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!)

Nody

Wrong thread *blush*

flahavaj

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

Vince McMahon’s hair (wrestled for by Umaga) vs. Donald Trump’s hair (wrestled for by Bobby Lashley) (Detroit Ford Field - 74,687 - set all-time worldwide PPV record with 1,250,000 buys and all-time North American pro wrestling gate record of $5,380,000. Current record holder for biggest grossing pro wrestling event of all-time). Don't see the relevance of that to this debate.

How long did Austin draw in comparison to Hogan?

I've repeatedly said the Hogan drew for longer, but Austin drew more at his peak. That has never been in question. Bear in mind also that injuries halted Austin's career, if he were stil working he'd still be at the top of the business.

How long was Hogan's peak?

At least a decade from 1984 onwards and had other peaks throughout the 90's. Again, I'm not belittling his longevity, he just never hit the peaks Austin did at his height.

Who had better material to work with?

Again debateable and not very relevant. The attitude era had some big stars, but bear in mind Austin's biggest achievement was taking WWF from the dead around from 1996-1998, a period when Main Event starts were at an absolute premium. And Hogan had plenty huge Superstars to work with as well, guys like Piper, Andre, Warrior, Savage, Sheikhy to name but a few.

Who drew as both heel and a face?

Both guys' popularity was unquestionably at its height while as a face. Hogan had a sucessful heel turn with WCW, but comparing the buyrates for WCW when he turned with WWF's in 1996 and 1997 (which at the time were in a huge downturn) shows that they only outdrew WWF on three occasions. Hogan did well as a heel, but not spectacularly.

Who drew for two companies?

Austin was poorly booked in WCW, it was Vince who knew how to book him. You can't blame Austin for how he was booked elsewhere in fairness.

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

Vince was impoaratant to Austin's popularity, thats pretty obvious. But remember Austin had already turned around the fortunes of the company and set the ball rolling long before his on screen feud with Vince began. And I still maintain Austin was far more important a figure than Vince:look at how many times Vince has tried to recreate his own on screen feud feud with pretty every much babyface since Austin (INCLUDING Hogan by the way!), but with a fraction of the same success. That tells me Austin was a one-off and undoubtedly the star of the era, even more than McMahon. Of course Vince was the perfect foil for Austin,but equally wouldHogan have broken the then buyrate records at Mania 3 without Andre to play off?

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

Not sure what you're getting at here Bubs, sorry.

Did Austin burnout the wrestling audience? (serious question)

I don't think so. What evidence is there that Austin alone cause fan burnout? Probably overexposing the product as a whole, with 4-5 hours of Tv a week and 12-14 PPV's per year was more to bkame. Pinning it on Austin is a bit much.

I know the WWF audience were pretty burned out on Hogan by 1992, hence his being booed at the Royal Rumble and house shows that year.

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

Both men's film careers completely tanked in fairness.

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

Of course the Monday Night Wars were good for business, but to say that Ausitin rode a todal wave of popularity attibutable to Hogan alone is stretching the point ro a ridiculous level. It worked on both sides, only WWF capitalised better and won out in the end while WCW shot themselves in the foot (a large part of which can be put down to Hogan's ego btw).

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.

Not sure what this means either, sorry.

At the end of the day we could argue the ins and out of this all weekend and come to no better conclusion. Theres compelling eveidence on both sides to back our arguments up. Its a debate that has raged for years and one side is never going to convince the other. Better informed guys, who can quote stats liberally still haven't managed to agree on it. But I've enjoyed the aul debate with you as usual Bubs. I'll see you over on Soccer tomorrow to discuss Ibra's appallingly inflated transfer fee.:p;)

flahavaj

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

Poor analogy. A better one would be two massive popstars for whom its difficult to tell who's the bigger star, like say Madonna and Britney Spears? How would you tell them apart? You'd look at record sales and how many venues their concerts have sold out in their careers, solid facts that are standard means of measuring such things. Pretty much the same way I'm looking at buyrates, buldings sold out, TV ratings and merchandise sales for Austin and Hogan.:D

rossie1977

flahavaj wrote: »

all-time North American pro wrestling gate record of $5,380,000.

a gate record that has since been passed by both WM24 and WM25, 24s gate was $5,854,590, 25 blew both out of the water in gate revenue with $6.9 million

Mr.Nice Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

Poor analogy. A better one would be two massive popstars for whom its difficult to tell who's the bigger star, like say Madonna and Britney Spears? How would you tell them apart? You'd look at record sales and how many venues their concerts have sold out in their careers, solid facts that are standard means of measuring such things. Pretty much the same way I'm looking at buyrates, buldings sold out, TV ratings and merchandise sales for Austin and Hogan.:D

I don't agree because Madonna and Britney Spears are the popstar equivalent to what Hogan was to wrestling - individuals that transcended the industry where they originated. Stone Cold Steve Austin simply did not do this!

