Bigger star, Hogan or Austin?

orestes

This thread has been formed for discussion on who is the bigger star, Hogan or Austin, based on posts which have been moved from the Competition Poll thread between Hogan and Benoit so that both discussions can take place and both threads can remain on topic. There is no poll on this thread, and I will not be adding one, as this thread is not part of the ongoing Poll game being run by Gerard C.

rossie1977

flahavaj wrote: »

Hogan on the other hand was the second biggest star ever in America

who is bigger?? i assume you are going to say austin because he outsold hogan in merch in 1998??

Bubs101

Austin was a bigger star for a shorter period of time. Overall he's not even close to outdrawing face Hogan and as for their how their heel runs drew. Don't even try it not to mention that Austing had Vince to bounce off of and Micheals,Taker ,Bret, Foley, HHH and the Rock to work with. Hogan would have killed for them instead of a Kane after Kane after Kane

flahavaj

Bubs101 wrote: »

Austin was a bigger star for a shorter period of time. Overall he's not even close to outdrawing face Hogan and as for their how their heel runs drew. Don't even try it not to mention that Austing had Vince to bounce off of and Micheals,Taker ,Bret, Foley, HHH and the Rock to work with. Hogan would have killed for them instead of a Kane after Kane after Kane

Hogan made Vince a multi-millionaire. Austin, however made him a billionaire.

DM_7

flahavaj wrote: »

Hogan made Vince a multi-millionaire. Austin, however made him a billionaire.

But in the 80's a millionaire was like a Billionaire is now. Without Hogan there was no foundation for the "Billionaire"

I'm voting for Hogan. He was the reason I started watching wrestling. Without Hogan there would be no entertainment in Wrestling. With no entertainment then wrestling would be small time.

Hogan left a legacy that no other guy can match.

flahavaj

I'll allow Mr. Dave Meltzer to intervene here as he is far more knowledgeable than all of us combined in such matters:

" 1) If you ask anyone who was in WWE will access to all the numbers, from Vince on down, from both eras, and ask who was the biggest draw, everyone will replay Austin and without hesitation, because he sold more tickets, sold more merch, sold more PPVs. Granted, there are huge differences in eras that mitigate those things, but...Austin beat Hogan in every financial category comparing peaks. Hogan did headline more successful shows because of far greater longevity. At his peak, Austin was bigger. For longevity, Hogan was.

2) Austin started his run when WWE was deep in debt, loans out, they had to remove water coolers from the office and wrestling was never colder. Hogan's run started in 1984, when the pro wrestling industry on a national basis was already at peak levels. U.S. attendance in 1983, year before Hogan's run, was 13 million. U.S. attendance in 1996, year before Austin's run, was well under 2 million.

3) Austin got there with TV deals in place, but when wrestling ratings were rock bottom. Hogan got there when most major cities were doing far bigger ratings for wrestling than any time since. Ratings in most cities fell during the Hogan peak, as did the national cable numbers. Not his fault, just a changing environment. But Austin's numbers increased at a time when ratings across the board were declining for almost every other sport.

4) Austin did work when PPV was more established, but also worked in an environment with 35 PPVs per year (WWE, WCW, TNA & UFC). When Hogan broke into PPV, it was a novelty, WWE had a monopoly and there were only a few shows of the year, and far better promoted

5) Austin got there when merchandise division was more established. That is true.

6) Hogan's peak on NBC did draw more than Austin's peak rating on USA. Well, duh? But Hogan's ratings on cable were 3's and Austin's were double that even though there was far more cable competitition and individual cable network ratings were much smaller. Hogan's peak numbers were bigger, Austin's weekly numbers dwarfed Hogan's, even though Austin appeared on TV every week and Hogan's TV appearances were rare and promoted as special.

7) Hogan did not draw ****loads more people. Hogan's best feuds averaged 8,000 to 10,000 paid aside from Orndorff. Austin at his peak averaged 14,000 paid, and did mostly sellouts. Plus, at Austin's peak, because of the Raw set, he was playing in arenas where capacity was cut back 30% for the biggest show of the week and still, on average, greatly outdrew Hogan at triple the ticket prices. And, the house shows during the Hogan run were far better promoted. The company had specialized local television and did specialized local interviews and did more advertising because house shows were the prime revenue source and considered the most important thing. During the Austin era, house shows were considered a distant No. 3 in priority. No more local market television or localized interviews. Plus, in the Hogan era, everything on television was geared toward buying house show tickets and in the Austin era, the house shows were barely acknowledged on TV that they even existed. "

---

Perhaps orestes could splice the Austin/Hogan debate into a separate thread as its a fascinating topic and I'd hate to derail Ger's great thread?

orestes

flahavaj wrote: »

Perhaps orestes could splice the Austin/Hogan debate into a separate thread as its a fascinating topic and I'd hate to derail Ger's great thread?

