ECW Region, Mex Subregion, Round 1: (2) Sting vs. (31) Ed Lewis

[klunderbunker]

This is a first round match in the ECW Region, Mexico City Subregion. It is a standard one on one match held under ECW Rules. It will be held at the Arena Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

#2. Sting

Vs.

#31. Ed Lewis

​

Polls will be open for three 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.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm not going to put too much time in here because you guys are all still pretty stupid; but there is no way in fuck that Ed Lewis wouldn't walk out of here with the victory.

Ed Lewis wrestled regularly for over forty years, and i estimated to have a win loss record of approximately 1,400:6. That's over two-hundred-and-thirty victories for every time he lost for the mathematically inept of you. Nobody before or after has ever achieved such a consistent and dominant record in professional wrestling.

Ed Lewis was able to kick Lou Thesz's ass despite pushing sixty years old. Both Thesz and Gagne (two men who did not agree on much at the time) have named Ed Lewis as the greatest wrestler of all time. Now they were both talking in a strictly legitimate sense; but Lewis's dominance stretches far beyond that. Did you know that Lewis has held the record for highest wrestling gate for longer than any other man? He was wrestling's top draw for longer than Hulk Hogan. His match against Jim Londos drew 35,275 fans back in 1934. For most of his career Sting has struggled to pull those kind of numbers, despite gates as a whole being far far bigger.

So we know Lewis was a better draw than Sting, and we know he was a better legitimate wrestler than Sting. How about legacy?

Bitch please. Ed Lewis invested professional wrestling. How's that for legacy? I'm not even exaggerating; you know that notion of booking guys against each other in manufactured "feuds" that is always attributed to Vince McMahon? Yeah; Ed Lewis was the guy who invented that. He was the Don King of professional wrestling well before the Don was even born.

So; bigger star, bigger draw, better legit record, better kayfabe record, bigger legacy and bigger impact on the industry. What exactly has Sting got left? Ability to put on make up?

Don't be a fucking idiot; vote Ed Lewis.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't know if it's because I was never really into WCW, or because he looks ridiculous now he's always shown without facepaint in TNA, but I've never been 100% aboard the Sting train. He'll win here, quite easily, but my vote is going to Ed Lewis. At a time when some of the longest lasting names in history were competing, Lewis was able to remain almost invincible. One could argue that this was in an era where wrestling was almost real, but it shouldn't count against him here. Sting deserves to go to the second round and so does The Strangler. Ultimately, do you value substance or style? Sting is cooler than Ed Lewis, but not better at wrestling.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I love Sting to death, and I've always admired his ability to evolve to stay relevant (or at least to not get boring...), but Gelgarin pretty much said everything that needs to be said. And really, who's surprised? The guy is an old-school machine. In fact, I've always said (I've never said this) Gelgarin is the Ed Lewis of the Wrestlezone Forums. And that's really all you should know to make an educated vote... Lewis has the better record, was the better wrestler, drew better, revolutionized the industry and created most of the things we see in "sports entertainment" today.

THAT BEING SAID... I'm going to pose something a little outside of the box just to be fun. Ed Lewis and Sting, both men in their primes, could put on a 5-star match, no problem. Even the best booker in the world would have a hard time finding a market to watch the match, but it'd be friggen awesome. And we've already established that Ed Lewis is the better man and should win this competition, IF the competition was based on legacy, record, blah blah blah. But I think there's a good chance a booker would put over Sting in Mexico City. It's a weird market down there, and I think the crazy, face-painted, more charismatic guy would blow the roof off the place if he picked up the victory. I know it's not really something most of us are thinking about, but it's a kayfabe tournament, and this match is kayfabe taking place in Mexico City. From a booking perspective, I think that needs to be taken into account. If it were in Canada or Japan there's no doubt in my mind that Ed Lewis would take the victory, but I believe Sting fits the Mexican style more, and would be the bigger draw down south.

I have to go Sting, if for nothing else because I want to make this an interesting match.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Sting has held 25 championships in various promotions throughout his career, and is a 15-time World Heavyweight Champion, having held the NWA World Heavyweight Championship twice, the WCW World Heavyweight Championship six times, the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship twice, the WWA World Heavyweight Championship once, and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship four times. He is the only man to hold the NWA, WCW, and TNA World Titles in his career.

Sting was "The franchise player of WCW, and perhaps no one better represents the organization than the man called Sting"

Sting has won Pro Wrestling Illustrated's "Most Popular Wrestler of the Year" award a record four times.

"Its Showtime folks!" - Sting

[YOUTUBE]5QbGplwbD1A[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Shadowmancer]

Ed Strangler Lewis gets this one, Sting may be a modern guy that people know. But as Gelgarin said, Ed Lewis almost invented Pro Wrestling. Lewis wrestled all over the world and at that time Travelling to New Zealand to wrestle in six matches was a big deal time wise. This man trained one of the greatest wrestlers in the history of the business in Thesz, He invented the sleeper hold something so intrinsic to Pro Wrestling as a whole. He wrestled once for 5 and a half hours just for a draw. Sting could not handle that, even in his prime. Not many wrestlers could.

 

[The Brain]

When I submitted my list of 128 wrestlers Ed Lewis was not on it. That's not to say he isn't deserving, it's just so hard to go that far back and give an educated opinion. It's hard enough comparing guys like Dory Funk Jr. and Jack Brisco to the stars of today but Ed Lewis goes back decades before that. It's almost comparing two different entities. I guess that's part of the charm of this tournament though.

