Bryan Is This Generations Mick Foley

[Evenflow DDT]

After watching the rise D-Bry, I'm convinced that creative has dusted off an old playbook from late 1998, "The Rise of Foley".

The Similarities are astounding...

-The fans get behind Bryan because he is charismatic, entertaining, an excellent storyteller/performer, an underdog, and an "every man". (Yes I know he is a better "wrestler", but WWE is no longer a wrestling company.)

-Vince can't stand the idea of someone like "him" representing HIS company, BUT wants the title off of Cena (Austin).

-Daniel Bryan to get a Corporate Makeover?

-Tags with Kane and wins Tag Titles.

If the reports are true I feel...

Bryan will win the title from Cena, only to lose it to someone who is as Vince put it, "More like HHH" (Orton). Bryan will then chase Orton for the rest of the year, possibly winning it back at some point. By Royal Rumble Orton will be champion again and head towards WM to face Cena. Perhaps Bryan will be involved in a 3way Dance, like Foley was supposed to be in WM 15 until HBK put his 2 cents in.

Thoughts?

 

[newwaveknight]

Okay, let's get this cleared up right now.

The only "someone" that Vince wants representing his company is

1) Somebody who is going to make him a metric fuck-ton of money.
2) Somebody who is going to make him a metric fuck-ton of money over a long period of time.

Yes, maybe Vince has personal preferences over what kind of superstar he wants representing the WWE product, but at the end of the day he is about one thing: how can the WWE make me money?

As far as the whole Orton cash-in thing goes, why wouldn't they have him cash in on D-Bry? They NEVER have face vs face feuds last that long, they damn sure won't risk D-Bry merchandise sales by having him turn heel, and an Orton heel turn has been in the works for a while.

And as far as this whole "WWE is no loner a wrestling company" business, why do you think there are better workers at the top of the card? We've got D-Bry, CM Punk, Alberto Del Rio, Dolph Ziggler (when he shows his technical side more), Jack Swagger, and Curtis Axel getting more air-time, and they are all good workers. Why do you think managers are making a return? It's because the WWE is trying to push in-ring workers more. Hell, the WWE is WAAAAAAYYYY more of a wrestling company than it EVER was in the Attitude era.

And seriously, if you wanted to watch wrestling without the entertainment aspect, go to ESPN 2 and watch college matches.

And as far as being an entertaining underdog? Being one of those doesn't make you the generation's Mick Foley. If that were the case, people would have said that about Cena during his rapper gimmick.

To answer your question, no. D-Bry is in no way, shape, look, smell, taste, sound, or touch, the Mick Foley of this era. I would go into their VAST difference in in-ring skill. One is a great technician, the other was the best ever at falling on stuff. There will not be another Mick Foley for quite some time because the WWE's solid workers can actually wrestle and don't have to fall on stuff to have good matches (if you can call hardcore wrestling good).

 

[newwaveknight]

I'd like to ask if you're implying that Mick Foley is not a good wrestler unless he is falling on "stuff"?

Is there any doubt in your mind about that?

That's what hardcore wrestling was: guys who weren't good enough workers to work a legit match. You never saw Ricky Steamboat, Kurt Angle, or Chris Benoit having to specialize in hardcore wrestling. Even if those guys did a match like that, it was to add to a feud, they didn't have to depend on it like Foley did.

 

[Horatio Fellatio]

Well yes.... I've seen plenty of his matches that do not involve falling on "stuff". I understand you're very young and weren't around then, but I'm sure you can do your research and see it on YouTube instead of making such baseless blanket statements. For someone who is not a natural athlete, Foley is a phenomenal wrestler with a solid understanding of ring psychology. Anyone who actually understands the business would understand that without putting up a "lol hardcore" argument against it.

 

[LiarsDice]

Well yes.... I've seen plenty of his matches that do not involve falling on "stuff". I understand you're very young and weren't around then, but I'm sure you can do your research and see it on YouTube instead of making such baseless blanket statements. For someone who is not a natural athlete, Foley is a phenomenal wrestler with a solid understanding of ring psychology. Anyone who actually understands the business would understand that without putting up a "lol hardcore" argument against it.

