Wrestlezone Tournament Final: (1) Steve Austin vs. (4) Sting

Discussion in 'Atlanta Region' started by klunderbunker, Apr 17, 2011.

?

Who Wins The Tournament

  1. Steve Austin

  2. Sting

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,857
    Likes Received:
    3,359
    The following contest is the final match in the Wrestlezone Tournament.

    This match takes place in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, Georgia.

    [​IMG]

    #1 Steve Austin

    [​IMG]

    Vs.

    #4 Sting

    [​IMG]

    This contest is one fall with no 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.

    The final three rounds are a one night tournament. Any damage sustained in these matches carries over to the next round.

    Voting will open in 72 hours and will be open for seven days and all posts must be non-spam. You may use the 48 hours to present your cases as to why either competitor should/should not win.​
     
    #1
  2. Kermit

    Kermit the Frog

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    730
    "STONE COLD STONE COLD!" As JR would say it. I've never been a Sting fan, mainly because i never got into the WCW. I know he is an icon, and a I respect him for the work he has done, but i grew up watching Stone Cold and like any young kid, we didn't like to be told what to do. This made Stone Cold relatable to me, and overall i just can't put a WWE icon losing to a WCW icon. Sorry, no disrespect to Sting or WCW at all, but just the way i grew up watching wrestling.

    Besides: put this mainly to count for the written votes; just in case.
     
    #2
  3. ThUnDeRpHoEnIx

    ThUnDeRpHoEnIx Proud Team Bring It Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    30
    Sting.

    He has done it all in the Wrestling buisness.Sting has had great matches,way more then Stone Cold and while he may not be as good on the mic,Sting's mic skills are pretty decent.Plus theres no way Stone Cold can win after beating Lesnar,Lesnar would've done to much damage to Stone Cold.

    Sting via the Deathlock around the 8 minute mark.

    Do the right thing everybody,Vote Sting.
     
    #3
    jmt225 likes this.
  4. TheOneBigWill

    TheOneBigWill [This Space for Rent]

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Sting, Sting, Sting and for the record - Sting.

    I'm still at a loss on why Austin made it beyond the guy he was actually hand picked to LOSE against in real life. But, I suppose if Edge can defeat Hulk Hogan this year, and the Undertaker two years ago based off Sam's favorite theory of "he's due a win", then I guess every Wrestler has enough blind fools voting without caring if they deserve to win or otherwise. :shrug:

    Sting hasn't done what Austin has as far as marketing goes, to my knowledge as far as "sales" go.. but Sting HAS been a Main Eventer and more relevant as a Company name, in not one but two Companies now over twice as long a period of time as Austin ever stayed relevant in any Companies "top spot".

    Sting isn't the Undertaker, and Austin doesn't "have his number". Furthermore, while both men had a tough go to get to the Finals (Austin d. Edge, then Lesnar; Sting d. Angle, then Rock) I'm going to say simply put - Austin has almost NO stamina. He sucks in tournaments, and the only relevant one (KotR '96) that he won, he just barely did that.

    Austin has lost in a 2-match mini-tournament, at Vengeance, to Chris Jericho.. and Jericho had JUST finished facing the Rock, as well. If Austin can't put Jericho away there (granted there was interference), then he isn't going to be capable of doing it against a better, more talented Sting, here.

    Sting wins.
     
    #4
  5. Uncle Sam

    Uncle Sam Rear Naked Bloke

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 1973
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    3,001
    I've seen people say that you have to see Sting live. You know, "You have to see Sting live." Like that. In the same way you have to see the Grand Canyon, you have to climb the Eiffel Tower, you have to take part in this orgy, you have to try some of this blow. Like it's something you have to do before you die or it's a life half-lived.

    Only these people aren't suggesting you hop in the time machine you got from Argos and go and see the Sting that looked like he had a fight with a cosmetics sampler, nor the Sting that behaved as if he'd just escaped a Chaplin film. No, they're talking about the Sting that's currently in TNA. What does this have to do with anything? Surely I'm not suggesting TNA is Sting's prime?

    Well, no, but it confirms something for me. I've been there for the entirety of Sting's TNA run. More importantly, I've seen how shit it's been. I've seen him walk out in a t-shirt and get slapped around by Hernandez. I've seen him struggle to stuff Abyss in a broken coffin as the crowd chants "Fire Russo!". I've seen AJ Styles work his arse off to make a Sting match worth watching. I've seen him hold down an angry drug addict to get a belt that he's done nothing to earn. I've been at a house show where TNA Champion Samoa Joe turned up and wrestled a thirty minute match, and I've also been at a house show where TNA Champion Sting didn't turn up, not even to cut one of his mediocre promos. I've seen his hairline recede as if he's spent too long in a wind tunnel. I've seen his tits sag like they're being held down by weights. I've seen him add some pretty sparkles to his coat and a red line to his face paint. I've never once been impressed.