Let's be honest, not many of us now much at all about Ed Lewis. For that reason alone he is a huge underdog in this matchup against one of the most famous wrestlers of the past quarter century. A lot of us will visit his wiki page to learn what we can about Lewis. That's what I did and despite Gelgarin's excellent argument this is what stood out to me.

The climax of their feud came on April 15, 1925 when Gold Dust Trio star, and former champion, Stanislaus Zbyszko, was asked to lose to the Gold Dust Trio's own handpicked champion, Wayne Munn, a former football star, in an effort to give Munn credibility. Zbyszko balked at the idea of losing to an unskilled wrestler, and secretly jumped to the Joe Stecher camp. Zbyszko double-crossed the Gold Dust Trio, using his knowledge of holds to legitimately defeat and, in the process, humiliate Munn. Eventually Lewis and Stecher settled their differences, and agreed to do business with each other, with Stecher dropping the World Championship back to Lewis on February 20, 1928.

In 1937 The Strangler had six contests in New Zealand. He beat Floyd Marshall, John Spellman, Glen Wade, and Rusty Westcoatt, and lost twice to the great Canadian Champion, Earl McCready, who was then established as the top wrestler in New Zealand.[3]

What this tells me is that despite his extraordinary skill Lewis is first and foremost a good promoter and businessman. He is willing to lose to the right opponent. Even if his skills are inferior there is no denying Sting's charisma. Wrestling is a business built on charisma and a smart promoter would know that Sting is a guy he should get behind. Let's not for one second think that me saying Sting's skills are inferior to Lewis's is an insult in any way. Even though Sting's biggest asset is his charisma he is by no means a slouch in the ring. He's a great guy for a promoter to get behind and that's why Lewis would sacrifice himself here.

 

[GI Cake]

When I first went into this thread I had all the intentions of pulling for Sting in this match-up. I knew very little of Ed Lewis and what he has done in Professional Wrestling. But after looking into it, Ed Lewis is a hell of a wrestler. He has done all and above any other wrestler in his prime.

I am going to need a little persuading, from either side, but so far, Ed's getting my vote.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Sting goes over here. Ed Lewis in his prime could not have been a main evento\r in WCW during Stings reign of terror, he would have simply been a guy having excellent matches with Dean Malenko to open up Nitro every week. Sting on the other hand would have changed the game forever if he were put into Lewis' generation with his face pait and over the top charisma. My vote goes for Sting just for being a once in a lifetime talent that could fit well during any era of this great sport.

 

[AnvilForever]

Gelgarin made a very good argument. I am leaning towards Lewis, but there's just one thing nagging at the back of my head, and it's the point that Brain made.

Sting advancing will do better for the tournament than Lewis. It's really hard to compare Ed Lewis to 97% of the other guys in the tournament because he's from a completely different era. Sting advancing will provide better debates because more people here know about his volume of work.

I'm going with Lewis because he would face either Jack Brisco or Billy Graham in the next round, and that would make a good matchup, but I won't be surprised if Sting takes it.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Now to tug on SuperMan's cape, before I begin I'll present Exhibit A from the announcement of this year's participants...

Spoiler

I despise you all sometimes. A slightly better year for the old school than is typical, but since I'm claiming 95% of the credit for that don't think I'll be cutting you any slack.

Here is an approximation of what the list would have looked like if those who were oxygen starved as children had been prohibited from joining in.

Spoiler

1) Lou Thesz
2) Hulk Hogan
3) El Santo
4) Verne Gagne
5) Rikidozan
6) Ed Lewis
7) Antoni Inoki
8) Frank Gotch
9) Giant Baba
10) Stone Cold Steve Austin
11) Bruno Sammartino
12) Blue Demon
13) The Undertaker
14) Antonio Rocca
15) Ric Flair
16) The Rock
17) Keiji Muta
18) John Cena
19) Bruiser Brody
20) Karl Gotch
21) Harley Race
22) Pat O'Connor
23) Mitsuharu Misawa
24) Sting
25) Mil Mascaras
26) Dory Funk Jr
27) Andre the Giant
28) Kurt Angle
29) Shawn Michaels
30) Nick Brockwinkel
31) James Storm (screw you - my list)
32) Bret Hart
33) HHH
34) Randy Savage
35) Gory Gurrero
36) Big Daddy
37) Dusty Rhodes
38) Greg Gagne
39) Gaint Haystacks
40) Ricky Steamboat
41) Don Leo Johnathon
42) Gene Kinski
42) Georgerous George
43) Ultimo Dragon
44) Steve Williams
45) Kenta Kobiashi
46) Road Warrior Animal
47) Abdullah the Butcher
48) Jeff Jarrett
49) Jerry Lawler
50) Bob Backlund
51) Road Warrior Hawk
52) Kane
53) Kevin Nash
54) Mick Foley
55) Rando Orton
56) Red Basteen
57) Jack Brisco
58) Roddy Piper
59) Buddy Rogers
60) AJ Styles
61) Ultimate Warrior
62) Tiger Mask IV
63) Rey Mysterio
64) Edge
65) Jeff Hardy
66) Stan Henson
67) Rey Mysterio Jr
68) Georg Hackenschmidt
69) Scott Steiner
70) Carlos Colon
71) Masa Chono
72) Larry Zybisco
73) Sgt Slaugher
74) DDP
75) Rob Van Dam
76) Goldberg
77) Big Show
78) Vince McMahon Jr
79) Awesome Kong
80) Bobo Brazil
81) Terry Funk
82) Chris Jericho
83) Robert Roode
84) Bully Ray
85) Greg Valentine
86) CM Punk
87) Curt Henning
88) Steve Corino
89) Magnum TA
90) Nikitta Koloff
91) Ron Simmons
92) Terry Gordy
93) Junk Yard Dog
94) Dynamite Kid
95) Gino Hernandez
96) Jim Duggen
97) Jushin Liger
98) The Origional Shiek
99) Édouard Carpentier
100)Dick Hutton
101)Kerry Von Erich
102)William Regal
103)The Miz
104)Davey Boy Smith
105)Brian Pilman
106)Booker T
107)Jake Roberts
108)Tito Santana
109)El Canek
110)K-Ness
111)Ken Shamrock
112)Dan Severn
113)Bob Roop
115)Rick Martel
116)Honkey Tonk Man
117)Pat Patterson
118)Jim Ross
119)Brock Lesnar
120)Eric Young
121)Taka Mischinoku
122)Doug Willaims
123)Dragon Kid
124)Matt Morgan
125)La Paka
126)LA Park (cos I don't know which is which)
127)Doctor X
128)Ronnie-frow-the-Jersey-Shore

