Hogan’s First Title Reign

After the success of the first three Wrestlemanias with Hulk Hogan on top, do you think it was time to take the belt off Hulk in the run-up to WM4? I know it gave us a (for the time) shocking moment with Andre's title win and subsequent "sale" of the belt to Dibiase as well as the ascent of Randy Savage to the top of the company. However, the poster for WM4 still had Hulk/Andre on it and the product never shifted from Hogan even when Savage went to the top. Nor should it have. So my question is: was it worth taking the belt off Hogan in 1987 or should they have just let Hogan carry the belt in perpetuity, ala Bruno and Backlund before him?

It didn't hurt anything to and it gave them an interesting enough angle to do something different at WM4. But would a 5-6 year Hogan reign have been worth doing instead? You could still get to Hogan vs. Savage at WM5 easily enough. The MegaPowers still team up (WWF and IC champs) against Dibiase & Andre. Savage gets jealous and wants his shot at the title. Heel turn and you're in the same wheelhouse. Plus, when Warrior beats him at WM6, it's even bigger because he's dethroning Hulk after a 5-6 year reign. These were not the days of hot-shotting a title switch for a PPV boost. Champs reigning for years on end was the norm and Hulkamania was not showing any signs of slowing down back then. Hogan remained the focal point either way, so do you think, objectively, there was a need for Hogan to lose the belt in '87? (I do recognize that we all have Randy Savage biases and might answer "yes" just for the sake of Randy being champ in '88).

What are your thoughts?