    So, when you tell me I have to see Sting, I remember that Sting's in TNA and I remember what a horrible thing Sting in TNA is, it confirms something for me. It confirms that you're all fucking with me. That you're yanking my chain; pulling my leg; honking my tonk. That this has all been a running joke at my expense. You can stop now, guys. I figured it out. It was a good practical joke - I bought into it for the last five years. Funny stuff. You totally had me. You just took it that one step too far by telling me I had to see Sting in TNA. Let's not do something stupid and vote him past Steve Austin though. That wouldn't be funny.
     
    #5
  6. Mr. Artistic guy

    Mr. Artistic guy Better Off This Way

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    It's probably going to look a lot like people here are voting for Sting because Austin has won before. But I know in a lot of cases that rally isn't the logic behind it.

    We know the history. Sting almost fell into professional wrestling at a very late starting age, and was lucky because he was a beneficiary of the big guy movement going around at the time. And despite the fact it wasn't his boyhood dream he went at it and committed with all of his being until 3 years after debuting he was having a 45 minute NWA heavyweight championship match with none other than Ric Flair. Now this, off the bat, implies stamina, demonstrates a natural likability for the driving force of him getting the push and recognition that he had the capability.

    Conversely, Austin wanted to get into the biz. He made the conscious decision to go to a wrestling school. Now I'm not going to pretend Austin early years weren't also impressive. Some people do forget this because it pails in comparison to what would befall him in the latter part of his career, but in WCW Austin was a fairly big star. So much so that at one point the two did meet, and here that encounter is:

    [YOUTUBE]g99LEFW5zkg[/YOUTUBE]

    [YOUTUBE]SwvvhIO6C94&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

    There is a lot of interesting things to take from this match as I see it. Sting comes in as the bigger wrestler of course and the more experienced competitor, and Austin puts up a very good showing against him. Austin is very good for how long he has been wrestling but Sting is clearly still the better wrestler in the match. One significant thing though; stamina. Watch the little interview after the match, Steve is clearly exhausted. Now he's at the same stage in his career as Sting was when he was having a three quarter hour match and he is having trouble going 15 minutes. So I really have to give the stamina advantage to Sting in this match.

    Now I could probably stop here because a match between these two when the height of their being coincided which is probably about '98 times, the match between them would have been unlikely to go for any less than a good 20 minutes by which time Sting would have the obvious stamina advantage. OK so the age difference would gap the bridge a small bit but not much at this point because although Sting was coming out of his prime, Austin did have his big neck injury fairly recently which left it's mark from that point on.

    Stone Cold career was cut short, not his fault of course. It means we won't know how his career would have continued until the end had he still been able to compete. But we can presume he would not have wrestled for as long as Sing because so very rarely does anybody. Sting has in fact been near the top of the business for approaching 25 years now and in fact is still the world champion in TNA, now obviously this shouldn't be at any rate, 52 year old men shouldn't have the world title belt unless they are able to still put on a high standard of match. But it just so happens Sting is not a complete disaster as a champion because he does actually possesses this rare ability, he is fortunate to still be able to wrestle at a high standard when asked for despite his age.

    He also gets points for being able to re-adapt and remain relevant again after his initially huge push as surfer stinger, something I don't believe that Austin, given the chance, would have been able to do. That's just conjecture though mixed with my personal belief.

    For me in every single respect Sting is better and he deserves recognition and not to be held back by the fact he's never worked for WWE, because he is one of the best ever.
     
    #6
  7. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    Arguably the biggest name sport's entertainer(TM)in the WWF (with Hulk Hogan) versus the biggest name in WCW & TNA.

    Again, this is the final of the biggest names in wrestling so kayfabe is a REALLY tough area to approach this from (although I do think it can be done, but I'll leave that to debating time).

    So initially I'll give Sting my vote on personal preference. I was NWA/WCW from the late '80s and supported them right up to the end, my main reason for doing so was the icon (I even went so far as to follow it on german satellite back in the day, have you even watched a 3 hour ppv stretched to 4 hours with no english commentary?). Today, I'm a TNA supporter, mainly because I think the WWe has gotten that complacent that they had to bring in 5 superstars (who had not been in a ring in months or more) and change storyline to get anyone to garner interest in WM and at least one of the main events was just an advert for NEXT YEARS EVENT:wtf:. If TNA could bolster their viewing figures, then maybe Vince would buck his lazy assed ideas up. What has that got to do with Sting? Sting was the deal setter (or breaker) in TNA getting the deal with Spike - no Sting = no deal.

    Also, on personal preference, I've never heard any wrestler have a bad word on Borden (I'm sure somone'll prove me wrong here:rolleyes:). Nor have I ever heard of him refusing to do a job or taking his ball home. Like Sam, I've watched TNA from the moment it had coverage but unlike Sam - I'll not criticise him for making the best he can with bad creative, I'll commend him for loyalty to an employer and the fact that he pulled Jeff Hardy through a decent match when he won the TNA belt (something only Kurt Angle had managed in the months previous).
     
