|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 18:44:27 GMT -5
Yeah, really Balls. You think you're pulling one over on us by goading us to make fun of you so you can go "Oh look youre wrong because you're making fun of me!" but it doesn't change the fact that you're terribly mistaken.
What's sad about this is that I agree with Justin in saying that Foley's role in RAW history is debatable, and that him and HBK make a good comparison. We could have had a nice round table on this, but too bad Balls had to jump all over things with a baseless stupid argument as usual. Prick.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:04:28 GMT -5
Wrong again. Nice try to make me a scapegoat, but you are the one who ruined a discussion by jumping down my throat for saying similar things to Captain and Justin. I guess it's easier than to actually admit I have a point.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:07:09 GMT -5
And James, if people think you could be a lawyer, they aren't saying that on the basis of the style you argue here. When someone else makes a point, you get on a high horse and say, "well you don't know about wrestling, blah blah blah" and then you start with the personal shots. It's not even just me you do that with. But it does kill your credibility. You telling someone who has watched wrestling longer than you've been alive that he's out of his element is just stupid. You want to make an argument, argue like a man, not a baby. Then maybe you won't be treated like one.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 19:07:37 GMT -5
Really? When did Justin and Captain say HBK was the biggest reason for WWF's decline in the 90's? Go find that for me.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:26:14 GMT -5
No. What they agreed with, which is the original point, is that there is a very good argument that while HBK's career is better than Foley's, Foley was more important on Raw.
HBK's time on top was brought up to counter that, and I pointed out how much Raw not only sucked in that time, but got its ass kicked. So that entire period does not help HBK at all, whether it's his fault or not.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 19:33:30 GMT -5
So that entire period does not help HBK at all, whether it's his fault or not. And obviously it doesn't hurt him either, does it you fucking asshole! If a good hitter plays on a shit baseball team and still puts up awesome numbers is the team shitty because of him? The simple answer is: MetsSuckBalls is an asshole. Stop trying to warp what Captain and Justin said into your argument.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:43:40 GMT -5
Since wrestling isn't a team sport, your analogy fails. It's more of a show than a sport, and it's the equivilent of taking a successful show, changing the star, and watching it tank. The star of the show has some responsibility.
But go with the name calling. It's easier.
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jericho on Dec 14, 2007 19:45:21 GMT -5
Grover, STOP!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, the flashing Frosthead is seizure inducing. I've averaged about three hours sleep a night this week and it is making my brain hurt.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 19:47:02 GMT -5
Since wrestling isn't a team sport, your analogy fails. It's more of a show than a sport, and it's the equivilent of taking a successful show, changing the star, and watching it tank. The star of the show has some responsibility. But go with the name calling. It's easier. Fine: Suck my dick you asshole. Fucking nerd. go make another website because you couldn't take the heat when everyone called you out for lying to us, and go blame jack frost for everything, faggot.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 19:55:49 GMT -5
Lying? Where did I lie?
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 14, 2007 20:18:52 GMT -5
Balls, if you've noticed, there's only one person who I say knows dick about wrestling, that's you. And as I've brought up, I'm pissed not because people disagree with me, cause you have to be a douche and ruin a really good discussion with your malarky. You got Grover all mad, and despite how much I love hgearing him call you an asshole 500 different ways, it's nicer to have that in an intelligent discussion. But he can't do that with you making shit up. Instead of just admitting you don't know what you're talking about, you fucking make up brand new arguments, and twist around shit people who know more than you, already said. There's a reason I posted on the first page of this thread, then not again till you make up stupid shit. Your agrument is lamer than you. You don't have to jump in every discussion, especially ones you can't comment on cause you don't know facts about it. This is beyond fucking dumb how there can't be a discussion you don't fuck up.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 20:33:45 GMT -5
But James--whether you say it to me or take a superior attitude toward others, you still have a weak arguing style. Nothing's been made up. You just don't like the facts.
You're right--it is better to have an intelligent discussion. But you're not interested in that. If you were, you would argue like a man.
