Hulk Hogan said that what he did there was the ultimate no-no.
I knew he was rambling, but they seemed to make a real huge deal out of it. "We had self-destructed", etc.
Can somebody explain what I missed or didn't pick up on?
Thanks.
Actually i was thinking the exact same thing.
It was actually a little comical. I was sitting there infront of my computer watching the DVD and this part comes, and hogan is just leading up to this story and building it up, and im just thinking of all the things warrior could have done that were the 'ultimate no-no'. It was actually pretty ridiculous. I didnt think what warrior said was as bad as hogan led on. You didnt miss anything. Basically Hogan's reasoning was that warrior shouldent have brought up wrestlemania six where he beat hogan, bringing up wrestlemania six and telling the crowd that he had already beat him was the ultimate no-no because why would fans want to buy tickets to see there match now? because they now know hogan lost to him already.
First of all warrior didnt have to say that for the fans to know that. Its one of the milestone matches in professional wrestling history, no one will ever forget it. In my mind, i think Warrior bringing that up was good because it establishes a clear rivalry between the two and helps fans understand why these two guys would have it out for eachother.
Hogan was making something out of nothing.
Thank you
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hah, I love this DVD! I dunno why others hate it, brings back TONS of memories from the pre-RAW days.
Warrior sure knows how to talk, man........
And just a few years ago, I found out that the Disciple was Brutus Beefcake (Ed Leslie). I had no idea it was him for a while when he started with that gimmick.
In God WWE Trust
I always thought that Warrior made a mistake in bringing up Wrestlemania VI because it's essentially laying out the entire premise for the match: Hogan lost, and now he has to win. It became too clear that the match wouldn't have happened if it were just another Warrior victory.
share[deleted]
Being a Rematch of one of the most legendary matches in history was the whole point of that feud.
Honestly, I think it's the stupidest criticism on the DVD, and why doens't Hogan and Eric BisCoff scold themselves for the completely tasteless Andre the Giant references use din building the Hogan Giant feud in 95.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
It was the stupidest criticism, but here's Hogan's (likely) logic in what he was saying.
I think his point was Warrior was the face chasing the heel Hogan, and mentioning a previous match in which Warrior defeated Hogan pretty much told you that Hogan would *have to* win the rematch, otherwise there would be no point in continuing the feud. So basically what Hogan was trying to say was that Warrior went into business for himself by hyping how he already beat Hogan, despite the fact that he was the face chasing the heel and they were tyring to setup a long-running feud between the two that would have lasted a couple of PPVs at least.
Also, in the territory days you never mentioned previous matches you had with the same opponent because it killed the luster and originality of the match to the crowd. I mean, why would Denver be as excited to see Flair Vs. Steamboat when they did the exact same match in Charlotte, San Antonio, St. Louis, etc.?
That's what I THINK Hogan was getting at. However, I'm of the belief that Hogan only brought in Warrior so he could beat him at Havoc and get his loss back. From many *beep* Hogan was upset at jobbing to Warrior and is still bitter about it to this day.
Yeah I guess that's it, their applying an outdated rule to modern wrestling.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"