As a few people have pointed out, the non-wrestling Joe Bloggs types on the street are unlikely to know who Stone Cold is but they will know who Hulk Hogan is as he catapulted wrestling into the mainstream and became associated with it. You are judging star power purely from within the wrestling industry itself but that limits the field solely to wrestling fans. Star power should take into account the general public as a whole.

Also just to note something else you said...

at how many times Vince has tried to recreate his own on screen feud feud with pretty every much babyface since Austin (INCLUDING Hogan by the way!), but with a fraction of the same success. That tells me Austin was a one-off and undoubtedly the star of the era, even more than McMahon.

What about The Rock in 2000? The McMahon/Helmsley faction storyline throughout most of 2000 was a great success and if memory serves me right I think the highest ever rating for a Raw match occurred at this point (think it was Rock vs Shane?) so I don't think it can be said Austin was a one-off. Rock was able to carry the company when Austin was out with a severe neck injury. I'm not saying Austin was expendable but I don't think he was irreplaceable either.

With regards to Austin I'm reminded of the quote by Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Austin may have broken many records and "seen further" but it was the giant shoulders of Hulk Hogan that made it all possible and, I would argue, other extremely talented guys from Austin's era who rarely get acknowledged for what they contributed - Bret Hart, D-X, The Rock, Undertaker, Mick Foley etc.

Bounty Hunter

im not saying hes a bigger star but just in terms of his non wrestling endevours SCSA has done more than the Condemned, aprt from other movies like The Longest Yard he was also fairly well known from Celebrity Deathmatch and made many cameos back at the height of his popularity such as Dilbert iirc

flahavaj

rossie1977 wrote: »

a gate record that has since been passed by both WM24 and WM25, 24s gate was $5,854,590, 25 blew both out of the water in gate revenue with $6.9 million

True, actually, sorry. 23 is still the PPV burate record however and either way, those stats are irrelevant to this argument. Iwas answering a question of Bubs' that seems to have no bearing on Austin Vs Hogan.

flahavaj

I don't agree because Madonna and Britney Spears are the popstar equivalent to what Hogan was to wrestling - individuals that transcended the industry where they originated. Stone Cold Steve Austin simply did not do this!

As a few people have pointed out, the non-wrestling Joe Bloggs types on the street are unlikely to know who Stone Cold is but they will know who Hulk Hogan is as he catapulted wrestling into the mainstream and became associated with it. You are judging star power purely from within the wrestling industry itself but that limits the field solely to wrestling fans. Star power should take into account the general public as a whole.

How do you quanify this so called mainstream recognition, though? As I had stated already, both men's film careers tanked badly and Hogan's TV shows hardly set the world on fire. The Rock (and the Necro Butcher:pac:) is arguably the wrestler to have had the most success as a film star, but he's just not in the league of Austin or Hogan and never transformed the wrestling industry like those two did.

What about The Rock in 2000? The McMahon/Helmsley faction storyline throughout most of 2000 was a great success and if memory serves me right I think the highest ever rating for a Raw match occurred at this point (think it was Rock vs Shane?) so I don't think it can be said Austin was a one-off. Rock was able to carry the company when Austin was out with a severe neck injury. I'm not saying Austin was expendable but I don't think he was irreplaceable either.

The Rock isn't credited with turning the entire wrestling business around like Austin did. Later on you state that Austin stood on the giant shoulders of Hogan. Actually, the fact of the matter is that Austin was the main player in the Attitude era, and if anything everyone else, Rock included was riding on the back of his stunning (forgive the pun) success.

As for 2000, when Austin was injured. Wasn't that the year they put a fatal four way as the Main Event of Mania for the only time in history and threw a McMahon in the corner of each wrestler for good measure? Why do you think they did this? Because Vince knew well that any two out of HHH, Rock, Foley or Big Show wouldn't have drawn anywhere NEAR the numbers Austin did in singles main events the years before AND after. None of them was anywhere near the star Austin was, thats an inarguable fact.