    #7
  8. tarp

    tarp Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    12
    I've got to go with Sting. While the rock is a big star, he can not "bring it" like Lesnar can. Stone cold is beat up right now. Sting may be hurting but not like Stone Cold. After about 20 minutes Stone Cold will be getting tired and Sting will catch his second wind. I have to go with Sting here.
     
    #8
  9. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    I'm going to go for Sting.

    Yes, Stone Cold was the bigger draw, yes he had a much bigger impact on the busines, yes I would rate him as having a better career. However, with all that being said, I'm voting for Sting because I've always enjoyed him far more than Austin, and because, IIRC, Austin won last year.

    I'm wanting a different champion this year. Plus, Sting is a damn fine worker, and one of the most charismatic workers ever. And I would imagine that some where along the line, Sting defeated Stunning Steve Austin. My vote goes to Sting, if for no other reason that I simply want him to win.
     
    #9
  10. shattered dreams

    shattered dreams Hexagonal Hedonist

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    975
    For those looking for a reason to not have Austin repeat I think the one night tournament aspect is a good place to start. Sting just faced the Rock. The Rock might be known for a lot of things but his crippling offense is not one of them. Austin just faced the explosive beast Lesnar. Sting should have an advantage coming into the match in that regard. Also, this match is in the Georgia Dome. What a draw for Sting. I'd almost call him the favorite because of the location of the match. These two things are enough for me to say Sting closes the gap enough with Austin to be victorious here.
     
    #10
  11. Hulk Hogan's Brother

    Hulk Hogan's Brother Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    809
    That was probably because Steve Austin is a much bigger star than Brock Lesnar. Also there is the small thing about Austin being more entertaining and having contributed more to the business than Lesnar. Oh and I think people generally like Austin more than Brock Lesnar because of Lesnar's attitde towards the wrestling business. Austin has his share of flaws but he has always come back to contribute to the business just like he is doing now by hosting Tough Enough.

    Also Austin was booked to lose to Lesnar towards the *** end of his career. Billy Kidman also has a win over Hulk Hogan and that mind you does not mean a thing. But maybe that was the dumb logic that was used by some posters to put Edge over Hulk Hogan.

    That is true. But Stone Cold Steve Austin still had a much bigger impact on wrestling than Sting. He accomplished a lot more in a lot less time.

    Both men have had tough rounds. If you want a pound for pound comparison, I'd say that Angle is probably a bit tougher and can do more damage than Edge. Brock can do maybe slightly more damge than Rock but Rock is no slouch that most people here make him out to be on the account of the fact that he loses a lot. Rock was a guy who kicked ot of multiple finishers in almost every match of his. He is a resilient dude who can do quite a lot of damage.

    WOW, that's flawed and biased logic. You could have just said that you disliked Austin and moved on here. Last time I checked, barely winning equalled winning. Also Austin won that tourney as a midcarder. Don't you think he might have improved his stamina as he ascended the main event ladder?

    Also there is the fact of Austin winning three Royal Rumbles, a match in which you require a hell lot of stamina to win.

    Oh you may have written, granted there was interference but the fact is that you have downplayed it. Four people interfered in that match and that too as times when Austin had Jericho beat.

    He might but he sure as hell should not win on the basis of your arguement.
     
    #11
  12. Coco

    Coco Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    2,754
    Simple choice for me. Regardless of whether or not it produces a repeat winner, Austin is my pick as the greatest wrestler ever. Sure, Sting was great. As the surfer guy. Ages ago. Then he hid in the rafters for a while and developed some rust which he has yet to get over. That's gone on for over a decade now. Steve Austin never put me through that kind of hurt as a fan. Some might argue that he was never the best ring worker in the world, but he never ended up becoming a shell of his former self in the dramatic way Sting has. All things considered, I think I'm going to start backing the people with the comparatively shorter careers when this thing rolls around next year. Go Austin.
     
    #12
    Uncle Sam likes this.
  13. Mighty NorCal

    Mighty NorCal SHALL WE BEGIN?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Ill vote Austin. Anyone who says he wasnt a great worker clearly has very little understanding of wrestling. Also, voting against Austin just so there isnt a repeat winner is one of the last barriers of childishness to be broken down, removing what shreds of diginity this tournament still has.

    Austin is the better wrestler, and had the better carreer, in every way fathomable. Vote for Austin.
     
    #13
    HBK-aholic likes this.
  14. X

    X RIP Sgt. Michael Paranzino / RIP CM

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    2,263
    I'm astounded by the amount of love the Stinger is getting this year. Luckily Sam, Coco, and Norcal have already posted in the finals thread, outlining a few basic reasons for why voting Sting over Austin is just silly. I loved Sam's post especially because much like him I think Sting has been one of the most washed up, shitty professional wrestlers in the world over the last 12 or so years. He's fucking awful and has been ever since WCW folded, even before that. Totally useless post 1998, had to be completely and utterly carried to even decent matches. Watching him in TNA has totally put a black mark on his career.