Off the cuff observations. Ed Lewis is going out round one and it is disgusting. WCW is where almost all the interesting matches are happening. Most competitive first round match for me is Gotch vs Benoit; not that I have the slightest chance, but it'll be the most clear cut case of me being right and everyone else being ******ed. Maybe I can tap into the whole 'murder suicide' thing, bring a little class to the debate. Oh, and Antonio Rocca is a better wrestler than Brock Lesnar using every conceivable yardstick that there is.

Now to the big G's response in this thread -

Spoiler

I'm not going to put too much time in here because you guys are all still pretty stupid; but there is no way in fuck that Ed Lewis wouldn't walk out of here with the victory.

Ed Lewis wrestled regularly for over forty years, and i estimated to have a win loss record of approximately 1,400:6. That's over two-hundred-and-thirty victories for every time he lost for the mathematically inept of you. Nobody before or after has ever achieved such a consistent and dominant record in professional wrestling.

Ed Lewis was able to kick Lou Thesz's ass despite pushing sixty years old. Both Thesz and Gagne (two men who did not agree on much at the time) have named Ed Lewis as the greatest wrestler of all time. Now they were both talking in a strictly legitimate sense; but Lewis's dominance stretches far beyond that. Did you know that Lewis has held the record for highest wrestling gate for longer than any other man? He was wrestling's top draw for longer than Hulk Hogan. His match against Jim Londos drew 35,275 fans back in 1934. For most of his career Sting has struggled to pull those kind of numbers, despite gates as a whole being far far bigger.

So we know Lewis was a better draw than Sting, and we know he was a better legitimate wrestler than Sting. How about legacy?

Bitch please. Ed Lewis invested professional wrestling. How's that for legacy? I'm not even exaggerating; you know that notion of booking guys against each other in manufactured "feuds" that is always attributed to Vince McMahon? Yeah; Ed Lewis was the guy who invented that. He was the Don King of professional wrestling well before the Don was even born.

So; bigger star, bigger draw, better legit record, better kayfabe record, bigger legacy and bigger impact on the industry. What exactly has Sting got left? Ability to put on make up?

Don't be a fucking idiot; vote Ed Lewis.

I'll start simple, take a look at Gelgarin's first post and (in particular) at his top 128. Here you will see that he lists Hulk Hogan at number 2 and Lewis at number 4. "So what?" There are only four wrestlers who are undefeated against Hogan since Hulkamania started running wild - the Rock (twice), Brock Lesnar and Bill Goldberg (once) are three; the fourth is Sting who holds FIVE victories over the Immortal One. So that's Sting dominant over a guy who by Gelgain's own assessment is greater than Lewis.

Now Gelgarin likes to throw out legacies and the such as driving force behind who we should vote for, yet he falls down on this argument in his own list where he has James Storm ranked at number 31 ahead of guys with much greater legacies. Obviously this would indicate that legacy isn't the be all end all in his own eyes. Plus, the combination of being the franchise of WCW during the years when they had no headliners (and won two PWI Most Popular Wrestler, a PWI Match of the Year and a No1 slot in the PWI 500 during said period for his efforts), the Sting / nWo storyline nearly putting Vince out of business and Spike making the television deal with TNA contingent on the continued involvement of 'the Icon' means that his legacy ain't exactly chickenfeed. Add to this the apples and pears aspect of wrestling then and the 'Sports Entertainment' generations (when Lewis was wrestling there was no television and attending shows was part of everyday culture) and legacy isn't nearly as black and white as portrayed.

Finally (for now), by the set up to this tournament we can ascertain that this operates in the Wrestling landscape of April 1992 to April 2001, when three of the four territories actually existed. A wrestler of Lewis' diminutive height (5'10") would have been highly unlikely to occupy a top role in this timeline.

 

[Remix]

I almost hesitate to do this because Gelgarin is a big boy and more than capable of making you look like a complete idiot. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to do so too. I am easily amused, after all.

I'll start simple, take a look at Gelgarin's first post and (in particular) at his top 128. Here you will see that he lists Hulk Hogan at number 2 and Lewis at number 4. "So what?" There are only four wrestlers who are undefeated against Hogan since Hulkamania started running wild - the Rock (twice), Brock Lesnar and Bill Goldberg (once) are three; the fourth is Sting who holds FIVE victories over the Immortal One. So that's Sting dominant over a guy who by Gelgain's own assessment is greater than Lewis.

Let's get one thing straight, just because A > B does not mean B > C. A-Train beat John Cena last night. Does that mean you'll be making arguments that A-Train could beat anyone Cena's defeated? No it doesn't. This is a guy who couldn't beat the titans of sports entertainment known as Billy and Chuck and nicknamed "the hip hop hippo". Are you willing to use the same logic that puts Chuck Palumbo > Cena?