Done

dlofnep

As someone who lived through both Era's - I always labelled Austin "The Hogan of the 90's".

Hogan put wrestling on the map. Austin revived what was otherwise a sagging product.

Mr.Nice Guy

The correct answer is...
































The Rock.

As for Hogan vs Austin, I think I'd say Hogan just because he managed to go more mainstream globally than Austin.

orestes

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The correct answer is...
































The Rock.

*waits to have to spit posts into other new threads for The Rock/Hogan and The Rock/Austin*

It's gonna be a long night for me ain't it?

Rjd2

flahavaj wrote: »

Hogan made Vince a multi-millionaire. Austin, however made him a billionaire.

While HHH made him a millionaire again?:pac:
Seriously though I'l go for Stonecold and those Meltzer quotes are hard to disagree with.

flahavaj

Rjd2 wrote: »

While HHH made him a millionaire again?:pac:
Seriously though I'l go for Stonecold and those Meltzer quotes are hard to disagree with.

Haha aye, HHH and Steph.:pac:

Anyone who argues with the facts is in danger of getting DAVE'd.:pac:

DM_7

Numbers? Numbers from seperate decades are not comparable. The level of money spent by people, the type of entertainment pushed by media etc have to be factored in.

What about the competition. Austin had WCW pushing WWF making the interest in the industry grow. The competition between the two was a major factor in the growth of WWF and Austin.

Hogan was tasked with taking WWF wrestling from territories to a global brand and he did a great job.

Who is a bigger star, Hulk Hogan, why?

My dad knows who hulk hogan is, he never heard of Austin.
My Sister knows who Hulk Hogan is, So does my Mother.
My Granny knew who Hogan is.
If I go into work tomorrow and mention Hulk Hogan 95% would know who Hulk Hogan is. 20% would know Austin.

flahavaj

DM-ICE wrote: »

But in the 80's a millionaire was like a Billionaire is now. Without Hogan there was no foundation for the "Billionaire"

I'm voting for Hogan. He was the reason I started watching wrestling. Without Hogan there would be no entertainment in Wrestling. With no entertainment then wrestling would be small time.

Hogan left a legacy that no other guy can match.

Without Superstar Billy Graham to lay the foundation for him there would have been no Hogan. It doesn't make him the bigger star.

Hogan drew for longer, but Austin at his peak drew more. Those are the facts.

Numbers? Numbers from seperate decades are not comparable. The level of money spent by people, the type of entertainment pushed by media etc have to be factored in.

Buyrates, attendance numbers and viewing figures are the standard means of evaluating these things and always have been.

What about the competition. Austin had WCW pushing WWF making the interest in the industry grow. The competition between the two was a major factor in the growth of WWF and Austin.

If there was competition, then Austin drawing the numbers he did with another company competing for viewers is all the more impressive, es[ecially when you look at the way TV ratings are calculated.

Hogan was tasked with taking WWF wrestling from territories to a global brand and he did a great job.

There is no evidence for this. He becam a huge star in a time when wrestling was drawing massive numbers anyway. Austin on the other hand is credited with dragging WWF from a company on the verge of collapse to a billion dollar enterprise.

Who is a bigger star, Hulk Hogan, why?

My dad knows who hulk hogan is, he never heard of Austin.
My Sister knows who Hulk Hogan is, So does my Mother.
My Granny knew who Hogan is.
If I go into work tomorrow and mention Hulk Hogan 95% would know who Hulk Hogan is. 20% would know Austin.

Anecdotal evidence. How many of them have paid to see him? Thats the best way to measure star power, and at his height Austin did more business than Hogan at his.

Jolt2007

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The correct answer is...
































The Rock.

As for Hogan vs Austin, I think I'd say Hogan just because he managed to go more mainstream globally than Austin.

Pfft, The Rock ain't no Gorgeous George

the flananator

John Cena FTW.

