Mick Foley: Getting Over By Putting Over

[Little Jerry Lawler]

During the Attitude Era, you had figureheads in Stone Cold and The Rock and you had secondary players such as Undertaker, HHH, and Kane. One can see how Mrs. Foley's baby boy can get lost in the shuffle but he was one of the most important wrestlers in any single era. I know Austin had his middle finger and merchandise sales and Rock had his eyebrow and catchphrases. Foley was something special as he had his multiple personalities which he pulled off without a hitch and he was insanely over - by losing. I'll give you examples of how some of the top guys benefited from Foley.

Undertaker: He was busy fighting monster after monster with seemingly no direction at all. He needed a change and that change came in Mankind. Mankind was just as sick and sadistic as the Undertaker and gave him a true challenge. They had brutal matches and at times, Mankind was Undertaker's equal which was great.

Rock: He won the title at Survivor Series in 1998 and needed a big feud to solidify himself as the top heel. Enter Mick Foley as the lovable Mankind this time and took it to Rocky and taking it in return. Foley's first title win was as memorable as any moment in history and Rock got major heat during their I Quit match.

HHH: He feuded with the McMahon family and Austin in the latter half of 1999 but his bouts with Cactus Jack pushed him to new heights. HHH went on to face Rock and the rest is history. HHH was awesome in 2000 and 2001 and Foley was the catalyst for that.

Today, we put so much emphasis on wins and losses. If a wrestler keeps winning, we say that they are Superman and can never lose. If a wrestler loses every match, we say that they are jobbing or being buried which is another discussion entirely about how we misuse the word "buried." Jobbers are looked at so negatively nowadays because we want winning, winning, winning. Guys like Heath Slater are just as important as guys like Cena. When a wrestler debuts, he needs to showcase his array of skills and that's where Slater comes in. You're not going to have your first match against Randy Orton. What sense would that make when he RKO's you a minute after the bell?

If Foley was doing what he was doing then today, I guarantee most would be posting that Foley is getting buried or why he is jobbing so much. What I would tell you is that you can still be a jobber and be damn successful. Kane is a jobber to the stars mostly and he has a couple of word title reigns. Foley was a jobber to the stars and he won three world titles and is beloved everywhere. You can get over with the crowd without winning all the time. It makes it all the better when you have that ability to make the guy you're facing better which is what you're supposed to do and Foley did it better than anyone else. I don't think anyone can have the same impact he had because of wrestling today and how we want everyone to be successful and the realization is that being the world champion is not the only indicator of success. You can be one of the best of your craft without being at the very top. Foley is living proof of that and he has my ultimate repsect.


Do you think we value wins and losses too highly?

If Foley was doing what he did then today, how would he be perceived by the IWC?

 

[Defekt]

Do you think we value wins and losses too highly?

Foley is kinda an unique case.

Foley didn't need to win all the time, because people paid to see him get his ass kicked. He took things farther than most people had seen at the time, especially in the WWE and WCW, and made himself a draw with his charisma and willingness to take huge risks.

When Heath Slater loses it's just another run off the mill match not worth remembering. When Mick Foley lost it was because he was thrown off a cage, or bashed in the head with a chair repeatedly.

I think John Morrison was sorta the same way to a certain extent. Even when he went on losing streaks, the crowd still liked him because he was out performing his opponents.

If Foley was doing what he did then today, how would he be perceived by the IWC?

It's hard to say. Hardcore wrestling was much more popular in the 90's than it is now, and guys in CZW and the other garbage promotions go way farther than Foley ever did. Plus, the PG era would limit his style greatly. But Mick Foley is a great performer, and I think people would still appreciate him.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Foley is kinda an unique case.

That's for sure. His non-athletic physique, his self-professed ability to take great amounts of punishment, and his "poor schmuck" persona was designed to represent the rest of us. It's as if the Undertaker needed an opponent one night and any one of us (well, okay....not me) was to climb through the ropes and give it his best try, knowing we were gonna get destroyed. That "Joe Everyman" is who Foley was and made it seem feasible that if a guy takes enough punishment and keeps on trying, he can sometimes move mountains ......even though he more often winds up buried under the mountain.

It's the job of every wrestler to sell the other guy's moves, and no one ever did it like Foley, to the point we wondered exactly what the hell he was doing. When he went off the top of the cage for Undertaker, who was Foley selling; 'Taker or himself? When Foley went flying off the stage into a trash dumpster, was he selling the New Age Outlaws "disposing" of him, or was he selling himself?

Today, we have guys like Cody Rhodes and Dolph Ziggler. Both are seemingly destined for main event status, yet they job cleanly to the stars even as they're getting themselves over as winners. At first sight, that might seem close to what Foley did......but it really isn't, is it? No one calls Cody and Dolph jobbers, do they? Yet, tons of folks called Foley a jobber.

A jobber who became the world champion? Tell me there was anyone remotely like him. Yes, he got over by putting over, but he did it by being one of the truly original characters pro wrestling has ever seen.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

One of the things that we were taught as kids was that incomplete knowledge is a very dangerous thing. That is something that the IWC seems to have forgotten. They love using terms like "buried" but cannot seem to grasp what it means. Yes, we place a hell lot of importance on the wins and losses without realizing that it is the manner in which these wins and losses come about that matters, not the bare statistics. Not many care about the winner of a boring match and nor do many forget the loser of a great match. The secret to being a great pro wrestler is to make sure that the fans win every single time you go into the ring. And that is the secret that Mick Foley understood.

That Mick Foley would have been as successful in this era had he been allowed to do the same things he did in the attitude era is a no brainer. Would he have been as successful had he not been allowed to do the same things is a tougher question but I would say he would have. Foley had the will to succeed like few others in the industry. Due to the attitude era, we did not get to see what Foley could have done in more normalized matches but there is always the match with HBK at Mind Games in 1996. What strikes out about that match to me is the anecdote behind it of how hard Foley trained to go one on one for 30 minutes with the greatest athlete of those times.

As for the IWC scrutiny on Foley, sure that would have always been there. Not just his losses, but his weight issues and his lack of in ring skills would have been discussed night and day on forums like these. I do not think that it would have mattered much to Foley. He would have probably fashioned out a fourth face based on the ignorant IWC fan. And that would have been hilarious.