Rock Region, Fourth Round, 60 Minute Iron Man Match: (2) Sting vs. (3) Undertaker

Who Wins This Match?

  • Sting

  • Undertaker


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

klunderbunker

Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
This is a fourth round match and it is a 60 Minute Iron Man match. It will take place at the Amway Center in Orlando, Florida. Assume that one week has passed since the previous round, meaning that all injuries may not have healed.

amway_center.jpg


Rules: There is a sixty minute time limit and the most falls in that time span wins. A fall can be earned by pinfall, submission, countout or disqualification.

tumblr_mtj5te9I1l1scllemo1_500.jpg


#2. Sting

vs.

tumblr_mitgh0CKtB1rg89a6o1_500.png


#3. Undertaker



Polls will be open for five days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.​
 
I'm leaning towards Sting. In both his prime runs he beat the biggest names in the territory, Taker is probably one of those pop culture terminologies that will leave on for years and years, atleast till our generation walks this planet. But I see him losing to the top babyface of the region because quite frankly, the babyface benefits from going over Taker a lot than vice versa.

And he don't mind.
 
I'm going with Taker here. Even though Sting has been the top guy, something Taker never was I can't imagine him lasting a 60 minute beating from the dead man, a guy who at his prime was someone who didn't sell too much. I could see Sting getting a few quick falls on Taker (like 2 at max) but you can almost guarantee Sting is going to get a beating about 55 minutes of this match as that's what Sting does against monsters. Sting has always been a guy who perseveres against monsters but it usually comes after taking a pile of severe beatings and learning from them. Since he's never faced The Undertaker I'm guessing he would lose his first match against the Deadman and beat him at another time (next year's tournament maybe). Sting is alot of things but he's not a quick learner, it takes him time to figure shit out, especially against monsters. Sting will come out swinging, he will throw everything he has at Taker (instead of trying to outsmart him), Taker will shrug it off, beat the piss out of Sting and take the victory.

Sting is a rise from the ashes type of guy but in order to rise from the ashes you have to get buried first and Taker does that better than anyone.
 
I too am leaning towards Sting here. We all know Sting can go 60 minutes and keep on chugging if need be, I don't think The Undertaker has ever wrestled close to an hour in his entire career, though I could be wrong. Sting also strikes me as the guy who has the better qualities of the two to squeak out the win in an Iron Man match. More heart, more main event experience, and a hell of a lot more endurance would make it tough for Taker to hang with Sting for an hour.

I think Taker beats Sting down for a good 20 minutes until he starts to slow. Don't see many falls in this match but I can see Sting stealing one early and than taking one right near the end to take the match 2-1. I can still be swayed with a really good argument, but at this point I'm going with the Stinger.
 
This is tough. Both men didn't really take that much punishment in the last round, although Sting did have the harder match and quite a brutal one and high risk.

The stipulation doesn't really benefit anyone here, so I'll go by putting these two just head-to-head.

Although Undertaker had the more longevity, the only stages he really thrived was Wrestlemania and ocassionaly at HIAC. Undertaker never was the man like Sting was back in 1997, which is probably Sting's prime. And if we're comapring these two when both of them are at their top game, I don't think that Taker has many chances against 1997 Sting.

This is quite tough. You have longevity vs peak, the previous round, accomplishments. Many things to take into consideration. I'll wait and see how the discussion goes.
 
I too am leaning towards Sting here. We all know Sting can go 60 minutes and keep on chugging if need be, I don't think The Undertaker has ever wrestled close to an hour in his entire career, though I could be wrong. Sting also strikes me as the guy who has the better qualities of the two to squeak out the win in an Iron Man match. More heart, more main event experience, and a hell of a lot more endurance would make it tough for Taker to hang with Sting for an hour.

I think Taker beats Sting down for a good 20 minutes until he starts to slow. Don't see many falls in this match but I can see Sting stealing one early and than taking one right near the end to take the match 2-1. I can still be swayed with a really good argument, but at this point I'm going with the Stinger.

His longest match, against Triple H at WrestleMania 28, ran 30:52.
 
Take which ever Sting you want, but he loses this match to the Undertaker.