    Austin on the other hand, has never disappointed. He never became so bad in the ring and such a shell of his former self that you grimaced just watching his hobbled ass get in the ring and embarrass himself like Sting has for the last decade. He was a great worker from his early days all the way until his last match, unlike Sting. Not to mention far and away the bigger star, better on the mic, more charisma, better career, more accomplishments...I mean fuck, is there actually ANY legit reason to vote for Sting here other than personal bias? Anything Sting can or has done in this industry, Austin has done much better. He's really not even in Austin's league quite frankly.

    Vote for Austin here. It's the right choice, and Sting is overrated as all fuck. I could count on one hand the number of decent (not good mind you, just adequate) matches the man has had over the last 15 years. That's absolutely pathetic.
     
    #14
  15. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Steve Austin is my favorite professional wrestler of all time, and Sting is in the Top 5. However, Sting over Austin? Huh?

    As X and a few others have already pointed out, there really isn't a legit reason for Sting to go over Austin. Some people are going to vote Sting just so we don't have a repeat winner. I can't take part in that. If Sting deserves to go over someone, I'll vote for him, no question. Sting just doesn't rate higher than Steve Austin, in any category.

    The only other argument I can see being made for Sting is location. This match takes place in Atlanta, in the south, an area where Sting made his name. However, the only way Atlanta is an advantage for Sting is if the crowd is hostile towards Austin. Would that happen? I don't think so, no. In his prime, and even right now, Austin is over everywhere he goes. The city doesn't matter, and Austin was a WCW guy at one point, so it's not like the crowd would consider him an outsider.

    I can't see a solid reason, not one, to vote Sting over Austin. Austin wins.
     
    #15
    SavageTaker likes this.
  16. Jason Scene

    Jason Scene Classically Charismatic

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    68
    Stone Cold Steve Austin takes it for me over Sting.

    We're speaking in kayfabe, and look at these two currently and in both of their primes. Currently Sting is still wrestling, can still draw but not as big as he once did. Over the past year he seems to be getting a lot more attention from the IWC than he would in years previous - I wonder why? But at the same time, I need to bring it back to last year, when Sting couldn't really wrestle at all and he was competing with a t-shirt on. He did very little, and yes that is when he was returning from injury, but even now it isn't as if he's in great physical condition.

    Stone Cold Steve Austin seems to have done a turn around from the way his body was a few years ago. He's in better condition now than he was seemingly in the late 90's. Hes shown on Tough Enough that he can take some bumps, and he even beat the hell out of Riley which made for some nostalgic entertainment. His physical condition currently is tip-top and for that, he'd win a realistic match against Sting.

    Bit of bias coming into play as I grew up watching Stone Cold weekly, compared to very rarely caring about Sting. And I prefer Sting back in his "surfer" days in the NWA than The Crow. But, nothing changes my choice. Win goes to Stone Cold Steve Austin.
     
    #16
    Uncle Sam likes this.
  17. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Sam is basically saying here he's only watched Sting in TNA, so his opinion pretty much means jackshit, since the only version of Sting he's watched is the mid-forties/early fifties version of him.

    I agree with you that Austin was a great wrestler, but him being the better wrestler or having the better career is debatable, no doubt.

    From the late eighties until WCW folded in 2001, Sting was one of the most over wrestlers in the business. That's pretty much 14 years where Sting remained a top 5 babyface in the ENTIRE industry. How many other wrestlers can claim such a feat? 2, maybe 3? Austin sure as hell can't, as his hot run only lasted a couple of years.

    And as far as Sting goes as the wrestler... him being so over speaks enough, but he is/was also a good promo cutter (not as good as Austin, but still really good), and in the ring he was as good as Austin ever was at one point in time. Sting's matches with Flair, Muta, the Steiners, Vader, Meng, etc. are just as good as any matches Austin has had.

    X, I love ya bro, but this post is flat out ridiculous.

    First, let me point out to everybody that Xfear started watching wrestling in 1998, so he missed out on Sting's prime.

    Now, of course, X is still a bit of a historian of the business and the guy has watched as much wrestling as anyone here, past and present. The dude is a fan to the highest degree. I'm not trying to claim he isn't.

    However, the reason I bring that up is because Sting was the sort of person you had to witness live to fully grasp just how awesome he was, much like The Ultimate Warrior, Hogan, etc. It's hard to now go watch his early stuff and fully appreciate it if you weren't a fan at the time.

    X, if you weren't such a huge Austin fan when you first became a fan of pro wrestling, I would bet anything that you would find his shit overrated just as you do guys like Sting and Hogan. But, you have the blinders on because you've been an Austin fan since the beginning of your pro wrestling fandom.

    Now, you can say I'm guilty of that for Sting as well, fine... I won't argue it. But to sit there and call Sting overrated when you didn't get to experience first hand just how fucking awesome he was deeply hurts your argument.

