Jump to content

Justifying Heel Actions


Thomas Bugg
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Victator said:

You are not wrong on this and is a fair argument.

But let me add this, 

1. He had plausible deniability about Savage. Bad News was a clear and present threat. Also there was already tension here. Savage had weeks earlier allowed to fat guys to beat the tar out of Hulk after Hogan had spent months helping him. Including getting the WWF title for him. So I think he gets a mulligan,

2. Hogan and Warrior had been fighting head on for a bit, He also seemed to be targeting Rude and Barbarian. 

3, I think he attacked all of these gentlemen directly. No sneak attacks. Thought he could have done more for Tugboat. 

So I think you made a good argument for Sid. Who I admire from his tenure leading the Stud Stable to his heroic return slapping around Heath Slater. Sid was overcome by lust for the title. 

But can we not say Hogan is human and let his temper get the better of him?

Sure, we can say Hogan is human and let the temper get the better of him. But at the same time, even if both Savage and Warrior were collateral damage to trying to take out someone else, what's to say Hogan won't make you collateral damage if Flair has you leaned up on the ropes with his back turned, making him susceptible for Hogan to sneak up and eliminate you along with Flair? That's exactly how Savage got eliminated. Sid also just spent the last couple of years seeing every move Flair had (assuming we're allowed to carry WCW into this instead of WWF being its own insular universe, and considering Flair debuted parading the WCW belt around I think that's fair). So in Sid's mind:

- Hogan takes out his allies, collateral damage or not, in the Rumble.

- Flair is exhausted. He's been in there for an hour. You know his biggest weaknesses when he is exhausted, and the easiest way to eliminate him.

- Hogan is still fresh because he was gifted a late draw thanks to Jack Tunney ensuring that Hogan and Undertaker got spots from 21 to 30.

Flair is easy pickings, and if you want the title, Hogan is the biggest obstacle. So take Hogan out of the picture, pick off Flair, and you're the WWF champion!

Kinda hard to blame Sid for that. He could even make it up to Hogan by giving him the first title match so Hogan could get a fair one-on-one shot. But no, Hogan had to pull Sid out.

Sid was right. SID WAS RIGHT.

Edited by KDWI
Posted too soon! Whoops.
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a fair argument, I think preferably Sid and Hogan toss Flair simultaneously then fight directly. But its not an ideal world. I guess I would say that Sid was the victim of a year of frustration.  Going back to my original post  The feud with Slaughter was the most vicious he ever had. Then he is attacked on two fronts by Flair and Undertaker.

I think at the very least him pulling Sid out is understandable. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Matt D said:

So you think Hogan was justified as a heel? That's fair. You made a pretty good case for that.

His heel action was justified. If he had a full blown heel turn here it would have been justified. 

Would have been an interesting scenario. Heel Hogan vs Sid, Undertaker and maybe Savage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was a face who sometimes acted like a heel. 

It is a bit lost under the Real American deal, Hogan was the first ( at least it was noted in the magazines), face who would act heelish. He bragged in promos, he made threats and he would gutter fight. That I think was part of his appeal. He would not wait for managers to attack him twice, he would knock them on their ass. 
 

Very different from Bruno, Pedro or Backlund. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zev said:

Shades Of Grey in wrestling characters...before the Monday Night Wars?

Oooooh yeah!

 

I think him and Savage were a step in evolution toward what Austin and Rock were. 

 

2 hours ago, Wyld Samurai said:

My D&D game is weak... Chaotic Neutral?

I think chaotic good. Hogan made an attempt to be good. Though he thought the ends justified the means. Bashing Dibiase with a chair at WM 4 was a heel move. But was probably right in the long term. Since Dibiase was the greatest evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A consideration of alignment:

Spoiler

"Real American" Hulk Hogan, as a character, was Lawful Good. One could argue a Paladin in class if in agreement with the alignment and citing his references to saying his prayers and being thankful of God. While "Hulking Up" and finger wagging at the bad guy du jour might not necessarily be divine inspiration, it came from a place of faith in the little Hulksters. When he fought for his rights, fought for his life, he fought for them too.

After years of adventures and level ups, what with battling the Rowdy Bard, the Cowboy Ranger, The Mountain Giant, the Macho King, various Warlords and Barbarians, Hogan eventually ran out of folks to fight that were a challenge. There came a point where there was no need for the Paladin in the region. The Bard had reformed, the masses were now his loving audience. The Giant was forgiven, was seen as gentle, especially amongst folks that knew he'd helped rescue a princess in another realm. Different sorts of Warriors had been around, Ultimate Road Barbarians became the rage. The Paladin could leave. He'd done right by the populace.

