HOF poll on Observer site

[EmpireWF]

Also, Foley had more of an influence on wrestling than Sting (style wise). Whether good or bad....

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

There is no cause and effect to a wrestler's "star power" and the buys of a book, nor does quality of a book indicate the power of its sales.

Hogan was the biggest star in Wrestling...Thunder in Paradise was absolute shit and had terrible ratings. Throw his movies on top of it, the result is the same. Throw HIS book on the list, the result is the same. And this is Hogan we are talking about.

btw - you can't compare Sting and Foley's book...one was a biography about wrestling, one was on becoming a born-again. lol

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

There is no cause and effect to a wrestler's "star power" and the buys of a book,

bullshit.

nor does quality of a book indicate the power of its sales.

agree (to an extent, there can be outliers). thats my point in bringing up Regal & Holly. great books. no buys. not stars.

Hogan's book did well. Horrible reviews and all. Wanna guess why?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

bullshit.



agree. thats my point in bringing up Regal & Holly. great books. no buys. not stars.

If it is bullshit, then where is the cause and effect...there have been tons of wrestling autobiographies that have come out since and the success of each book isn't exactly corresponding to a list of the biggest draws of all-time.

And, not for nothing, Holly's book is the #1 wrestling seller on Amazon at the moment.

And, after your edit...Hogan's book didn't do well...entered the NYT BSL @ 12, and dropped shortly after.

It's also important to note, the books published by or hand-in-hand with the WWE were strong sellers, especially early on after the initial success of Foley's book...the ones not, didn't sell so well.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

If it is bullshit, then where is the cause and effect...there have been tons of wrestling autobiographies that have come out since and the success of each book isn't exactly corresponding to a list of the biggest draws of all-time.

Go do a search of the best selling wrestling books of all time, or a list of the NYT bestsellers, and see if you notice a trend.

There is no correlation to book quality, but there is definitely a correlation to star power.

Both of Hogan's books were trash, panned by critics & fans. Both were bestsellers. Chyna's abomination was #2 on the NYT's bestseller list, and it's considered the worst wrestling book of all time.

Now look at books like Lou Thesz Hooker, or William Regal Walking the Golden Mile, the latter of which was pushed hard on WWE tv. Regal couldn't give away copies that book.

Foley (X4), Jericho (X2), Hart, Hogan (X2), Flair, Lawler, Austin, Hardy Boyz, Edge, Michaels, Chyna some of these are good, some are really bad, some average, all big hits. They may not fall in order of who was the biggest star, but the pattern is clear. People buy the books of stars, not the books that tell the best story.

I still don't understand how you are failing to see the bigger point when it comes to Foley's books. "The Rock Says", largely a piece of shit, hit #1 on the NYT beestsellers, im sure that had nothing to do with what a gigantic star he is. C'mon, man.

Also, most if not all of these books don't even exist if Foley doesn't break through with his first.

 

[EmpireWF]

Also, most if not all of these books don't even exist if Foley doesn't break through with his first.

Absolutely, undebatable.

If Foley's original book ended up being a shit seller, there is no future book business for Rock, Flair, Chyna, Hogan, Regal, Goldust, etc.

He was the trendsetter and it's a classic book in the genre (with several others by this point).

As for people talking about how big a star he was....he was one of the top stars in WWF during it's most profitable period ever. He made Rock and HHH. Those two factors alone, without anything else is bigger than anything Sting can say.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Go do a search of the best selling wrestling books of all time, or a list of the NYT bestsellers, and see if you notice a trend.

There is no correlation to book quality, but there is definitely a correlation to star power.

Both of Hogan's books were trash, panned by critics & fans. Both were bestsellers. Chyna's abomination was #2 on the NYT's bestseller list, and it's considered the worst wrestling book of all time.

Now look at books like Lou Thesz Hooker, or William Regal Walking the Golden Mile, the latter of which was pushed hard on WWE tv. Regal couldn't give away copies that book.

Foley (X4), Jericho (X2), Hart, Hogan (X2), Flair, Lawler, Austin, Hardy Boyz, Edge, Michaels, Chyna some of these are good, some are really bad, some average, all big hits. They may not fall in order of who was the biggest star, but the pattern is clear. People buy the books of stars, not the books that tell the best story.

