New York Region, Kentucky Subregion: Second Round: (12) Kane vs. (5) Mick Foley

[klunderbunker]

The following contest is a second round match in the New York Region.

This match takes place in the Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky.

#12 Kane

Vs.

#5 Mick Foley

This contest is one fall with a 20 minute time limit. The match will take place in a 16 x 16 ring with no ramp leading to it. Any traditional managers for either competitor will be allowed at ringside.

As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.

The most votes in the voting period wins and in the case of a tie, the most written votes wins. There is one written vote per user, meaning if a poster make ten posts saying Bret should win that will count as a single vote. In the event of a second tie, both men are ELIMINATED, no questions asked. Only winners advance.

Voting is open for four days and all posts must be non-spam.​

 

[Megadeth]

I voted Kane here. While Foley's career has been arguably more successful than Kanes, the fact is that Foley has never been able to beat the Big Red Machine in a one on one match. Although the 1997 Survivor Series is best remembered for the Screw Job, it was also Kane's first WWE match against none other than Mankind, which Kane won. They have also fought a few times on Raw, most of which ended in No Contest, and Kane winning the ones that didn't.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

As much as I love Mick Foley, this one isn't all that hard.

I was almost positive, prior to research, that Mick Foley has never picked up a win against Kane. After digging further, I can't find one instance of Mick Foley beating Kane in a one-on-one match. It didn't happen. If it turns out I'm wrong about this, show me the evidence.

I have always been a bigger fan of Foley than I am Kane. However, Foley hasn't shown he can beat Kane. Even if Foley has, somewhere along the line, picked up a win against Kane, it's so hard to find it really wouldn't matter. Kane has dominated Foley, and this match wouldn't be any different.

Voting against personal preference, and going with Kane.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Egad I've been waiting for an excuse to show this video, one of my favourite promos ever and it just happens to involve both of these individuals:

[YOUTUBE]LpvkiRClHoA[/YOUTUBE]

Now I know this is exactly when Kane was being booked strongest in his career but just watch the 2 and a half minutes of actual match in the clip and it'll give you a real indication of how this could go.

I'm sorry I couldn't find a second part but the point remains. Mankind, Foley's most successful personality (albeit not at the most successful point) was nothing more than a stepping stone Kane used to exert his dominance on the rest of the locker room on the way to The Undertaker. There are a couple of small periods in which Foley may have had the edge (I'm thinking Cactus Jack pre-WWF and Mankind in 1999 where he was at a higher level than Kane with wins over The Rock etc.) but almost the entirety of the rest of the time this is Kane match.

The point was made in the last round. Mick Foley was exceptional at making guys look good because he'd accept ungodly spots nobody else would (HHH - RR 2000 and No Way Out at the HIAC match) and that's the point, he is better than almost every other guy at losing and putting people over. Kane is too physically dominant when he competes and Foley too much the opposite for me to really conjure much of a reason as to why he wouldn't win this. It would be a fairly long brutal match I'd expect but I can see a couple of tombstones needing to end this at around the 13-14 minute mark.

 

[Dark Horse]

I voted for Mick Foley. I like both of these guys in some way, and this was a hard decision as a result.

In a lot of ways it might seem that all roads lead to Kane, but I think you've got to give Mick Foley a little more credit than that.

When I think of Kane I think of a lot of offense with high impact maneuvers whose success rate is very questionable. When I think of Foley I think of a guy who takes an ass beating like no one else and keeps going until he outlasts his opponent. More so than that, you have to take into account the mandible claw. I'm sure Foley would take a tombstone, a chokeslam, and anything else Kane can throw at him. I'm not so sure that Kane survives the mandible claw. Kane probably has a higher body count than "Mick Foley" but Mick Foley as Cactus Jack, Dude Love, Mankind and himself has been through wars in the ring and has a laundry list of big names on his record as well. I just don't see Kane finishing off the hardcore legend. Foley might even squuueeeaaaak by, but he takes everything Kane has got and gets him with something. Not to question Kanes durability because we know he can take a shit ton of damage too, but it's not his trademark like Foley. You know that Foley will wreck Kane and himself to get the win, whereas Kane always gets frustrated when he doesn't get the pin fall, loses focus, screws up somehow, and loses. Don't forget that Kane was basically a jobber for years as well. I don't think you can really make that stick with Foley, I don't ever really remember him being in that category. He's probably lost more in recent years in TNA than any other time, but I still wouldn't call him a jobber.