    Everyone voting for Sting all watched him back in the day, and you, Sam, Norcal, and Coco were not WCW fans during its heyday (well... I'm not positive to include Norcal on that list, but I know for sure he was a WWF guy more so than a WCW one). And I don't mean to come off as insulting to you guys, but that makes your opinion pretty much worthless to me on this topic.

    I experienced both Sting and Austin. I had both Austin and Sting t-shirts and action figures as a kid. And I'm telling you right now, Sting > Austin. Sure, if you want to compare Sting's TNA career to Austin's WWF career... then Austin wins by a fucking mile. But that's absolutely ******ed, and that's what X and Sam specifically are trying to do.

    First of all, Sting has had some decent matches in TNA. His matches with Kurt Angle, Abyss, Jeff Jarrett, and Samoa Joe were usually always pretty good, some were even very good.

    Now, in the same token, imagine Austin close to 50 years old, in a company like TNA and put in the exact same feuds Sting was put in.... do you really think his work would be any better than Sting's? I mean, really? No, it wouldn't. In fact, I would say watching Mr. Punch Punch Kick Kick Lou Thesz Press Stunner would be much worse to sit through than what Sting has done in the company at his late age.




    To close this... yes, I am a Sting fan. But, I too, like pretty much everyone watching during the Attitude Era, was also an Austin fan. I grew up in both eras, and I continue to watch pro wrestling today. And when I look at my fondest memories as a wrestling fan, Sting comes to mind way more so than Austin.

    I know X, Sam, Coco, and Norcal are awesome, intelligent posters... but don't listen to them here. They really don't know what they're talking about, because they didn't witness Sting in his prime first hand. They witnessed the dying WCW version of him, and the TNA version of him. Why should their arguments be taken seriously when they're arguing against the version of Sting who was well into his fucking forties and fifties? It makes no sense.

    The people who have witnessed Sting first hand, however, will vote for him, because they felt the presence Sting carried with him every time he walked down that aisle, and they were apart of his greatest matches and feuds as a fan, and the fact of the matter is... if you witnessed both guys career first hand, 90% of wrestling fans will pick Sting over Austin any day of the week, because Sting was, in fact, superior to him no matter how you cut it.

    Oh, and as far as kayfabe goes... you don't see anyone voting for Austin trying to bring that up, because they already know they don't have an argument to be made. Any version of Sting from the late eighties all the way to 2000 would kick the ever living shit out of Austin, and every wrestling fan knows that. Shit, you could even make an argument for 50-year-old Sting to beat any version of Austin since 50-year-old Sting has clean wins over Kurt Angle, while Austin always had trouble with Angle. So, yeah... good luck to anyone dumb enough to bring the kayfabe argument up in favor of Austin.
     
    #17
  18. SavageTaker

    SavageTaker Everybody Has A Price!

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    591
    I'm going to vote for Austin and I think something JMT said in his post has a lot of truth to it. When I started watching wrestling guys like Austin, Rock, Undertaker, e.t.c were at the top of the food chain in the WWF. Those were the guys I grew up watching since day 1 of me being a wrestling fan. I never got to see WCW until its last year or so and I never really got to see WCW during its prime until a few years later when I discovered the internet. So yes, I do think who I grew up watching has a lot of influence on who I'm voting for but I don't think I can be blamed for that.

    I did get to see Sting matches during his prime because of DVD's and the always wonderful youtube, and guess what? I actually liked a lot of them and was fairly entertained by them. But although I thought they were pretty good matches, there is just something about Austin that I've always loved. I don't know if it was his charisma, his presence, his character or what but I loved the wrestler and I can't honestly vote someone who I didn't get much entertainment out of over someone who I've been a long time fan of. It would just feel wrong, almost as if it were betrayal.

    So yes, me voting for Austin might and probably does have something to do with the era in which I grew up and who I was watching and supporting at the time. But I can't be blamed for that and my opinion shouldn't matter less than anyone else's just because of that. If I had to see a guy wrestle during his prime to really enjoy him as a wrestler then in my opinion that's not a very positive thing. I've seen a lot of Randy Savage matches many years after they happened and I still enjoy them as much as I did Austin vs. Rock when it originally happened and I just don't get the same enjoyment out of Sting matches.
     
    #18
    jmt225 likes this.
  19. X

    X RIP Sgt. Michael Paranzino / RIP CM

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    2,263
    1997 actually, and I've gone back over the years and watched an unfathomable amount of footage from WCW during Sting's prime years from 88 all the way to 2001. I've seen every episode of Nitro, Thunder, and every PPV from 1996 to 2001. I've seen all of the major shows from his prime as well, all the Starrcades, GABs, HHs, and I've seen just about every single match he's ever had with the likes of Ric Flair, Vader, and Cactus Jack, some of his best opponents. I think I'm just as qualified to speak on Sting's career as you or anyone else is on here.

    Oh man that's such a bad reason to vote for him. "You had to see him live" isn't really an argument JMT my brother, and it's certainly not any kind of evidence to support your case. Just because I never saw Sting live in the mid-90s doesn't mean I don't understand how over and popular he was, or how great of a wrestler he was for the first 10 or so years of his career. Unfortunately when you follow that up with 15 years of dogshit though, I can't call you the GREATEST WRESTLER EVER.