The highest rated match in RAW history was actually Austin vs Undertaker, by the way You might be thinking of the Rock and Foley "This is your life" segment that for a long time was the highest rated segment, until it was surpassed by Edge and Lita's live sex celebration. And no ones claiming those two are the biggest stars ever, in fairness.:p

With regards to Austin I'm reminded of the quote by Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Austin may have broken many records and "seen further" but it was the giant shoulders of Hulk Hogan that made it all possible and, I would argue, other extremely talented guys from Austin's era who rarely get acknowledged for what they contributed - Bret Hart, D-X, The Rock, Undertaker, Mick Foley etc.

You could equally argue that guys like Superstar Billy Graham paved the way for Hogan. Saying that just because Hogan came before Austin and paved the way for him (which he absolutely did by the way) is in no way an indication that he was the bigger star. That WAY to simplistic a method of examining the topic.

Bret Hart, D-X, The Rock and all those other guys are rarely acknowledged because the hard evidence id there that they didn't do business in the spectacular way that Austin (or indeed Hogan) did. (Again see my point about the overloaded fatal four way WM Main Event in 2000)

Mr.Nice Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

How do you quanify this so called mainstream recognition, though? As I had stated already, both men's film careers tanked badly and Hogan's TV shows hardly set the world on fire. The Rock (and the Necro Butcher:pac:) is arguably the wrestler to have had the most success as a film star, but he's just not in the league of Austin or Hogan and never transformed the wrestling industry like those two did.

Well quantifying it wouldn't be difficult at all as all you'd have to do is poll random punters and ask them if they know either man! I'm sure you'd agree Hogan would easily garner more recognition. Hogan's film appearances were mostly awful but appearing in Rocky III and the Gremlins sequel is far more notable than anything Austin has ever done. As for Rock, I think he probably is at this stage a bigger mainstream star than Austin despite not being as important to the wrestling industry, although I personally would say he is in their league, albeit below them from a pro wrestling standpoint.

flahavaj wrote:

The Rock isn't credited with turning the entire wrestling business around like Austin did. Later on you state that Austin stood on the giant shoulders of Hogan. Actually, the fact of the matter is that Austin was the main player in the Attitude era, and if anything everyone else, Rock included was riding on the back of his stunning (forgive the pun) success.

I never said Rock turned around the entire wrestling business but he certainly had more than a fraction of Austin's success. Had he not been there in 2000 the WWF would have been diabolical. I think you make a fair point about the likes of the Rock benefitting from Austin but it's a two-way street and it should be acknowledged there were other key players who helped make Austin what he was. Bret, Vince, Michaels, hell even Tyson you could say. Austin was certainly the face of the Attitude Era but not the only one. I think Hogan however defined his era more than Steve did his.

flahavaj wrote:

As for 2000, when Austin was injured. Wasn't that the year they put a fatal four way as the Main Event of Mania for the only time in history and threw a McMahon in the corner of each wrestler for good measure? Why do you think they did this? Because Vince knew well that any two out of HHH, Rock, Foley or Big Show wouldn't have drawn anywhere NEAR the numbers Austin did in singles main events the years before AND after. None of them was anywhere near the star Austin was, thats an inarguable fact.

Didn't WM2000 do a better buyrate than WM17 where Austin featured? Stas here.

Wrestlemania XVI - 2.35 buyrate
Wrestlemania 17 - 2.15 buyrate

Seems like Wrestlemania did just fine without Austin or are you saying the buyrate was because of Foley, Big Show, HHH etc?

I personally think a main event of Rock vs Triple H for the title would have drawn very good numbers although I concede it got very muddled at Mania. I've always felt the Backlash main event should have been the Mania main event.

As for these great numbers that Austin supposedly brings which no one else can touch (I think that's highly debateable as the stats above show), how come Cyber Sunday last year in which Austin appeared as special referee for the Jericho/Batista match drew just 153,000 buys? To put that in perspective, in 2007 the show drew 194,000 buys and in 2006 the show drew 228,000 buys. Do you think if Hogan or Rock had been there that the buys for 2008 would have been that low? I doubt it!

flahavaj wrote:

The highest rated match in RAW history was actually Austin vs Undertaker, by the way You might be thinking of the Rock and Foley "This is your life" segment that for a long time was the highest rated segment, until it was surpassed by Edge and Lita's live sex celebration. And no ones claiming those two are the biggest stars ever, in fairness.:p

I'm aware the Rock/Foley segment did an 8. something or other but I'm certain I read Meltzer report one time that a match with Rock and Shane was the most viewed Raw match. By the way, Edge and Lita didn't top the Foley/Rock segment rating surely?

flahavaj wrote:

You could equally argue that guys like Superstar Billy Graham paved the way for Hogan. Saying that just because Hogan came before Austin and paved the way for him (which he absolutely did by the way) is in no way an indication that he was the bigger star. That WAY to simplistic a method of examining the topic.