Hardcore Legend wins in a long beat down nailing an exhausted Kane with a double arm DDT and the Mandible Claw.

 

[JXL]

Mick Foley hasn't beaten Kane when he debuted after Bad Blood 1997, and I bet wouldn't beat him in this tournament. Some will say his rivalry with The Rock will back up his toughness, but Kane's more brutal and will use it to put Mick's sock he has in his crotch and stuff it down his throat when he chokeslams him.

My vote: Kane.

 

[Tastycles]

Mick Foley is more significant in wrestling than Kane ever will be, but the fact remains that I cannot see him ever beating the masked Kane. Foley's move is the mandible claw, and the only thing he could hope to defeat Kane with, but Kane's mask has too small a mouth piece for that to work properly, and I doubt he'd be knocked out anyway. At that point, what does Foley have left? Double arm DDT has never been booked as a strong finisher, which you need against Kane, and he can't use weapons. Foley does what he does best here, and loses gallantly.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Foley has been booked as been able to take ungodly amounts of pain and beatings before somebody can manage to get that 1,2,3 on him. When Kane came in he was booked as an absolute monster capable of giving out a very big beating. I am not to sure which way this one would go, as a matter of fact i could even see this one going to a 20 minute draw with Foley just kicking out of everything Kane could give him.
I will leave my vote until somebodys arguement sways me to either side, until then i think this one would go to the limit.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Foley has always had incredibly limited offense when not in a hardcore environment, and as this is not a no-DQ match, I cannot see anything that he can do to stop Kane.

The Big Red Machine was an absolute beast in his prime, and should have been a 5x World Champion with dominant reigns. He was scary, huge, jacked up and had an awesome moveset at one point.

It takes alot to keep Mick Foley down, but Kane could dish out a vicious beating without breakin a sweat, picking apart Foley and dominating Mrs Foleys Baby Boy. He may kick out of a pwerbomb, he may kick out of a chokeslam, but if Kane managed to connect with a Tombstone, it would be lights out for Foley.

Kane advances

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Foley lost to Kane in 1997 because Kane was being booked as a monster during that time. You might want to remember Mick Foley as some jobber and that was what he became in his later years but from 1992 to 1996, he was an absolute beast. Over the years Mick Foley has won against some of the best in the business from Triple H to Rock, whom Kane has not won against and most importantly Kane's archenemy, his brother The Undertaker. He may have lost a lot but he was always booked in main event level feuds, something that Kane has never come close to achieving.

Kane is a very overrated wrestler. His popularity is a result of his awesome debut, great entrance music and a cool looking mask. The only time he is made to look somewhat dominating and a main eventer is when he is feuding with The Undertaker. Or when he is fucking a corpse. Barring his feuds with his brother he has only been a midcarder whether he is a face or a heel. When you talk about Foley's win/ loss record keep in mind that Kane hasn't won a lot too. Mick Foley, at all times in his career in the WWF at least, has been a main eventer.

You argue that Kane won against Foley in 1997. Well I cannot see Kane beating Foley at anytime from 2000 to 2010. That is how shit Kane has been booked because frankly he is not at all interesting when he is not feuding with The Undertaker.

Vote for Foley!!!!

 

[Nate DaMac]

You argue that Kane won against Foley in 1997. Well I cannot see Kane beating Foley at anytime from 2000 to 2010. That is how shit Kane has been booked because frankly he is not at all interesting when he is not feuding with The Undertaker.

Vote for Foley!!!!

Dude, I can't recall Foley winning ANYTHING after 1999. His career was beyond the back burner and he was pretty much exclusively used to put the new breed over. Kane, on the other hand, had several main event feuds, including one with HHH when he was WAAAY over with the crowd. He was an extremely popular wrestler in the past decade and had way more success than Foley. There is no doubt in my mind that 1o times out of 10, Kane is booked to go over Foley.