'Taker may have never been THE guy like Sting was, but 'Taker was always able to beat THE guy. Fact is, 'Taker has the longevity that Sting has, they both have many titles, they both can work, and they both can talk. So what do we have left? Kayfabe and in kayfabe Sting was never ever good against monsters. Be it Vader, the Giant, Goldberg, or others. Sting routinely lost to the bigger badder men in the industry and I don't see this one being any different. The stipulation favors nobody here and I don't think either would have stamina issues. So, I have to go with 'Taker.

Vote 'Taker.
 
This would be an awesome match. I'm not sure I would make it an Ironman as I'm not sure how the last twenty minutes of this match would last but it doesn't matter, that's the gimmick that's there. This has been one of my dream matches since Jesus was a baby. This is such a tough match because each guy just doesn't have that much of an advantage over the other.

Both guys have beaten some of the all time greats, been pretty much the face of the company and have both been good world champions. It is really so close for me even though I much prefer to watch Sting. Fun fact; Sting is 8-0 (or 9-0 I forgot) at Starcade which is like the Winter games compared to the Olympic Games in comparison to WrestleMania, but it was still WCWs biggest event. Some of these wins were against Ric Flair and Vader. So while Takers WM streak is longer, there is atleast some evidence to suggest that Sting could've done the same in WWE or if WCW lasted longer. Regarding the match though, Sting could find it difficult to find a fall with his Scorpian Death Lock being basically useless. Taker won't be tapping to that. So it's the Death Drop vs Chokeslam/ last ride/ tombstone, it's going to be a tough ask.

Regardless, I vote Sting and here's why: While the match doesn't exactly favour anyone, I would definitely argue that Sting has the tank to go harder for longer than Taker. I'm not saying Taker couldn't go the 60 minutes and win, im saying that at after 45 minutes max, Undertakers moves won't have as much impact or be as powerful as he was to start the match, which is Undertakers real advantage in this match. Stings superior athletic ability with his combination of power is a bit daunting for anyone, however Undertaker has beaten people like Sting before (Angle). Sting has beaten Angle when Sting was 15 years older, though Angle wasn't in his prime either, probably just coming out of it.

The match is so close that I have to say it again. They are pretty much Siamese twins when it comes to legacy. Based on just how long the match would go though, I am backing Sting.
 
Sting was a huge star that had a great career. The Undertaker is a huge star and has a great career.

In twenty years I know Undertaker will be remembered by casual fans, I honestly doubt it for Sting.

Staying away from WWE for so long on principle is admirable (I guess) but it really ruined Sting's legacy. After the last episode of Nitro, Sting did nothing of actual note to a casual fan until his WWE debut at Survivor Series 13 years later. While Sting did nothing but gain paper reigns in a third rate promotion, Taker was winning world titles with the big dog and building the most impressive achievement in WWE history in The Streak (according to them.)

As for this match, Taker has a far more lethal arsenal than Sting does. Sting has two real out pitches, the Scorpion Death Drop and The Scorpion Death Lock. The former might get Stinger a couple falls late, but Taker in one of his worst periods regularly broke out of Bret's sharpshooter which is a more effective move given that Bret was better at it. Taker can put Sting away with a chokeslam, a last ride, a hell's gate, a dragon sleeper, a running off the ropes elbow drop (which is SO fine), and of course a relentless spamming of Tombstone Piledrivers.

Taker is a character that puts up with pain better than probably anyone ever, given that at certain points of his career he wasn't even able to feel it. The most memorable moment of Sting's career is the NWO feud that lasted a year and had Sting wrestle and speak once. The payoff was a crappy match that Sting looked out of shape in. Arguably Undertaker's biggest moment was him being part of what many consider to be the "greatest match of all time" with HBK at WM 25.

Vote Taker. Or don't, but please do.
 
Take which ever Sting you want, but he loses this match to the Undertaker.

'Taker may have never been THE guy like Sting was, but 'Taker was always able to beat THE guy. Fact is, 'Taker has the longevity that Sting has, they both have many titles, they both can work, and they both can talk. So what do we have left? Kayfabe and in kayfabe Sting was never ever good against monsters. Be it Vader, the Giant, Goldberg, or others. Sting routinely lost to the bigger badder men in the industry and I don't see this one being any different. The stipulation favors nobody here and I don't think either would have stamina issues. So, I have to go with 'Taker.

Vote 'Taker.

Lost to Austin in a big stakes match at SSlam 98. Brock beat him clean in 02 and 16 in HiAC.

