Originally Posted by GillbergReturns
Most of these examples are pretty poor. Top guys have the freedom to often pick and choose who they want to work with and protect their character. Austin did it. Hart did it. Rock did it. Cena does it. Punk does it. I guess it's only an issue if you don't like that wrestler.
No doubt Hogan has repeatedly flexed that muscle but that's life as a top guy and just about anyone whose ever been champ will tell you how big of a target was put on their back.
If from 84-90 Hogan refused a job tough nuggets he was absolutely correct to do that. He was undisputedly the biggest act in the industry. He also has the right to avoid certain situations that would make him look like Cena. That's brand protection. To me it's only politics if he's flexing his muscle and it's hurting the product. Sting v Hogan was an example of Hogan wrongly using creative control. Hogan is not responsible for Justice failing a drug test. If that outcome was changed because Sid was no longer a player well that's on Sid.
I wouldn't classify Hogan v Warrior 2 never happening as politics. That would require one to turn heel and while the discussion certainly took place it's just something both guys would be very hesitant to pull the trigger on. Once again it's brand protection. WM 7 was the right way to go but I do think there's an argument that could be made that Warrior Savage should have been the title match.
I thought I was the only one thinking this when I saw the "examples" of Hogan's politics. I think Hogan's politics did come into play post '92 though when Hogan was pretty much being phased out a bit from the top spot.
I can break down many of those "political agendas" of Hogan.
Hulk Hogan was a rock star in this year and was rubbing shoulders with the very popular Mr. T. The Piper feud was definitely the right program. Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat against Hogan would not work in 1985 and Steamboat was never turned because promoters felt no one would boo him if he even shot a guy inside the ring(true statement).
1986- The actual story I heard about the original main event was that Snuka was going to turn heel and face Hogan in the cage to play off Snuka's famous cage history. Snuka claims Hogan turned it down saying he didn't trust Snuka to work safe. This is what led to Snuka leaving the company apparently.
I do think politics may have played apart here with Hogan because Snuka was MASSIVELY over. He was a threat to Hulk Hogan' spot. HOWEVER, Snuka's problems were obvious and there was a reason why he was not in a match at the original Mania and was just a corner man. Who would you side with Hogan or Snuka in this scenario? I think the answer is simple.
Savage being in the main event of WM 2 is not what was planned from what I've researched. It was suppose to be Ricky Steamboat vs. Randy Savage, but the match never happened. It got pushed to the following year. I think we can all agree the wrestling world was better off having the match in front of the biggest crowd in history which changed wrestling.
Hogan vs. Orndorff made sense for Hogan to win the feud. It was like Bruno vs. Zybysko sort of with the turn. Hogan and Orndorff feud ended at SNME in a cage because the company got Andre to return and turn heel. Hogan/Orndorff in a cage was going to be the main event of WM 3 if Andre wasn't able to return. I think it's obvious why the program went the way it did. Hogan winning was the right call in that Orndorff feud.
When Hulk Hogan lost the title for the first time in 4 years MANY inside the WWF felt there was going to be a riot. Hogan was THAT over. The controversial finish was used to create confusion and lessen the blow. Again, that finish was brilliant although I do agree with some old school fans that it was a bit too sports entertainment-ish which hurt some credibility of the belt.
Hogan losing the belt was always going to go back to Hogan. Savage got the title out of the whole IC title debacle in terms of politics from Honky Tonk Man on the NBC special. Savage turning face was the right call months before because he was GETTING CHEERS as a heel even after losing the belt to Steamboat. The audience knows talent. The whole Mega-Powers angle actually made Savage bigger and was one of the biggest angles in wrestling history(WM V was never touched ppv buy rate wise until 1998 with the rise of Austin).
Hogan and Jake "The Snake" is a strange scenario because at the time pitting the two of them against each other after the Snake Pit with Jake getting cheers for DDTing Hogan was a conflict of interest. This one is a toss up because Hogan vs. Snake would have been great. Jake "The Snake" was odd because he was even cheered against Savage on SNME before Savage did the whole ring bell incident on Steamboat. It was just easier to turn Jake "The Snake" face it seems.
Now 1990 gets a little bit muddled I agree. The WWF could have went the simple route and just did Hogan vs. Perfect for the main event as planned, but the company was looking toward the future especially since Hogan was taking time off again to do movies. It seemed the perfect time to pull the trigger on Warrior being the heir apparent since he was rivaling Hogan's popularity.
The problem came when some didn't want this in the audience as Warrior did get some boos post WM VI in certain arenas for beating Hogan. It wasn't that they hated Warrior, but they still wanted Hogan as the champion. Jack Tunney also made an announcement that he would NOT grant Hogan a rematch(this would prevent any backlash supposedly if Warrior took off as champion and Hogan never got a rematch which would create conflicts and Hogan was also put out of action by Earthquake soon after) The gates were starting to fall too and supposedly Vince rushed Hogan's comeback for SummerSlam (it was a reason for the strange finish to the match to extend the feud).
I hated the Sgt. Slaughter crap and I do think Warrior should have retained as his popularity was back at fever pitch against Slaughter(it was a fresh match at least compared to the rerun of the Rude feud). I also do think Warrior vs. Savage should have been the main event of WM VII. However, let us not forget the WWF was trying to break records with WM VII at LA Coliseum and I can't see them thinking it was possible without having Hogan in the main event which was planned months before.
1991 is a strange year as I think it really was a time where Hogan was starting to lose it. The steroid allegations didn't help either. In hindsight, the company could have done a different scenario at MSG for SummerSlam that included Sid and Warrior and Hogan, but you also had Flair coming in too. If all things were aligned with the stars I think Hogan vs. Flair at MSG at SummerSlam would have been a HUGE success(off topic I know).
Vince promised Sid the main event of Mania, but he also promised Flair too which is why it was billed a DOUBLE MAIN EVENT. Hogan and Vince also felt it was better for Hogan to get out of dodge with all the steroid allegations which was having some fans turn on him.
Hogan in 1993 is a different beast though. He was obviously trying to protect his spot at the cost of the company. The same with WCW. Sting and Goldberg obvious times Hogan played politics. Those two should have just taken the torch and ran with it for WCW.