Bret Hart, D-X, The Rock and all those other guys are rarely acknowledged because the hard evidence id there that they didn't do business in the spectacular way that Austin (or indeed Hogan) did. (Again see my point about the overloaded fatal four way WM Main Event in 2000)

It's true that just because Hogan paved the way for Austin it doesn't make him a bigger star but that is not the argument most of us have been making. What I think settles the debate is the undeniable fact that Hulk Hogan has transcended the wrestling business in a way that Stone Cold Steve Austin did not. That, I think, makes him the bigger star.

If we poll 100 random people on the street and 35 of them have heard of Stone Cold but 85 of them have heard of Hulk Hogan then it is abundantly clear who the bigger star is. It doesn't mean Hogan is more important to the wrestling industry, it means Hogan benefitted from his association with the industry more than Austin did.

flahavaj

Well quantifying it wouldn't be difficult at all as all you'd have to do is poll random punters and ask them if they know either man! I'm sure you'd agree Hogan would easily garner more recognition. Hogan's film appearances were mostly awful but appearing in Rocky III and the Gremlins sequel is far more notable than anything Austin has ever done. As for Rock, I think he probably is at this stage a bigger mainstream star than Austin despite not being as important to the wrestling industry, although I personally would say he is in their league, albeit below them from a pro wrestling standpoint.

He had what, a 10 minute cameo in the Rocky III and wasn't even important to the plotline. Anyone could have played the part of Thunder Lips in fairness. His being in the film had absolutely no bearing on the success or otherwise of the film in reality. My point was, when he made films in his own right they bombed spectacularly. The point that has been made repeatedly by you and several others is that Hogan "transcended wrestling." Surely if he had really done so, he would have been able to sell film on the back of this apparent fame and popularity. But he didn't.

Maybe my saying Rock wasn't in their league was an exagerration, but I'm glad you agree that he simply wasn't as big or important a star in terms of the wrestling industry as Hogan/Austin as this is a commonly accepted fact. Of course the success of his film career further clouds the issue as you could now say he has transcended wrestling more successfully than either Hogan or Austin. And where does that leave us?:pac:

I never said Rock turned around the entire wrestling business but he certainly had more than a fraction of Austin's success. Had he not been there in 2000 the WWF would have been diabolical. I think you make a fair point about the likes of the Rock benefitting from Austin but it's a two-way street and it should be acknowledged there were other key players who helped make Austin what he was. Bret, Vince, Michaels, hell even Tyson you could say. Austin was certainly the face of the Attitude Era but not the only one. I think Hogan however defined his era more than Steve did his.

Certainly I have no problem acknowledging the importance of the other main players in the Attitude era. This is the most sucessful era in the istory of pro wrestling we're talking about and to say it was solely down to one guy would be extremely short sighted of me. But he was the top guy. Perhaps the best way to put it is this: Austin was the reason the Attitude Era even existed in the first place, and without him to cause the boom in business that brought it about, there never would have been the environment for the likes of the Rock et al to flourish.

Didn't WM2000 do a better buyrate than WM17 where Austin featured? Stas here.

Wrestlemania XVI - 2.35 buyrate
Wrestlemania 17 - 2.15 buyrate

Seems like Wrestlemania did just fine without Austin or are you saying the buyrate was because of Foley, Big Show, HHH etc?

I personally think a main event of Rock vs Triple H for the title would have drawn very good numbers although I concede it got very muddled at Mania. I've always felt the Backlash main event should have been the Mania main event.

Yes WM 16 did around 100,000 buys more than WM 17. But remember the boom had already begun and the whole industry was riding the crest of a wave of massive massive popualrity, much of which was down to Austin. I used WM 16 as an example of how Austin was viewed by Vince as being so important to business. He didn't have the confidence in his other Main Event players, HHH, Rock, Big Show etc to do a straight singles match and draw similal numbers to what Austin had done previously. In order to get that high buyrate, he had to take the unprecedented step of throwing together all his big stars into one match as well as the entire McMahon family. It took 8 superstars in effect to draw a slightly better buyrate than Austin drew with Rock the year before. The fact that Vince would go to such lengths speaks volumes for the importance of Austin as he saw it.

