Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Sting, not as much as many in the IWC, but I rate him very highly. However, when someone makes a statement like "TNA has the best roster on televised wrestling" I feel the need to point out that a fifty year old Sting isn't worth half of what Cena is worth. Oh and to clarify, I'm a Cena hater.
I could go into the whys and wherefores but there's no point. You're opperating under the assumption I'm saying Cena is better than Sting ever was, I'm not and I should have clarified that, but you're talking about what Sting did 10 and 20 years ago, not now.
However, to say 'Taker isn't on Sting's level is ridiculous, when both men call it quits they will be on an equal footing with any advantage going to 'Taker imo. There is no way Sting could go today like 'Taker has proven he can, Sting's match with AJ, and I would argue any of Sting's matches (even the classics), have nothing on HBK/'Taker. There is a shortlist of 10 individuals who will be remembered as the best ever and Sting would likely feature on it but not in the top 5.
Lol, I will never give up on this. At the end of their careers, Taker will have been a gimmick wrestler unsucessful as Mean Mark Calous and the American Bad Ass, and Sting will have been a beloved face as a blond and the crow lol.
Btw, Taker is 6 years younger then Sting so before you judge matches, your going to need to wait until both are the same age. Now also, in the beginning of Taker's career, wasn't he wrestling squash matches? while Sting was probably facing the four horsemen?
Sting was in the ring nightly with Ric Flair while Undertaker was an undead creature of the night and had a Paul Bearer mouth piece.
I don't wanna come off as battling you Nikeo. I just have a pet peeve about Sting. I always hear about the draws Austin, Rock, NWO, etc were and because he was never in WWE (which is actually a great thing about Sting) he is never given the proper respect. Sting was WCW through and through. And Sting did not have an unbeatable gimmick like Taker or Warrior. Sting was the make up'd version of Bret Hart. Sting was also comparable to a Shawn Michaels/Mr Perfect in the ring. He made WCW better known for there wrestling at the time. Undertaker's in ring capability are usually only related with WM 25-26.
Even as a highly gimmick character, I think Sting was better then Taker. Sting never captivated like Sting mowing down the NWO in the ring. Taker is 50% ring entrance 50% whatever else. You had Sting coming down outta the rafteres and beating the s out of ne NWO members in his way. Even if Taker/Michaels is a greater match then Sting ever put on (also you know that Michaels could make the match great) though I doubt it's true ... the majority of fans don't even grade wrestling by the quality of a match. Warrior//Hogan was probably a more anticipated/emotional match in the eyes of the viewers.
I will never think of Undertaker on the same level of Sting because in his prime, Taker was still over shadowed by Austin, Rock, HHH, HBK, and even Mick Foley. Taker is more of a character who just appears, the fans never get to know him, he is just a wrestling anomaly which is what Abyss should be and what Kane was. Sting was a guy the fans could get behind. He was a human being.
This is no knock against Taker also. I mean, where would you rank Angle among Taker/Sting ... I mean, Angle is probably the best wrestler right?
But I still can't see Angle captivating an audience like Sting. If Sting's character wasn't ruined by Hogan/Goldberd and those goings on, who knows how long WCW could of continued to whoop the WWE.
I mean this is all subjective, but I hope and feel Sting should be a cut above the likes of the Undertaker gimmick. Mean Mark, Nash, Triple H, Edge, Austin, Foley ... these are all guys who could not even stay within the WCW, while Sting was always there. Sting's natural face charisma was amazing, even when he wasn't booked as an immortal. Sting just seemed like a guy who could rise above any bad gimmick.
Anyway, I guess WM25-26 prove Taker is better then Sting, meanwhile Sting is still better over all then Shawn Michaels and Shawn Michaels is better then Taker lol and carried Taker in those matches.
But nevermind me, I'm just a dumbass like peep4life says. But he is wrong, in 10 yrs know one will know who Taker or Sting is because both will retire soon. But everyone will know who Randy Orton and John Cena are, because they will be the best Ever for all the 5-12 year olds who will be 15-22 yrs old in 10 years.
Hell, Samoe Joe might even be better well known in ten years. But he deserves it, because he's 400 pounds and wrestles like CM Punk