    I was a Sting fan as well JMT, I watched WCW from 97 until it folded, one of my best friends growing up was a massive Sting mark and we used to mark out and watch Nitro together. Fuck I even had a Sting action figure that was among my most prized at the time. Yes I was/am a bigger Austin fan, but objectively speaking, Austin's career match quality puts Sting's to shame, and I've seen this over my years of watching shit-tons of wrasslin'. There was NEVER a point in Austin's career where him just getting into the ring was sad to watch, unlike Sting's last decade. Even Sting's very, very best matches can be met with and sometimes topped by the amount of incredible matches Austin has had.

    But I did experience it first-hand when he was on top of the wrestling world. I did watch WCW from 1997-2001. That was his most over point EVER in fact. Just because I didn't see him live though that means I don't understand it? That's silly dude.

    Again...watched WCW from 97 until it's downfall. No idea why you think I didn't. I used to love watching the first hour of Nitro before RAW, then catching the replay later on. I loved Sting, DDP, Chris Benoit, Booker T, and Scott Steiner. Not to mention having gone back now that I'm older and watched all of those old years.

    That's not what I'm specifically trying to do. Plus, I went farther back than the beginning of his TNA career, all the way to 1998. He was flat out bad during the end of his WCW run, and he was dogshit in TNA. 15 years of sucking puts quite the damper on the other 10 years of rocking. And again, like you, I had both Austin and Sting action figures, I watched both companies, and I loved both guys. I liked Austin more, hell yes, but it doesn't change the fact that his career puts Sting's to shame. Sting's golden moment in the sun was Starrcade 1997, a mess of a match, and he dropped the title a week later, killing all of the heat of the entire angle, and he never recovered from that. Austin on the other hand had some of the best years in wrestling history in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001. He had countless classic matches, was the most popular wrestler possibly EVER, and he was more over than Sting. Sting as the big babyface in 1998 = ratings and buyrates declining while the WWF's skyrocketed with Austin as the big babyface.

    His matches with Abyss were terrible. Joe, Angle, and even Jarrett all had to totally carry him to good matches, ESPECIALLY Angle and Joe. The only person I can remember to really get a "very good" match out of Sting in TNA was AJ Styles at BFG 09, and that was one of the biggest carry-jobs I've ever seen, with Sting just standing around like a goof while Styles did his thing, bumping his ass off to try and make this match the epic it was supposed to be.

    Austin was a brilliant wrestler for a longer period of time than Sting was. He was one of the best in the business from his start in the late 80s in Texas all the way to his retirement in 2003. Sting on the other hand, again, was NEVER the same once he shifted to The Crow gimmick. His match quality plummeted to insane degrees. Even during his prime, his best matches were always with incredible workers like Flair and Vader, you wouldn't often see Sting carry the load in a match and carry some scrub to a good match like guys like Flair, Vader, and Austin could.


    Again, total bullshit man. I watched WCW for pretty much as long as you did (you started watching in what, the early 90s? Mid 90s for me, not a world of difference), I've gone back and watched countless hours of WCW programming from 1988-2001, Sting's heyday, and I've seen most of his TNA work. What the hell more of his stuff do I need to see man? His one or two WWA matches or something? Fuck I've even seen his work with Warrior when they were the Blade Runners. Why am I not as qualified as you to speak on Sting's career?

    All of this confirms what I was saying about people voting for Sting because of personal preference and the fact that you guys are huge fans of his. That's not exactly objective, is it?

    ...What?! That's flat out absurd dude, Austin has beaten practically EVERYONE in the industry, which quite frankly is far more impressive than Sting's career of wins in WCW and TNA. Austin wrestled most of the WCW and TNA stars, while Sting has never faced a LARGE portion of WWE stars, some of which make up the biggest stars of all time. HBK, Austin, Rock, Triple H, etc. Austin has clean wins over them all, Sting has never even faced them. To suggest that Austin, a guy who pretty much went without being cleanly pinned once for a near 3 year span in the Attitude Era (WHILE wrestling all through-out that time, unlike Sting's 18 month break in 96-97) could not defeat Sting, is absurd. The stunner has put away a lot more people than the Scorpion Death Drop has, that's for sure.

    Wow we never get into it like this JMT, I like it. ;)
     
    #19
  20. Uncle Sam

    Uncle Sam Rear Naked Bloke

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 1973
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    3,001
    You miss my point entirely. My point was that I was trying to understand the idolatry that people treat Sting to. I noticed people, i.e. Sting fans, discussing how you just had to see Sting in TNA, as if to see him wrestle was to listen to Jesus Christ's heartbreat. I then thought back to how terrible Sting was in TNA and extrapolated that. That is to say, I decided I can't trust Sting's fans' representation of the man that is inexplicably their idol. Well, the actual conclusion I came to was the high praise of Sting was a long-running and complex practical joke/conspiracy but you continue it with impressive conviction and I wouldn't imagine you as a man that would keep up a Truman Show style hoax.