I am a big fan but Taker does the job for the top TOP guys in the territory. I mean he gave up his streak for the business to push Brock to the next level. This is an even match but Sting takes this.
 
I don't think the 60 minutes would matter much here, because we have precedence of Taker's biggest matches involving a solid dose of laying around. To me, this match will take the last round into account a bit more, because Undertaker was in a match with Warrior, where the point is to make your opponent bleed, while Sting was in a match with Batista, where bleeding would probably happen, but was not the objective. We've seen it happen in the PG era, actually.

Any other time, I'd say Taker ekes this one out, pulling off a last second Hell's Gate, but I think Sting comes into this a little fresher, and that makes the difference.
 
Lost to Austin in a big stakes match at SSlam 98. Brock beat him clean in 02 and 16 in HiAC.

I am a big fan but Taker does the job for the top TOP guys in the territory. I mean he gave up his streak for the business to push Brock to the next level. This is an even match but Sting takes this.

Does Taker have a greater legacy than Sting? Did Sting not get passed over and lost in the shuffle every time new big names came in? Sting was hot as hell in 97 when he feuded with NWO, but was that more because of NWO or Sting?

I'll wholly admit that I have a large bias in that Taker is my favorite and I've never really like Sting, but really...what does Sting have in his arsenal to take out Taker? Undi clearly has the weapons to do it, but I really don't thing Sting does.
 
So I've read the comments and arguments and I have to say, some people seem to be tossing the stipulation aside in order to give Taker a fighting chance here. If we're going by the rules of an Iron Man Match and basing our decisions off of who, between Sting and The Undertaker, has the best shot of winning said IMM, I don't see how Taker can possibly win considering he's never proven that he can actually go 40 minutes, much less 60. I mean, this exact argument is the crux of the Cena/Funk debate and Cena's actually gone 60 and 57 minutes before. Why does Taker get a pass exactly? Whether The Undertaker can potentially go 60 or not is really besides the point, he's never done it and so we don't really know how he would hold up in a situation like this.

Sting has beaten Ric Flair in 45+ minute matches and drawn with him through 60 and made it look easy. Taker's proficient at making a 20 minute match seem like a war but how would he do in a 60 minute environment? My point is, we don't know. Also, as has been mentioned, at both guys' peaks, Taker likely does the job for Sting, and does it willingly. Sting was positioned as the face of a wrestling company twice in his career and Taker was usually the guy who was used to get those faces over.

While I don't necessarily agree, I can understand the argument that Taker had the better career or is more "legendary" than Sting, but going by the stips, Sting should take this one in a war.
 
My main issue here is with the stamina aspect for a 60 minute wrestling match. Sting has shown that he's more than capable of going an hour, while 'Taker's longest match is around 30 minutes...and he usually looks like he's he's been in a war after a match that long. Can he go for 60 minutes? We don't know.

He's got a far more impressive arsenal than Sting though. With a range of finishing moves like The Tombstone, Last Ride, Chokeslam and Hell's Gate, he's got a wider array of moves to put Sting away, although The Stinger's athleticism and speed can help him to roll up 'Taker quickly for a pin at any time.

Both have the longetivty of being top level stars for more than 2 decades, although Sting's time in TNA has definitely hurt his legacy then. If this was taking place in 2001 after WWE had bought WCW, I'd have gone for Sting but now I'm not sure.

I'm leaning towards Undertaker getting enough pinfalls earlier in the match to get a big enough lead to get the win here, with Sting coming back into it as 'Taker starts to blow up towards the 40 minute mark.

4-3 win for 'Taker, with him resisting the Scorpion Deathlock as the time expires. He'll be bad shape after this though.

Vote Undertaker.
 
So I've read the comments and arguments and I have to say, some people seem to be tossing the stipulation aside in order to give Taker a fighting chance here. If we're going by the rules of an Iron Man Match and basing our decisions off of who, between Sting and The Undertaker, has the best shot of winning said IMM, I don't see how Taker can possibly win considering he's never proven that he can actually go 40 minutes, much less 60. I mean, this exact argument is the crux of the Cena/Funk debate and Cena's actually gone 60 and 57 minutes before. Why does Taker get a pass exactly? Whether The Undertaker can potentially go 60 or not is really besides the point, he's never done it and so we don't really know how he would hold up in a situation like this.