He went to another region. But those of the faith, the little Hulksters, had either grown up and grown cynical, or just weren't in the territory. The folks thought him perhaps a bounty hunter, there for the money one could get for charging into Fearsome Castles and facing down the bad guys, no matter how Not Hot the place was. Oh, he was still a Good Guy, but not necessarily a Paladin.

When the people showed less faith in him, when he looked into the mirror every Monday, as that was when his encounters usually took place, he saw a guy that was there for the money. You know most fantasyland adventuring groups aim for once a week around the tabletop, he was of similar vein. The same guy that did have lust in his heart for Elizabeth, had also accepted work as a commando in the suburbs. He couldn't allow himself to believe that his No Holds Barred fighting from years ago was for anything but a cash grab. He was not a Paladin, maybe not even a Good Guy.

When Paladins lose their way, they lose some of their power. Some just become known as simple Fighters. Some take it one step further. For sake of Power, and a Glory that winds up being more akin to Infamy, some become Oath Breakers. They tell the folks to Stick It. Some of them become known as Blackguards. Unfortunate naming? Perhaps. But the Anti-Paladin tends to wind up in black armor, right in the middle of an unkind, motley crew. Razor wielding, Diesel engine tough Rogues, Giant-kin, and a few henchmen. They make it clear it's them first, the laws and rules of the land don't necessarily apply. Grown men get used as darts, if they want. They're not Good Guys. They're the Bad Guys. Say Hello.

 

The Hulkster was Lawful Good, Hollywood was Chaotic Evil.

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2017 at 1:31 PM, zev said:

A consideration of alignment:

  Hide contents

"Real American" Hulk Hogan, as a character, was Lawful Good. One could argue a Paladin in class if in agreement with the alignment and citing his references to saying his prayers and being thankful of God. While "Hulking Up" and finger wagging at the bad guy du jour might not necessarily be divine inspiration, it came from a place of faith in the little Hulksters. When he fought for his rights, fought for his life, he fought for them too.

After years of adventures and level ups, what with battling the Rowdy Bard, the Cowboy Ranger, The Mountain Giant, the Macho King, various Warlords and Barbarians, Hogan eventually ran out of folks to fight that were a challenge. There came a point where there was no need for the Paladin in the region. The Bard had reformed, the masses were now his loving audience. The Giant was forgiven, was seen as gentle, especially amongst folks that knew he'd helped rescue a princess in another realm. Different sorts of Warriors had been around, Ultimate Road Barbarians became the rage. The Paladin could leave. He'd done right by the populace.

He went to another region. But those of the faith, the little Hulksters, had either grown up and grown cynical, or just weren't in the territory. The folks thought him perhaps a bounty hunter, there for the money one could get for charging into Fearsome Castles and facing down the bad guys, no matter how Not Hot the place was. Oh, he was still a Good Guy, but not necessarily a Paladin.

When the people showed less faith in him, when he looked into the mirror every Monday, as that was when his encounters usually took place, he saw a guy that was there for the money. You know most fantasyland adventuring groups aim for once a week around the tabletop, he was of similar vein. The same guy that did have lust in his heart for Elizabeth, had also accepted work as a commando in the suburbs. He couldn't allow himself to believe that his No Holds Barred fighting from years ago was for anything but a cash grab. He was not a Paladin, maybe not even a Good Guy.

When Paladins lose their way, they lose some of their power. Some just become known as simple Fighters. Some take it one step further. For sake of Power, and a Glory that winds up being more akin to Infamy, some become Oath Breakers. They tell the folks to Stick It. Some of them become known as Blackguards. Unfortunate naming? Perhaps. But the Anti-Paladin tends to wind up in black armor, right in the middle of an unkind, motley crew. Razor wielding, Diesel engine tough Rogues, Giant-kin, and a few henchmen. They make it clear it's them first, the laws and rules of the land don't necessarily apply. Grown men get used as darts, if they want. They're not Good Guys. They're the Bad Guys. Say Hello.

 

The Hulkster was Lawful Good, Hollywood was Chaotic Evil.

 

I would say your biggest flaw (rest seemed solid) was saying he had lust for Elizabeth. That was a product of Savage jealously. At his core Savage never got over Hulk giving him the WWF title. His honor would not permit him to attack Hogan unprompted. So he needed to think he was defending Liz.

Savage is chaotic neutral. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Victator said:

I would say your biggest flaw (rest seemed solid) was saying he had lust for Elizabeth. That was a product of Savage jealously. At his core Savage never got over Hulk giving him the WWF title. His honor would not permit him to attack Hogan unprompted. So he needed to think he was defending Liz.

Savage is chaotic neutral. 

It seemed more likely there that Hogan DID have lust for Elizabeth, and it makes Hogan's road through the '80s work:

Since Hogan came in, he was given everything he wanted. Bob Backlund loses the title to the Iron Sheik, and Hogan could totally usurp his rematch clause to take the title, then never had to give him a rematch. Anything Hogan wanted in the '80s, he could have. The title, the mainstream, he was the star. 