Now Gelgarin likes to throw out legacies and the such as driving force behind who we should vote for, yet he falls down on this argument in his own list where he has James Storm ranked at number 31 ahead of guys with much greater legacies. Obviously this would indicate that legacy isn't the be all end all in his own eyes.

He also loves to throw out things like "Ed Lewis is a better wrestler than Sting" and "Ed Lewis is a better draw than Sting" he could even say "Ed Lewis is a bigger star in Mexico than Sting". The fact that Sting wouldn't exist if not for the work of Ed Lewis is an added bonus.

Plus, the combination of being the franchise of WCW during the years when they had no headliners

Remind me, weren't those the years when WWF was on top? That's like Arguing for AJ to go over Hulk Hogan because he was the franchise player of TNA before actual stars arrived.

the Sting / nWo storyline nearly putting Vince out of business and Spike making the television deal with TNA contingent on the continued involvement of 'the Icon' means that his legacy ain't exactly chickenfeed. Add to this the apples and pears aspect of wrestling then and the 'Sports Entertainment' generations (when Lewis was wrestling there was no television and attending shows was part of everyday culture) and legacy isn't nearly as black and white as portrayed.

Funny how Sting was only able to draw big when working with Hulk fucking Hogan in one of the biggest angles in wrestling in a boom period. Ed Lewis drew money for 40 years, invented modern wrestling and was a big deal everywhere he went. Sting? Not so much. Without 'the Icon', TNA wouldn't be much different than it is now. Without 'The Strangler' TNA wouldn't even exist.

Finally (for now), by the set up to this tournament we can ascertain that this operates in the Wrestling landscape of April 1992 to April 2001, when three of the four territories actually existed.

As opposed to the wrestling landscape of 1905-1942, when there were considerably more than three territories and Lewis was also able to draw in Mexico (coincidentally, that's where this match takes place)

A wrestler of Lewis' diminutive height (5'10") would have been highly unlikely to occupy a top role in this timeline.

And Sting would have got his ass choked out by Lewis in his era. Any sane promoter in any time period would have pushed Lewis as a guy who could beat anybody, anywhere and draw money doing it. Because that's exactly what he did and what he was for 37 years.

And in any case, 5 ft 10 is exactly the same height as Ricky Steamboat who was a world champion during the 80s. Want to rethink that statement?

 

[NSL]

As usual, damn you Gelgarin for posting before me.

That said, I'm still voting for Sting. Ed Lewis invented wrestling, and guys like Sting perfected it. Wrestling was never more popular than it was throughout Sting's prime. I'm not taking anything away from Ed Lewis. He is as great as Gelgarin makes him out to be.

But, my vote goes to Sting. He's a great wrestler, great performer (yes, they're different), and once upon a time, put on decent interviews. Don't let his tenure in TNA hold him back.

 

[Gelgarin]

I almost hesitate to do this because Gelgarin is a big boy and more than capable of making you look like a complete idiot. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to do so too. I am easily amused, after all.

By all means be my guest. Little Gelgarin is unbelievably swamped with work commitments, and can't give this anything like the time it deserves.

Sting has held 25 championships in various promotions throughout his career, and is a 15-time World Heavyweight Champion, having held the NWA World Heavyweight Championship twice, the WCW World Heavyweight Championship six times, the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship twice, the WWA World Heavyweight Championship once, and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship four times. He is the only man to hold the NWA, WCW, and TNA World Titles in his career.

Sting was "The franchise player of WCW, and perhaps no one better represents the organization than the man called Sting"

Sting has won Pro Wrestling Illustrated's "Most Popular Wrestler of the Year" award a record four times.

"Its Showtime folks!" - Sting

For those of you stepping up to debate with me, don't worry; I am going to take your posts seriously and have a proper discussion instead of simply flaming you.

That being said: to whoever posted this as an argument... you are a fucking idiot and I despise you. You have evidently never even heard of Ed Lewis. I called you out on this privately; your response: "Sting is the icon." ignoring both common sense and everything that has been posted on the subject. It's people like you who turn people off the tournament, and I hope you lose some small personal belonging even though you put it down only a moment ago. That'll show you.

When I submitted my list of 128 wrestlers Ed Lewis was not on it. That's not to say he isn't deserving, it's just so hard to go that far back and give an educated opinion. It's hard enough comparing guys like Dory Funk Jr. and Jack Brisco to the stars of today but Ed Lewis goes back decades before that. It's almost comparing two different entities. I guess that's part of the charm of this tournament though.

Let's be honest, not many of us now much at all about Ed Lewis. For that reason alone he is a huge underdog in this matchup against one of the most famous wrestlers of the past quarter century. A lot of us will visit his wiki page to learn what we can about Lewis. That's what I did and despite Gelgarin's excellent argument this is what stood out to me.

The climax of their feud came on April 15, 1925 when Gold Dust Trio star, and former champion, Stanislaus Zbyszko, was asked to lose to the Gold Dust Trio's own handpicked champion, Wayne Munn, a former football star, in an effort to give Munn credibility. Zbyszko balked at the idea of losing to an unskilled wrestler, and secretly jumped to the Joe Stecher camp. Zbyszko double-crossed the Gold Dust Trio, using his knowledge of holds to legitimately defeat and, in the process, humiliate Munn. Eventually Lewis and Stecher settled their differences, and agreed to do business with each other, with Stecher dropping the World Championship back to Lewis on February 20, 1928.