DM_7

flahavaj wrote: »

Without Superstar Billy Graham to lay the foundation for him there would have been no Hogan. It doesn't make him the bigger star.

No but a million in 1990 was not easily achieved so the million to billion comparison is not flawless.

flahavaj wrote: »

Hogan drew for longer, but Austin at his peak drew more. Those are the facts.

Buyrates, attendance numbers and viewing figures are the standard means of evaluating these things and always have been.

Hogan drew longer. Thats pretty good! Buyrates in 80's early 90's v late 90's and onwards can't be compared fairly and accurately.

Have you included Factors such as :The true value of a dollar in 1989 compared to 1999
Income levels available to people when the wrestlers performed
The availability of media sorces and media interest in the 80s compared to 90's
The number of TV sets per household?

flahavaj wrote: »

If there was competition, then Austin drawing the numbers he did with another company competing for viewers is all the more impressive, es[ecially when you look at the way TV ratings are calculated.

If there was competition? There was HUGE competition. The competition played a huge factor in the growth of the industry. For example WCW 's failures to take advantage helped austin as people switched sides.

flahavaj wrote: »

There is no evidence for this. He becam a huge star in a time when wrestling was drawing massive numbers anyway. Austin on the other hand is credited with dragging WWF from a company on the verge of collapse to a billion dollar enterprise.
.

Did austin not draw massive numbers at a time when the industry was drawing massive numbers anyway?

flahavaj wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence. How many of them have paid to see him? Thats the best way to measure star power, and at his height Austin did more business than Hogan at his.

Money spent does not always measure star power when the stars compared are from seperate eras. As far as wrestling goes Hogan and Austins peaks in WWF/WWE are from incomparable eras. Maybe not seperated by many years but certainly incomparable times.

orestes

Jolt2007 wrote: »

Pfft, The Rock ain't no Gorgeous George

the flananator wrote: »

John Cena FTW.

/starts pulling out his hair

flahavaj

No but a million in 1990 was not easily achieved so the million to billion comparison is not flawless.

Neither is a billion easily made in the period from 1998-2001.

Hogan drew longer. Thats pretty good! Buyrates in 80's early 90's v late 90's and onwards can't be compared fairly and accurately.

Hogan drew longer, but comparing both at their very peaks shows Austin was the bigger star using every possible accepted criterion to measure star power. This is a fact.

If longevity is to be used as the measure of star power, then you'd have to start bringing guys like Flair(who was star for 20 years), Lou Thesz (who main evented over 6 decades) and many, many others into the equation.

Have you included Factors such as :The true value of a dollar in 1989 compared to 1999
Income levels available to people when the wrestlers performed
The availability of media sorces and media interest in the 80s compared to 90's
The number of TV sets per household?

Meltzer has, thats good enough for me. He understands these things better than all of us put together.

If there was competition? There was HUGE competition. The competition played a huge factor in the growth of the industry.

Yes competition played a role in the growth of the industry, this is undeniable. But equally undeniable is the fact that Austin still drew huge numbers when there was a viable alternative on network TV which is a stark contrast to Hogans run in the 80's when there was no other alternative.

For example WCW 's failures to take advantage helped austin as people switched sides.

Lets not also forget that many of WCW's "failures" as you put it were directly attributable to the egoes of Hogan and his cronies, who played a large hand in the mismanagement that killed WCW.

Did austin not draw massive numbers at a time when the industry was drawing massive numbers anyway?

No, it was Austin who raised the numbers from an all time low to the huge numbers they subsequently became. He was around for the boom, but he was also the cause of the boom. In the 80's the boom was happening anyway, before Hogan arrived on the scene.

Money spent does not always measure star power when the stars compared are from seperate eras. As far as wrestling goes Hogan and Austins peaks in WWF/WWE are from incomparable eras. Maybe not seperated by many years but certainly incomparable times.

PPV buyrates and attendance figures are of course comparable. Merchandise sales can be compared taking inflation and other factors into account. Meltzer has done this and concluded Austin made more money at his peak.

What other means of comparison could we possibly have?

DM_7

Meltzer, Is he an economist?

I have stated many reasons I don't believe they are comparable based on numbers alone. I'm certainly not going to base my opinion on who is a bigger star by what meltzer has concluded.