As for these great numbers that Austin supposedly brings which no one else can touch (I think that's highly debateable as the stats above show), how come Cyber Sunday last year in which Austin appeared as special referee for the Jericho/Batista match drew just 153,000 buys? To put that in perspective, in 2007 the show drew 194,000 buys and in 2006 the show drew 228,000 buys. Do you think if Hogan or Rock had been there that the buys for 2008 would have been that low? I doubt it!

Its a little unfair to expext a special guest referee, a decade after his peak, to draw signifigant numbers in a PPV that is traditionally one of the poorest drawing of the year, which is based on a deeply flawed concept and which has since been ditched. Going in, Austin was only one of the choices that people could vote on to be the referee: so he wasn't an advertised attraction for the show, so its a little bit unfair to expect him to affect buyrate when hes not even guaraneed to make an appearance! And to be perfectly honest Hogan, Austin and Rock combined couldn't save the disaster that was last year's Cyber Sunday!

I'm aware the Rock/Foley segment did an 8. something or other but I'm certain I read Meltzer report one time that a match with Rock and Shane was the most viewed Raw match. By the way, Edge and Lita didn't top the Foley/Rock segment rating surely?

I'm almost certain those numbers are correct, I might try and hunt down the appropriate quote from WON tomorrow. Rock/Foley did an 8.4 I think off the top of my head.

Edit: Actually the live sex celebration only did a 5.2, my apologies on that, the source I was using was incorrect.

It's true that just because Hogan paved the way for Austin it doesn't make him a bigger star but that is not the argument most of us have been making. What I think settles the debate is the undeniable fact that Hulk Hogan has transcended the wrestling business in a way that Stone Cold Steve Austin did not. That, I think, makes him the bigger star.

If we poll 100 random people on the street and 35 of them have heard of Stone Cold but 85 of them have heard of Hulk Hogan then it is abundantly clear who the bigger star is. It doesn't mean Hogan is more important to the wrestling industry, it means Hogan benefitted from his association with the industry more than Austin did.

This right here is the real nub of the issue. I think we can both agree that Hogan had more longevity at the top of the wrestling busines, while Austin's run, while shorter, was more successful in terms of making money and drawing fans.

The phrase "Hogan transcended the business" has been used by yourself and several others but in what sense do you believe that to be true? His film career was God awful and films in which he was the main attraction had little success. Likewise his TV appearanes.

Again the argument that seems to be coming up repeatedly is the amount of people that have heard of the respective men. As you say, if you polled 100 random people, Hogan would most likely be the more recognised name. Would it be close? I really have no idea, to my knowledge such a poll has never been done, but I don't think it would be landslide victory for Hogan by any means. If 80% had heard of Hogan and 50% had heard of Austin, would that settle our argument for once and for all? I really don't think so. Because Hogan had a longer run over a 25 year span at the top of the wrestling industry he would naturally have a much wider age group of people who would have grown up with Hogan. Austin on the other hand had a career that was curtailed by injury and so his run at the top of the wrestling industry was limited to 5-6 years and a much narrower age group would thus be familiar with him. It has little to do with Hogan transcending wrestling and more to do with the length of Hogan's run on top. I still maintain that Austin's success while at this height, which is unparralleled in the history of the business, makes him the biggest star of all time.

Basically, the argument of name recognition is purely hypothetical and has enough variables involved for there to be some room for argument with the result on both sides. Its not a definitive way of settling this argument either way. In fact the beauty of this debate (and its one I've seen rage on and off for years, without any conclusion) is that theres a compelling arguent to be made on both sides. Like any great argument, its not black and white by any means, there are many shades of grey, which make it a most enjoyable topic to debate back and forth like this!

Mr.Nice Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

He had what, a 10 minute cameo in the Rocky III and wasn't even important to the plotline. Anyone could have played the part of Thunder Lips in fairness. His being in the film had absolutely no bearing on the success or otherwise of the film in reality. My point was, when he made films in his own right they bombed spectacularly. The point that has been made repeatedly by you and several others is that Hogan "transcended wrestling." Surely if he had really done so, he would have been able to sell film on the back of this apparent fame and popularity. But he didn't.