In 1937 The Strangler had six contests in New Zealand. He beat Floyd Marshall, John Spellman, Glen Wade, and Rusty Westcoatt, and lost twice to the great Canadian Champion, Earl McCready, who was then established as the top wrestler in New Zealand.

What this tells me is that despite his extraordinary skill Lewis is first and foremost a good promoter and businessman. He is willing to lose to the right opponent. Even if his skills are inferior there is no denying Sting's charisma. Wrestling is a business built on charisma and a smart promoter would know that Sting is a guy he should get behind. Let's not for one second think that me saying Sting's skills are inferior to Lewis's is an insult in any way. Even though Sting's biggest asset is his charisma he is by no means a slouch in the ring. He's a great guy for a promoter to get behind and that's why Lewis would sacrifice himself here.

As far as I know I am the only reason Ed Lewis is in this tournament at all, and the rest of the world can start making all the excuses it likes, the truth is its because everyone who isn't me is pretty god damn dumb.

Anyway, as will surprise nobody, your argument makes no sense. Lewis is a promoter so he will lose? Yeah, go watch AWA and tell me how that logic worked with Verne Gagne. If Lewis is booking the tournament then he isn't jobbing himself in the first round, and if someone else is booking then they'll give the win to either the bigger star or the better wrestler: both of which are Ed Lewis. Not that we're supposed to be voting based on contrived booking scenarios to begin with: the poll asks us to simply select the greater professional wrestler. Lewis was better at wrestling, a bigger star and had more effect on the industry. There is absolutely no logic behind voting for Sting other than "I just really like Sting so I'm going to make some shit up."

You invest all your time into proving that Ed Lewis was occasionally willing to lose, and then take it as written that he'd be willing to lose to Sting, in the very first round of a high profile tournament.

I had already conceded that Ed Lewis was willing to lose; it's just that he won a thousand times more often. He is literally the most dominant star in the history of pro wrestling, whilst Sting is largely average in terms of record. If you're taking Kayfabe then the arguments for Sting become even more laughable. Of course I don't know why I'm arguing this point, since you've already conceded that Lewis is more skilled than Sting. So drop the promoter rubbish and just vote for the most skilled competitor as was intended.

Ed Lewis.

Sting goes over here. Ed Lewis in his prime could not have been a main evento\r in WCW during Stings reign of terror, he would have simply been a guy having excellent matches with Dean Malenko to open up Nitro every week. Sting on the other hand would have changed the game forever if he were put into Lewis' generation with his face pait and over the top charisma. My vote goes for Sting just for being a once in a lifetime talent that could fit well during any era of this great sport.

This is the point in the debate where Slyfox would normally deploy that rolling smiley face he enjoys so much. I try to avoid emoticons, so I'll settle for a good old fashioned proclamation that I am laughing at you.

Sting would have been a game changer in Lewis's era? Are you fucking kidding me? Sting hasn't got one iota of legitimate wrestling ability, and in Lewis's era that meant you didn't get pushed. All Sting would have going for him in that era would be charisma. You know who else had charisma? Wayne Munn. Have you ever heard of Wayne Munn? Probably not, because he got the shit kicked out of him when they tried to push him. Ed Lewis, like all the old school greats, could have adapted to function in the modern industry. Sting in Lewis's era would have been a jobber at best, and unable to find work in a more realistic scenario.

Sting advancing will do better for the tournament than Lewis. It's really hard to compare Ed Lewis to 97% of the other guys in the tournament because he's from a completely different era. Sting advancing will provide better debates because more people here know about his volume of work.

Can't say that I agree. Actually foremost I don't think it's at all relevant. We're supposed to be voting for the superior wrestler, not for who makes the better second round on paper.

That being said, even if we were, do you not think that having wrestlers from different backgrounds and disciplines makes things more interesting? I find things get rather dull once we're limited to stars from only one period of history.

I'll start simple, take a look at Gelgarin's first post and (in particular) at his top 128. Here you will see that he lists Hulk Hogan at number 2 and Lewis at number 4. "So what?" There are only four wrestlers who are undefeated against Hogan since Hulkamania started running wild - the Rock (twice), Brock Lesnar and Bill Goldberg (once) are three; the fourth is Sting who holds FIVE victories over the Immortal One. So that's Sting dominant over a guy who by Gelgain's own assessment is greater than Lewis.

And there is absolutely no end of guys who have been dominant over Sting during his career, conversely there was nobody in the world who was dominant over Ed Lewis. The "X beat Y so Y beats Z" argument is and has always been totally ******ed. Hogan never beat Sting, but Sting was dominated by Goldberg. Goldberg's record against Kevin Nash is pretty shit... so Kevin Nash obviously goes over Hulk Hogan. Do you see why this is stupid yet?

It's not like Ed Lewis and Hulk Hogan have anything in common stylistically. There is no transferable skill between fighting them. To fight Hollywood Hogan you need to be able to survive his power game and dirty tactics, which Sting might be able to do; whilst to fight Ed Lewis you need to be able to gold hold for hold with the greatest technician in industry history; which Sting has no chance at.

Now Gelgarin likes to throw out legacies and the such as driving force behind who we should vote for, yet he falls down on this argument in his own list where he has James Storm ranked at number 31 ahead of guys with much greater legacies.

Do you know what the criteria was for those lists? No? Be quiet then.
I was asked to list based on personal preference, and even then I only put James Storm so high as a joke. Conversely here we are being asked to vote for the superior wrestler, and that it Ed Lewis no matter how much levity you bring to the situation.