I see a lot of people stating that Foley is more significant in wrestling history, but I just don't see it being that cut and dry. The way I see it, if you were to ask casual fans of the 90s and early 2000s about WWE, they would remember Kane just as much as they would remember Mick.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Dude, I can't recall Foley winning ANYTHING after 1999. His career was beyond the back burner and he was pretty much exclusively used to put the new breed over. Kane, on the other hand, had several main event feuds, including one with HHH when he was WAAAY over with the crowd. He was an extremely popular wrestler in the past decade and had way more success than Foley. There is no doubt in my mind that 1o times out of 10, Kane is booked to go over Foley.

I see a lot of people stating that Foley is more significant in wrestling history, but I just don't see it being that cut and dry. The way I see it, if you were to ask casual fans of the 90s and early 2000s about WWE, they would remember Kane just as much as they would remember Mick.

Um he won World Championships in 1999. His career itself ended early in 2000.

The point that I want to make is Foley is the type of guy who gives pushes to up and comers by losing to them. Kane was a midcarder for the larger part of 2000 to 2009. So why should Foley lose to a midcarder whose career does not seem to be going up?

And as for several main event feuds I cannot remember any except for his feud with Triple H, that was a pretty bad feud by the way, and his feuds with Undertaker and a one off main event match against Chris Benoit. Face it man he is a career midcarder. Foley does not lose to guys whose careers are stagnating.

Foley was a main eventer throughout his stay in the WWF. He may have been a jobber but he was one on the main event level. Ask ten guys what they remember Foley for and they will tell you it is for his insane matches. Ask the same ten guys what they will remember Kane for I think you'll get his mask as the answer by most but I can assure you that no one remembers any match Kane has had except for perhaps one or two matches against The Undertaker.

Vote for Foley!!!

 

[Nate DaMac]

Seriously, Kane's career wasn't going up? I don't know about you but I was watching the program around the early part of the decade and Kane was far and away the top face on Raw, but guys like Steiner and Michaels were getting the opportunities because this was the time when Hunter was flat out refusing to job to anyone. Guys like Booker, RVD, and Kane who were crazy over didn't get the shots they deserved. Then after all that, they inexplicably turned him heel. Even with that, he still had a couple of really good matches with RVD and even some fun gimmick matches with Shane while Hunter was still absolutely sucking the life out of the main event scene. Through all that, he became the most dominate heel on the brand as well. He got a few one off world title shots, but didn't really hit the main event scene, but here's where your bit falls apart.

You said Mankind was always in the main event scene which is flat out just not true. He had several one off title matches, just like Kane, but he was never fully in the main event scene until around 98-99, and even then, he wasn't always at the top of the card. To top that part off, he almost always lost.

Mick might edge Kane in overall popularity, but Kane outright crushes him crushes whenever they meet in the ring.

 

[Uncle Sam]

As creator of Mick Foley's headquarters, I feel obliged to come in and make the case for him. I don't know why. It's not like anyone was going to come searching for me, was it?

Let's be honest with ourselves for a second. Kane is a bit shit, isn't he? Yeah, we all like how he didn't sell for the first year of his career and how he had a cool mask and how he gradually lost his sleeves over the course of his career. And sure, you can easily make the case that Kane would have beat Mick Foley in his "prime"; his prime presumably being his aforementioned no-selling streak.

However, this is a man that wasn't deemed good enough for more than a one day world title rain. This was a man that was greeted with constant disappointment and apathy once he lost his cool mask. Eventually he was actually deemed worthy of a "proper" title reign, but spent most of his time teasing The Undertaker about how he was sucking off Satan behind his back before getting beaten by a babyface Edge.

Kane, at the peak of his popularity and success, was there because of a cool mask. And yeah, I liked it when he tagged with X-Pac and when he hit the Honky Tonk Man with his own guitar during the Rumble, sure. He was hardly on the payroll for oozing natural charisma, working hard at putting on great matches or, really, anything other than having a lamer gimmick than even The Undertaker though, was he?

Support professional wrestling and cast your vote for wrestling legend Mick Foley.

 

[The Doctor]

We can vote by any criteria, so I just want to say that Mick Foley means more to me than Kane ever has or will. Mick Foley is the reason I'm a hardcore wrestling fan, because of his books. Kane is just a guy I've kinda liked, but nothing I've really cared about. Mick Foley got me watching TNA. Now how about that?