Maybe my saying Rock wasn't in their league was an exagerration, but I'm glad you agree that he simply wasn't as big or important a star in terms of the wrestling industry as Hogan/Austin as this is a commonly accepted fact. Of course the success of his film career further clouds the issue as you could now say he has transcended wrestling more successfully than either Hogan or Austin. And where does that leave us?:pac:

Hogan's cameo wasn't important to the film true enough but I think it's fair to say it was very important for him in terms of putting him into the public spotlight. The fact he's a godawful actor I think is accepted by everybody but his acting skills don't take away from the fact he successfully broke into the mainstream spotlight helping bring wrestling to the masses.

Your argument that because of his weak films he didn't transcend wrestling I can't agree with. That's like saying if Paris Hilton is truly a mainstream personality then she should have been able to make House of Wax a smash hit. A crap movie is a crap movie and a crap actor, no matter how well known, won't change that. Likewise Eric Cantona's recent film doesn't need to be a box office smash to prove Cantona is a star. I'm sure we agree on that one.

Rock's better movie career doesn't necessarily make him the biggest mainstream star as that supposes only films account for getting over with the audience. Hogan was on talk shows a lot more than Rock or Austin I would say and was perhaps a bigger hero to the kiddies than Rock and Austin so could further branch into the mainstream that way, as well as the TV and film appearances.

flahavaj wrote:

Certainly I have no problem acknowledging the importance of the other main players in the Attitude era. This is the most sucessful era in the istory of pro wrestling we're talking about and to say it was solely down to one guy would be extremely short sighted of me. But he was the top guy. Perhaps the best way to put it is this: Austin was the reason the Attitude Era even existed in the first place, and without him to cause the boom in business that brought it about, there never would have been the environment for the likes of the Rock et al to flourish.

I can accept Austin was the top guy but to say the Attitude Era would not have existed without him I feel is a bit of a stretch. It would perhaps not have caught the public imagination as well as it did, but the reality is there was a mood for a counter-culture product as evidenced by ECW's growth in popularity. If there had been no Austin there would still have been Shawn Michaels, Hunter, The Rock, Mick Foley jumping off Cells and all the other whackiness. Vince wanted it so it was going to happen. WCW were doing the counter-culture stuff and WWF had to get with the times or else die. Austin was the perfect fit for the era but it was going to happen with or without him.

flahavaj wrote:

Yes WM 16 did around 100,000 buys more than WM 17. But remember the boom had already begun and the whole industry was riding the crest of a wave of massive massive popualrity, much of which was down to Austin. I used WM 16 as an example of how Austin was viewed by Vince as being so important to business. He didn't have the confidence in his other Main Event players, HHH, Rock, Big Show etc to do a straight singles match and draw similal numbers to what Austin had done previously. In order to get that high buyrate, he had to take the unprecedented step of throwing together all his big stars into one match as well as the entire McMahon family. It took 8 superstars in effect to draw a slightly better buyrate than Austin drew with Rock the year before. The fact that Vince would go to such lengths speaks volumes for the importance of Austin as he saw it.

You said before no one could touch Austin's numbers and that "Vince knew well that any two out of HHH, Rock, Foley or Big Show wouldn't have drawn anywhere NEAR the numbers Austin did in singles main events the years before AND after."

This has been shown not to be the case. I think the Rock vs the McMahon/Helmsley storyline was responsible for most of the buys and not Big Show, Foley, Shane, Vince, Linda etc. I'd say their effect was minimal. Surely it's fair to say The Rock was responsible for most of the buyrate. The same guy who did a huge number alongside Austin the year before. The fact is Austin was not irreplaceable and if he had been so important to the numbers as you suggest, then surely they would have had him appear on the show a month before he did so at Backlash.

flahavaj wrote:

Its a little unfair to expext a special guest referee, who hadn't wrestled in 6 or 7 years to draw signifigant numbers in a PPV that is traditionally one of the poorest drawing of the year, which is based on a deeply flawed concept and which has since been ditched. Going in, Austin was only one of the choices that people could vote on to be the referee: so he wasn't an advertised attraction for the show, so its a little bit unfair to expect him to affect buyrate when hes not even guaraneed to make an appearance! And to be perfectly honest Hogan, Austin and Rock combined couldn't save the disaster that was last year's Cyber Sunday!

