Wrestling Forum banner

Where would you rank Mick Foley all-time?

5325 176
On one hand — he wasn’t a gifted in-ring talent, his career was somewhat shortened, and he was famously known for being a transitional champion, not “the man.”

On the other hand, he was extremely popular in the Attitude Era, right behind Austin and Rock in 1999-2000 as a top draw. He had elite mic skills. He was dedicated to the extent that he would have destroyed himself by taking the worse possible bumps. He was versatile, able to play several roles from comedy to sadistic. And for what it’s worth to you: he was known as one of the nicest backstage figures (Eddie would talk about how Foley made him, Benoit, Malenko, and Saturn feel welcome when they arrived in WWF)

would you rank Foley on the same level (or above), say, Kurt Angle? Eddie Guerrero? CM Punk? Shawn Michaels?
61 - 80 of 177 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
15,760 Posts
he wasn’t a gifted in-ring talent
What? How do you figure? Foley was a MASTER inring worker. Name all the big names from his era, and even some beyond, and virtually all of them have a Foley match in their top five or top ten.

Just off the top of my head, you've got
HHH- Royal Rumble
HBK- Mind Games
Taker- King of the Ring
Austin- Over the Edge
Orton- Backlash
Rock- Royal Rumble
Sting- Beach Blast

The myth perpetuated by the like's of Flair and Hogan that Foley was just a glorified stuntman has long been debunked and has no root in reality.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,990 Posts
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.
I said it is indicative of their ability to draw money. If a wrestler's popularity has risen to the point where they are offering them movies, book deals, commercial endorsements in areas that are outside of their traditional avenue of wrestling despite no previous experience making money in that field, I would venture to say that is an indicator that someone somewhere saw dollar signs.

This has ventured away from the original point but to attempt to veer back in the right direction, the argument was Steiner as a draw. I brought up PPV buy rates but apparently, that was dismissed as "lousy PPV buys bullshit" by you so I went with the next easiest way to debate by asking you to cite some examples of how exactly you can conclude that Steiner was the ONLY draw during WCW's final year. Again, the big thing here with you seems to be a lack of focus on what you are arguing about. I didn't say Steiner was not popular or that of the remaining people still watching WCW, he was not one of the big stars keeping them glued in.

I'm at this point somewhat curious as to just what you think a "draw" is. My definition would be someone whose likeness or involvement has a history of generating profit. You put Steve Austin or Rock's face or popular catch phrase on a $3 T-shirt or a $2 glass mug and you can charge $20 plus shipping. That's drawing money. Selling out arenas. Getting strong PPV buy-rates. Having a profitable merchandise line. In that final year, Goldberg could still claim that more than Steiner could so how is Steiner the only draw WCW had, according to you?

With regards to Foley, this does fit into the legacy element. He's selling book after book full of old wrestling stories because people are invested in his career long after his retirement. WWF/.WWE have been putting out video tapes, DVD's, and Blu-Rays chronicling his wrestling career and his best matches. His retirement/peak period was over 20 years ago but there is still money being made in the catalog of matches/promos he's produced. Steiner doesn't have that. There are far more iconic moments attached to Foley's career, hence why they are still being talked about.

But I could be wrong here too. What exactly are Steiner's big iconic moments during the Monday Night Wars?

So I should get off the forum (in your words, "retire"), since we have a difference of opinion, and I'm intellectually challenged at arguing with you?

Dude, grow up. If you disagree with what I say, that's called life. That's not an excuse to be a complete jerk-off..
Nope. Once again, you're misreading what I said. I was suggesting you retire from making analogies/equivalencies because you don't grasp how to construct them.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,990 Posts
The myth perpetuated by the like's of Flair and Hogan that Foley was just a glorified stuntman has long been debunked and has no root in reality.
Exactly. When you break down wrestling to its most basic fundamentals, it's about the in-ring storytelling and making the audience care and Foley was great at that. He had solid psychology and knew how to mix it up, which is why he could still get cheers when he transitioned into the sillier comedy stuff towards the end.
 

· Registered
IT'S A WORK!
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
10th.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15,760 Posts
He's in my top five personal list, but objectively, and without putting too much thought into it, I'd comfortably place him in the top 30 all time.

Foley did it all. He cut amazing promos, put on classic matches, drew big money, created unique larger than life characters, was involved in classic segments, the finish to his first title win is arguably the biggest Pop in wrestling history. There's very few guys in the history of prowrestling that can claim to have a better resume than Foley.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
I said it is indicative of their ability to draw money. If a wrestler's popularity has risen to the point where they are offering them movies, book deals, commercial endorsements in areas that are outside of their traditional avenue of wrestling despite no previous experience making money in that field, I would venture to say that is an indicator that someone somewhere saw dollar signs.
Funny. Goldberg was more well known and a bigger name to the American public than Mankind ever was, but Mankind's book sold better. Being a huge name in an industry is no guarantee of success, once the performer tries other non-wrestling related ventures.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,793 Posts
Goldberg and Foley were both top stars. There’s no way to know who was more well known. Although Foley was associated with The Rock for a huge part of the AE. So he got that recognition rub. Super Bowl match, early 99 feud, late 99 tag team etc. The Hell in a cell match is probably the most famous match of the time period as well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
He's in my top five personal list, but objectively, and without putting too much thought into it, I'd comfortably place him in the top 30 all time.