What this guy said. Go watch Mankind vs Shawn Michaels at Mind Games.

As for the thread topic, I see what you're getting at, but I think you are thinking about it too literally. You are trying to push Daniel Bryan into pigeon holes to fit your theory. You could do the same thing comparing him with the Rock (debut as boring character, develop as a heel, turn face and skyrocket) or even Shawn Michaels (considered weak link in a tag team, smaller guy, its his dream to win the big one when no one thinks he could).
When you pigeon hole you lose the bigger picture of whats happening. Sure, there are similarities to Micks situation, but there is more going on. This feud seems to have as much to do with Cena vs Bryan as it does with HHH vs Vince, which puts it into a different category immediately. Add in the fact that Vince has a problem with D-Bry, Cena has a problem with Vince, and Orton is lurking around the background, and you have a new scenario. Vince hasn't involved himself this much in a long time, so I think its fresh, not to mention that the title scene is revolving around 3 face characters.
In the end, Daniel Bryan is this generation's Daniel Bryan. Enjoy the ride.

 

[The Eighties]

I've been saying for a bit that there is an element of Foley in Bryan. From a ring standpoint I can see the Benoit comparisons and the way he blends in humour is a bit like Angle. However the eccentric beard, the non traditional look (not just his size), the way he's talked about as a Goat and a troll etc...by even the face announcers, there is a sympathy element to Bryan that has similarities with Foley in 98.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

There are a little bit of similarities but overall, I just don't see it.

Foley for most of his career wasn't in great physical shape. He became a legendary wrestler from his in-ring psychology and his "hardcore" gimmick. Foley was a guy that was willing to, and did, participate in any type of match and fans loved him because you never knew what he was going to do or what kind of beating he was going to take. He played 3 characters (well, technically 4 if you count his actual "Mick Foley" character) exceptionally well and remained a top star even in the shadow of Stone Cold, Undertaker, Triple H, The Rock.

DB is similiar in that he's an underdog and has the "everyday guy" kind of look to him. However, DB is a much better technical wrestler than Foley but he doesn't have the psychology that Foley had.

 

[RicSpade]

I think were confusing characteristics with storyline here, true there are similarities to the Mick Foley angle they did before they relived the "screwjob" angle turning Rock into a heel for the corporation, but that stops that right here to this.

I think where your getting at and I agree and disagree is Daniel Bryan is not only entertaining like Mick Foley was during the Mankind era, but he is willing to put his body on the line like Foley did with his fast pace high octane moves. However I don't account what Daniel Bryan did as being this generations Mick Foley. For once the universe has guys who are willing to sacrifice themselves on a different level. if you look at all the sick bumps Foley had I'd compare that to Dolph Ziggler and his 1001 ways to bump off of moves. If you look at how over Daniel Bryan is right now I'd compare it to when the crowd started getting over for Austin or the Rock because at the moment even though back then they were sold out crowds or 16-20 thousand every week, but he is still getting huge pops for their market.

Daniel bryan is not this generations Mick Foley, he's got the skill of HBK, the technicality of a Bret Hart or Dean Malenko, the over factor of Austin or Rock, and the ability to put his body on the line to make the crowd happy like Mick Foley.

He may not be the total package, but he has some of the best skill set in a long time to get over, but he's definitely no 100% Mick Foley

 

[BobbyWayward]

I would be more likely to compare Daniel Bryan to Dusty Rhodes.

Someone that doesn't quite have the "look" of a champion, but people get behind him because of his character, and being able to relate to him. Both seem like everyday kind of people, not gigantic bodybuilder physiques.

The real reason I liken him to Dusty Rhodes is the constant chase. Dusty Rhodes never held the NWA title for very long. People wanted to see him talk about winning it, chasing the championship. Because he brought fire, and got people behind him. Danielson is the same in the WWE. I have a feeling that they will pull the old chase game with DB and the WWE title, just like they did for Dusty Rhodes and the NWA belt.

 

[Nikeo]

While there are some similarities, as others have noted, I don't think that's enough to make a comparison between the two characters.

