Bracket 1:

http://www.bracketmaker.com/tmenu.cfm?tid=422229

Which means, the semifinals of this particular bracket are:

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

This is a pretty advantageous bracket for Hogan. Where he might have run into trouble taking on a great in-ring competitor in the bracket finals, Rocky just isn't that. In that sub-category, it's mediocre vs. sub-par, and I just don't think it's enough to counter the other advantages that I believe Hogan to hold in that matchup.

(I only stop short of calling Hogan something worse like "terrible" in terms of his ringwork because I do think that he was very psychologically sound in his storytelling. He just didn't have anything else going for him from bell-to-bell.)

Hogan
Undertaker

He could go in the ring. Check out his work before 1985 for proof. Some matches on YT would be w/Hansen vs Inoki/Backlund, vs Hansen, w/Hansen vs Dusty and Inoki. Also when he worked with Muta in 93 he showed he had ability.

Hogan vs Muta in a match you'll never watch.

Given the chance I'd say Hogan would've been a better wrestler than Rock but Vince didn't want a wrestler.

The Undertaker's shear longevity and number of great angles should vault him above Rock, imo.

Yes the Rock had some amazing angles, great matches, and his work with Stone Cold may be considered some of the GOAT, but you can't deny that Taker has put on nothing short of multitudes of great matches, is underrated on the mic (imo), and has had some of the most memorable moments in wrestling history.

In a GOAT wrestler draft, I think Taker has a legit shot at being above Rock. Don't get me wrong, it was very close for me, but I'm comfortable with my choice.

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

And yeah, Hogan's Japanese work was much better than his American work but it doesnt get past the simple fact that Kenta Kobashi is similarly as popular and a much better in ring worker in every possible sense producing many more great matches. Also Hogan is a complete douche which if we are including Benoit's murders we have to include Hogan murdering the careers of a bunch of wrestlers and beating his wife (allegedly) and that stupid bandanna he wears to hide the fact he has been bald apparently since his 20s.

Hogan is a career jobber with a terrible gimmick with no acting chops and below average mic skills who was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

L O L

I think Taker is overrated just about everywhere. Where are his great matches? He put on a few good matches with HBK, Angle, and a HiaC w/Lesnar but other than that idk and that's over 21 years in WWF/E. He's had longevity thanks to the constant tweaking of character and been put in good storylines. imo he's never been "the man" and never had big drawing power. Rock was ok in the ring, superb on the mic, was "the man" (along side SCSA) despite not being champ much, and had a ton of drawing power.

i based my vote here similarly to how i voted for Austin yesterday. Hogan ushered new fans in and created the rock and roll era. There is no denying Kobashi's matches, draw, and popularity but AJPW would've been fine without him, we can't say the same for the WWF w/o Hogan.

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

I think of Taker as the best central defender in the world in football. He doesnt get the big press as the strikers (which Rock would clearly be) scoring the goals but they are extremely important to a team and are as important in victories as anyone else on the team.

In the case of Taker he got a bad draw this round and yeah, not much to say, but if Hogan can get votes for being popular then a guy who has had that longevity of 2 decades plus at main event level putting on solid to great matches with just about anyone and drawing in crowds and constantly being in a story with someone and was able to launch careers and did put people over to build them up off the back of his consistent popularity makes him a really really great wrestler. The guy is a constant professional in and out of the ring even when he was left shovelling **** way more than he should have if he had really pushed his power more often like other wrestlers would do.

But yeah, like i say, the Rock is the Rock, its going to take a lot of wrestler to beat him.

Edit, plus i say this as a guy who lobbied against him in round one, lol.

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

I absolutely hate myself for both votes.

I mean this is all downright crazy, but when you insert the "terrible gimmick" part it makes your case just downright incoherent.

If Hogan didn't do anything right to attain his lofty perch, then that would really only leave him as someone who got a great gimmick handed to him that propelled him to superstardom (see: like the first six years of Mark Callaway's WWF career), and he was just along for the ride.

Not that I would agree about that assessment of Hogan either. His acting (for wrestling purposes) was quite good and he sold vulnerability in a way that Cena and Punk could take serious lessons from today. He spent years making piece of **** workers look like credible world title contenders in his feuds with them, and that all boils down to acting ability.

On any objective measure, his mic work was quite good too. After all, this was an era where the WWF didn't carelessly give away free world champion matches on a regular basis, so Hogan's promos were a big part of what kept fans so breathlessly awaiting his next appearance in the ring.

The man could talk, told a good story in his feuds and matches, and was spot-on in selling the big climactic moments. It wasn't by accident that Hulkamania went on without being significantly tweaked for a whole damn decade before people finally decided it was getting stale. That goes far beyond what simply being in right place at the right time could accomplish.

On a personal favorite wrestlers power ranking (hey, that seems like a decent thread idea, above and beyond the more narrow "who is your favorite wrestler? thread), he would be very low for me too. But I do think the level of hate he gets from a lot of smarks is way over-the-top. Even Bret Hart, who can't stand the man because of their backstage dealings, gave Hulk full credit as a great professional wrestler (given all that is encompassed in that label) in his book.

Yeah this is pretty much the exact post I was going to make in response to Wally. Co-signed.

And thanks for the Hogan-Muta link. I'm interested, and I hope to prove your "you'll never watch" statement wrong.

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock

Hulk Hogan vs. Kenta Kobashi
Undertaker vs. The Rock This was by far the hardest vote in this tournament. I just think Taker's longevity and ring work makes him slightly edge out Dwayne. There's never been someone as big as Taker that has been able to consistently have goo to great matches.

**** the hulk hogan, I vote Kobashi.

And Undertaker overtakes The Rock

To me, Taker pretty much had nothing but bad matches until about 1996, when he made noticeable strides to improve in the latter half of the year (he spent the first half of the year fighting Goldust and the matches were horrendous). Even after that, you'd be really hard-pressed to find good-to-great matches against wrestlers outside of those good enough to be in this tournament. Seems like the worst workers that he had good matches against were the likes of Brock Lesnar and Mick Foley, and obviously both of those guys are far from bad by any measure.

As big men go, few have ever been better, but that pretty much makes him Bam Bam Bigelow with a way better gimmick and longer career. And with a different weight distribution.

I think his biggest advantage in this competition is that his historical impact on the industry may be better than Rocky's. As awesome as Rocky was, I don't necessarily think him to be revolutionary in much of what he did. Taker was, given the pleasant transformation he underwent from being a big stiff to being a very mobile and agile big man. I'd like to think he will inspire a crop of big men to be like him in the ring rather than being like Giant Gonzalez or Nailz.

That said, the edges in mic work and drawing power are just too damn strong for Rocky for me to have voted against him here.

Part of why Taker didn't have a lot of good matches early on was because Vince just constantly booked him against terrible wrestlers.

That is part of it, but the point is that there's a certain category of worker who is very easily carryable to a good match but who can't do the carrying himself. Taker is firmly in that category. A modern-day guy who comes to mind like this is Miz.

I noted the Goldust/Taker feud example deliberately because Dustin a worker who, while decidedly non-elite, is a guy you should be able to have good matches with if you're good, and certainly shouldn't have any horrible matches with. Jake Roberts was another worker on that Dustin level who Taker was booked against and the results weren't very good.

Longevity works in Taker's favor where overness and continued entertainment value is concerned, but works against him in terms of the number of great matches he has during his career. 20 years in the company and I don't know that someone could name 10 great matches.