Oh wait, this is also in the context of a match. OK, so Kane tries to summon fire from the sky, but Foley blocks it with his powerful Socko Shield, then uses the Mystic Art Of The Dancing Fool to transform into Dude Love, causing Kane to break character and laugh. While Kane is distracted, Foley locks in the Socko claw and wins.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Seriously, Kane's career wasn't going up? I don't know about you but I was watching the program around the early part of the decade and Kane was far and away the top face on Raw, but guys like Steiner and Michaels were getting the opportunities because this was the time when Hunter was flat out refusing to job to anyone. Guys like Booker, RVD, and Kane who were crazy over didn't get the shots they deserved. Then after all that, they inexplicably turned him heel. Even with that, he still had a couple of really good matches with RVD and even some fun gimmick matches with Shane while Hunter was still absolutely sucking the life out of the main event scene. Through all that, he became the most dominate heel on the brand as well. He got a few one off world title shots, but didn't really hit the main event scene, but here's where your bit falls apart.

Here's the important part. He could have been a big face in 2002 but the WWE marketed HBK as the top face on Raw in late 2002 rather than Kane. It could be out of backstage politics or just about anything else in the world but the fact remains: Kane was just not pushed hard enough in 2002. Also do you really think that that feud with Triple H was a feather in the cap of Kane? Seriously? Necrophilia?

He then turned heel by losing his mask. But yet he did not hit main event status again till he buried The Undertaker alive. As I have said the only time Kane gets pushes is when he is shown having some interaction: whether positive or negative, with The Undertaker. That is the only time he is remotely interesting. Foley has had interesting feuds with guys like Austin, HHH, Rock apart from Undertaker. He is definately a more interesting persona and a more usable commodity than Kane. Kane's only good feuds have been with The Undertaker. His feud with HHH was shit and he has never really been seen as someone worthy enough to feud with either Austin or Rock, one off matches notwithstanding.

You said Mankind was always in the main event scene which is flat out just not true. He had several one off title matches, just like Kane, but he was never fully in the main event scene until around 98-99, and even then, he wasn't always at the top of the card. To top that part off, he almost always lost.

Mick might edge Kane in overall popularity, but Kane outright crushes him crushes whenever they meet in the ring.

Well Mankind started off by feuding against Undertaker in 1996 and The Undertaker was a main event level wrestler at that point. He did fall back to the midcard in 1997 but I do remember him winning quite often against the likes of HHH at that time. He then went back to the main event in 1998 just after Austin won his title and remained in that position till Summerslam 1999. Then he had one final run as a main eventer against HHH in 2000.

So he was in the WWF for about four years and was a main eventer for roughly 2 and half to three years. Still not a bad achievement when you compare that to Kane's. Kane has been in the main event for at most two years if you take into account the time from his debut to the end of 1998, his brief run in 2002, one match against Benoit in 2004 and his three month run in 2010. He has been a main eventer for two years in a career spanning 12 years. I hope that there are no further questions as to who had a better career.

And Mick Foley, mind you loses only when a guy is in need of a push. For example he lost in 2000 when HHH needed a push, in 2004 when Orton needed one and in 2006 for Edge. He shouldn't lose to a Kane at any point from 2000 to 2010 because Kane has never needed a push as he has been a career midcarder. As you can see he won against midcarders quite often like he won against HHH in 1997. Kane has seen points in his career where he has been even lower on the card than the HHH of 1997. I don't see why Foley should not beat him.

Vote Foley!!!

 

[nightmare]

Foley is a legend & his matches as Cactus Jack were always (in my opinion) his best. Maybe it was the character, or the crazy matches he was in, but i liked the guy. He has battled the best but, unfortunately, will be remembered for his insane bumps. The Rock handcuffing Foley & smacking him with the chair shots. Taker flinging him off& thru the cell. He was one of, if not, the best at getting his ass kicked.

Thats exactly what would happen here. If this was a harcore match Foley might have a better edge but, it isnt. One on one, Kane takes this match. It would be a battle, but Foley would end up on the mat for the 3.

For those that say Kane wasnt dominant or was only good for fighting Taker- your ******ed. His stuff with Taker originally was great, but became a bit stale. His tag title runs were great to watch, his RR eliminations, being in the MITB matches, & WM Hardcore title match. All pretty good stuff.


