H Tonk Man is better than Foley. He was a “main eventer” in the golden era guys. Everyone knows him. A top guy. As big as Hogan too. Of course he’s not better than Scott Hall though. Obviously.
Saying Foley was in Savage league just prove that you were not around until the Monday Night War. Saying Foley was an equal to Savage is a slap in the face to Savage, who was arguably the second biggest draw in North America, from his WWE debut in 85, until early 1990.
Savage went on to be a top star for the entire decade of the 90s. This is the problem with the forum. Most people were too young to remember the 80s boom, and only consider what happened from 1996 onward important. To hell with the 80s stars.
Honestly it seems more of a certain bias towards the Attitude era more then anything else. Wrestling didn't matter until The Attitude Era. Forget about Hogan,Macho,NWO,4 Horsemen,Andre,Flair and others. If they didn't wrestle or it didn't happen in the Attitude era then it doesn't matter.
Honestly it seems more of a certain bias towards the Attitude era more then anything else. Wrestling didn't matter until The Attitude Era. Forget about Hogan,Macho,NWO,4 Horsemen,Andre,Flair and others. If they didn't wrestle or it didn't happen in the Attitude era then it doesn't matter.
He wasn't a major player at all. He's a big guy so he got a program with Hogan and had a solid career (memorable feuds with Dibiase, Mountie) but all things considered he may be top 15 in the golden era.
In the AE he was nothing but a hardcore champ other than his random push v Show.
He wasn't a major player at all. He's a big guy so he got a program with Hogan and had a solid career (memorable feuds with Dibiase, Mountie) but all things considered he may be top 15 in the golden era.
In the AE he was nothing but a hardcore champ other than his random push v Show.
So what are you saying. You’re trashing Bossman for what? Clearly you are just biased against the Golden and Attitude era. If only Bossman was a top guy like Hall during the booming new gen. THEN he’d really be somebody.
He wasn't a major player at all. He's a big guy so he got a program with Hogan and had a solid career (memorable feuds with Dibiase, Mountie) but all things considered he may be top 15 in the golden era.
In the AE he was nothing but a hardcore champ other than his random push v Show.
He wrestled Show for the title at Armageddon 99 you can tell the company didn't think it was main event worthy because they booked HHH vs Vince as the main event.
So what are you saying. You’re trashing Bossman for what? Clearly you are just biased against the Golden and Attitude era. If only Bossman was a top guy like Hall during the booming new gen. THEN he’d really be somebody.
You do realize Ray Trailor was wrestling from 93-98 too, right? He was in WCW with a bunch of copycat Boss Man gimmicks and not one person gave a f about him. And this is your major player right here. At his best Boss Man was a good mid card act. By no stretch of the imagination was he a star at any point of his career though.
And how is that being biased? I'm putting 15 of his fellow workers from that era above him because I respect his era and I'm not going to pretend he mattered just so I can act like the AE never pushed filler.
You do realize Ray Trailor was wrestling from 93-98 too, right? He was in WCW with a bunch of copycat Boss Man gimmicks and not one person gave a f about him. And this is your major player right here. At his best Boss Man was a good mid card act. By no stretch of the imagination was he a star at any point of his career though.
And how is that being biased? I'm putting 15 of his fellow workers from that era above him because I respect his era and I'm not going to pretend he mattered just so I can act like the AE never pushed filler.
Okay enough joking around as I actually like Bossman. He was obviously a midcarder. One of the few guys Austin worked with on his prime in 98. He even was supposed to smack his ass with a chair for a final blow at survivor series 98 screwing him out of the title. But famously just wasn’t at ringside. Who knows what future program could have happened in that case.
Not bad on the mic either. I liked this interaction. [/QUOTE]
Who actually drew the rating is irrelevant. His star became bigger by being there. You put Austin in a ring with Tyson and suddenly, Austin becomes bigger star. Mick has many moments such as this, regardless of whether he sparked them or merely rode them. You put somebody in an A-list blockbuster with a major star and they benefit from it over time to point where they too become a major star.
Books are pretty much irrevelent. That's the equivalent of saying "Rock was the greatest wrestler ever, since he grossed more money in Hollywood than any other wrestler."
Books are pretty much irrevelent. That's the equivalent of saying "Rock was the greatest wrestler ever, since he grossed more money in Hollywood than any other wrestler."
Uh, yes, because saying that the success that a wrestler had putting out a book that is basically all about his wrestling career that has his gimmick name in massive font larger than his own name, his character's likeness on the cover, and a significantly sized WWF logo on the cover is an indicative of his ability to draw money is exactly the same as judging a wrestler's talent by how much money his movies make.
Between that and the "Saying Steiner was a low draw because his PPV's didn't sell is like saying Bret, HBK, and Diesel were mid-carders because they couldn't" analogy, you should maybe just retire trying to come up with them. You are not good at understanding how to apply them with arguments.
Yes, this thing definitely doesn't look at all like it was geared toward cashing in on Foley's popularity as a wrestler. Clearly, it was simply geared toward your standard literary crowd.
Uh, yes, because saying that the success that a wrestler had putting out a book that is basically all about his wrestling career that has his gimmick name in massive font larger than his own name, his character's likeness on the cover, and a significantly sized WWF logo on the cover is an indicative of his ability to draw money is exactly the same as judging a wrestler's talent by how much money his movies make.
Yes, this thing definitely doesn't look at all like it was geared toward cashing in on Foley's popularity as a wrestler. Clearly, it was simply geared toward your standard literary crowd.
Foley is a great writer, but it's a ridiculous parameter to measure the popularity of a wrestler. Goldberg wrote a book less than a year later, and it bombed.
BTW, Hogan was massive in 1989, when "No Holds Barred" came out, which was marketed and produced partially by WWE. It was a huge disappointment, and the rest of his movies bombed. With the measuring stick you want to use, this should indicate that Foley was far more popular than Hulk Hogan at his prime.
Between that and the "Saying Steiner was a low draw because his PPV's didn't sell is like saying Bret, HBK, and Diesel were mid-carders because they couldn't" analogy, you should maybe just retire trying to come up with them. You are not good at understanding how to apply them with arguments.
H Tonk Man is better than Foley. He was a “main eventer” in the golden era guys. Everyone knows him. A top guy. As big as Hogan too. Of course he’s not better than Scott Hall though. Obviously.
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.