Sting has beaten Ric Flair in 45+ minute matches and drawn with him through 60 and made it look easy. Taker's proficient at making a 20 minute match seem like a war but how would he do in a 60 minute environment? My point is, we don't know. Also, as has been mentioned, at both guys' peaks, Taker likely does the job for Sting, and does it willingly. Sting was positioned as the face of a wrestling company twice in his career and Taker was usually the guy who was used to get those faces over.

While I don't necessarily agree, I can understand the argument that Taker had the better career or is more "legendary" than Sting, but going by the stips, Sting should take this one in a war.

Taker is a guy who gets the crap beat out of him, sits up, and is magically all better. What does Sting have to counter that? What does Sting have to keep Taker down? Taker has survived through Sharpshooters from Bret, I assume he could power through the Deathlock just as easily. Taker's offense is way more devastating than Sting's (and Flair, Sting's most frequent "wrestle for a long time" opponent.)
 
I really dont understand where people come off saying things like "routinely beaten by monsters" , implying Sting cannot withstand Taker's offense or that he has nothing in the bank that can put Taker down for a pinfall/submission.


This is Sting. A guy who has pinfall/submission victories over seemingly every name that has been in the ring. That list includes guys like Vader, Sid, The Giant, Abyss & Meng. Those are some of the biggest & toughest of their time. Sting by no means wins every match against worthy opponents, but he has big wins over everyone, including big tough guys like Taker. So clearly he has enough in the arsenal to take down another. He has the known conditioning and stamina to last 60 here & his opponent will be sucking air after 30.

Taker may be a tough motherfucker & can definitely score some points, but anyone thinking Sting is somehow at a disadvantage is seriously missing some pages in their history books.
 
Let's see, guy who has been THE guy vs. guy who never has. Guy who has experience in this match type vs. guy who never has.

The Undertaker love has to stop. The Death Valley train stops here. It's over. Taker shouldn't have gotten through last round (and who wouldn't like a Blade Runners explode match here? anyone? Bueller?) but he's here and he gets someone that can and will beat him.

Look, if you give Taker a short gimmick match, a brutal style match, MAYBE I could see arguing for him, but a match that is built for stamina favors the guy who has actually shown he has some. Sting should have no issue here as he can wear out the dead man and take him down for good. If he can do it to Vader and Sid in their primes, he can do it to Taker.
 
Lost to Austin in a big stakes match at SSlam 98. Brock beat him clean in 02 and 16 in HiAC.

I am a big fan but Taker does the job for the top TOP guys in the territory. I mean he gave up his streak for the business to push Brock to the next level. This is an even match but Sting takes this.

He's also beaten Austin, and for the title mind you. He's also beaten Lesnar. As a matter of fact, 'Taker has beaten all of the top stars in the business over the last 25 years not named Sting and that's only because Sting squandered his legacy in TNA.

Vote 'Taker.
 
He's also beaten Austin, and for the title mind you. He's also beaten Lesnar. As a matter of fact, 'Taker has beaten all of the top stars in the business over the last 25 years not named Sting and that's only because Sting squandered his legacy in TNA.

Vote 'Taker.

He's also lost a hell of a lot more of those matches than he's won. Exactly how many times has Taker beaten Lesnar, Austin, Hogan, etc. clean? Combined I'd say... 2, maybe 3? For all the love Taker gets about being a bad-ass killer, he rarely wins his matches against top guys cleanly in the middle. There's always something that ends up helping him out. Whether it's Vince McMahon during his MOD days, Paul Bearer in his days before that, or referees not seeing him tap out, Taker has had a ton of help over his career when it comes to winning matches. Is there going to be some funny business to help him in this one? Sting pn the other hand, was basically a lone wolf his entire career. Even before the Crow gimmick he was beating people by himself, straight up. Guys LIKE the face of the company such as Flair and Hogan at times when they WERE the actual face of the company.

Look, Taker is the perfect fall guy to Sting's star. Had this match happened in both guys' primes in a neutral environment such as this tournament, Sting is highly likely to walk out the winner, ESPECIALLY in an Iron Man Match situation. I get the fandom for Taker, people love him, but for crying out loud, there's no reason for him to win this match.

I still have yet to hear anybody deliver a good counter-argument as to how Taker doesn't gas himself out after 30 minutes. Again, if you're voting based on who you like, that's fine. If you're voting based on who should actually win the match, than you should vote Sting.
 
