Originally posted by raygunAnd about the comments of some people who equate Hogan being a multi-millionaire with "being able to feed his kids". That's ridiculous. A bus driver makes enough money to feed his kids - Is he any less of a good person because he's not worth millions?
If you're refering to the statement that I made about people not wanting to get rid of Hogan because he used to garuntee an excellent payday, you misread me. For good or bad, Hogan made wrestling what it was in the 80's. True, the man is not an accomplished technical wrestler. Ture, his workrate is shoddy at best. But he made his company millions and millions of dollars. He is THE icon that everyone remembers when asked about 80's wrestling. Ric Flair is popular with people who know more than the average person about wrestling, but that does not mean that he was a greater draw. It's simply not true. Maybe I didn't clarify myself in my earlier post. I am not a fan of the way Hogan does business. I am no longer a fan of his matches and haven't been since I turned 12. He shouldn't have said what he did about Mick Foley in that interview. But I will defend him against people who say that his legacy isn't as big as he makes it out to be. The truth is it is greater than what he claims. Everyone who was a child in the 80's and watched wrestling loved Hulk Hogan at some point. Even if for a fleeting moment, his charisma captivated audiences around the world.
To asteroidboy, I don't care if you would "rather watch Royal Rumble 2000, personally. Better backstory, better payoff. I'd also rather watch MindGames 96, RR 99 and KOTR 98 before I went back and watched anything of Hogan's, with the possible exception of WrestleMania 6." The reasons you give are good. I like those matches involving Foley as well. But you're also talking about two completely different eras in professional wrestling. Hogan's backstory was always the same. He didn't need to change it because people lined up around the block to take a sip of his Kool-Aid. As a wrestling fan, I agree that Foley is a much better wrestler.
As far as who has done the most damage to their bodies, that remains to be seen. Let's see if Foley can stand up straight when he reaches Hogan's age. Based on Foley's physical appearance, I seriously doubt his heart is in that much better shape than Hogan's. Hogan poisoned himself with steroids and god knows what else. Foley risked crippling injury in every notable match he has ever been involved in. I think they're about even in terms of what they've done to their respective bodies.
On a dark note, I doubt that there will be many media headlines the day Foley dies. Hogan on the other hand will most likely get a lot of press. Not only for the steroid use, but because he was so damn popular. That equates into his legacy as well. Hogan is a whore. It's always been about the dollar for him. I never said that he was a happy man, but he sure as hell is a very smart man.
"Behind that twinkle in your eye, I can see the bitch in you." - 50
Oh, I couldn't agree with you more about Hogan's mainstream popularity and his place in pop culture. He was - and still is - larger than life. In the wrestling community, however, I think it will be a different story. In my opinion, when both are long gone Mick Foley will be remembered as the better wrestler and the better man.
Of course, we all know Hogan WILL NEVER DIE. He'll just keep making comeback after comeback after comeback until his skin shrivels up and fades into a shade more consistent with that of a normal (white) human being.
I would argue that Hogan's pops on his recent comeback were larger than the pops afforded to Foley this past summer because Hogan hasn't been in WWE for ten years. Foley last appeared only in 2001, and is still considered an 'attitude era' wrestler by the fans.
I don't want to get into a debate of who's the happier man, since we're not psychologists and I don't think any of us personally knows Mick Foley or Terry Bollea. But I think I can state that Mick Foley is able to leave wrestling behind in a sense, because he has his writing and lecture tours to satisfy his creativity and fill his time. Hogan is always making comebacks because without wrestling, he's a D-list celeb at best. In the eyes of the general public, he's "just a wrestler," whereas in the wrestling world, he's the Immortal Hulk Hogan.
Look at it in a musical sense....Hogan is KISS, Foley is David Bowie
"When this bogus term alternative rock was being thrown at every '70s retro rehash folk group, we were challenging people to new sonic ideas. If some little snotty anarchist with an Apple Mac and an attitude thinks he invented dance music and the big rock group is coming into his territory, [that's] ridiculous." - Bono, 1997
You were right about my respect comment -- I should have clarified. Mick is a bestselling author as well as a wrestler. What's Hogan? A cartoon figure. In the mainstream, does anyone give a tuppeny damn about action figures and Wrestlemanias? Not really. Having best selling novels, OTOH, is something that *will* garner you respect. If Mick can spin something more polished after Tietam Brown, he may be well on his way to literary acceptance. Eat that, Hulk.
