MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 8:35:29 GMT -5
Dead crowds are meaningless since there are just cities where crowds stink.
And I was too busy laughing to notice the crowd.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 9:06:47 GMT -5
That means nothing. You laugh at episodes of The Nanny.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 9:09:46 GMT -5
No I don't. I don't even think I've seen one full episode of The Nanny. Though Fran Drescher is actually quite attractive.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 9:23:49 GMT -5
I actually agree. She needs to shut up though.
I remember listening to a radio show once and the topic was flings with celebs. One caller had a zany story of orally pleasuring Ms Drescher in a cab.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 9:27:55 GMT -5
Geez. Could you imagine her groaning?
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 9:58:06 GMT -5
I watch The Nanny on mute. You want a real image killer, though? American Hot Wax. One of my personal favorite movies for a lot of reasons. You should hear her when Jay Leno grabs her breast. Deafening.
Anyway, back to topic...thank you for someone else killing Foley finally. I've had this conversatino with you several times in years past, Tom. I have always thought Foley was a clown, except for very early on. Nicest guy, hard worker, etc., but to say he's Top 5 on that list is....well...you know.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 10:02:09 GMT -5
Wait a minute--Jay LENO and the Nanny? UGH!!!!
And we're talking solely for RAW purposes. I'm not talking about ranking their careers. If I wanted to talk importance to WWE history, then Foley is dead last on that list.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 10:16:28 GMT -5
Actually, I'll buy that. Foley really was a big spark when RAW won back Monday nights.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 10:37:17 GMT -5
When Raw was in its heyday, I would say that Foley was involved in some capacity in just about every major angle except DX. And who can forget one of the most dramatic moves of the Monday Night Wars when Tony Schiavone announced that Foley won the WWF title and ripped him? Half a million viewers immediately switched over to Raw, and that was a HUGE moment in the Monday Night Wars. One of WCW's biggest blunders. No question Foley is last on the list when it comes to legacy in the WWE, but on Raw? It's a different story.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 10:43:24 GMT -5
Balls, i respectfully disagree with you, and I point you back to that very list there. Foley near the top is no way near a lock. You discount HBK - you know I am not much an HBK fan, but he has just as much a case for changing Raw and being all over the show.
ON THAT LIST Foley is near the rear.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 10:57:31 GMT -5
While HBK certainly has been a major impact on Raw, the show hit its prime while he was out losing his smile. If anything, you could argue that it was under his watch that Nitro took over as the top wrestling brand.
So no, I can't put Michaels ahead of Foley for his impact on Raw. His career? Yes. No question. But not on Raw specifically.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 11:02:50 GMT -5
Shit...I hate disagreeing with Tom on wrestling, but it's pretty well known that Michaels reigned on RAW right in the middle of Nitro's ratings domination.
I feel dirty.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 12, 2007 11:07:58 GMT -5
Should I take the other side, so Tom can agree with you, but still argue with me?
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 11:08:57 GMT -5
Nah...I'll live. Good point, though.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 11:16:26 GMT -5
You guys are misunderstanding the point. None of this is based on "television ratings."
Its when you look back, and what was the guy involved in, how often did we see him doing good work, all that. You can give me Foley comedy, and I can give you HBK DX. You can talk about Foley trading barbs with the Rock, and I can give you HBK vs Hitman Hart, maybe the best feud on Raw not named Austin/McMahon
HBKs body of work KILLS Foleys. HBK had some great Raw matches, Foley stuck socks in other peoples mouths. I think HBK has more to be proud of through the Raw years than Foley does, sorry, and the fact he is STILL doing it does not hurt that thinking. And I am not even an HBK fan!!!!!!!!!
This is NOT a vote based on who swayed the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 11:27:01 GMT -5
But why not? I mean, aren't ratings the only real indication of success of a television show? I understand what you're saying, but it's also a big 180 from your normal M.O., that being the popularity argument when arguing most points.
I mean, over a half-a-million people IMMEDIATELY switched to RAW from Nitro (and many more followed and NEVER looked back, mind you) when Mankind was announced as champ. That sort of switch never happened when Michaels became champ. It could be very successfully argued that Foley becoming champ (well AFTER Michaels) was the absolute turning point in the ultimate demise of WCW, and the overwhelming success of RAW, and you'd be hard-pressed to counter that.
I don't like Foley. Never did. But he WAS Raw when it was successful and won back the fans, and he started the dominance. That has to count for a lot.
How can it not be about the ratings? The ratings mean that people liked him more! That's usually your entire argument on many topics. How can you sway from that now?