Foley did it all. He cut amazing promos, put on classic matches, drew big money, created unique larger than life characters, was involved in classic segments, the finish to his first title win is arguably the biggest Pop in wrestling history. There's very few guys in the history of prowrestling that can claim to have a better resume than Foley.
I absolutely agree that Foley was an amazing performer during the Attitude era, and was crucial in helping the WWE pull away from WCW with his feud with the Rock in late 1998, and then as a fan favourite for the remainder of his career. However, what hurts Foley, IMO, is that he was only in the main event scene for approximately two years.

Foley began wrestling in 1983, and had varying degrees of success in the Independent scene in the 80s, then in WCW in the 90s. However, he was mainly relegated to midcard until his last couple of years. This is why I would have Foley nowhere near my top ten all-time wrestlers, and barely on my top 40 wrestlers in the industry. He rose to great heights at the end of the 90s, but otherwise his career was not exceptional.

This is why I have wrestlers like Hall, Nash, Hart, Savage, Undertaker, Jericho, Angle, Edge, Flair, Warrior, Piper, Sting, S.Steiner, Hogan, etc ahead of Foley on any top 40 list.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
Goldberg and Foley were both top stars. There’s no way to know who was more well known. Although Foley was associated with The Rock for a huge part of the AE. So he got that recognition rub. Super Bowl match, early 99 feud, late 99 tag team etc. The Hell in a cell match is probably the most famous match of the time period as well.
Goldberg was more well known at his peak, and is still considered a bigger draw.. Goldberg was at Austin's level of popularity for the entire year of 1998. Foley was big, but never came close to touching Rock or Austin in terms of popularity.

This is why WWE made such a massive deal of Goldberg when he debuted for WWE in 2003, and again when he returned in 2016. Foley would have never garnered that kind of attention, years after his peak. When Foley returned, it just did not garner the same type of reaction from the fans.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,990 Posts
Funny. Goldberg was more well known and a bigger name to the American public than Mankind ever was, but Mankind's book sold better. Being a huge name in an industry is no guarantee of success, once the performer tries other non-wrestling related ventures.
Once again, you are arguing a point that I did not make.

Now you are gas-lighting.

I have no idea what prompted you to suggest I "retire" from the forum, and insult my intellect for simply disagreeing with you, but I'm not going anywhere. If it bothers you so much that other forum members do not share your views, maybe take a break from the forum?
Bro, you're literally trying to tell me what my own words are and how I feel about things. That is text book gaslighting. I've asked you multiple times to explain to what iconic moments Steiner has that have matched those of Foley or what exactly made Steiner a draw in the last year of WCW? I am engaging you on your own topics and ask for clarification. You're choosing to act like people have a personal vendetta against you because you don't have the confidence to expand on your own argument.

I didn't tell you to "retire" from being on the forum. I said you should "maybe just retire from trying to use them (analogies) since you are not good at good at understanding how to apply them with arguments." I literally quoted an analogy you used during this rebuttal and included another. Rather than just admit you didn't understand it, you chose to assume something false and proceeded to call me a "jerk-off".

I'm not trying to turn this into something more aggressive and childish than it needs to be. I like to think we both have more maturity than this. I have clarified what I meant by the "retire" statement. You can either choose to accept it or choose to believe whatever narrative you feel but going back and forth like this is not constructive so let's get back to the discussion at hand.

What accolades, accomplishments, or otherwise memorable moments in Steiner's resume do you feel eclipse that of Foley's?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,907 Posts
I love Scott Steiner but in no way did he reach the same heights of being a 'star' as Mankind did in the peak of his career.

Even if you want to argue Steiner was the absolute number one guy or in the top 3 for WCW in 99/2000, that's not equivalent to Foley's position in the WWF as it was way hotter and bigger.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Goldberg was more well known at his peak, and is still considered a bigger draw.. Goldberg was at Austin's level of popularity for the entire year of 1998. Foley was big, but never came close to touching Rock or Austin in terms of popularity.

This is why WWE made such a massive deal of Goldberg when he debuted for WWE in 2003, and again when he returned in 2016. Foley would have never garnered that kind of attention, years after his peak. When Foley returned, it just did not garner the same type of reaction from the fans.
Granted, I had stopped watching for the most part by the time Goldberg landed in WWE, but would the reason behind Goldberg receiving much more hype than a returning Foley be the fact that Goldberg was still capable of being a regular, full-time wrestler, whereas Foley was basically done after 2001 & would have wrestled only a few matches at best?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
I love Scott Steiner but in no way did he reach the same heights of being a 'star' as Mankind did in the peak of his career.