Now I think of it the term star is open to debate anyway

c_dog

stone cold steve austin hands down..... the mans a legend

Bounty Hunter

The biggest star is..... Vince McMahon

Bob the Seducer

My mum knows who Hulk Hogan is and she's never seen a wrestling programme in her life, she probably couldn't tell Steve Austin from Stephen King. Hogan transcended wrestling, for that I'd go with him being the bigger star

flahavaj

Meltzer, Is he an economist?

I have stated many reasons I don't believe they are comparable based on numbers alone. I'm certainly not going to base my opinion on who is a bigger star by what meltzer has concluded.

No, he is not an economist, no more than you or I (I presume:p). But he is the most wisely respected reporter on the pro wrestling business ever. His credentials are impeccable. No one is more well qualified than he to comment on the matter.

I'm not just saying Austin by blindly following the word of Meltzer. He and others have compiled the relevant information, facts and fugures and I'm drawing my own conclusion based in those solid facts, having read all the research that I can get my hands on in the matter.

What information and criteria are you using to come to your conclusion apart from telling us your granny knows who Hogan is?:pac:

Now I think of it the term star is open to debate anyway

It certainly is, which is why this is a debate that has raged for years without satisfactory conclusion. I would say that drawing power and amount of money made (which is at the end of the day, the whole idea behind the bsiness) is the best measure of a star.

Others may disagree and its a worthwhile debate in its own right, which is pretty pivotal to this whole argument as well.

Mr.Nice Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence. How many of them have paid to see him? Thats the best way to measure star power, and at his height Austin did more business than Hogan at his.

In fairness paying to see a wrestler doesn't take into account the wider audience uninterested in paying to see any wrestling. They would in all likelihood know about Hogan moreso than Austin.

I mean I'd never pay to see Madonna but I acknowledge she's a bigger star than some of my favourite bands who I would be willing to pay to see.

pingu_girl

Austin was the greatest ever FACT

Bubs101

What is still the record WWE PPV in an era when PPV's were less established?

How long did Austin draw in comparison to Hogan?

How long was Hogan's peak?

Who had better material to work with?

Who drew as both heel and a face?

Who drew for two companies?

Would Austin have drawn anything close to what Hogan did without Vince?

Was Austin the face of a massively aggressive takeover that laid the foundation for everyone afterwards?

Did Austin burnout the wrestling audience? (serious question)

Does he have any profile or star power outside the wrestling bubble? (Condemned)

Did he ride a wave of popularity spearheaded by Hogan's progress in a competitive company?

Is Austin Benoit anyway? Benoit is not the second best wrestler in history and even if you believe the Austin schtik Hogan is guaranteed the second biggest draw and draws are few and far between whereas great wrestlers are far more common. Nobody ever needed Benoit. Everyone needs Hogan

AlphaMale 3OO

Bob the Seducer wrote: »

My mum knows who Hulk Hogan is and she's never seen a wrestling programme in her life, she probably couldn't tell Steve Austin from Stephen King. Hogan transcended wrestling, for that I'd go with him being the bigger star

I was just about to highlight this exact point. I had a discussion with a friend of mine as to who was the bigger. He made a great point in saying "my dad knows who Hogan is, but I'm not sure he's ever heard of Austin". I think this pretty much sums it up.

JP Liz

Hulk Hogan put the WWE on the map everyone heard of him and he was the first to break into the movies/tv/guest spots also

While there is no denying SCSA is a legend he did revive the WWE but Hogan was the bigger star

Handsome Bob

As I said in the other thread, these guys were my idols at different times in my life so I'd like to think that I can give an impartial opinion.:p

Stone Cold is ultimately the bigger star IMO. He single-handedly saved a company on its' last legs. Vince nearly **** himself when Stone Cold got the broken neck at Summerslam '97, and there's a reason for that.

SCSA is the first ever wrestler that broke my mentality of "support the good guys, hate the bad guys". I loved him as a character since the moment he told Jake Roberts;

"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Austin 3:16 says I just whooped your @ss!"

It was impossible not to be gripped by the character.

grames_bond

i was going to make my point but it looks like lizzy (sorry dude ) covered the points i was going to make! Austin was huge at a time when it was much more difficult to get people interested in wrestling, it was on it's last legs and SCSA revived it and made it the billion dollar industry it is today!

And the point was made earlier that hogan was the first to break into movie, and thats true.....but then again when your movie legacy contains little hercules in 3-D, santa with muscles, mr nanny, and the thunder in paradice trillogy!

whereas austin gets to be in the expendables!!! (that is going to be the most awesome movie ever!)