In case you hadn't noticed, I STARTED the HBK v. Foley discussion. Nothing was made up.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 14, 2007 20:54:39 GMT -5
You're right, my mistake. I should never use simple, fact-based logic, with proof how HBK was more valuable to Raw than Foley. When the proof me, Grover and Tom showed you conflicted with your assumption, you branched it out into a different discussion to make what you were saying seem right. then that theory was proven to be flawed, you started blaming other people for not having any proof. You got a warped vision on what happened.
Look at the people who agreed with me. Tom, who isn't even an HBK fan, cause as we all know HBK beat ALL the Freebirds into the Texas Wrestling Hall of Fame. Yet he still said Foley wasn't as valuable as HBK in Raw history and helped WWF keep their heads above water in the early stages on nWo/the Monday Night Wars. Grover, who didn't like the flamboyant, male stripper gimmick, still knows he's a great wrestler and without HBK, says they were just about done when going head to head with WCW. Then of course me, who knows the ins and outs of HBKs carreer, has followed his entire carreer, and is an expert in that era of wrestling. And I showed you opinions of people who cover wrestling for a living so they report fairly. Yet you go back to I don't present an argument. Sorry you think I got an attitude, maybe it's warrnated, maybe it isn't. But you can't tell me I didn't give you an intelligent argument, go back and read the pages, I know you have the time, it is friday night.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 21:02:51 GMT -5
You didn't use simply, fact based logic to show that HBK was more valuable.
You made points that I acknowledged before you made them. I never said that HBK wasn't a great wrestler. In fact, I said the opposite. You showed one opinion of one guy who even put HBK ahead of the Rock for crying out loud. For all we know, the guy is friends with HBK in real life.
This isn't an argument about whether HBK has a good legacy. He does. This isn't an argument about whether HBK was a good wrestler. He was and is.
Foley is about even on the mic, but that's about it. It's just that on Raw, he advanced the show and played a more vital role. But come on, do you seriously think that without HBK, WWF goes under?
No single wrestler was that important. You're not capable of acknowledging HBK's flaws. You're biased. I'm not saying that's bad. But you are biased because you ARE a huge fan.
But at least for the most part, the above post was actually well written.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 21:16:27 GMT -5
Well this is what I meant in all my postings.....body of work for the entire 15 years of RAW HBK contributed more but I felt Foley had more to do with the period where they beat WCW and then the ensuing couple of year boom period of ratings.......I believe I said in one post that HBK had many real good years (compiling) and Foley had a couple great years..........So if you are saying who was more valuable over the entire 15 years it would be HBK but when we talk most valuable for a 3-4 year span aka "boom period" late 90's into 2001 Foley was more valuable imo....
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 21:17:00 GMT -5
Balls also stop pissing off Grover.....I too am getting sick of looking at Frost's blinking heads!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 14, 2007 21:32:33 GMT -5
First, I never questioned if you think HBK is good or not. And the facts I gave you were things that were going on at that time. I mentioned things that Vince and other people in the business said. Yes, I seriously think without HBK, WWF doesn't survive. It's debatable, but the fact they got close to being put out shows that without him they might have been in deep shit. Taker as champ would have drawn the same ratings as HBK, you have no proof that WWF would have been better with other guys as champ. Not only do I think it, a bunch of other guys do as well on here.
And as for Foley, again, I'm a huge Foley fan. Look at my user name for fucks sake. He's a Long Island wrestling icon. But A) the years HBK carried Raw(again call it dismal, had they been worse, who knows...)and B)the fact he's still kicking ass there now has to count for more than a few bumps and comedy bits with other, more talented guys around him. HBK was the most talented guy in the locker room between 95-early 98 and is still one of the better guys on Raw now when his carreer was supposed to be done. Foley was a main fixture, for what, three of four years? You put him over HBK cause for those star studded three of four years, the ratings were better than the HBK, mid 90's dismal locker room ratings? It just doesn't add up. In short, I don't see how a guy who was a fixture of Raw, but never a centerpeice for roughly 5 years can top a guy who helped see Raw and WWF through on of it's darkest times. To put it in Yankee terms, when the team sucked and the only good guy you'd see was Mattingly, the same can be said about Michaels. Played hurt, retired early cause of back injuries. When the Yankees hit one of their biggest losing strides and darkest time periods, Mattingly was the shining light. Much like the Heartbreak Kid. It's almost poetic, tee hee.
