HOF poll on Observer site

[Warner2BruceTD]

Foley has never actually been a draw or really been given the ball to draw, so Sting being even a loss would conclude him being a better draw and star.

And, we have been over it...but it seems you don't remember some of the facts presented, like some of Sting's main evented or "featured" event PPVs actually had higher buyrates than the previous year, and Sting being the feature performer of the biggest buyrate PPV up until WrestleMania X7.

You can mention house show gates until you're blue in the face, but the factors that go into that make those numbers often skewed.

I'm not saying Sting is a big draw, but you mooks over at the Observer have bashed his drawing power so much, its actually an underrated attribute at this point.

Foley was an integral part of the Attitude Era, and a few of his segments drew some of the highest quarter hours in wrestling history (title win, "This is your life" w/Rock, etc). Like already mentioned, he was the go to guy to get new stars over. Historically great at it.

How did Sting's book do, by the way? Surely a bigger star than Foley would have blown him away in book sales, no?

Foley was not only more influential in the ring, he really exasperated the wrestling book boom, too. Foley drew more money with BOOKS than Sting drew in the ring, but Sting was a bigger star? Let's reel this back into reality.

Sting had exactly one run & one PPV where he was true difference maker. And he was hanging out in the rafters during that run. Which i'm not holding against him, because drawing money is drawing money, but it was gimmicky. And it was his one & only run where he truly moved things.

Aside from 1997, you can remove Sting from the Nitro era and it would make little to no difference. I know that bothers people, but it's true.

WCW dies if Turner doesn't bail it out. And that's with Sting as the top face, never able to make a difference, with the company constantly losing faith and trying Luger or Flair or Steamboat in his spot over the years. I know that bothers people, but it's true. The company would have folded, with Sting on top. He was not the star you think he was. WCW did a great job making people think he was, but he wasn't.

Not saying he wasn't a star. To some degree, on his small time level, he was. He was a good babyface foil to Flair over the years. In 1997, he was a legit big star. But lots of guys had one big year. Lots of guys had two or three big years. Scott Hall & Kevin Nash were far bigger stars than Sting, in the same promotion. They aren't Hall of Famers. But personally, I think Sting is. He's fringy, but i'd put him in for longevity.

Look, i'm on your side here. But let's not get crazy. Foley was a bigger star by a mile. People rip Sting over there, and i'm one of the ones that defend him. I'm in a debate with some geeks right now who think an Undertaker/Sting match would flop. Some of these guys are insane. But I can't say he was a bigger star than Foley. No way.

[Leftwich]

Foley was an integral part of the Attitude Era, and a few of his segments drew some of the highest quarter hours in wrestling history (title win, "This is your life" w/Rock, etc). Like already mentioned, he was the go to guy to get new stars over. Historically great at it.

How did Sting's book do, by the way? Surely a bigger star than Foley would have blown him away in book sales, no?

Foley was not only more influential in the ring, he really exasperated the wrestling book boom, too. Foley drew more money with BOOKS than Sting drew in the ring, but Sting was a bigger star? Let's reel this back into reality.

Sting had exactly one run & one PPV where he was true difference maker. And he was hanging out in the rafters during that run. Which i'm not holding against him, because drawing money is drawing money, but it was gimmicky. And it was his one & only run where he truly moved things.

Aside from 1997, you can remove Sting from the Nitro era and it would make little to no difference. I know that bothers people, but it's true.

WCW dies if Turner doesn't bail it out. And that's with Sting as the top face, never able to make a difference, with the company constantly losing faith and trying Luger or Flair or Steamboat in his spot over the years. I know that bothers people, but it's true. The company would have folded, with Sting on top. He was not the star you think he was. WCW did a great job making people think he was, but he wasn't.

Not saying he wasn't a star. To some degree, on his small time level, he was. He was a good babyface foil to Flair over the years. In 1997, he was a legit big star. But lots of guys had one big year. Lots of guys had two or three big years. Scott Hall & Kevin Nash were far bigger stars than Sting, in the same promotion. They aren't Hall of Famers. But personally, I think Sting is. He's fringy, but i'd put him in for longevity.