In the end, Foley gets thrown around like a human bean-bag chair by Kane. Mrs Foleys' baby boy ends up in the back, getting stitches once again.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

For those that say Kane wasnt dominant or was only good for fighting Taker- your ******ed. His stuff with Taker originally was great, but became a bit stale. His tag title runs were great to watch, his RR eliminations, being in the MITB matches, & WM Hardcore title match. All pretty good stuff.

He main evented only when he fought against Undertaker or when he fucked a corpse. He may have been awesome in the Royal Rumble and what not but for the major part of his career he has not been looked upon as a main eventer which Foley has been despite losing a lot.

And name me a good Kane feud except for his feud with Undertaker. Foley has had great feuds with all comers unlike Kane.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Here's the important part. He could have been a big face in 2002 but the WWE marketed HBK as the top face on Raw in late 2002 rather than Kane. It could be out of backstage politics or just about anything else in the world but the fact remains: Kane was just not pushed hard enough in 2002.

Being the top face on the brand has nothing to do with the way you're pushed. It's the popularity, the way the fans respond. I'll give you Michaels being more popular, but since this is a hypothetical tournament, I stick by my reasoning that hypothetically, Kane could have been the biggest face in the company in 2002 and no one would have suffered from it.

Also do you really think that that feud with Triple H was a feather in the cap of Kane? Seriously? Necrophilia?

Everyone always goes to that, but it wasn't a feud based on necrophilia. Like I said, I was actually watching the program during this time so I remember the way things happened. The feud was shit, but the necrophilia thing was one stupid skit that Hunter did. But that has nothing to do with my argument. It was a main event feud and Kane was waaaay over at the time.

He then turned heel by losing his mask. But yet he did not hit main event status again till he buried The Undertaker alive. As I have said the only time Kane gets pushes is when he is shown having some interaction: whether positive or negative, with The Undertaker. That is the only time he is remotely interesting.

Bull fucking shit. Kane has had numerous memorable feuds over the years with the likes of RVD, Shane McMahon, Austin, X-Pac, etc. The stuff between him and The Undertaker is always money, but to say that's the only interesting thing he does is asinine.

Foley has had interesting feuds with guys like Austin, HHH, Rock apart from Undertaker. He is definately a more interesting persona and a more usable commodity than Kane. Kane's only good feuds have been with The Undertaker. His feud with HHH was shit and he has never really been seen as someone worthy enough to feud with either Austin or Rock, one off matches notwithstanding.

I'm not taking away from Foley, he did have some very good angles in his 4 year stint. But like I said, to say Kane's only positive interaction was with Undertaker is absurd.

Well Mankind started off by feuding against Undertaker in 1996 and The Undertaker was a main event level wrestler at that point.

So what, feuding with main event level stars means you're in the main event? In that case, Kane also had feuds with Rey Mysterio and CM Punk who were World Champions so he's had more time in the main event than you suggest later on.

He did fall back to the midcard in 1997 but I do remember him winning quite often against the likes of HHH at that time. He then went back to the main event in 1998 just after Austin won his title and remained in that position till Summerslam 1999. Then he had one final run as a main eventer against HHH in 2000.

This all seems legit. Proceed.

So he was in the WWF for about four years and was a main eventer for roughly 2 and half to three years.

This is where I call bullshit. Feuding with main event level stars does not put you in the main event. Foley maybe spent just under 2 years in the main event scene and that is it.

Still not a bad achievement when you compare that to Kane's. Kane has been in the main event for at most two years if you take into account the time from his debut to the end of 1998, his brief run in 2002, one match against Benoit in 2004 and his three month run in 2010. He has been a main eventer for two years in a career spanning 12 years. I hope that there are no further questions as to who had a better career.

Ok fine, even though this is horse shit, lets just take a look at another statistic. In Kane's last title reign, he held the World Championship longer than all of Foley's reigns combined. This includes his TNA title run which, let's be honest, means about as much as the WWE Hardcore Title. You take that away, Kane tripled the amount of time Foley held the world title.