    If you'd like, I can give an account of how bored I've been by anything I've seen by Sting, no matter where it was in his career. We live in an information age. Sting has appeared in many a YouTube expedition and many a "History of..." DVD. The only people he compares to in terms of such disappointments are Kenta Kobashi and Randy Savage. I still want my money back, Randy. Certainly, I can see how seeing his work out of context can be damaging, but not so damaging that I'm missing out on the second coming. Though, as you describe, Sting as a wrestler who's rusted over worse than an iron rowboat can feasibly be described as the peak of his career.

    You could paint it as me not having watching Sting so long ago and at such a young age that I'm not wearing nostalgia googles, and that the style he so impressively wrestled having become completely defunct by the time I started watching. By the way, that was the 90s and not 2005.
     
    #20
    SavageTaker likes this.
  21. Big Sexy

    Big Sexy Deadly Rap Cannibal

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    789
    Other then longevity Steve Austin is superior to Sting in every single way. Austin was a better in ring worker, he was easily superior on the mic, he was the bigger star, and he was more important to wrestling history. If you want to go the kayfabe route, Stone Cold in his prime as a face didn't lose clean; Ever. If you look at Sting's biggest wins almost all of them came against big name heels something Austin wasn't in his prime. Austin in his WWF prime would beat Sting in his prime every single time.

    Let's also not forget that while Sting was the mainstay in WCW and the guy who always seemed to be near the top, when Hulk Hogan came to the company in 1994 Sting was behind him in the pecking order. Sting was WCW's biggest star yet he was trumped by the WWF's biggest star ever. The guy closest to Hogan in terms of star power in wrestling history is Stone Cold Steve Austin. You can throw out Sting in TNA and Austin in WCW. Just look at the two at the very top of their careers and ask yourself, if they had a match is their any way Sting would beat Austin? The answer to that question is no. Sting along with Flair may be at the top of the mountain in terms of WCW's history but Austin long with Hogan is at the top in terms of wrestling history as a whole.
     
    #21
    SavageTaker likes this.
  22. Coco

    Coco Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    2,754
    I'll have you know that I dabbled in WCW from '96 onward. That said, your point still makes no sense to me. I wasn't alive when Jesus Christ was in his prime but I've formed what I consider to be a pretty reasonable opinion of him. The same applies to my views on Napoleon, The Beatles, Henry VIII, and Santa Claus. Okay, you caught me. Henry VIII is actually fictional character from the television series The Tudors and not a real person. But the point I'm making about the rest stands. I don't have to have lived through something to be able to offer a perfectly valid opinion of it. Historians play this game all the time and there are definitely people on here who spend enough time watching old wrestling to meet some standards for expertise. X would be one of those people regardless of when he started watching wrestling. Does Gelgarin's opinion of Thesz mean nothing because he (probably) wasn't alive in Thesz's prime?

    This is an insane standard you've established that doesn't really hold any water with me. The fact that you saw Sting wrestle Vader in 1992 in 1992 doesn't mean your opinion is worth more than X's the same way Pontius Pilate's view on Jesus aren't worth more than those of historians.

    Try harder, yo.
     
    #22
  23. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    WCW started getting terrestrial coverage in the UK when I first turned 16. This followed many years of British wrestling dominated by a fat lump called Big Daddy who defeated his opponents with his gut (if I'm lying, I'm dying), followed by some WWF until their coverage was swallowed up by Sky broadcasting - a satellite subscription company, that we did not have at that time. Sting and the Steiner brothers were easily my favourite wrestlers at this time, I was also a big fan of 'Beautiful' Bobby Eaton, the Rock 'n' Roll Express and the Fabulous Freebirds. Shortly after this my family got in satellite and subscribed to Sky. I used to watch all the WWF events and PPVs (which were all free at this time) but I still would not miss WCW Worldwide even though it was just an hour of squashes with the odd tag/ six man of TV title match thrown in. Satellite at this time was split between English and German stations and one of the German stations (DSF) picked WCW up about the same time as terrestrial TV dropped it but at a couple week delay. Despite these set backs and major stars like Ric Flair, the Steiners and Lex Luger jumping to WWF, I still preferred WCW - why? Sting. Hulk Hogan joined WCW and was followed by Macho Man and others who were getting more of the spotlight, yet WCW fans still preferred Sting over the WWF alumni. Kevin Nash and Scott Hall came across and super ego Hulk Hogan saw how to overcome Sting's popularity, by becoming THE über heel.

    Now, why the personal history lesson? No matter how much YouTube/ VHS or DVDs you may watch - nothing compares to growing up through these times and if you grew up through the Attitude era but not through this period you would not have the same experience or uncertainties.