I still don't understand how you are failing to see the bigger point when it comes to Foley's books. "The Rock Says", largely a piece of shit, hit #1 on the NYT beestsellers, im sure that had nothing to do with what a gigantic star he is. C'mon, man.

Also, most if not all of these books don't even exist if Foley doesn't break through with his first.

The only correlation you are showing is that books published by WWE Books and Simon and Schuster sell, while those that don't, tend not to.

The second Hogan book, not a WWE release...was a huge flop...so I am not sure why you put a "x2" on that list, and it kind of helps my point.

IIRC, the highest selling non-WWE/S+S book is Death of WCW, for whatever that's worth.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

My standard was NYT bestsellers. The second Hogan book peaked at #12.

we are drifting from the original point, here. You are jumping through hoops to discredit everything Foley did. The enormous success of his books speaks to his popularity and star power as a wrestler. I don't see how it can be analyzed any other way.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

My standard was NYT bestsellers. The second Hogan book peaked at #12.

we are drifting from the original point, here. You are jumping through hoops to discredit everything Foley did. The enormous success of his books speaks to his popularity and star power as a wrestler. I don't see how it can be analyzed any other way.

The second Hogan booked opened up @ 12 and was off the list within 2 weeks. That's a huge flop by any definition.

I'm not jumping through hoops...this is the wrestling hall of fame discussion...we are talking about star power and drawing IN WRESTLING. Sting was a monster in 1997 and in parts of 1998 IN WRESTLING. Buyrates and ratings to show for it. Gates can be a bit skewed (because WCW didn't rely or focus on house shows), but he was in the top 10 that year (IIRC, the Top 7 were WWE guys going back and forth with Austin). His original runs at the top came at a shitty time in WCW, but had some moments where he was able to maintain and even pop some eyeballs, but also had some stinkers as well. All of that IN WRESTLING. Foley was never given the ball as a top guy, he was always a FOIL...an amazing FOIL but a FOIL nonetheless, his few peaks where you can say this guy created eyeballs on the product could easily be attributed to those segments having the biggest stars of the era in them. Its not to discredit Foley, but it is what it is...his success as an author could be skewed a million ways, the WWE and Simon and Schuster were and are the only publishers that have EVER pushed wrestling stories and promoted them. You look at the best selling wrestling books...they are all WWE books and the WWE has really only published guys that were at the top of the card (sans a few outliers, like, as you mentioned, Regal). Its a nice add on, but it doesn't expound on Foley's stardom in wrestling...which, is fine, but Sting was a bigger star in the wrestling bubble. Perhaps that fact is more noticeable if he gets a run in the WWE...who knows.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Foley's two WWE releases, both hit #1 and stayed on the NYT BSL for some time.

Outside of the WWE Books bubble, his two other biographies were somewhat flops...his third, debuted in the top 10 but dropped out soon after...his TNA one I don't recall ever making the NYT BSL.

 

[s@ppisgod]

100% agree. However, I can't deal in hypotheticals. Perhaps Sting would have been one of those cogs in the Attitude Era had he jumped. I don't know. All that I know, is what actually occurred.



Foley reached main event status in WCW. Same for ECW, but that was so small scale in the context of this conversation that it doesn't matter.

Again, like the Sting in WWE thing, I don't know if Foley would have been the same level of star in WCW. But honestly, in this debate, it really doesn't matter to me. I can only base my opinion on what actually did happen.



Hall, Nash, and the formation of the NWO is what really pulled WCW ahead. Yes, it eventually got stale. Goldberg was the driving force for a time, no question. Sting was a real difference maker in 1997, no question. Outside of 1997, I really don't think Sting mattered that much, if at all, in the big picture. He was a good guy to have around, but i'm not sure history changes if he magically disappears. Take away The Outsiders or Hogan, the war is very much different. That's why I say he rode the NWO as much as Foley rode Austin & Rock. It's all conjecture though. Point being, Foley was with the bigger company that ended up doing bigger numbers and put the other company out of business. And he certainly held up his end of that, when you look at the ratings he drew, cards he main evented, merch (don't want to use the "B" word), etc.