Look, i'm on your side here. But let's not get crazy. Foley was a bigger star by a mile. People rip Sting over there, and i'm one of the ones that defend him. I'm in a debate with some geeks right now who think an Undertaker/Sting match would flop. Some of these guys are insane. But I can't say he was a bigger star than Foley. No way.

Dont forget about Halftime Heat. The amount of people that watched that is ri-goddamn-diculous

[s@ppisgod]

Foley a bigger draw for selling books? Doesn't that clash with the Sting gimmick argument? Does Foley as a wrestler deserve credit as a draw because he wrote pretty much the best wrestling autobiography ever? To argue Foley as a draw would be totally discounting the effect SCSA, Rock, DX, etc had, and it's impossible to take one away from the other and view them individually. He had a bunch of fans, but let's not forget that EVERYBODY was over at that time. The New Age Outlaws alone were unbelievably over. Foley was over, but who knows if he ever made a noticeable difference in PPV buys or attendance? The WWE sold out like crazy between 98 and 01. And the only 3 things I can concretely attribute that to are Austin, Rock, and the WWE machine. That doesn't just go for Foley. It goes for HHH to some extent(he was kinda big during that time though) and HBK, UT, and anyone else on the card. The whole thing was going so well that it's hard to take anyone's numbers seriously unless they were a superstar in a whole other stratosphere. The concrete is Foley's ability to get people over. Flair-like, but in a completely different way. His drawing power in the WWF is very much in question though, and I think it's naive or short-sighted to say it isn't.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Foley was an integral part of the Attitude Era, and a few of his segments drew some of the highest quarter hours in wrestling history (title win, "This is your life" w/Rock, etc). Like already mentioned, he was the go to guy to get new stars over. Historically great at it.

How did Sting's book do, by the way? Surely a bigger star than Foley would have blown him away in book sales, no?

Foley was not only more influential in the ring, he really exasperated the wrestling book boom, too. Foley drew more money with BOOKS than Sting drew in the ring, but Sting was a bigger star? Let's reel this back into reality.

This is a Wrestling Hall of Fame. Even in this small little bubble where both guys were given runs and popped a rating or a buyrate, you are comparing Foley's few segments with one of the highest buyrate shows of its era, and biggest up to that point. And, did Hogan's book outsell Foley's? No. Terrible metric. By that measure, Foley is the biggest star in the history of wrestling. This is what I am talking about where being a "star" and a "draw" is not exactly a standard...the goal posts are moved all over the place.

Sting had exactly one run & one PPV where he was true difference maker. And he was hanging out in the rafters during that run. Which i'm not holding against him, because drawing money is drawing money, but it was gimmicky. And it was his one & only run where he truly moved things.

His one run was pretty fucking substantial...lets not forget that besides the Starrcade PPV, the SuperBrawl match with Hogan and Sting was also a top 5 PPV buyrate in WCW. The match where he and Hall were wrestling when Sting was champ also was a high buyrate for WCW.

and, as I've mentioned before, his run in the early 90's is a mixed bag...there are positives to draw upon, it wasn't the blackhole as you describe later. WCW was doing declining business even with Flair at the top. Also, how to you explain Sting main evented PPV buyrates maintaining or popping during his early 90's run. It was sporadic, but he had some high buyrates in there as the main eventer. Some shit ones, too, to be fair.

Aside from 1997, you can remove Sting from the Nitro era and it would make little to no difference. I know that bothers people, but it's true.

You can remove WCW from wrestling after Sting's run in 1997/98 and it would have made little to no difference. It was a sinking ship.

WCW dies if Turner doesn't bail it out. And that's with Sting as the top face, never able to make a difference, with the company constantly losing faith and trying Luger or Flair or Steamboat in his spot over the years. I know that bothers people, but it's true. The company would have folded, with Sting on top. He was not the star you think he was. WCW did a great job making people think he was, but he wasn't.