Another thing, you keep acting like Foley never wrestled again after 2000. He spent plenty of time wrestling, getting beat almost every time and never in the Main Event except his TNA run. If you're going to use Kane's longevity against him, you have to do the same with Foley.

And Mick Foley, mind you loses only when a guy is in need of a push. For example he lost in 2000 when HHH needed a push, in 2004 when Orton needed one and in 2006 for Edge. He shouldn't lose to a Kane at any point from 2000 to 2010 because Kane has never needed a push as he has been a career midcarder. As you can see he won against midcarders quite often like he won against HHH in 1997. Kane has seen points in his career where he has been even lower on the card than the HHH of 1997. I don't see why Foley should not beat him.

When Kane was on the card lower than Hunter in 97, he was usually beating the shit out of Vader or....... Mick Fucking Foley. This point right here puts this whole last paragraph to shit. Kane has never lost to Foley one and one, and frankly, he's destroyed him every time.

Vote Foley!!!

Vote Kane.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Being the top face on the brand has nothing to do with the way you're pushed. It's the popularity, the way the fans respond. I'll give you Michaels being more popular, but since this is a hypothetical tournament, I stick by my reasoning that hypothetically, Kane could have been the biggest face in the company in 2002 and no one would have suffered from it.

Well then hypothetically Cactus Jack could have won a World Title in WCW as he was a very over face and had his feud with Vader built up seriously he could have become a main eventer there and then.

Look we are not talking about hypotheticals here. Kane was over but for some reason he was not considered to be good enough to be the top face of the brand. Let us proceed.

Bull fucking shit. Kane has had numerous memorable feuds over the years with the likes of RVD, Shane McMahon, Austin, X-Pac, etc. The stuff between him and The Undertaker is always money, but to say that's the only interesting thing he does is asinine.

RVD, Shane McMahon and X-Pac are not main eventers and while Kane did have good feuds with those guys he pushed niether them nor himself to the main event on the basis of those feuds.

I surely cannot remember when he had a feud with Austin. He had a title match against Austin but it was just an extension of the Austin/Mcmahon and Undertaker/Kane feuds.

I'm not taking away from Foley, he did have some very good angles in his 4 year stint. But like I said, to say Kane's only positive interaction was with Undertaker is absurd.

Positive and negative depends on you but certainly all his main event level interactions were with Undertaker and once with Triple H which was a pretty bad feud. If you think that he had a main event level interaction with any other superstar then be my guest and name him.

So what, feuding with main event level stars means you're in the main event? In that case, Kane also had feuds with Rey Mysterio and CM Punk who were World Champions so he's had more time in the main event than you suggest later on.

This is where I call bullshit. Feuding with main event level stars does not put you in the main event. Foley maybe spent just under 2 years in the main event scene and that is it.

Well from what I remember he faced Austin for the title, Rock for the title and Triple H for the title as well. If that does not make you a main eventer then I do not know what does.

Even if you say that Foley main evented for less than 2 years, by the logic of the bolded part, it is still a lot more than Kane. His feud with The Undertaker in 1998 then could be called an upper midcard feud if you put it that way. Are you suggesting that Taker vs Foley was a not a main event level feud but Taker vs Kane was? By that logic Kane has been a main eventer for an even lesser time.

Ok fine, even though this is horse shit, lets just take a look at another statistic. In Kane's last title reign, he held the World Championship longer than all of Foley's reigns combined. This includes his TNA title run which, let's be honest, means about as much as the WWE Hardcore Title. You take that away, Kane tripled the amount of time Foley held the world title.

Come on man we both know how weak the roster was when Kane won the title. And that too mind you was when he was feuding with The Undertaker. He won the feud and then had a short feud with Edge to whom he lost the title despite Edge not being a huge babyface or anything. Then he disappeared from the scene altogether and was last seen having meaningless tag matches on Smackdown. It is much easier to win the belt today than it was in 1998 -99 with Austin in his hottest phase which might be the hottest phase that any wrestler has ever seen.

Also he did defeat Sting and Flair in TNA. Those are big names for a guy you consider to be a jobber.

And I do not care where you rate the TNA belt, it is a fact that he did achieve the highest honours in the company. He was a main eventer again for about 3 months in a pretty decent lineup that contained stars like Sting, Angle, Nash, Booker T and AJ Styles.