In short, I think Foley was an integral part of the bigger company that ended up being more successful and doing better numbers. And I think he was responsible for some of that. You guys don't, or at least to the degree that I think. I'm not sure where we go from here.

In what measurable way was Sting a bigger star?

With most, it doesn't matter. But I think Sting is a special case. He's a guy that could have gone to WWE a number of times, and undoubtedly got more exposure. Butnever did. As is, he's known as the guy who was the biggest star who never performed in the WWE. Foley had a great career at WCW, and was noteworthy in ECW. But him being involved in the WWF at it's hottest period maybe ever, as a serious player, may well have made him a bigger star alone, before adding in him doing well. I think they're about the same in terms of star power. Sting was a #1/2 guy before Hogan came to town, and after that even became the #1 guy for a while again when they were doing good business. But usually for the #2 company. Foley was maybe the #1 heel for a time in WWF when he was working MEs with Hart and HBK. But a lot of the time he was a top 5 to borderline top 5 guy in the company. But his exposure was 2-6 times what Sting's was post-98. Then they both went to TNA, and I think it's fair to say that Sting was the guy to move the meter more. Sting has been the biggest signing for TNA in terms of results outside of Angle. Which isn't counting Hogan, who isn't a wrestler. Still, I think they are on par with each other. Sting was a HUGE star until about 99, when nothing in WCW mattered. But that's right around the time Foley took off. Both are top 10 stars in the business the past 20 years. Neither are top 5, and neither can be argued as below 15. To me, they're in the same tier, but I can't help but wonder how Sting would have fared in WWE. Flair too, until his 2nd run. They managed to become huge stars in the business without working with the guy in Vince that has made stars out of people with pretty much no talent (Batista)

The war is different without the NWO angle. But Sting was still a top face in WCW when the NWO was forming. The match with Luger and Savage and Sting, Sting was the biggest face in the ring. He was still getting big reactions. His storyline
ith Luger as a heel and then him turning on Luger or not was still featuring him as pretty much 1B to Hogan's 1A. Even the Havoc match with Bret Hart was a big dream match for a lot of people at the time, and could have been the biggest match on the card if not for Goldberg being a sales machine at the time and facing a red-hot DDP

I do think Foley is responsible for his success. I also think that they would have sold out buildings and done great buyrates even if he left. The This Is Your Life segment was great, and it deserved the attention it got. He killed it. But at the same time if he did the segment with Mark Henry, does it break records? If he does in WCW, does it break records. You have to admit, the guy was in the right place at the right time with the right people. And that's a GOOD thing, because it helped him reach career heights that weren't previously thought possible. All I'm saying is the guys who were the biggest stars in the business brought the star power more often than not, until Foley established himself as a star himself.

 

[s@ppisgod]

I'm not saying Foley's books made him a bigger star. I'm saying the books did so well because he was a star. Same for Jericho.

Bob Holly's book is getting fantastic reviews, for its honesty and candor. PLus it has some good dirt from what I understand. He pulls no punches and comes off more likable than he did as a wrestler. It won't sell like Foley's or Jericho's or Hart's. He's not a star, they are.

Pretty much all of the biggest wrestling books are the ones released by wrestlers who are still being prominently features in the WWE. If the Hardy's release a book today, it doesn't do shit. To some extent, I think that's part of the machine. There's no way for me to prove that, being that the WWE is the only game in town during this era of wrestling autobiographies.

 

[EmpireWF]

Sting had an awesome fucking year from late 96 through Starrcade 1997. Epic storyline, best buy rate in WCW history I believe. If he ever does get the votes, it's because of that and his longevity. Period.

However, he was also the top guy or #2 guy in WCW during the dreadful pre-Hogan 90s WCW era. What was his biggest drawing period aside from the crow stuff in 97? Something with the Horsemen?

 

[s@ppisgod]

Sting had an awesome fucking year from late 96 through Starrcade 1997. Epic storyline, best buy rate in WCW history I believe. If he ever does get the votes, it's because of that and his longevity. Period.