Turner purchased the company in 88, Flair was still at the top at that point. In 88, Sting was still working the mid-card, and in the beginning of 89 he was on tour with All Japan.

Not saying he wasn't a star. To some degree, on his small time level, he was. He was a good babyface foil to Flair over the years. In 1997, he was a legit big star. But lots of guys had one big year. Lots of guys had two or three big years. Scott Hall & Kevin Nash were far bigger stars than Sting, in the same promotion. They aren't Hall of Famers. But personally, I think Sting is. He's fringy, but i'd put him in for longevity.

Look, i'm on your side here. But let's not get crazy. Foley was a bigger star by a mile. People rip Sting over there, and i'm one of the ones that defend him. I'm in a debate with some geeks right now who think an Undertaker/Sting match would flop. Some of these guys are insane. But I can't say he was a bigger star than Foley. No way.

I'm not the one getting crazy here...in wrestling, Sting was a bigger star...Foley made a name for himself outside of wrestling on the back end of the Attitude Era/Monday Night War Era but his success with books never translated to wrestling. I've never said Sting was a major star, but he had moments were he was legit big time star (97, and I would contest some of these other year-long reigns at the top don't compare to Sting's), and in his other moments at the top, while not a success, wasn't the complete flop others make him out to be.

That's not a knock on Foley, but Foley was never given the ball to be a star, Sting was. Foley lucked into a couple of pop high segment ratings (one involving the Rock, one telling millions of people on another channel to tune in lol)...Sting was given the ball a couple of times...one of those times, he was a legit big time star...the others...a mixed bag with some bullet points of success, some bullet points where he's a flop, and others were he simply maintained.

No, Sting wasn't a huge star, but he was a low level star that did draw money. He wasn't the star WCW made him out to be, but I'm not claiming he was. Foley would rank higher on my list of favorites or best workers or whatever...but thats not really the discussion...Foley's star power didn't exactly pop buyrates after the WWF gave him the ball after the success of his first book either.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Foley's drawing power is not in question. He was a proven ratings draw, that's concrete, better than some of the guys you mentioned. That's how you can conclude that he made a difference. His promo work made his feuds compelling, and made his big matches ones that people wanted to see. I'm not attributing the entire Attitude Era to Foley. But I think it's pretty clear he carried his own weight.

And how does the success of his books not factor into the discussion, if this is about start power? His autobiographies were not only bestsellers, but they opened the door for everybody else to put out books, none of which matched the success of his. Including Sting's which was a gigantic flop, which if he were a bigger star than Foley, simply does not jibe. William Regal's book is very good, but nobody bought it. Hogan, Chyna, Angle, all shitty books, all blew Regal out of the water, because they are bigger stars than Regal. Having a good book helps, but the number one prerequisite to selling autobiographies is star power.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

His success as an author never translated to buyrates, ratings, or any metric of being a bigger star in wrestling. His most success in wrestling actually came the calendar year BEFORE the book came out.

[Warner2BruceTD]

His success as an author never translated to buyrates, ratings, or any metric of being a bigger star in wrestling. His most success in wrestling actually came the calendar year BEFORE the book came out.

Umm, his success writing WRESTLING books has doesn't traslate into being a star in WRESTLING?

Is this real life? Is selling books not drawing money? Did WWE not create an entire book division off of the success he created?

[s@ppisgod]

If there were a Wrestling Observer Writing Hall of Fame, then I'd put Foley in first. But him selling books or Rock selling movies makes no difference in his drawing power as a wrestler.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Umm, his success writing WRESTLING books has doesn't traslate into being a star in WRESTLING?

I this real life? Is selling books not drawing money? Did WWE not create an entire book division off of the success he created?

Do we discredit Vince McMahon's ability to make a wrestling product based off the XFL? Why would we give credit to Foley's success as an author with his star power as a wrestler? Do we credit John Cena's magnificent work in The Marine for WWE Films and using it to apply to his star power as a wrestler? I certainly don't.