Close fight, just as it should be. You could make an argument for either guy and it be pretty valid. Sting was the main face of WCW for ages... Undertaker was the fill-in main guy, but a top-guy nonetheless.

I've read people stating Sting doesn't perform well against bigger opponents, which is ridiculous. A good portion of the early 90s was dedicated to WCW building Sting up as a monster slayer. Undertaker is the ultimate monster, so here comes Sting...

The match stipulation heavily favors Sting in the fact that Undertaker doesn't typically go very long and WHEN he does go past the 20 minute mark he starts moving like a corpse and takes very close pinfalls... Meanwhile Sting at 30+ minutes is still beating his chest like a primitive and landing Stinger Splashes looking like a man at the height of a meth binge... 45 minutes in would be hell for Undertaker.. and that last 15 minutes I think despair would set in.

It doesn't matter what era/version of Undertaker you bring into the argument... None of them have looked good after going 25-30 minutes, and with a guy known to have ungodly endurance and stamina, and also the ability to make the ultimate babyface golden boy comebacks, he's not getting any courtesies.

I like the Undertaker, but he doesn't go past Sting in this one.. Stipulation seals it for me.
 
Taker has a better legacy in the business by virtue of the WWE winning the war and his Wrestlemania streak, but Sting was a better worker, and in a big moment match that isn't booked by Vince McMahon that is set to last an hour? Sting gets the nod. This would be a war, but Undertaker would be worn down at the end and Sting would reverse a tired Tombstone attempt into a Death Drop. Both men would be on the ground exhausted, Sting would start climbing to his feet, Taker would do his deadman sit up but as he got to his feet Sting would bounce off the ropes and catch him with another death drop for the 1.2.3.

Edit: Also, idea that Sting doesn't do well against bigger opponents is bizarre considering the early 90s were built around him feuding with Vader and Sid and then the Giant in the late 90s.
 
He's also lost a hell of a lot more of those matches than he's won. Exactly how many times has Taker beaten Lesnar, Austin, Hogan, etc. clean? Combined I'd say... 2, maybe 3? For all the love Taker gets about being a bad-ass killer, he rarely wins his matches against top guys cleanly in the middle. There's always something that ends up helping him out. Whether it's Vince McMahon during his MOD days, Paul Bearer in his days before that, or referees not seeing him tap out, Taker has had a ton of help over his career when it comes to winning matches. Is there going to be some funny business to help him in this one? Sting pn the other hand, was basically a lone wolf his entire career. Even before the Crow gimmick he was beating people by himself, straight up. Guys LIKE the face of the company such as Flair and Hogan at times when they WERE the actual face of the company.

Look, Taker is the perfect fall guy to Sting's star. Had this match happened in both guys' primes in a neutral environment such as this tournament, Sting is highly likely to walk out the winner, ESPECIALLY in an Iron Man Match situation. I get the fandom for Taker, people love him, but for crying out loud, there's no reason for him to win this match.

I still have yet to hear anybody deliver a good counter-argument as to how Taker doesn't gas himself out after 30 minutes. Again, if you're voting based on who you like, that's fine. If you're voting based on who should actually win the match, than you should vote Sting.

And what's your evidence that 'Taker would gas himself after 30 min? We've never seen him go an hour and because of that I can't argue that he wouldn't have stamina issues, but at the same time you can't argue that he for sure would have stamina issues. 'Taker has always been in good shape throughout his career and I don't ever recall seeing him hanging on the ropes sucking wind.

I just think that 'Taker has more in his arsenal to take out Sting than what Sting has to take out 'Taker. We've seen 'Taker break Sharpshooters and kick out of several finishers. We could take this to the other criteria, but IMO, 'Taker holds the advantage there too. They both have longevity, respect, and titles, but Sting squandered his legacy going to TNA while 'Taker continued to build his. Yes, Sting was THE guy in WCW in the early 90's after Flair left but WCW wasn't doing big business. Hell, it was barely doing business at all. Then in 97 a lot of people say Sting was on top, which he was the most popular babyface but that was only because he had a great foil in the most over heels in the business at that time in the nWo. The nWo were so over as heels that anybody they feuded with became huge like Luger, DDP, and others. So yea, IMO, 'Taker has the greater legacy.

Vote 'Taker.
 
