I've decided to vote for Sting. For no good reason really other than the fact that saying Lewis came first therefore Lewis is better (which is to a large extent the argument being presented in his favor) is reasoning along the lines of rock beats gun because rock came first (I know that I'm guilty of reductio ad ridiculum, but the point is still valid) I do not know anything near as much as I should about Lewis, and to me that is actually a part of the problem. I would have thought that like great innovators from the 1930s and before in most sports (Babe Ruth and Stanley Matthews to name two immediately obvious examples) he would be far more well known if his contribution to wrestling is as dramatic as you are attempting to portray. You both make a thoroughly compelling argument gentlemen, but I regret to say that I am not convinced. For me, legends on a scale you are portraying endure, even to the most casual of fans. The fact that Ed Lewis hasn't says more than any argument for Sting ever could.