck injury, I think Austin actually lost the majority of his high profile matches. When he suffered the injury, and the end of his career was nigh whilst his popularity was the highest it had ever been, priorities had to change both for Austin and the WWF.

[NeanderCarl]

In Your House 8: Beware Of Dog- Savio Vega beat Steve Austin (clean, Strap match)
Survivor Series 1996 - Bret Hart beat Steve Austin (clean, pinfall)
In Your House 13: Final Four - Steve Austin first eliminated in four way WWE Title match
WrestleMania 13 - Bret Hart beat Steve Austin (clean, ref stoppage)
In Your House 15 : Cold Day in Hell - Undertaker beat Steve Austin (clean, pinfall)
King of the Ring 97 - Austin vs Michaels Double DQ
In Your House 16 Canadian Stampede - Owen Hart pinned Austin clean, Harts vs Americans 10 man tag

Not exactly the record of a guy afraid to put people over prior to the neck injury. You'd be hard pressed to find a run of results like that in Hogan's career at any point.

[NeanderCarl]

And I'm not conveniently omitting a bunch of wins from that list either. Austin won the Rumble in "controversial fashion" (ie. he didn't really), pinned midcard jobber Triple H and got a win over Marc Mero during that period, and of course won the King of the Ring. That's about it, though... there were a lot of PPVs on which he didn't even feature. (At SummerSlam '96, he got the duke over Yokozuna but that was a Free-For-All pre-show match)

[Zen v.W.o.]

Originally Posted by Class Act Carl In Your House 8: Beware Of Dog- Savio Vega beat Steve Austin (clean, Strap match) Survivor Series 1996 - Bret Hart beat Steve Austin (clean, pinfall) In Your House 13: Final Four - Steve Austin first eliminated in four way WWE Title match WrestleMania 13 - Bret Hart beat Steve Austin (clean, ref stoppage) In Your House 15 : Cold Day in Hell - Undertaker beat Steve Austin (clean, pinfall) King of the Ring 97 - Austin vs Michaels Double DQ In Your House 16 Canadian Stampede - Owen Hart pinned Austin clean, Harts vs Americans 10 man tag Not exactly the record of a guy afraid to put people over prior to the neck injury. You'd be hard pressed to find a run of results like that in Hogan's career at any point.

Austin wasn't really putting people over there. Indeed, those guys were helping Austin ascend the ladder.
Austin was getting the main event rub.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Class Act Carl In Your House 8: Beware Of Dog- Savio Vega beat Steve Austin (clean, Strap match) Survivor Series 1996 - Bret Hart beat Steve Austin (clean, pinfall) In Your House 13: Final Four - Steve Austin first eliminated in four way WWE Title match WrestleMania 13 - Bret Hart beat Steve Austin (clean, ref stoppage) In Your House 15 : Cold Day in Hell - Undertaker beat Steve Austin (clean, pinfall) King of the Ring 97 - Austin vs Michaels Double DQ In Your House 16 Canadian Stampede - Owen Hart pinned Austin clean, Harts vs Americans 10 man tag Not exactly the record of a guy afraid to put people over prior to the neck injury. You'd be hard pressed to find a run of results like that in Hogan's career at any point.

ALL of the matches you listed were BEFORE Austin became a mega-star (post Wrestlemania 14.....or even Summer of 97').

By that logic - Hogan's 'jobs' (pre-1984) should also be taken into account.

We can't pick and choose here.

[Jeritron]

Why? You picked and chose in the first post. You should judge Austin against a 4 year period of Hogan's career.
The entire argument is flawed on a fundamental level.

[NeanderCarl]

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o. Austin wasn't really putting people over there. Indeed, those guys were helping Austin ascend the ladder. Austin was getting the main event rub.

You don't get over by losing matches left, right and centre, whether it's against main event guys or not. Luckily, Austin had the freshest character in the company and was a superlative all-rounder, otherwise he would have been dead in the water.

Okay, he was still rising for most of that period and didn't have the "pull" he would enjoy later on, but Austin didn't put people over half-heartedly, he fully embraced it. Not the sign of a selfish worker. Plus, I'd say he was well on his way to being a star anyway by the end of 1996, wrestling main event and title matches with the likes of Bret Hart. A lot of people think Austin only became a player at WrestleMania XIV. In truth, he'd already "arrived" a long time before.