Plus, the combination of being the franchise of WCW during the years when they had no headliners (and won two PWI Most Popular Wrestler, a PWI Match of the Year and a No1 slot in the PWI 500 during said period for his efforts), the Sting / nWo storyline nearly putting Vince out of business and Spike making the television deal with TNA contingent on the continued involvement of 'the Icon' means that his legacy ain't exactly chickenfeed.

No it isn't. If I was comparing Sting's legacy to that of say, Kurt Angle, then it would be significant. It's just that Sting's legacy is fucking irrelevant when compared against the man who invented professional wrestling.

Finally (for now), by the set up to this tournament we can ascertain that this operates in the Wrestling landscape of April 1992 to April 2001, when three of the four territories actually existed. A wrestler of Lewis' diminutive height (5'10") would have been highly unlikely to occupy a top role in this timeline.

Oh good grief...

"Ed Lewis was short so that makes him an inferior wrestler". That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

For a start, your time stamping of the match is fucking stupid. It's in the Arena Mexico; which was first built in 1910. Secondly, Lewis actually travelled to Mexico were he was treated as a legend; whilst Sting has no real significance there and third Ed Lewis never lost wrestling matches. I can't believe you guys are unable to get this factoid through your heads. I knew I was going to see a bunch of guys trying to cobble together an excuse to go against the tournament rules and just vote for your favourite; but I didn't imagine I'd see such desperation so early on.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I almost hesitate to do this because Gelgarin is a big boy and more than capable of making you look like a complete idiot. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to do so too. I am easily amused, after all.

That’s okay, Kotre, I’ve always been a fan of your work.

Let's get one thing straight, just because A > B does not mean B > C. A-Train beat John Cena last night. Does that mean you'll be making arguments that A-Train could beat anyone Cena's defeated? No it doesn't. This is a guy who couldn't beat the titans of sports entertainment known as Billy and Chuck and nicknamed "the hip hop hippo". Are you willing to use the same logic that puts Chuck Palumbo > Cena?

So in your scenario – Cena is Hogan, Sting is the new version A-Train and Lewis is a kayfabe gay tag teamer who defeated the old version Sting? Asides from the obvious flaw if I tried to make such a ridiculous argument, I’ll address this by adding in Gelgarin’s two-penneth worth...

And there is absolutely no end of guys who have been dominant over Sting during his career, conversely there was nobody in the world who was dominant over Ed Lewis. The "X beat Y so Y beats Z" argument is and has always been totally ******ed. Hogan never beat Sting, but Sting was dominated by Goldberg. Goldberg's record against Kevin Nash is pretty shit... so Kevin Nash obviously goes over Hulk Hogan. Do you see why this is stupid yet?

While stylistically, Hogan and Lewis where completely different – they have many similarities that do create a very compelling case for Sting. Lewis (along with Toots Mondt, Billy Sandow and Joe Stecher) revolutionalised the business; Hogan (along with Vince McMahon) repeated that feat. Lewis’s had near complete creative control (as 33 defeats in 6,200 bouts will testify); so had Hogan. If Lewis then put you over it was a massive boon to you as a performer; the same can definitely be said for Hogan. The fact that Hogan had unbelievable creative control in WCW (he has stated that he could have booked himself to win in a handicap match against all the top guys in the company) and Sting was allowed to beat him on four separate occasions is therefore very relevant.

It's not like Ed Lewis and Hulk Hogan have anything in common stylistically. There is no transferable skill between fighting them. To fight Hollywood Hogan you need to be able to survive his power game and dirty tactics, which Sting might be able to do; whilst to fight Ed Lewis you need to be able to gold hold for hold with the greatest technician in industry history; which Sting has no chance at.

Stylistically, this generations Ed Lewis would be Kurt Angle who has never won clean against the Stinger. There is no way to compare exact like for like with these two guys but I don’t think it would be unfair to say that Sting has faced a heck of a lot more guys in the Lewis mold than vice versa.

He also loves to throw out things like "Ed Lewis is a better wrestler than Sting" and "Ed Lewis is a better draw than Sting" he could even say "Ed Lewis is a bigger star in Mexico than Sting". The fact that Sting wouldn't exist if not for the work of Ed Lewis is an added bonus.

Do you know what the criteria was for those lists? No? Be quiet then.

I was asked to list based on personal preference, and even then I only put James Storm so high as a joke. Conversely here we are being asked to vote for the superior wrestler, and that it Ed Lewis no matter how much levity you bring to the situation.

If we’re going down the line of the most proficient technical wrestler, then we may throw out the majority of the guys in this competition. Sting may not be a ring technician on a power with your guy or Kurt Angle or Daniel Bryan but he was good enough for fans to vote him Wrestler of the Year and for wrestling writers to vote him number one in the PWI 500. Sting was more than good enough in the ring for the “He can’t wrestle well enough” to be a silly argument.

Remind me, weren't those the years when WWF was on top? That's like Arguing for AJ to go over Hulk Hogan because he was the franchise player of TNA before actual stars arrived.

WCW was only drawing about a quarter of the fans of the WWF then? Strange that, considering how big a deal Vince made of Ric Flair bringing their top belt into his company. The WWF was the bigger company at the beginning of the 90s but that was based on the back of every major star from every territory having set them up there. The fact that WCW remained a viable option for the Ric Flair’s and Hulk Hogan’s to go too says a great deal about the Stinger’s appeal.

Funny how Sting was only able to draw big when working with Hulk fucking Hogan in one of the biggest angles in wrestling in a boom period

Try again – Flair, Hogan, Savage and Luger didn’t bring WCW past the WWF. WCW’s franchise versus the WWF’s franchise and cronies did.