I think many people within the IWC (subconsciously) like to compare two workers as a way of adding some credibility to one of them. I think this is especially true when it comes to Bryan. The sheer amount of times I've seen him compared to Benoit (which I cannot say I don't see) but to compare him to Foley purely because he's a sympathetic character is a little bit weak. Does that mean Bryan is also showing flashes of Zach Gowen or Jeff Hardy circa. 2003?

I think the Dusty Rhodes comparison is even more ridiculous. He doesn't have a "championship look" and being an "everyday person" makes them similar? No. It doesn't. Dusty Rhodes was a working class hero, something I've never seen the WWE push with Bryan. I don't know about the U.S but here in Ireland and the U.K, in Dusty's heyday, class was a huge barrier to success. Rhodes' character wasn't just an "everyman", he was a working class guy that broke the glass ceiling and made it to the top of his profession. He succeeded in spite of his class. I don't see any of that within the Bryan character. With all of that in mind, I could make the case that R-Truth and MVP are more like Dusty than Bryan will ever be.

If you make vague analysis of any character you can, as one poster aptly said, pigeon hole another character into that analysis.

If Bryan uses humour he's like Kurt Angle.

If he's sympathetic he's like Mick Foley.

If he emphasises his technical skills he's like Benoit/Malenko.

If he isn't a bodybuilder he's like Dusty Rhodes.

Right. So if he starts doing Asai moonsaults is he this generation's Ultimo Dragon? If he starts jumping off ladders is he the new Jeff Hardy? If he's feuding with Vince is he the new Stone Cold?

I don't think comparing Bryan to any of these guys, or calling him the "new" whoever, affords Bryan any extra credibility. 'Nor do I think any worker strives to obtain such comparisons. I think Daniel Bryan would rather be called this generation's Daniel Bryan than Foley, Angle, Austin or anybody else.

As I said earlier, I think comparisons are a subconscious way that fans try to add, or detract, credibility to/from someone either in their own mind or in the minds of others. I've seen this more with Daniel Bryan than I've ever seen with any other worker when it comes to internet fans. I don't understand it at all.

Magnus is rocking a suit these days, is he the new Flair?

Chris Sabin is small, is he the new Mysterio?

We can all make a vague analysis of a character and liken them to another guy. What I'd like to know is: what's the point?

 

[MCMG]

Never actually thought of this and I see some similarities - not having the "look" of a champion. However, I think Bryan is stronger in the ring and, since the industry has changed, Bryan has the potential to make a lot of money for the company. I don't think that Foley could ever be the number two/three guy in the company. (side-note: I fucking love Mick Foley, just not sure he was capable of being the top guy)

This comparison could actually be detrimental to Bryan: if you think about it, Foley never had a proper title reign - 3 separate reigns accumulating 47 days . He was mainly used in random filler matches for the bigger stars and it is easy to overlook is impact on the attitude era. I don't think Daniel Bryan will want to retire being that guy who was jobbing to Cena, Orton, Punk during his peak. I don't think this is his fate: he is great position to be a top star and he will have a proper world title reign soon.

 

[newwaveknight]

Well yes.... I've seen plenty of his matches that do not involve falling on "stuff". I understand you're very young and weren't around then, but I'm sure you can do your research and see it on YouTube instead of making such baseless blanket statements. For someone who is not a natural athlete, Foley is a phenomenal wrestler with a solid understanding of ring psychology. Anyone who actually understands the business would understand that without putting up a "lol hardcore" argument against it.

Okay, first of all, since you actually use the term "vanilla midget", I can only assume you're an old, senile dude.

Second, "in-ring psychology" is the go-to for ANYONE trying to defend why one of their favorite superstars isn't that good in the ring. Seriously, what the fuck is in-ring psychology? Being able to make a match theatrical? If you're a good enough athlete, it will catch peoples' attention without it. Promos and mic time are for theatrics.

And can you read? I'm 25, you illiterate shit. And I might not be as well-versed in Foley since I was busy watching WCW (you know, where the good storylines and better matches were). But as far as from a purely athletic standpoint, give me a good non-hardcore match that Foley had (leaving out that "ring psychology" bullshit) where the names Michaels, Angle, Benoit, Jericho, or Hart weren't involved. Seriously, those guys could make Jabba The Hut look good in the ring.