First of all, it doesn't take any significant talent to be a best-selling offer. Mick's only best-sellers, in fact the only significant literary successes he has had whatsoever, have been the non-fiction titles he's written. Every celebrity has a best-seller when they write their life story, it doesn't make them good authors. Is Tim Allen a good author because he had a non-fiction bestseller? Is Jerry Seinfeld? And before you say how Foley wrote his own book, so did both of those gentlemen. So saying Hogan's not better because he's more popyular in wrestling, but that Foley IS better because he's more popular in non-fiction, is a little shaky.
And the reaction to Tietam Brown has not been good, the early stuff was indifferent, but the later stuff tore it up, regarding it as cliched, excessively violent, and unoriginal. His future in fiction is bleak at best.
Originally posted by Feulinjected
I hope a lot of the guys, especially Hogan and Vince, who are ingesting massive amounts of steroids at an old age took a good long look at the past 10 years of Superstar Billy Graham's life, why he's lucky he's not dead and why he's in a wheelchair.
The argument wasn't over who's a better performer, it was that Hulk Hogan said that Foley didn't respect his body because he's not a jacked up freak when infact, Foley probably showed MORE respect for his body by not doing so. His heart, his liver, his kidneys, are probably all in a hell of a lot better shape then Hogan and most wrestlers.
Okay, first of all Hogan is in all likelihood not taking steroids anymore. I know I'll catch flack for this, but if you watched his body deflate over the years you'd realized the chances he's on the juice at this point are actually pretty low. Look at WM's 6, 7, 8, and 9. He gradually gets softer and smaller every year. He seems to level off at about 265-270 and stays in that neighborhood through all of his WCW run. For a man as naturally obese as Hulk, it's not unreasonable to be this size, especially when you've worked out for years on end.
I can't say the same for Vince, but that's another thread altogether.
I also think it's fairly wishful thinking to say Foley had more respect for his body than Hogan. Hogan took steroids at a time when they were commonplace, everyone keeps ignoring this fact. Everyone took steroids. A lot of guys from baseball, to hockey, to football, and so on, were on this stuff in ther 70's and 80's. The side-effects were unknown or unresearched. So you take one man doing something out of ignorance to another doing something that he knows is dangerous, like taking bumps off the apron onto cement, and then you say the ignorant guy has less respect for his body.
Also, have you met Hogan? He's stands up fine. His knees are shot, but he's not exactly coming apart at the bones. Foley seems okay too, but only because he quit when he did. If he'd used his brain though, he could have made awesome money for another 5 years in the business instead of being dead-in-the-water by 32.
"Whatever I just posted above is what your mother said in bed last night."
This is just going to go around in circles but if you think that how ripped Hogan is at his age and his weight is au natural, well, I think I have some land in China to sell you.
And I've seen Hogan on TV and as Mr America, he had trouble standing up straight because of his admitted back problems.
I don't get how Foley gets painted as a moron for choosing to wrestle a more impactful style because Hogan had the luxury of eight minute main events before the intermissions and at his peak, not even working a full schedule.
I guess Ric Flair is an idiot because he couldn't do that too. Stupid Flair out there bleeding and bumping every night for an hour. Flair did what would turn most men into mush because he could and had to. Foley took the big bumps because he could without becoming a drug addict. Jeff Hardy on the other hand, could not and I'd agree that Hardy is somewhat of a moron.
Somewhat related is a passage in Jesse "the body's" autobiography where he accuses Hogan of backstage harpooning of his plan to unionise wrestlers in the early 80's. I don't have the book anymore to quote directly - I didn't rate it that highly. I hope the maid at the Wichita Hilton where I left it enjoyed it :-)
On topic: I enjoyed Hogan as a kid in the 80's. Technical wrestlers were generally found in the midcard and the main eventers were "catoon characters". It worked and was excepted by mainstream. Maybe those were simpler times. I also enjoyed watching Foley. He made "suspension of disbelief" so much easier.
I would like to think that at this stage of their careers, both have left a legacy on the business and both will be remembered fondly all be it for different reasons and as such they should be above public sniping of each other.
My 2c G
PS I liked Tim Allen's "Don't stand too close to a naked man"
PPS I believe heroin is the best painkiller around.
EDIT: Who the hell is Tin Allen?
(edited by Big G on 7.9.03 1918) Warrior Quote: "Presuming initial consensualness, where exactly do we draw the lines of our judgment pinning down the responsibility and accountability inextricably attached to each human life? "