Its not like Hogan making Rocky III and coming back and suddenly being the biggest star in wrestling.

[Warner2BruceTD]

If there were a Wrestling Observer Writing Hall of Fame, then I'd put Foley in first. But him selling books or Rock selling movies makes no difference in his drawing power as a wrestler.

I'm staring at my monitor and don't even know how to respond.

First of all, the debate here is Sting vs Foley, bigger star. Foley as a Hall of Famer is a slam dunk, I don't think anybody would argue that.

Second, what is the end game in the pro wrestling business? What is the goal of every person involved in wrestling? It's to draw money. Foley wrote wrestling books that drew an enormous amount of money, both for him, and the promoter he worked for.

How on earth can you spin that into not meaning anything in terms of being a part of his wrestling career? Rock's movies aren't wrestling movies. I agree they don't add anything to his wrestling resume. But the situations are not equal. Foley's books are wrestling books.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Do we discredit Vince McMahon's ability to make a wrestling product based off the XFL? Why would we give credit to Foley's success as an author with his star power as a wrestler? Do we credit John Cena's magnificent work in The Marine for WWE Films and using it to apply to his star power as a wrestler? I certainly don't.

Its not like Hogan making Rocky III and coming back and suddenly being the biggest star in wrestling.

Holy shit you guys are missing the point so badly.

Foley doesn't sell a single book if he wasn't a star, that's why. Nobody would have cared about his career enough to buy his books.

You know, like Sting.

[Warner2BruceTD]

So let me get this straight. Foley's books don't count because wrestling books somehow don't have anything to do with wrestling (huh?), Foley drawing the biggest quarter hour in wrestling history (a fucking 8.4) doesn't count because it was with The Rock, Foley main eventing WrestleMania and main eventing PPV's and main eventing sold out house shows, none of that counts because he was simply a cog in a machine....but Sting's ONE buyrate that he popped, that counts baby, his ONE year out of nearly 30 that he meant anything, that trumps everything.

I give up. Towel thrown.

[s@ppisgod]

I'm staring at my monitor and don't even know how to respond.

First of all, the debate here is Sting vs Foley, bigger star. Foley as a Hall of Famer is a slam dunk, I don't think anybody would argue that.

Second, what is the end game in the pro wrestling business? What is the goal of every person involved in wrestling? It's to draw money. Foley wrote wrestling books that drew an enormous amount of money, both for him, and the promoter he worked for.

How on earth can you spin that into not meaning anything in terms of being a part of his wrestling career? Rock's movies aren't wrestling movies. I agree they don't add anything to his wrestling resume. But the situations are not equal. Foley's books are wrestling books.

So if Earl Hebner writes a smash hit of a book tomorrow, then he's technically a WRESTLING draw to you tomorrow, as long as it's under the WWE's umbrella?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

So let me get this straight. Foley's books don't count because wrestling books somehow don't have anything to do with wrestling (huh?), Foley drawing the biggest quarter hour in wrestling history (a fucking 8.4) doesn't count because it was with The Rock, Foley main eventing WrestleMania and main eventing PPV's and main eventing sold out house shows, none of that counts because he was simply a cog in a machine....but Sting's ONE buyrate that he popped, that counts baby, his ONE year out of nearly 30 that he meant anything, that trumps everything.

I give up. Towel thrown.

I am 1000% certain you have previously stated that everyone but Austin and the Rock was merely a cog in the machine of the WWE at the time, or riding the coattails of, it was some kind of wording like that.

[Warner2BruceTD]

So if Earl Hebner writes a smash hit of a book tomorrow, then he's technically a WRESTLING draw to you tomorrow, as long as it's under the WWE's umbrella?

Earl Hebner wouldn't have a smash book, because say it with me...he isn't a big enough star.

But if even if he did, where is the rest of his resume? Foley has more meat to his argument than just his books. But the books certainly are an indicator of his overall star power, not sure how you don't see it that way. I think you are overthinking this.