Vote for the wrestler that you think had the better career in WWE (whether you base that on impact or match quality is your decision), from 1985 to 2005. Voting will end tomorrow morning at the latest. Please give the wrestler's name first and any explanation thereafter. Thanks.

Like I said in my earlier reply, Hulk Hogan is one of the universal names that I associate with WWF. Bret Hart isn't.

 

Hulk Hogan

Like I said with The Rock...

 

Hulk Hogan is a cultural icon. Bret Hart personifies wrestling. This is a wrestler tournament.

 

Bret Hart

Hogan.

 

You can argue about all the damage Hogan did, but I think his worst was in WCW and for a long time, it was justified in the WWF.

I never brought up the damege Hogan did. I am looking at matches. Hogan's good/great matches are few and far between when compared to Bret. Tis is another one of those matchups that tells us why you watch wrestling.

Bret Hart

 

Very close call for me but, as I said, the only two people that I would vote over Hogan were Bret Hart and The Rock.

See, I was under the impression that this wasn't all about matches and workrate. That's how my voting throughout this whole thing has went. The only criteria I've been using is WWF '85-present and whom entertained me more. Sometimes the entertainment comes in a non-wrestling role.

 

If it's workrate only, we all know that Bret is going to win the damn thing.

It could be both, I guess. But I think Bret's wrestling outshines Hogan' entertainment value any day of the week.

Bret Hart

 

Hart stuck around longer than Hogan did, had better matches and even near his exit, prepared the company for the future more than Hogan did.

Bret

Bret Hart

Bret Hart

See, I was under the impression that this wasn't all about matches and workrate. That's how my voting throughout this whole thing has went. The only criteria I've been using is WWF '85-present and whom entertained me more. Sometimes the entertainment comes in a non-wrestling role.

 

If it's workrate only, we all know that Bret is going to win the damn thing.

It's just a matter of opinion. I've personally been trying to balance a lot of different factors because I think you really can't just use a person's in-ring work as the only basis to determine who had a better "career", but other people feel differently. That's why it's a vote.

 

I don't think the vote comes down to why you watch wrestling (though that's a great way of making people feel guilty for their votes), I think the vote comes down to who you think did the most for the WWF as a company.

I think the vote comes down to who you think did the most for the WWF as a company.

Which is another way of saying Hulk Hogan or bust. Really, everyone has proven they have different criteria for voting. If it was workrate, it would be a three-way between Bret, Eddie and Benoit. If it was as a draw, probably Hogan, Rock and Austin and that is it.

 

I think the vote does come down to why you watch wrestling. When people say Taker did alot for the company, I disagree. I think the company did everything in their power to make him a monster... even to this day, at the expense of younger guys. If you vote for Taker od Hogan or Savage or Rock or Bret, it says alot aboutwh you like wrestling. It is also very telling that HHH is gone when he has been shoved down our throats more than anyone and is probably more influential on the company than anyone else.

Bret Hart

 

It's a total myth that everyone liked Hogan at some point. I never have liked him, and he never was an attraction for me.

Bret.

 

This is the toughest one. Hogan was the I watched wrestling for when I started, Bret (and HBK) changed the way I watched it and what I enjoyed more. Since I haven't reverted to liking matches with 500lb slugs being bodyslammed by the roided up superhero, I'm going with Bret.

Bret Hart

Hulk Hogan

Hogan

Bret

Bret

 

Bret's heel turn and feud with Austin is the kicker for me, and Hogan's doesn't count here, so.....