Is it really unfair to expect a guy who is supposedly the biggest star in the history of pro wrestling to get a better buyrate than 153,000 buys? I know he wasn't guaranteed to appear but realistically wrestling fans knew he would likely win the vote. If Hogan or Rock were on the card, even if they were not guaranteed to win the vote, I'm confident they'd get a higher buyrate.

flahavaj wrote:

This right here is the real nub of the issue. I think we can both agree that Hogan had more longevity at the top of the wrestling busines, while Austin's run, while shorter, was more successful in terms of making money and drawing fans.

The phrase "Hogan transcended the business" has been used by yourself and several others but in what sense do you believe that to be true? His film career was God awful and films in which he was the main attraction had little success. Likewise his TV appearanes.

When I say he transcended the business I mean he became in essence the poster boy for pro wrestling. His unique, cartoonish look and his catchphrases made him into a larger-than-life personality. When he'd appear people would say, "That's Hulk Hogan the wrestler". As I said before, the fact he was an atrocious actor doesn't detract from the personality that he had. Hogan reached into the public consciousness around the world in a way no other wrestler has managed to do since, including Austin.

flahavaj wrote:

Again the argument that seems to be coming up repeatedly is the amount of people that have heard of the respective men. As you say, if you polled 100 random people, Hogan would most likely be the more recognised name. Would it be close? I really have no idea, to my knowledge such a poll has never been done, but I don't think it would be landslide victory for Hogan by any means. If 80% had heard of Hogan and 50% had heard of Austin, would that settle our argument for once and for all? I really don't think so. Because Hogan had a longer run over a 25 year span at the top of the wrestling industry he would naturally have a much wider age group of people who would have grown up with Hogan. Austin on the other hand had a career that was curtailed by injury and so his run at the top of the wrestling industry was limited to 5-6 years and a much narrower age group would thus be familiar with him. It has little to do with Hogan transcending wrestling and more to do with the length of Hogan's run on top. I still maintain that Austin's success while at this height, which is unparralleled in the history of the business, makes him the biggest star of all time.

Surely the fact you agree Hogan would likely gain more recognition from people does settle the argument as to who was the bigger star? The points you make about Hogan's run being longer than Austin are certainly valid and in that sense Austin is admittedly unlucky but that is the way it worked out. Your reason for saying Austin was the bigger star seems to be limited to the industry of pro wrestling. You note his unparallelled success at the height of his career. I understand all that but feel this is a limited view on the two men. Star power ought to take into account non wrestling fans too.

I think this is where you and I differ because I feel we should look at overall pop culture so to speak and the impact the men had on that area, whereas you seem to want to focus just on the importance to pro wrestling.

flahavaj wrote:

Basically, the argument of name recognition is purely hypothetical and has enough variables involved for there to be some room for argument with the result on both sides. Its not a definitive way of settling this argument either way. In fact the beauty of this debate (and its one I've seen rage on and off for years, without any conclusion) is that theres a compelling arguent to be made on both sides. Like any great argument, its not black and white by any means, there are many shades of grey, which make it a most enjoyable topic to debate back and forth like this!

Yes it's one of those things that will continue to be debated over the years and I'm sure everyone will adopt their own slant on it as we have.

I reckon orestes needs to settle this by roaming the streets with his billboard to find out what the people of Ireland think about the two guys. :cool:

flahavaj

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yes it's one of those things that will continue to be debated over the years and I'm sure everyone will adopt their own slant on it as we have.

I reckon orestes needs to settle this by roaming the streets with his billboard to find out what the people of Ireland think about the two guys. :cool:

I'd start a thread in After Hours asking who they've heard of, but I'd be afraid they'd laugh at me.:pac::o

And I'd argue with the result if/when Hogan won anyway.:p

I can't bring myself to reply to all your points MNG I'm sorry, I'm not even sure who's right anymore,:o except to say Cantona became a star in the eyes of the world the day he booted that pikey in the chest. Now thats how you transcend your sport.:pac:

Nice debating with you again, its been far loo long.;)

Jolt2007

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I reckon orestes needs to settle this by roaming the streets with his billboard to find out what the people of Ireland think about the two guys. :cool:

In fairness, that would only settle who's the biggest star in Ireland, not worldwide. Send him round the world to major countries and we'll get somewhere then. Although god forbid the people end up throwing more names around and muddy this debate further like I'm doing now by just replying this. It's been good reading so far boys, do continue :pac: