[Kurt 'Olympic Gold]

As their main and ultimate Star?

In all previous DVD documentaries and normals shows (before they went to TNA), WWE always put Hogan and Flair as the main stars (which is understandable because they are the two biggest Stars), but seeing they went to TNA WWE obviously won't acknowledge them.

Seeing as HBK always has and will be true to WWF/E, I think that WWE from now on will put over HBK as their number 1 Star is the entire history. In a few years HBK ofcourse will be a Hall of Famer and he'll probably be put over as that Star at that time including the buildup promo's.

Do you think that would be good? I think it would would make huge sense, seeing that HBK has always been true to Vince and obviously was a great performer.

 

[thegreatdarius]

they already made him number one in the latest dvd of greatest superstar

 

[The BoogeyMan]

Great thread. Yes with guys like Hogan, Flair, Savage, Warrior etc it's understandable that HBK take the new number one spot, and rightfully so. We'll probably see Bret Hart rise up the numbers now that he's cool with Vince.

 

[Chismo]

The real question is, how the hell is HBK bigger star than The Undertaker?

 

[gohel50]

The real question is, how the hell is HBK bigger star than The Undertaker?

Well, he's better in the ring, he's better on the mic...

 

[Chismo]

Well, he's better in the ring, he's better on the mic...

So, that makes him a bigger star than Taker?

 

[HeartBreak&Triumph]

So, that makes him a bigger star than Taker?

If you count DX, HBK is a way bigger star than Taker.

 

[Chismo]

If you count DX, HBK is a way bigger star than Taker.

It's the end of 2010, and when I look back at the last 20 years, I see The Undertaker as the bigger star. Just my opinion.

 

[peowulf]

If you count DX, HBK is a way bigger star than Taker.

No he isn't. It's not even debatable. Better overall? Maybe. Bigger star? Not even close.

 

[DevilsFavouriteDem]

It's the end of 2010, and when I look back at the last 20 years, I see The Undertaker as the bigger star. Just my opinion.

THIS

I agree wholeheartedly! Pro-Wrestling struck gold with The Undertaker. As a concept and as a character they unearthed something huge and massive; If pro-wrestling was an art, IMHO The Undertaker is the consummate by-product of all pro-wrestling gimmickry ever conceived. I don't know how they came up with his gimmick or why it works, but my mind has been blown away by The Undertaker for decades and I'm sure many will attest to that.

HBK is great, but I'd like to see Undertaker booked as the greatest superstar of WWE.

 

[LBGetBack]

As their main and ultimate Star?

In all previous DVD documentaries and normals shows (before they went to TNA), WWE always put Hogan and Flair as the main stars (which is understandable because they are the two biggest Stars), but seeing they went to TNA WWE obviously won't acknowledge them.

Seeing as HBK always has and will be true to WWF/E, I think that WWE from now on will put over HBK as their number 1 Star is the entire history. In a few years HBK ofcourse will be a Hall of Famer and he'll probably be put over as that Star at that time including the buildup promo's.

Do you think that would be good? I think it would would make huge sense, seeing that HBK has always been true to Vince and obviously was a great performer.

Kinda hard to do that in terms of kayfabe, when the guy only won 4 heavyweight titles.

 

[LBGetBack]

THIS

I agree wholeheartedly! Pro-Wrestling struck gold with The Undertaker. As a concept and as a character they unearthed something huge and massive; If pro-wrestling was an art, IMHO The Undertaker is the consummate by-product of all pro-wrestling gimmickry ever conceived. I don't know how they came up with his gimmick or why it works, but my mind has been blown away by The Undertaker for decades and I'm sure many will attest to that.

HBK is great, but I'd like to see Undertaker booked as the greatest superstar of WWE.

Personally, I got sick of his gimmick YEARS ago. And I'd have a hard time putting a gimmick-based guy like that as the #1 guy. I greatly prefer the realistic feel you can go for with someone like HBK in feuds against Hart, HHH, Jericho, Flair, etc. A guy like Taker is limited......after the age of 10, it was kind've hard for me to buy into his feuds. Were some of them fun? Of course. But #1 guy? Too cartoonish for me.

 

[Noel]

Vince would never put HBK over Hogan for the simple fact that he created Hulkamania, he created what kick started pro-wrestling across the globe.

 

[DXfan99]

I agree with taker being the biggest star when i think wwe i dont think of hbk i think of taker.

 

[HHH Mark]

Yeah they are currently pretending he is the best ever, when in reality he is below the level of HHH, let alone that of Rock and Austin. This is probably just because he just left recently, but will make appearances every once in a while.

 

[Chris32482]

HBK should not even be in the discussion as WWE's greatest superstar. Greatest performer? Absolutely. But the fact is he never transcended pro-wrestling the way Hogan, Andre, Austin, Rock, and even Cena have done. Sorry, but Shawn Michaels just isn't a household name. Most non-fans have no idea who he is.

 

[sesel]

HBK is better performer than Taker? yes. Better on mic? I don't think so. In my opinion Taker should be the #1 star. He's always been loyal, always followed orders, he has an amazing character and he still work his ass to put a good match in this days.HBK is a huge professional but Taker is even more dedicated to the business.

 

[EraOfAwesome]

Yeah they are currently pretending he is the best ever, when in reality he is below the level of HHH, let alone that of Rock and Austin. This is probably just because he just left recently, but will make appearances every once in a while.

Ehh, Rock and Austin, yes.
But there is no way that HHH is more over in any way than HBK.

 

[Kurt 'Olympic Gold]

Kinda hard to do that in terms of kayfabe, when the guy only won 4 heavyweight titles.

It's not how many times you've been Champion, but what you do with it. For example, if you see the last few years we have seen quick Title switches which results in many counting Title reigns, for example Orton and Cena are 9x Champs. HBK may be a 4x Champ, but his reigns were much more credible because he was a better Champion, hell HBK was one of the best WWE Champions of all time.

 

[LBGetBack]

HBK may be a 4x Champ, but his reigns were much more credible because he was a better Champion, hell HBK was one of the best WWE Champions of all time.

No he wasn't. Not even close. 2 of his reigns were short and forgettable....his 2nd and 4th. His 3rd reign, he went from January to April without defending it due to injury. Not his fault, but still can't call that a great reign.

And while he put on good matches throughout his '96 reign, the fans didn't seem to buy into that reign nearly as much as they bought into the reigns of others in previous years. Hart was a better face champion in 93-94 than HBK in 96. I'd call '96 a "good" reign....not great. When I think of the best WWF/E champions, I don't think of HBK. Contrary to what you say, most of his runs were not very good.