Blog Question – Hogan v Warrior

Question for the Blog about the Hogan / Warrior attempted passing of the torch.

The WWF previously, when trying to get the title from a face to another face, would either turn the champion heel (Savage) or have a transitional heel champion (Koloff, Sheik).

If they had tried having an interim heel champion between Hogan and Warrior, would things have turned out better? You could have had someone like Perfect / Rude etc. defeat Hogan through nefarious means at the Main Even or Rumble. Warrior then beats that heel at WMVI, while Hogan has a go at movies.

The WWF still then has the possible Warrior / Hogan match in its proverbial back pocket. If Warrior is tanking as champion, you have Hogan take the title back (with or without a Warrior turn) since Hogan ‘never really lost the title’. If Warrior is doing well, you get the second payday of him going over Hogan to cement his status as the ‘true’ champion.

Or would Hogan simply have nixed losing the belt to a transitional champ, even via screwjob?

​Well, again I feel the need to point out that back in early 1990 when it was looking like Mike Tyson might do something with the WWF, there was the very real (although HIGHLY unlikely) possibility that there might be a Hogan v. Tyson match at WM. In that instance, Hogan losing the belt to Savage at Main Event #3 to set up WWF champion Savage v. Warrior and Hogan v. Tyson as WM co-mains would be the logical conclusion. ​However, in that case, Warrior is immediately second fiddle to Hogan, so I don’t see how that helps him either.

Really, the problem was the followup, not the title change.