I like to argue with Balls as much as the next guy, usually because he's wrong. But he's pretty on here.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 11:32:20 GMT -5
I mean, over a half-a-million people IMMEDIATELY switched to RAW from Nitro (and many more followed and NEVER looked back, mind you) when Mankind was announced as champ. That sort of switch never happened when Michaels became champ
Apples and oranges. They flipped channels cause the spoiler was blurted on air. Bischoff never got a chance to spoil an HBK title grab on air.
HBK's title runs were not the ratings disasters you seem to think they were, which is why he has had multiple runs with gold. The WWF rating killers with gold were Nash (before the jump) and Bret Hart.
The vote I am putting up, and what I am discussing, is who was the #1 superstar on Raw, taking their body of work into account. Foley, aside from some comic work and flips off the ring apron, does not have a body of work or run like Michaels did.
The fact that he is on the bottom of this poll, which encompasses hundreds of voters who spent hundreds of dollars on the NY Times of wrestling newsletters seems to give a nod to my point on the intent of the voting.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 11:38:05 GMT -5
Maybe, but, as has been discussed before, wrestling caters much more to the millions of drones out there rather than the relative handful of smart marks.
That said, I suppose this section does the same thing, so you do make sense.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 11:43:17 GMT -5
So I am a drone for thinking HBK has been overall a more entertaining character than Mick Foley over the last decade plus? You are going to kill me for that? If anything, we have a disagreement, neither of us should be shown the door to the loony bin.
HBK is 10 times the performer Foley is, period. You want to add semantics and throw in tv ratings and big spots off the tops of cages, so be it (although HBK threw a Hell of an elbow off of one)
Bottom line, HBK has more a body of work to be proud of than Foley, going by Monday nights. And I stand by it.
Oh, and for the record - the fans on wwe.com (who are quite unlike the fans of the Wrestling Observer) ALSO put HBK well ahead of Foley in their results on top superstar of the Raw years.
I guess every single kind of fan is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 12, 2007 11:49:15 GMT -5
Let me chime in here. No, I don't rank HBK number 1 guy in Raw history, top three yes. Since the very first Raw, he's been involvec in many big matches and big plots and storylines. And Tom said it best, the way HBK and Hart would break kayfabe and just destroy each other to the point they tried to get the other one to throw down. Foley and Rock don't even hold up. You can rip him for his smile being lost, you can blame him for the poor ratings from 96-97. But I ask this, who else would have brought up the ratings? Austin wasn't top tier yet so you had no one but Michaels. There was no way, one guy, even the showstopper, could single handily win the Monday Night Raws. But to say that he has less to do with A) where the company is now, and B) gwtting out of the shitter, Michalels is somewhat responsible. Without HBK being HBK in 96-97, where would WWE be now? What happens if Hitman goes to Nitro with Vinces belt? What happnes if HBK and HHH don't start DX? Sorry, but anyone who thinks HBK has shit to do with anything, A) is most lilely doing it to get me going and/or B) is a casual wrestling fan if that, and/or refuses to watch matches.
Then again, why am I arguing Balls$? Wrestling has nothing to do with his argument, it's all gags gimmicks and interviews. Fuck the body of work someone has done, it's how many times Balls has laughed at the show. For us wrestling fans, my point is this. Sure, it's understabndable to hold HBK accountable for the bad ratings, he was top guy. I refuse to put full blame on him(Vince still wanted things done the old way, not the attitude way yet, and a lot of top stars were jumping ship), and he deserves credit for staying and doing what he could. I mean, some of his ppv title matches in 96 were against Bulldog, Vader, Mankind, Sid, no guys who draw in ratings temselves and no where close to HBK. I agree with Tom, the body of work over a long period of time speaks for itself. But for anyone else, just think back, imagine HBK doesn't do the shit he did, WWE is not the same thing today. He was a major part of some of the biggest happenings in WWE/Raw history. To put Foley(who I love) above him, it's crazy. Not even Foley himself would put HBK down like that.
And I'm not bitching about the HBK rant, I've heard it many times before. But Jesus this isn't the wrestling thread anymore, it's Balls interpretation of how he sees wrestling. This is madness. Is one normal wrestling discussion too much to ask for?
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 11:50:13 GMT -5
No, I think you misunderstood me. The drones are the ones who were feverish about Foley. So I was actually agreeing with you, in context.
That said, the fans voting on WWE.com now were probably 7 years old in the late 90s. Internet voting on official websites in any venue usually reflects current, young fan bases. I can't prove that outright, but I'm confident in that statement. HBK is still current (which I suppose does speak to your point a little), but those votes are less likely to take into account the events of the past 15 years as they are, say, they last 5 years.
ETA: I don't think anyone was saying to put Foley number 1, or even ahead of HBK. Balls said Top 5.