    People refer to Austin's drawing power being much greater than Sting's - how so? Austin started his momentous run feuding with top guys Bret and HBK and proceeded to feuding with the Rock/ Mick Foley/ the Undertaker/ HHH and, most pertainty, with Mr WWF - Vincent Kennedy McMahon. Stone Cold might have been the figurehead but he was helped by big names and a brand new 'Attitude' in the business. After WrestleMania, it might even be argued that the Rock is now regarded the bigger star. Sting was the WCW franchise for several years and as I stated before, TNA would not be on Spike if not for Sting.

    In ring? Ironically I preferred Austin's in ring work in Sting's back yard, WCW when he also had a pretty good technical aspect. Between his injuries and beer drinking persona, this developed to a brawling style which I enjoyed but it was hardly ground breaking stuff. When WCW was still a wrestling company, I really enjoyed Sting matches and even in the bad later days, he was still capable of enjoyable bouts when he wasn't being thrown in with dead weight. Even today, I still enjoy most Sting bouts - his bout with dead weight Jeff Hardy when he won the TNA Title was much better than the vast majority of stuff I've seen on RAW this year and given Hardy's mediocre in ring performances against the majority of TNA's roster, this can hardly be put down to Jeff carrying the Icon.

    Personality - Steve Borden by all accounts is a better person, no history of backstage politics, walkouts or assault - he has shown integrity and loyalty throughout his career.

    I'll say it again, my personal preference is Sting. I love Stone Cold and there really is very little between the two on any criteria, I really envisage older fans, WCW fans and TNA fans backing the Icon with younger fans and WWF/e fans backing the Rattlesnake. If your backing one over the other does this profile fit?
     
    #23
    Mighty NorCal and Coco like this.
  24. Mac Attack

    Mac Attack I'm neat.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    681
    Sting

    Austin has gone through several big names to get to this point. Considering this tournament takes place in one night there is no possible way that he has any stamina left. Lesnar would have surely taken a lot out of him.

    Sting on the other hand as had an easier route against less big opponents, and opponents who I feel he could beat with easy.

    Also Stone Cold is probaly drunk now due to having two victories in one night. I think Sting would capitalize on this. If not than Stone Cold is clearly bloated and won't have full capacity.

    Anyway vote Sting.
     
    #24
    FitFinlay4Life likes this.
  25. DX98folife

    DX98folife Kings....Reign....Supreme ....

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    12
    I'm well aware of Austin winning last year and lets face it, with a yearly tournament with performers of today not reaching the heights of performers yesterday the list is basically a lock. I mean what can change? Edge retired, a little late for this tournament, would he of gone farther then the 5th round knowing what we know now(of his retirement of course).

    Of course not. He was up against the machine that is Austin. Steve Austin is a machine on a whole different level. McMahon knew it, Bischoff didn't but thats another story. Since he was a machine its only fitting his popularity pushes him to new levels. Austin won 3 Royal Rumbles because of it. In fact from 1997-2001 the height of Austins career he was the Royal Rumble. He didn't even win the 1999 rumble but he it was completely centered around him, 2000 would of been no different. Austin was also tagged with privilege of brawling with the "baddest man on the planet" of the time(Mike Tyson). So you can't deny Steve Austin is one tough sob.

    Sting? Hes had a career people would kill for without question. 11 time(debatable) World champion to never work for the machine that created his opponents in this tournament(sans Goldberg a much bigger star in the company he worked for). Tasked with honor of ending Hollywood Hogans NWO run of the WCW World Championship at Starrcade his popularity was at its peak and the Stinger ....still couldn't stray eyes away from the machine that Austin was becoming.

    What if these two ever met in their primes? To me its a no brainer, Austin would stomp a mudhole in a scorpion and walk it off. Before their primes? Sting by a longshot. After? Austin takes the V here. While Sting has maintained a steady career and continues to out-perform many young stars of this era, Without question he has slowed down. Austin? Look at him, Hes in the best shape of his life. Austin could go toe to toe with anybody these days and it wouldn't even be close. Austin is this business's biggest draw. He survived the millions and millions of the Rocks people to retain the top spot in 2001. He survived the clash of the titans in 2004 that were Brock Lesnar and Bill Goldberg. In 2011? He still draws better then anyone. Given a joke of a match and being put up as a 3rd party in it, he still stole the show. Do you think Tough Enough would be putting up the ratings it is if Austin wasn't the host? Of course not, it would be another NXT bomb. How does he do it? He goes out there and just bes himself. He didn't need to adopt a gothic image or anything of the like. The Austin now is the Austin of 1998.

    Austin keeps coming. In a big tournament like this, He'll do just that. Bring an Army to stop him, you'll need it. Sting rightfully deserves to be in the finals but the Austin now and the Sting as of now, Austin can still endure whatever this tournament throws at him, Sting rightfully can to but his run ends here.

    THAT is impressive. That is popularity. Sting may of helped make people wrestling fans through the 90's, but the fans made Austin. The Fans still pour their money and time to see Austin just be Austin. To me its as clear as who the winners of the 97,98 and 01 Rumbles needed to be. Austin cleans house every time.
     
    #25

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"