However, he was also the top guy or #2 guy in WCW during the dreadful pre-Hogan 90s WCW era. What was his biggest drawing period aside from the crow stuff in 97? Something with the Horsemen?

To some extent, I think that has merit. But on the other hand, I think it takes a lot of arguments to extremes. Down times are down times, and I think they stay that way with 99.9 percent of other wrestlers. Austin can change bad business to good. So can Hogan. But who else on a large scale? Bret Hart was on top for a really bad period in WWF. How much of a hit does he take? He wasn't a draw, but he was still a star.

 

[FedEx227]

Sting had an awesome fucking year from late 96 through Starrcade 1997. Epic storyline, best buy rate in WCW history I believe. If he ever does get the votes, it's because of that and his longevity. Period.

However, he was also the top guy or #2 guy in WCW during the dreadful pre-Hogan 90s WCW era. What was his biggest drawing period aside from the crow stuff in 97? Something with the Horsemen?

The issue with Sting and specifically this time period you mentioned is he didn't even work during that time. Yeah, it was a great storyline but what did he have to do besides come down on a rope, swing a bat and then go away. I just don't feel right giving him a ton of credit for his involvement in that storyline. He didn't talk, he didn't work, he just sat there, the announcers put him over and he went away.

This IMO only adds to the overrated Sting stigma in that, once he got into the ring and went back to being a full time participant, it was back to "meh" for Sting.

 

[FirstTimer]

A really casual wrestling fans opinion here: Aside from that 1997 run with Hogan I really can't recall any Sting match ever. I remember watching WCW in the early 90's and being "sold" that Sting was the top guy or whatever but I never really cared and he was pretty boring. I'm not saying Sting wasn't a star or whatever but in my mind you could delete Sting from wrestling and outside of one year you really aren't missing much. If you delete Foley, you're missing a ton.

I don't have the wrestling nerd chops to back it up but IMO Foley is a much larger star than Sting.

 

[FirstTimer]

The issue with Sting and specifically this time period you mentioned is he didn't even work during that time. Yeah, it was a great storyline but what did he have to do besides come down on a rope, swing a bat and then go away. I just don't feel right giving him a ton of credit for his involvement in that storyline. He didn't talk, he didn't work, he just sat there, the announcers put him over and he went away.

This IMO only adds to the overrated Sting stigma in that, once he got into the ring and went back to being a full time participant, it was back to "meh" for Sting.

This as well. Sting's run was basically all build up to the inevitable Hogan/Sting match because he was the anti-nWo savior or whatever. The build up happened where Sting basically didn't do anything but walk around rafter or hit some guys with a bat every so often, the match happens(which was a complete snore fest) and the wad was shot. Sting wasn't a dynamic enough personality to keep caring about a ton, so I just quit caring.

 

[FedEx227]

I hate to knock him down because the payoff and eventual long term angle was ridiculous and made no sense but such is life.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The issue with Sting and specifically this time period you mentioned is he didn't even work during that time. Yeah, it was a great storyline but what did he have to do besides come down on a rope, swing a bat and then go away. I just don't feel right giving him a ton of credit for his involvement in that storyline. He didn't talk, he didn't work, he just sat there, the announcers put him over and he went away.

This IMO only adds to the overrated Sting stigma in that, once he got into the ring and went back to being a full time participant, it was back to "meh" for Sting.

Sometimes less is more.

They hit it out of the park with that angle because he didn't talk, he didn't work, and he just sat there. The announcers didn't have to say anything, they were terrible anyway.

It doesn't work with anyone else BUT Sting, so, of course he needs to get all of the credit.

You build up heels to put over faces...the nWo was made to be built up...and put over Sting. They tried to do again...build up the nWo, so Goldberg can go over.

The build up of the good guy going over the bad guy is where the money is in wrestling.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

This as well. Sting's run was basically all build up to the inevitable Hogan/Sting match because he was the anti-nWo savior or whatever. The build up happened where Sting basically didn't do anything but walk around rafter or hit some guys with a bat every so often, the match happens(which was a complete snore fest) and the wad was shot. Sting wasn't a dynamic enough personality to keep caring about a ton, so I just quit caring.

The rematch against Hogan at SuperBrawl did great business, too.