Fellas, I like HBK a ton more than Foley, because HBK was much better. I'm just saying that the argument for Foley being top 5, all things considered, is compelling.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 12, 2007 11:56:09 GMT -5
LOL. Holy shit, did someone stupid hack into Justins account? You've watched wrestloing three times in the past 15 years. How the fuck does Foley better? I love how you go by what you think people think, yet there's people who havn't missed a wrestling show in numerous years. This is beyond fucking retarded. Having a normal wrestling discussion is too much to ask for I guess.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 11:57:39 GMT -5
My main beef in this thread was putting Foley over HBK, for one.
But lets go deeper into the list - who else do you put Foley above? I dont see many names on that list I would put him above. If you put him in the top 5, you put him above someone like Undertaker, or Rock or Austin, or Brett Hart. Brett Harts heel work on Raw was the best heel work done in the last decade plus to me and many, so I cant make that call, for one.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 12, 2007 11:59:34 GMT -5
Hey nimrod, care to rephrase this so I have a better idea of what you're trying to say? Because I don't think you understand what I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 12, 2007 12:04:41 GMT -5
I agree with Justin and Balls....Foley was much more responsible or should I say had a bigger hand in turning the wars to the WWE's favor...Now no one will despute that HBK can work circles around Foley but the fact is the ratings turned on the title change and many of the mainstream fans marked out big time for Rock and Sock and Foley's skits in general.....My top 3 are Austin, Rock and McMahon.............
I also have to say personally during the early 90's period my interest waned and I did not watch much WWE programming then. I started watching Nitro because of Flair and picked up WWE again when Austin, DX and The Rock in the Nation of Domination started to emerge......I glossed over and did not pay attention to a lot of the HBK/Diesel years.......
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 12, 2007 12:14:05 GMT -5
Um I did Justin. And really, you couldn't figure out I meant is but typed in does by accidnet? Nice rebuttal though. I know shit cause I have typos.
I believe your insane moronic argument has Foley on a higher list than HBK is most meaningful in Raw history? Sorry I rephrased some posts since there's about 7 pr 8 post from you and Balls that's total malarky. Fuck and HBK argument, this shit is starting to bug me how people who don't know thing one about wrestling, who don't watch, yet act like they know it all. You're argument is I beleive people who took the wwe poll blah blah blah...you start assuming shit on them too. Again, you're on Balls level. Someone like him who doesn't watch 90% of the show can't have a rational argument. You waqtch less than Balls and your argument is guess motives on why people voted on WWE.com. Go fucking talk baseball or some other shit you know about, I hate assholes in here not having a leg to stand on spouting crazy shit about wrestling and more specifically HBK. Jackass was in here talking about the show, when he doesn't watch, he doesn't post in here. I gotta filter through wasted pages of you assuming what other people voted for? Look here asshole, I was 10 in late 90's. Foley barley makes top 10 compared to HBK who again, is top 3. Foley won a few titles and took one big bump off a cell. Shall I go through HBKs accolades? Should I bring up more big moments HBK was involved in that helped get the company to the attitude era? Sorry, Michaels is one of, if not the most, influential wrestler of the 90's.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 12, 2007 12:17:56 GMT -5
Sorry, Michaels is one of, if not the most, influential wrestler of the 90's.
If Austin, Rock, Mr. McMahon and Foley didn't come along at the time they did, we might have been watching WCW Nitros' Anniversary celebration last week...LOL
I will not say Michaels was not valuable but I think he was more valuable as part of Dx then solo in regards to the wars turning........
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 12:20:45 GMT -5
Cap, in all due respect I have to laugh that you think more of Foley with a sock on his hand and flip through a table than you do of what HBK bought to the dance. The fact that we are comparing these two in any way is pretty much absurd. I am flabbergasted, really.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 12, 2007 12:24:40 GMT -5
Oh, and one more thing...that Mankind title switch that TURNED THE TIDE lasted all of 20 days. In fact, Mankind was thought of SO MUCH he was a 3 time title holder, for about 40 days in total.
You guys were saying?
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Dec 12, 2007 12:25:30 GMT -5
I agree with that. But I still say without HBK having the skill he does, where is the company now without him as a stable or singles? 100% DX jumpstarted the Attitude Era, and set the stage for Austin to take the ball and run with it. And Austin deserves the most credit, but HBK keeping the top spot warm for Austin counts for a lot of the success WWE now enjoys. It's scary to think what WWE would be like today with out DX and Michaels being Michaels. I'll agree with Rock, I'll agree with Austin, and yeah even Vince. But Foley isn't higher than the guys I mentioned, he isn't higher than Taker who I'd argue is lower than HBK. I can't put Foley as a bigger part of Raw success than those guys like other no brained casual wrestling dopes around here.
I was going to bring that up to Tom, Mankinds earth shattering win ended at the superbowl half time show right? Two weeks later? Good run by Hecklehouses favorite.
|
|