Ed Lewis drew money for 40 years, invented modern wrestling and was a big deal everywhere he went. Sting? Not so much. Without 'the Icon', TNA wouldn't be much different than it is now. Without 'The Strangler' TNA wouldn't even exist.

No it isn't. If I was comparing Sting's legacy to that of say, Kurt Angle, then it would be significant. It's just that Sting's legacy is fucking irrelevant when compared against the man who invented professional wrestling.

Please guys, are you really telling me that if Ed and his guys hadn’t thought “Hey this is pre determined, why don’t we throw a storyline to the matches?” that someone else wouldn’t? That would be more than slightly hard to substantiate. Kotre, you say that TNA wouldn’t be much different now without Sting – they wouldn’t have the TV deal with Spike, chances are they wouldn’t be going at all.

As opposed to the wrestling landscape of 1905-1942, when there were considerably more than three territories and Lewis was also able to draw in Mexico (coincidentally, that's where this match takes place)

Are you honestly telling me that Sting would not have drawn in Mexico? Mexican fans of WCW alumni like Rey Misterio Junior, Konnan, Vampiro, Eddie Guerrero et cetera would not go and support Sting? Please!

And Sting would have got his ass choked out by Lewis in his era. Any sane promoter in any time period would have pushed Lewis as a guy who could beat anybody, anywhere and draw money doing it. Because that's exactly what he did and what he was for 37 years.
And in any case, 5 ft 10 is exactly the same height as Ricky Steamboat who was a world champion during the 80s. Want to rethink that statement?

Oh good grief...
"Ed Lewis was short so that makes him an inferior wrestler". That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
For a start, your time stamping of the match is fucking stupid. It's in the Arena Mexico; which was first built in 1910. Secondly, Lewis actually travelled to Mexico were he was treated as a legend; whilst Sting has no real significance there and third Ed Lewis never lost wrestling matches. I can't believe you guys are unable to get this factoid through your heads. I knew I was going to see a bunch of guys trying to cobble together an excuse to go against the tournament rules and just vote for your favourite; but I didn't imagine I'd see such desperation so early on.

Take a look at this tournament guys – we have a WWF Region (not WWWF or WWe), a WCW Region (not NWA) and an ECW Region (that by it’s rules makes it Extreme Championship Wrestling as opposed to Eastern Championship Wrestling) alongside this International Region. Now this says to me, that we are operating within a specific time span in the history of wrestling – April 1992 to April 2001 (this takes out Ricky Steamboat's 80s Title run).

Like it or not, this puts us in a period when shorter guys were getting more prominence than the previous decade but still were rarely given a consistent top position in the top two companies. Let's pick the guy who would most closely resemble Ed in this period - Taz. He was a short stocky guy (by modern wrestling standards) portrayed as an unstoppable monster who dominated his opponents in the ring before putting them to sleep... in the smaller sized roster of ECW anyway - once he stepped up to the big league of the WWF, he didn't rise above the midcard.

My final point this time round is on Ed's finishing move. A modified sleeperhold that resembled a side headlock. From my wrestling history, I'm aware that the wrestling rings where much harder. That being said, this move now has a very simple escape - you lift your opponent by the waist and drop him onto the back of his shoulders and head causing the hold to be relinquished.

 

[Remix]

So in your scenario – Cena is Hogan, Sting is the new version A-Train and Lewis is a kayfabe gay tag teamer who defeated the old version Sting? Asides from the obvious flaw if I tried to make such a ridiculous argument, I’ll address this by adding in Gelgarin’s two-penneth worth...

No, it's something that perfectly illustrates the logical fallacy of your arguement.

Would you prefer Heath Slater beat Chris Jericho (more than once), Chris Jericho beat Rock and SCSA therefore Heath Slater would beat Rock and Stone Cold or does that penetrate your thick skull? Because following your logic you would have to make that arguement.

While stylistically, Hogan and Lewis where completely different – they have many similarities that do create a very compelling case for Sting. Lewis (along with Toots Mondt, Billy Sandow and Joe Stecher) revolutionalised the business; Hogan (along with Vince McMahon) repeated that feat.

You're comparing inventing everything that can be considered pro-wrestling to Vince McMahon having the funds to drive every other promoter out of buisness? Yeah, what Hogan did and what Lewis did are totally the same thing.

Lewis’s had near complete creative control (as 33 defeats in 6,200 bouts will testify);

That figure was as much because he could legitimately defeat everyone he faced as it was because of the booking. And those are the words of Lou Thesz, who would know that wort of thing.

so had Hogan.

Hogan wasn't also a hooker of the highest callibre.

If Lewis then put you over it was a massive boon to you as a performer; the same can definitely be said for Hogan. The fact that Hogan had unbelievable creative control in WCW (he has stated that he could have booked himself to win in a handicap match against all the top guys in the company) and Sting was allowed to beat him on four separate occasions is therefore very relevant.

[YOUTUBE]5hfYJsQAhl0[/YOUTUBE]

You're saying that because Sting was allowed to beat Hulk Hogan he'd be booked over Ed Lewis? Are you freaking kidding me? That's the crux of your arguement? And if Lewis doesn't feel like losing he's going to do nothing and take it? No he wouldn't. He'd apply the strangle hold and the guy in facepaint taps out or passes out. No ands ifs or buts aout that. Sting wouldn't stand a fucking chance here.

Stylistically, this generations Ed Lewis would be Kurt Angle who has never won clean against the Stinger.

Gelgarin may correct me here but I don't think Lewis wasted his time missing moonsaults, devaluing his finishers to the point of them being useless and getting outwrestled by such technical titans as Jeff Jarrett. In short, no he isn't.