 

[jpfizzle]

Okay, first of all, since you actually use the term "vanilla midget", I can only assume you're an old, senile dude.

Second, "in-ring psychology" is the go-to for ANYONE trying to defend why one of their favorite superstars isn't that good in the ring. Seriously, what the fuck is in-ring psychology? Being able to make a match theatrical? If you're a good enough athlete, it will catch peoples' attention without it. Promos and mic time are for theatrics.

And can you read? I'm 25, you illiterate shit. And I might not be as well-versed in Foley since I was busy watching WCW (you know, where the good storylines and better matches were). But as far as from a purely athletic standpoint, give me a good non-hardcore match that Foley had (leaving out that "ring psychology" bullshit) where the names Michaels, Angle, Benoit, Jericho, or Hart weren't involved. Seriously, those guys could make Jabba The Hut look good in the ring.

Look dude, I get it- this guy called you out and ruffled your feathers and you had to reply, probably tired, after a bad day whatever...truth is you were actually winning the argument to an extent, I was on your side and anticipating an intelligent reply and then you came back with this? You fluffed it man... you really, really fluffed it.

In ring psychology is the single most important thing in the entire world of fake rasslin'. If you really don't understand what it is I'll explain it to you. It's everything dude. Everything you see from bell to bell, it doesn't happen by accident... Pro Wrestling is all about the story telling. When a wrestler hurts his arm or leg and his opponent targets the injury. When one wrestler has been dominating a match and then his opponent counters with a finisher. When a manager steps on the apron to help his guy by distracting the ref... It's all about the story telling and what wrestlers use to tell the story is in ring psychology.

Like it or not Mick Foley was a master at in ring psychology and that's why he was able to rise to the top of the business in the most star studded era we are ever likely to see. I am sorry that you wasted the mid-to late nineties watching WCW but that can't be helped dude.

In answer to your last question none of Mick Foley's matches will be remembered for his athletic ability. Just look at him man to suggest so much is laughable. But his very best matches live long in the memory because they tell great stories.

If you want to watch wrestling just for athletic ability I really don't think the likes of WWE, TNA, ROH is for you and I suggest you start watching amateur college wrestling where you will find the fit, healthy, athletic specimens rolling around on top of each other you so desperately need in your life.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

After watching the rise D-Bry, I'm convinced that creative has dusted off an old playbook from late 1998, "The Rise of Foley".

The Similarities are astounding...

-The fans get behind Bryan because he is charismatic, entertaining, an excellent storyteller/performer, an underdog, and an "every man". (Yes I know he is a better "wrestler", but WWE is no longer a wrestling company.)

-Vince can't stand the idea of someone like "him" representing HIS company, BUT wants the title off of Cena (Austin).

-Daniel Bryan to get a Corporate Makeover?

-Tags with Kane and wins Tag Titles.

If the reports are true I feel...

Bryan will win the title from Cena, only to lose it to someone who is as Vince put it, "More like HHH" (Orton). Bryan will then chase Orton for the rest of the year, possibly winning it back at some point. By Royal Rumble Orton will be champion again and head towards WM to face Cena. Perhaps Bryan will be involved in a 3way Dance, like Foley was supposed to be in WM 15 until HBK put his 2 cents in.

Thoughts?

Seriously?

Mick Foley served his purpose during the Attitude era. He was the Hardcore legend who seemingly had a pipe dream of being a world champion of any caliber. He's known for death matches, barbed wire, and taking insanely dangerous bumps. He also had great moments with Austin, HHH, Rock, etc. I'm aware of that.

Daniel Bryan on the other hand has won major titles in Japan, and in RoH. He's known as a wrestler, not as a bump junkie. Bryan's not being pandered around and seen as a buffoon like Foley was, either. Bryan is a legitimate technical wrestler who can put on a solid match every single night against nearly anyone. Foley can't do that unless he's put through a table or set on fire, or covered in thumbtacks.