Even if you want to argue Steiner was the absolute number one guy or in the top 3 for WCW in 99/2000, that's not equivalent to Foley's position in the WWF as it was way hotter and bigger.
I don't feel Steiner was a bad champion maybe cause WCW had a career life mid-carder, their head booker and a D list actor as champs that year.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
WWF is top guy centric at some point you're crediting Foley for Austin's popularity. This is why Foley was never seen as that big of a deal post Attitude era. He'd return and would have straight up mid card feuds with guys years away from mattering. While he was a draw in the AE he was never the guy and Vince never treated him like was. Foley was basically the 2/3 babyface who put over a bigger fish's upcoming opponent. He put over Kane for Taker, then was first to job Austin, put over Taker and Rock for Austin, then finally put over HHH for Austin/ Rock.

You put Goldberg in the ring with Austin in 98/99 and it's going to do astronomical numbers and the match would only happen at a WM or SummerSlam. That's a true reflection of star power. Your company using you as a cornerstone for it's premiere events. Foley was a huge star but still a level beneath Austin, Hollywood Hogan, Goldberg and the Rock. You got to be careful about thinking well he worked in the same period as Austin so he's bigger than another company's top act.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,269 Posts
Not top 10 but easily & unarguably Top 25 in my view.

The matches, the promos, the moments from the 90s and the year 2000 in and out of the ring... even the later stuff with Orton & Edge was fantastic when he was more broken down than he already was.

I do say this as a compliment but he was the ultimate support act to the stars.

Taker, Austin, Rock, HHH alone, all of them were enhanced by rivalries with him in my view. Rock & HHH especially, they were on the way to being stars but the wars they had with Mick solidified them both as main eventers in the eyes of the fans forever.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,990 Posts
WWF is top guy centric at some point you're crediting Foley for Austin's popularity. This is why Foley was never seen as that big of a deal post Attitude era. He'd return and would have straight up mid card feuds with guys years away from mattering. While he was a draw in the AE he was never the guy and Vince never treated him like was. Foley was basically the 2/3 babyface who put over a bigger fish's upcoming opponent. He put over Kane for Taker, then was first to job Austin, put over Taker and Rock for Austin, then finally put over HHH for Austin/ Rock.
Yeah, I would say Foley was more of the "sentimental hero" role than the blockbuster marquee star. Him winning the title for the first time had that feel good moment because it was the guy who was never really expected to hold the top title but it felt very deserved. He arguably has Bill beat on legacy but Goldberg was the bigger star.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15,760 Posts
I absolutely agree that Foley was an amazing performer during the Attitude era, and was crucial in helping the WWE pull away from WCW with his feud with the Rock in late 1998, and then as a fan favourite for the remainder of his career. However, what hurts Foley, IMO, is that he was only in the main event scene for approximately two years.

Foley began wrestling in 1983, and had varying degrees of success in the Independent scene in the 80s, then in WCW in the 90s. However, he was mainly relegated to midcard until his last couple of years. This is why I would have Foley nowhere near my top ten all-time wrestlers, and barely on my top 40 wrestlers in the industry. He rose to great heights at the end of the 90s, but otherwise his career was not exceptional.

This is why I have wrestlers like Hall, Nash, Hart, Savage, Undertaker, Jericho, Angle, Edge, Flair, Warrior, Piper, Sting, S.Steiner, Hogan, etc ahead of Foley on any top 40 list.
I can respect the argument. My counter however would be that longevity does not always ensure a legacy and a legacy isn't always dependent on longevity.

Austin was only a main eventer for four or five years, depending on how you count it, The Rock a tad longer. Although using Rock and Austin as examples might dip into hyperbole lol
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,990 Posts
I can respect the argument. My counter however would be that longevity does not always ensure a legacy and a legacy isn't always dependent on longevity.

Austin was only a main eventer for four or five years, depending on how you count it, The Rock a tad longer. Although using Rock and Austin as examples might dip into hyperbole lol
I think also, while he took a little longer to get there, those matches and programs he cut his teeth on (sometimes literally) as he climbed to the top have now become a significant part of his legacy. Like a cult filmmaker underappreciated in their own time, his body of work has grown to become the stuff of legend.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Probably fourth tier of guys

He wasn't the guy (1st tier) or the guy who played backup to the guy (2nd tier) or the special attraction (3rd tier) so yeah fourth tier
I'd actually argue he was both of these things. His feuds with Austin (1998), Rock (1999) and HHH (2000) saw him playing the role of the guy who backed up the guy to immense success. Moreover, I would also contend that he was indeed a special attraction, especially once his huge bumps became legendary circa 1998.
 
61 - 80 of 177 Posts
Top