Another thing, you keep acting like Foley never wrestled again after 2000. He spent plenty of time wrestling, getting beat almost every time and never in the Main Event except his TNA run. If you're going to use Kane's longevity against him, you have to do the same with Foley.

Foley has wrestled for less than a year from 2001 to 2008. He wrestles sporadically in TNA too. Kane has been a regular talent for the past 13 years. Can't compare them on that point dude.

When Kane was on the card lower than Hunter in 97, he was usually beating the shit out of Vader or....... Mick Fucking Foley. This point right here puts this whole last paragraph to shit. Kane has never lost to Foley one and one, and frankly, he's destroyed him every time.

You misunderstand me. Kane was very hot in 1997 but after that he has seen points in his career when he has been even lower on the card than the Hunter Hearst Helmsley of 1997. And Foley has beaten the Hunter Hearst Helmsley of 1997 pretty easily.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Outside of a decidedly hardcore environment, I don't see Mick Foley beating Kane when both of them were in their physical prime. Even in a hardcore environment, Foley might still not be able to ultimately get the job done.

Foley will always mean more than Kane to wrestling when it's all said and done, but Kane was damn near unstoppable in his peak. Foley's best shot against most guys has always lied in a hardcore setting where Foley can really just let it all hang out and go for it. In a standard match situation, I see Kane just beating Foley a good 7, maybe 8 out of 10 times. Kane's superior size, strength and general athletic ability is just too much for Foley to get past without the use of chairs, barbed wire wrapped baseball bats, flaming tables and thumbtacks. Foley has a better shot in that environment, but he's not in it here so he loses.

 

[LigerBomb]

Are we talking the maskless incarnations here? I'd much rather have boiler-room dwelling Mankind meet up with a fully mute and much more intimidating Kane. Both were built up as sadistic and twisted enough to actually be a threat to the Deadman, and that is the match I want to see. Not baldy Vs. fatty.

Sooooo, yea, in keeping with full disclosure, let it be known that I'm from NY. Therefore I say Foley is like a Timex and will keep on keepin' on long after Kane dishes out all he can serve (but not all Foley can eat judging by his ever expanding waist-line). Score one for Cactus Jack Jr.

 

[Big Sexy]

I really can't believe Kane is winning this. Foley has him beat when it comes to in ring work, mic work, and overall success. People can point to Kane's dominant run all they want but let's remember that run lasted less then a year. When he beat Mankind in his debut match it was because they were building up the Kane character to be dominant and Foley was the perfect person to put him over because of his past success against the Undertaker. That match was easily Kane at his most dominant but it was no where near Mankind at his best. In kayfabe terms I see no reason why 1996 Mankind, 1999 Mankind, or early 2000 Cactus Jack couldn't have beaten the dominant Kane from late 97 and throughout part of 1998.

 

[X]

Can someone please explain to me when Kane was EVER dominant? Because all I remember was him squashing a few jobbers, Foley putting him over like fuck at Survivor Series 97, and then Kane losing to 'Taker at Mania...and then the next month...and then to Austin...and then again to his brother...and again to Austin. Seriously, his win-loss record was shit in 1998 and that was his fucking BANNER YEAR! Foley on the other hand was able to defeat everyone from the Undertaker to The Rock to Steve Austin and Triple H, multiple times in some cases. There's no reason he couldn't dispose of Kane, and if we're judging this by talents, well Kane isn't even in Foley's LEAGUE. Kane wishes he was half the worker or promo-man that Foley was, and Foley had more success during an era that was much harder to win world titles in. He went over Triple H and Steve Austin CLEAN in the midst of the hottest period of the Attitude Era in August of '99 while Kane was busy feuding with X-Pac and Tori for the next 6+ months.

This is Foley all the way and I just can't believe Kane is winning this currently.

 

[wrestlingfan]

Goley all the way. His career ios more storied unliked Kanes who was only dominant for a few years just by squashing jobberrs than being reducted to nothing, even going os far to have a love feud with Lita. Mick Foley not so consistent but has kept it going and achieve dmore success and feuded with th ebest.

Whether its Mankind, Dude Love or plain old Foley/Cactus Jack, The Hardcore Legend will win and put a smile on Mrs. Foley's face.