It went to his head. He started ducking challengers, but he could justify it himself. He was too good a friend to Paul Orndorff or Andre the Giant- he wasn't really DUCKING them or trying not to give them a title shot, he didn't want to risk the friendship. And when both men finally saw through that and said "if being your friend means I can't be the World Champion- then I don't want to be your friend anymore", well, Hogan was right. He was protecting their friendship...and that led them to be vile villains.

Hogan knew from this- he could have anything he wanted. So when Savage had the title- he wanted the title back...and hey, it's Hogan. He wants Savage's girlfriend too. Who'll stop him? He's Hulk Hogan. That means he's right- and if he's wrong Gorilla Monsoon will just SAY he's right because he's Hogan, even if Jesse Ventura or Bobby Heenan say 'uh, hypocrite much?'.  He tried for it all- and in the end, Hogan got his title back, made the fans hate Savage, drove the love of Savage's life away from him...but he didn't get the girl either.

Instead, he got a valuable life lesson which helped...so next year when Ultimate Warrior said "I want a WWF Title shot", Hogan said "Sure. How's Wrestlemania?".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a theory in the magazines that Hogan wanted his belt back. He never lost it, so not really wrong. But Savage was a friend and he was loyal. 

So Hogan started feigning interest in Liz. Copping a feel here and there. But never blatant, just enough to mess with Savage. Then by happenstance, he emasculates Savage at Survivor Series by saving him from Haku, 

He tosses Savage from the Rumble whether accidentally or on purpose Savage was wounded. 

The main event was the final straw and Savage attacked Hogan and Hogan could take back what he never lost. 

So the question is did Hogan knowingly drive Savage over the deepend. 

It should also be noted Warrior is the only one who outright asked for a match. No ambush and no Heenan

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Victator said:


It should also be noted Warrior is the only one who outright asked for a match. No ambush and no Heenan

Well, he DID nail Hogan with a clothesline during SNME beforehand.  I mean, yeah, he could SAY it was an accident...

Just like Hogan probably did after tossing him from the Rumble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2017 at 6:18 PM, SorceressKnight said:

Since Hogan came in, he was given everything he wanted. Bob Backlund loses the title to the Iron Sheik, and Hogan could totally usurp his rematch clause to take the title, then never had to give him a rematch. Anything Hogan wanted in the '80s, he could have. The title, the mainstream, he was the star.

Hogan didn't usurp anyone or anything, Backlund was unable to compete in his return match with The Iron Sheik due to injury. Backlund could have taken a few weeks off after the title loss to heel his injured shoulder but he choose to compete and it cost him. In the weeks following Backlund's title loss you do not see his manager Arnold Skaaland by his side, maybe if Backlund would have had the Golden Boy there to advise him to rest his shoulder and work on a counter to the Camel Clutch he would have been able to compete at MSG that January evening. Backlund was his own worst enemy at that time, besides doing more damage to his injured shoulder by staying in the ring he got himself sidetracked by Captain Lou Albano and his Wild Samoans, if Backlund is focused on regaining the title he doesn't need to bring Hogan in to "help him" in that squabble with Albano's protegees.

Also Backlund never gave former champions Bruno Sammartino or Pedro Morales a shot to regain their title so why should Hogan give one to him?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happjack said:

Hogan didn't usurp anyone or anything, Backlund was unable to compete in his return match with The Iron Sheik due to injury. Backlund could have taken a few weeks off after the title loss to heel his injured shoulder but he choose to compete and it cost him. In the weeks following Backlund's title loss you do not see his manager Arnold Skaaland by his side, maybe if Backlund would have had the Golden Boy there to advise him to rest his shoulder and work on a counter to the Camel Clutch he would have been able to compete at MSG that January evening. Backlund was his own worst enemy at that time, besides doing more damage to his injured shoulder by staying in the ring he got himself sidetracked by Captain Lou Albano and his Wild Samoans, if Backlund is focused on regaining the title he doesn't need to bring Hogan in to "help him" in that squabble with Albano's protegees.

Also Backlund never gave former champions Bruno Sammartino or Pedro Morales a shot to regain their title so why should Hogan give one to him?

Reading magazines from 84, hey they are cheap.

Backlund in an interview said they outright refused to grant him a rematch. That he worked dates all around but with Iron Sheik they said he was too hurt. 

But I think you could say there is a difference in working Tiger Chung Lee hurt vs taking on the WWF Champion who injured you in the first place. 

Later they interviewed Hogan, this being before Vince was confident enough to try to cut off access to the magazines. 

They press him about not defending against Backlund or other fan favorites. He said he defended against whomever the WWF told him to and that it was not his job to offer title matches. 

You make a good point that Backlund never offered rematches to former champions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...