And I'm the first to admit when HBK does something that bugs me. I'd trade this guy for mid 90's Michaels in a second even if it meant it would kill him. I know how's he flawed and I know all the backstage malarky, from temper tantrums to holding guys down. But think of it, who was he keeping down? Del Wilkes? Duke the Dumper Drosse? Tatanka? Who was the fucking Pirate guy, it's a bad thing he got kept down too? Come on man, HBK was the had every right to keep the belt on him as long as he could.
I not dissing Foley, and I'm not ignoring the destructive behavior HBK showed, but HBK has done way more for Raw and continues to do so. I know you said you understand the longevity thing, to think some of those years coincide with one of the biggest times in wrestling, when you break it down, Foley was a backup act and HBK was headlining, selling out shows. So TV ratings may have been down, but MSG was still being sold out when Michaels was on top. If that happened with Foley it's cause he teamed with Rock or Austin. Considering ll that, how is Foley more important to Raw?
And how am I biased when HBK wasn't even number two on my list? As a fan of wrestling and no one guy in paticular, I'd still have to say the same fucking thing. As fruity as it sounds, I consider myself a student of the game, and considering I was 9-13 when HBK first became a major singles draw, when I watch tapes from that time it's easy for me to watch that stuff and pick up on things I couldn't have back then. So in this instance, my HBK blinders aren't in effect here, this is my take of the whole landscape of wrestling at that time, the fact I'm a fan only means I got a lot of knowledge on the subject, no hidden agenda or anything. So you need to give that one a rest.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 15, 2007 2:23:43 GMT -5
Captain--that's a fair opinion. I don't agree with it, but look what happens when you explain it well.
I can't look at the years that HBK carried Raw. The reason is that Raw stunk during that time, and he was a major part of that. Very talented wrestler, but I don't feel that he worked as the top dog. So I can't really count that time. For me, HBK at his absolute best was pretty much pre-Raw. There was some overlap, but in the grand scheme of things, for me, HBK at his best was the heel IC champ.
And you're not knocking Foley. But you are putting up a better argument than before. For me, yes, Foley had Austin and Rock, but just as important, Austin and Rock had Foley. As great as Austin and Rock were, Foley was a vital cog in that success. Comparing the two, I see Foley's rise at the same time Raw turned the tide. And when HBK was on TOP, Raw was at rock bottom (pardon the pun). When HBK came back, four years had passed, and while he remains a vital cog on Raw to this day, and seems more mature than ever, his role on Raw is not nearly as vital. He's more like a Jorge Posada. Needed. Very good. But ultimately, won't carry the load.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 15, 2007 13:20:24 GMT -5
But he did. I sort of agree with some of what you said. I can see how anyone could say Austin and Rock needed Foley as much as Foley needed them, but if Foley wasn't in WWF, you think WWF still wouldn't have run WCW into the ground? WWF could have made it with or without Foley. You're Posada anaolgy is more accurate to Foley(in build too).
The only thing I semi agree with is HBK did carry the load, and he did so very well considering what he had to work with. That's the whole point, HBK was not the reason the ratings were low, the reason they were as high as they were is cause of him. He did more to help Raw in that time period than Foley did in the big boom era with a solid roster up and down. And I also disagree he isn't a vital cog anymore. When HHH went down who was the first thought to fill in for him at Mania? He's in such a good spot to always deliver as well as teach other guys. He's doing more now for the long run of raw then before, I'll admit that. All I can really say is I think in certain instances you're too hard on HBK and at the same time also can't give the credit he's due in others. I can understand why you think this way, I just can't agree with it. there's too much reporting and info out now that shows in an overall grand scheme of things, Raw would not be the same today if HBK didn't carry the company through the dark years. If he doesn't do what he did in that time era, Foley, Austin, Rock, Taker, HHH etc. what groundwork is layed for them to go with when the ratings went up? Was Michaels the reason the ratings went up or down? No. But he layed the foundation, he was the fucking achitect(sp) for the attitude era, the era where all the above superduperstars shined.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 15, 2007 17:28:11 GMT -5
Speaking of the greatest moments in the history of Raw, check out the fan signs in THIS video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOOwg2zBOrcSpecifically, look toward the first minute and a half or so, and the last minute. DYSLEXIA 61:3 and TOUPEE.
|
|