HBK vs Sting OR Sting vs Undertaker

[doublej_TNA]

Sting is the true franchise of WCW and HBK and Taker are fanchises of WWF (imo HBK and taker saved WWF while wcw was spankin it)

Looking at past matches who do you guys think would win in a Sting vs HBK


OR


A Sting VS Taker?

I will go with Sting over taker

but Sting HBK would be REALLY close!!

 

[gamehead]

I think Undertaker will beat Sting and no doubt Sting will lose to HBK

 

[iamwrestling]

(imo HBK and taker saved WWF while wcw was spankin it)
/QUOTE]
I don't think that's true. HBK was out for a long time and when WCW finally went down it was because of Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock. The Undertaker helped save it too, but I don't think HBK had anything to do with taking out WCW.

 

[iamwrestling]

I say that Sting would beat the Undertaker. While The Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers of all time since he's a big guy but still does submission holds and technical moves, Sting does submissions, technical wrestling, and high flying. I think that Sting is just a little better than the Undertaker. As far as Shawn Michaels goes, Michaels would definitely beat Sting. Michaels can do it all, and does everything better than anyone in wrestling history.

 

[Kasey]

Looking at each wrestler in their prime...let's say 1995. I'd no doubt book Sting as the clean winner versus either man. He was the perfect combination of strength, power, technique, speed, and high-flying maneuvers. He was the perfect mixture of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Not saying I don't appreciate the prowess of HBK, but most of his key victories for the World Title during the nineties involved cheating or a fluke call...typically against Bret Hart no less. Referees hadn't established the concept of the overtime periods in the Ironman match at WMXII and Michaels would've either tapped or been knocked out whilst being deadlocked in the Sharpshooter. We know how it went down in 1997, so I'm not going to waste effort typing about it. Undertaker has never been anything electrifying in a ring and even though he holds victories over Nash, Sid, and the Big Red Mistake, he's hidden behind a gimmick to cover up for a lack of wrestling ability. Being big and rolling your eyes back in your head hardly makes you a wrestler, let alone a decent one. This is why I'd have chosen the Stinger. As for a current match? I'd book HBK as the winner. He's kept himself in better shape these last few years as Sting (as much as it hurts me to say) has kind of let it go. Currently for a match with Sting versus the Undertaker? Either guy would be fine to win for me. Sting still is strong as a bull and even in the late nineties he could slam the Big Show (which was strange to see...and amazing).

 

[Blizzard]

HBK and Undertaker wuld both smear him because he is way too old to compete with either of them.

 

[peopleschamp]

Comparing all three men in their primes, I say Sting would probably emerge as the winner in both matches. Sting has the size and strength to hang with the big boys (e.g. Vader), and has enough athletic ability to have a decent match with the little or normal size wrestlers (e.g. Flair). In terms of popularity and charisma, Sting also compares favorably to both HBK and Undertaker, and I dare say that between 1990 and 1993 there was as nobody more popular in wrestling than Sting. I agree that both matches would be close, though.

 

[Dan1506]

How can you say The undertaker lacks wrestling ability.

and dont forget the WWE/WWF/ECW/WCW ARE NOT ACTUAL PRO WRESTLERS.

Its the things like stroylines and Gimmiks which make it Great and entertaining. And ovb they do need in ring ability.

The again Sting was The ultamate warrior of WCW right?

 

[Kasey]

How can you say The undertaker lacks wrestling ability.

and dont forget the WWE/WWF/ECW/WCW ARE NOT ACTUAL PRO WRESTLERS.

Its the things like stroylines and Gimmiks which make it Great and entertaining. And ovb they do need in ring ability.

The again Sting was The ultamate warrior of WCW right?

How could I say he lacks it? Easy. He has a few key spots he works for throughout a match, and yes, some of his moves are innovative (chokeslam, flying clothesline, Old School ropewalk, legdrop on the apron), but he's nowhere near as fast, creative, or agile as either Sting or HBK when all three were in their prime. Taker's never had to rely on wrestling ability because the gimmick always did the work for him. I also look at other things with regards to his ability to adequately receive punishment, which is passable, but nothing to write home about. His ability to work deep into a match is another thing I'm not sold on. Some of it also has to do with Taker being put in the ring with horrible wrestlers like Mark Henry, Khali, or Kane. When Taker took on someone who could move, like Randy Orton, you actually saw some of what he could still do. Storylines and gimmicks are essential, yes. However, without the wrestling to back it up, the show is just a bad soap-opera comedy that falls flat. The wrestling is the most essential part. This is why I can't stand WWE these days. On the whole I think the wrestling there sucks...big time. The storylines are worse...if that's possible. Sting was hardly the Ultimate Warrior. If anyone is the Ultimate Warrior it's Batista. Yes, Sting and Warrior started together, but Sting became ten times the wrestler Jim Helwig ever was or could be.

 

[PauLwaLL]

Sting vs HBK is a dream match I always wanted to see.... As for the winner... I dont know... Both of them were my fav wrestlers... But in there Prime... Hmmm... Its really tough... I seriously cant pick one on that one... But ummm Ill pick HBK.... peopleschamp above me said Sting can keep up with Vader... So could HBK.... He also said the same about Flair... Hbk already has beaten both of them...

Sting vs Undertaker.... I honestly cant give an answer on that one... But just to say it... Sting

 

[MAGGOT]

while they were all in their prime i would say Thee Undertaker over Sting and HBK vs Sting in their prime i'd go with the Stinger