And I don't care whether you look at Hogan in his prime or Hogan in his rookie year, he never had a run of high profile losses like that.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by Heyman That's fine and all.....but seriously. Why be THAT critical of Hogan, and fail to acknowledge anything that Austin did....or didn't do?

The difference is that Hogan is known to have wielded his political clout like a spiked club. The degree to which Austin refused to look weak or inferior - what do we know about whose idea that was? Did Austin ever bring a guy into a company just to make himself look better? Is his career defined by his always getting what he wants? I can't think of a time when Austin's refusal to job or look weak did serious damage to the company, while Hogan's insistence on having THE spot was a weight around WWE's neck for quite some time, and made WCW's product pretty unwatchable for even longer. One can say that Austin's retirement was forced... while it may have been inevitable, he could have squeezed more time out and filled it with boring, lackluster matches. Just like, you know, Hogan did, continually putting himself out there numerous times when he wasn't up to a decent match.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by Heyman None! (unless you consider Vince and Shane McMahon to be jabronie's). One time - Austin actually refused to be involved in an angle with Jeff Jarret since he felt that Jarret was not a big enough star. Austin even refused to have a MATCH with him.

This to me is a point for Austin over Hogan. Austin refused to have the match. Hogan would have had the match and made sure that he looked like a god and Jarrett looked like a steaming pile of elephant shit. Which scenerio does Jarrett walk away better from?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Tedious I want to take issue with the notion of Hogan/Warrior at Wrestlemania being a "clean job." The match was one of the most meticulously choreographed in history, including an ending that saw Hogan kick out of Warrior's splash a mere fraction of a second late. Then, by his own admission (see his book, which I bought for a dollar for the laughs it was sure to contain) he insisted on handing the belt over (against the established plan) to replace Warrior's moment of victory with Hogan's moment of passing the torch.

Yeah. WrestleMania 6's finish was not about Warrior winning the belt, but about Hogan passing the torch and the camera even focuses on Hogan being taken away in that thing to the back more so than Warrior winning the title.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Heyman ALL of the matches you listed were BEFORE Austin became a mega-star (post Wrestlemania 14.....or even Summer of 97'). By that logic - Hogan's 'jobs' (pre-1984) should also be taken into account. We can't pick and choose here.

Austin was only a mega-star from like 1998 to 2002. Four years. When SHOULD he have been doing these jobs, putting over younger stars? When he was the biggest thing in WWF history, selling more merchandise than anyone ever before, entangled in the hottest angle WWF had ever conceived? Is that when he should've been doing jobs to D'Lo Brown and X-Pac?

And don't forget that Austin was seriously injured and sidelined for part of those four years. His return needed to be dynamic, and he needed to kick ass. Putting over Rikishi would have been a terrible move. Putting over anyone would've been wrong. Austin was "the man."

The only time I think he should've put someone over and didn't was against Rob Van Dam at No Mercy 2001, and who knows if it was his call (probably not) or Vince's call (99.99% likely). Austin was a legend, and if he had had the kind of career that someone like Triple H or Undertaker have had, he probably would've done more jobs. But there's no way to know.

I've never heard stories of Austin politicking in the WWE. The only obvious time he did was when he left over a job to Brock Lesnar (which I agree with Austin on), and because he was sick and tired of the bullshit, including a wasted match against Scott Hall at WrestleMania. Hogan has a long and storied history of being a backstage politician, and it shows. I don't think there's any question here.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Originally Posted by Class Act Carl You don't get over by losing matches left, right and centre, whether it's against main event guys or not. Luckily, Austin had the freshest character in the company and was a superlative all-rounder, otherwise he would have been dead in the water. Okay, he was still rising for most of that period and didn't have the "pull" he would enjoy later on, but Austin didn't put people over half-heartedly, he fully embraced it. Not the sign of a selfish worker. Plus, I'd say he was well on his way to being a star anyway by the end of 1996, wrestling main event and title matches with the likes of Bret Hart. A lot of people think Austin only became a player at WrestleMania XIV. In truth, he'd already "arrived" a long time before. And I don't care whether you look at Hogan in his prime or Hogan in his rookie year, he never had a run of high profile losses like that.