It's borderline insulting to compare him to Foley in nearly every way. And before someone comes along and says he's an underdog like Foley, just ... stop. In reality, Bryan was seen as someone who should have been given a major title from the word go. Foley was given his WWE title reign as a 'thank you' for hard work in putting guys over. I know that Bryan's being billed as an underdog, but most of his fans from his indy days know better.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

I've been saying for a bit that there is an element of Foley in Bryan. From a ring standpoint I can see the Benoit comparisons and the way he blends in humour is a bit like Angle. However the eccentric beard, the non traditional look (not just his size), the way he's talked about as a Goat and a troll etc...by even the face announcers, there is a sympathy element to Bryan that has similarities with Foley in 98.

I don't see that at all. Foley was seen as a lovable loser who was ridiculed for not having the look of a champion.

Daniel Bryan's being ridiculed by Vince McMahon because he doesn't like the fans liking something he didn't create.

Comparisons I'd draw from Bryan would be someone like a young Chris Jericho or Chris Benoit, or even Dusty Rhodes due to him not looking like a typical wrestler, but having the charisma to get over and be white hot in the process.

I would be more likely to compare Daniel Bryan to Dusty Rhodes.

Someone that doesn't quite have the "look" of a champion, but people get behind him because of his character, and being able to relate to him. Both seem like everyday kind of people, not gigantic bodybuilder physiques.

The real reason I liken him to Dusty Rhodes is the constant chase. Dusty Rhodes never held the NWA title for very long. People wanted to see him talk about winning it, chasing the championship. Because he brought fire, and got people behind him. Danielson is the same in the WWE. I have a feeling that they will pull the old chase game with DB and the WWE title, just like they did for Dusty Rhodes and the NWA belt.

This sums it up. You're not an underdog once you win the big one. Dusty was the 'common man' who worked hard to get to where he wanted to go. Same goes with Bryan. His size means he has to work harder to get those opportunities. And Bryan can draw money like Dusty could. Foley never was a big draw when it comes to main event status.

True but Daniel Bryan is definitely a better wrestler than Mick Foley.

Exactly. People can talk about his ring psychology all they want, but Foley told stories with his physical punishment more than anything. Bryan tells the story by being in short stature and slaying giants. Foley never had that giant slayer mentality. He just wanted to inflict punishment on people and be punished in the process.

 

[Suikervrij]

The major difference between the two is the background of their performance;

Foley may have not been such a great technical wrestler but he was mindblowingly entertaining. His matches were built up so great by him and his opponents that the hardcore angle came over as more then just a simple bump and grind to make things more attractive. Foley was the guy who was never a good wrestler, didn't really deserved a title shot but just persevered and won it anyway.

Bryan is a great technical wrestler. It took quite some time for him to develop his character, but eventually he got over. He has his moments but he's by far not as charismatic as Foley imho. He's saved by having the same perseverence as Foley and knowing how to have great matches, despite the lack of looks and strength. The WWE board and universe grant him that title shot and like him because he's a great wrestler who deserves a big break.

 

[Alastor]

I disagree. I see more shades of Angle and Benoit than Foley in Daniel Bryan. Foley was the man that would sacrifice his body to inflict pain. DB's current storyline remind me of Angle with his dorky persona paired with excellent technical wrestling. And he reminds me of Benoit as the guy that could never 'main event' after toiling for years in the business. Or in DB's case fumbling around in the tag division for a year.

 

[LuckyLouie]

I really dont see any Foley in him, HBK is a yes.
To ME Ambrose is the new Foley.
Sandow is the new HHH.
Cody will turn out to be Edge or Christian.
But DB has an amazing future with him and I can see a Stone Cold like fued with Vince.

 

[BillAlfonsos_Whistle]

I really like this post. I hear a lot of comparisons with HBK and I think that is a little lofty for D. Bryan because he is just not as charismatic of an in-ring performer. Not saying I don't think Bryan is an A+ in-ring talent, but his style is far from HBK.

He doesn't have a pretty boy angle like Micheals always seemed to have through every image and gimmick change throughout his career. He is way more like Mick Foley in that regard for sure. Freakish underdog rises to the top.