And what's your evidence that 'Taker would gas himself after 30 min? We've never seen him go an hour and because of that I can't argue that he wouldn't have stamina issues, but at the same time you can't argue that he for sure would have stamina issues. 'Taker has always been in good shape throughout his career and I don't ever recall seeing him hanging on the ropes sucking wind.

I just think that 'Taker has more in his arsenal to take out Sting than what Sting has to take out 'Taker. We've seen 'Taker break Sharpshooters and kick out of several finishers. We could take this to the other criteria, but IMO, 'Taker holds the advantage there too. They both have longevity, respect, and titles, but Sting squandered his legacy going to TNA while 'Taker continued to build his. Yes, Sting was THE guy in WCW in the early 90's after Flair left but WCW wasn't doing big business. Hell, it was barely doing business at all. Then in 97 a lot of people say Sting was on top, which he was the most popular babyface but that was only because he had a great foil in the most over heels in the business at that time in the nWo. The nWo were so over as heels that anybody they feuded with became huge like Luger, DDP, and others. So yea, IMO, 'Taker has the greater legacy.

Vote 'Taker.

No evidence? Take a look at Taker after his HHH matches at Mania. Dude was blown up and the second HHH match was his longest ever at about 31 minutes. That's HALF the time this match needs to go and he could barely stand. You're using the fact that Taker has never gone 60 as..........an advantage? That's like trying to tell me "well, Zack Gowen has never been in an ass kicking contest, so how could we know if he'd do well?"

Your entire argument is emotional, which is fine and you are entitled to that, but at least admit that, like Zack Gowen, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the match stipulation in favor of your guy. It clearly is not.
 
And what's your evidence that 'Taker would gas himself after 30 min?

You can't prove a negative man. Might as well prove that Taker wouldn't be a good ballet dancer. The fact that he's never done it is all the evidence I need.

We've never seen him go an hour and because of that I can't argue that he wouldn't have stamina issues, but at the same time you can't argue that he for sure would have stamina issues. 'Taker has always been in good shape throughout his career and I don't ever recall seeing him hanging on the ropes sucking wind.

Really, never? I mean, I can't recall specific situations but I've definitely seen Taker look very sluggish in his longer matches. A lot of lying around and yeah, sucking wind. As has been pointed out, Sting has been 45 minutes through a match and still screaming, pounding his chest, and no selling. Even in their later years, Sting has remained much better conditioned than Taker.

I just think that 'Taker has more in his arsenal to take out Sting than what Sting has to take out 'Taker. We've seen 'Taker break Sharpshooters and kick out of several finishers. We could take this to the other criteria, but IMO, 'Taker holds the advantage there too. They both have longevity, respect, and titles, but Sting squandered his legacy going to TNA while 'Taker continued to build his. Yes, Sting was THE guy in WCW in the early 90's after Flair left but WCW wasn't doing big business. Hell, it was barely doing business at all. Then in 97 a lot of people say Sting was on top, which he was the most popular babyface but that was only because he had a great foil in the most over heels in the business at that time in the nWo. The nWo were so over as heels that anybody they feuded with became huge like Luger, DDP, and others. So yea, IMO, 'Taker has the greater legacy.

I'm not arguing at all that Taker has the better legacy, I would actually agree with you, but it's not enough to put him over Sting in this type of match. If you're looking for somebody with a better legacy than Taker, you have about 2 guys to choose from. Point is, Sting was better conditioned, had a higher peak than Taker, and is more proven in this situation.

Taker would have taken this thing had the stip been HIAC or what have you, but Sting wins THIS particular match.
 
No evidence? Take a look at Taker after his HHH matches at Mania. Dude was blown up and the second HHH match was his longest ever at about 31 minutes. That's HALF the time this match needs to go and he could barely stand. You're using the fact that Taker has never gone 60 as..........an advantage? That's like trying to tell me "well, Zack Gowen has never been in an ass kicking contest, so how could we know if he'd do well?"

Your entire argument is emotional, which is fine and you are entitled to that, but at least admit that, like Zack Gowen, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the match stipulation in favor of your guy. It clearly is not.

I already pointed out in an earlier post that the stip didn't favor 'Taker, but because of Sting's lack of powerful attacks to put 'Taker away, I don't think it favors him either. I see it as neutral, so then I use other criteria to vote on and I think 'Taker would win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,825
Messages
3,300,727
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top