Yes you do. Guys that know how to work superlatively always get over, or help get you over by the rub they give you. Austin got to work with the best all year long. Hart gave Austin the rub he needed to propel himself to stardom. Losing to Bret helped him in the long run, big time. And he lost every single time. WM 13 was his most important match. He lost, but he lost to Bret in a way that made him come out credible. Good workers know how to perform this. The MOST iconic image of Austin is blood streaming down his face as he grimaces in pain whilst in the sharpshooter. That changed things.

Austin got over by the way he fought, the guys who helped him by making him look credible and strong, and by that moment.

[Destor]

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o. Yes you do. Guys that know how to work superlatively always get over, or help get you over by the rub they give you. Austin got to work with the best all year long. Hart gave Austin the rub he needed to propel himself to stardom. Losing to Bret helped him in the long run, big time. And he lost every single time. WM 13 was his most important match. He lost, but he lost to Bret in a way that made him come out credible. Good workers know how to perform this. The MOST iconic image of Austin is blood streaming down his face as he grimaces in pain whilst in the sharpshooter. That changed things. Austin got over by the way he fought, the guys who helped him by making him look credible and strong, and by that moment.

No, you don't get over by losing matches. Austins loss isn't what got him over, it was the fact he refused to lose. And that's hardly something you can do on a regular basis. Generally one guy has to be sacrificed for the benifit of the other.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Originally Posted by Destor No, you don't get over by losing matches. Austins loss isn't what got him over, it was the fact he refused to lose. And that's hardly something you can do on a regular basis. Generally one guy has to be sacrificed for the benifit of the other.

Uhh, yes you can. It depends on how the match is scripted and worked out. Hart/Austin both kept their momentum going because they planned out a stellar match, that was bound to help them both. Yeah, Austin kept losing, but not one loss destroyed his heat, because he came off as tough and wiling to take more.

Refusing to lose is fine, he still lost. And he never won. Remember that.

[Destor]

Again, your point is the loss got him over and it didn't. The loss had nothing to do with getting him over at all.

[Arashi Kage]

I can never understand those who are so fussy over Hogan and the issue of jobbing/putting over other guys. The Hulkster was awesome, and we (wrestling fans) didn't want to see him lose. Outside of the WM6 loss to Ultimate Warrior (cuz he was my childhood favorite) I hated seeing Hogan job. I remember when he lost to Goldberg my brother and I was so pissed (but then loved it when Nash beat Goldberg, and laughed our heads off in joy when Hogan poked Nash and won the title back, bwhahahahahh, awesome! and Nash my bro's favorite at that time).

Seriously, Hogan should never have had to job for the sake of putting over "a new generation" because there has never been anyone who could be the kind of icon that Hogan is. Granted, you can't always win, the title needs to change hands so that new storylines can be developed and play out. I'm not saying that Hogan should never lose or something along those lines, only that this notion of having to "put over" someone, "pass the torch", etc, is rubbish. Wrestling is past it's prime, and having the heros of yesterday job to the new guys of today isn't going to make the current product or crop of "talent" any better or more interesting.

It seems that the "attitude era" guys just seem to have this passionate hatred for Hogan, forget the backstage politics and behind the scenes BS, you don't have to respect the Hulkster, but remember that he entertained and made countless of us happy, which is what it's all about.

BTW, I don't think that anyone has mentioned that Scott Hall was supposed to beat Austin at WM18 but Austin made a fuss and had the outcome changed at the last minute - hence why that match didn't go too well.

[NeanderCarl]

I would say that to ask Steve Austin - the man who made Vince McMahon a billionaire and almost singlehandedly turned around their fortunes in the Monday Night Wars (before Rock, Foley, HHH etc got hot) - to job at the biggest show of the year to Scott Hall - a troublemaking alcoholic who would almost certainly be gone from the company by years end, the most expendable member of WWE's version oif the nWo, who had been at the top of WCW when they were hellbent on putting WWF out of business - was a huge slap in the face to 'Stone Cold'.

Damn right he should have said no.

[NeanderCarl]

Although, if Austin had simply accepted the match against Hogan in Toronto, he wouldn't have been in that position, but he point blank refused to work with Hulk... just as Hulk had done to him in 1995.