There is no way to compare exact like for like with these two guys but I don’t think it would be unfair to say that Sting has faced a heck of a lot more guys in the Lewis mold than vice versa.

Because guys in the Sting wouldn't have made the undercard in Lewis' day. Guys like Burns who could draw money wherever they went would be pretty high up the card because the wrestling buisness is (shockingly) a buisness and the guys who make money go up the card where they can make more money.

If we’re going down the line of the most proficient technical wrestler, then we may throw out the majority of the guys in this competition. Sting may not be a ring technician on a power with your guy or Kurt Angle or Daniel Bryan but he was good enough for fans to vote him Wrestler of the Year and for wrestling writers to vote him number one in the PWI 500. Sting was more than good enough in the ring for the “He can’t wrestle well enough” to be a silly argument.

Not wrestling well enough to beat a legitimate hooker who could beat you whether you wanted him to or not is actually a pretty good reason to be voted against in my books. There's also the whole "Ed Lewis is better than Sting by whatever means you use to compare them" too so it's not that simple.

WCW was only drawing about a quarter of the fans of the WWF then? Strange that, considering how big a deal Vince made of Ric Flair bringing their top belt into his company. The WWF was the bigger company at the beginning of the 90s but that was based on the back of every major star from every territory having set them up there. The fact that WCW remained a viable option for the Ric Flair’s and Hulk Hogan’s to go too says a great deal about the Stinger’s appeal.

Nope, but being the biggest draw in a less financially successful company is not a good endorsement when being compared to someone who was a massive draw.

Try again – Flair, Hogan, Savage and Luger didn’t bring WCW past the WWF. WCW’s franchise versus the WWF’s franchise and cronies did.

Funny how WCW didn't really shoot ahead until Hogan and his croneys became the WCW franchise players. That's the point, dumbass. Sting couldn't outdraw WWF's big players so WCW bought them out and shockingly WCW started drawing more than WWF. In short, those guys deserve as much (if not more, given their past records of drawing money) of the credit for taking WCW past WWF.

Please guys, are you really telling me that if Ed and his guys hadn’t thought “Hey this is pre determined, why don’t we throw a storyline to the matches?” that someone else wouldn’t?

There's that, plus changing the way shows were promoted, inventing where shows were held, how wrestling was done (they literally took wrestling from catch wrestling to how we know it today), the idea of "feuds", the idea of faces and heels, the idea of "ring psychology", the idea of spots, the idea of moves that make no sence in a real fight (like say, Stinger Splashes, Scorpion Death Drops, Sharpshooters, and most of the rest of Sting's arsenal) and every finish you've ever seen or ever will see in a wrestling ring. What's Sting done that compares to fucking inventing professional wrestling?

That would be more than slightly hard to substantiate. Kotre, you say that TNA wouldn’t be much different now without Sting – they wouldn’t have the TV deal with Spike, chances are they wouldn’t be going at all.

I believe I just did substanciate my claim.

Now go ahead and show me how having Sting got TNA a TV contract? Since, ya know he'd made all of 5 live appearances before TNA inked the deal with Spike, and he returned on a regular basis months after that. Your move, Muppet.

Are you honestly telling me that Sting would not have drawn in Mexico? Mexican fans of WCW alumni like Rey Misterio Junior, Konnan, Vampiro, Eddie Guerrero et cetera would not go and support Sting? Please!

So you're saying he'd only have been over in Mexico because fans of other wrestlers would know who he is, rather than due to his own tallents? That's not a good endorsement of someone's ability to make people pay to see them. It's like saying a movie fronted by Steve Austin will be a blockbuster because he was in a movie alongside an assload of well known and established filmstars.

Take a look at this tournament guys – we have a WWF Region (not WWWF or WWe), a WCW Region (not NWA) and an ECW Region (that by it’s rules makes it Extreme Championship Wrestling as opposed to Eastern Championship Wrestling) alongside this International Region. Now this says to me, that we are operating within a specific time span in the history of wrestling – April 1992 to April 2001 (this takes out Ricky Steamboat's 80s Title run).

By 1991 Lewis was dead. This arguement is therefore worthless, you dumb fuck. And yeah, those 2 years between 1991 and 1989 were absolutely pivotal and there's no way that any other 5 ft 10 wrestler would hold the belt...

Oh wait, Benoit. Unless the one inch height difference invalidates him on some way. There's also several people who held the title that were 6 ft 1 (like HBK, Bret Hart and Ric Flair). Truely he would be like Napoleon attmepting to conquer a nation of giants.

I'm not even going to read any more arguements based on your time period assumptions. You're talking out of your arse.

My final point this time round is on Ed's finishing move. A modified sleeperhold that resembled a side headlock.

You realise that it takes under a minute to pass out from a properly applied blode choke, right? You know what a sleeper hold (or in this case, strangle hold) is? That's right, a blood choke. People have won fights in UFC with holds very similar to sleeper holds (especially the Rear Naked Choke, which is a sleeper with the free hand moved from the temple to gripping the other arm)

From my wrestling history, I'm aware that the wrestling rings where much harder. That being said, this move now has a very simple escape - you lift your opponent by the waist and drop him onto the back of his shoulders and head causing the hold to be relinquished.

Hard to do when you're busy passing out (which Sting would be). It's also hard to do without the help of your opponent (which Lewis wouldn't be).

For reference, Sting's submission finisher is completely impossible to apply without the consent of the opponent. Don't knock someone's finisher when the guy you're backing suffers from a worse weakness in that regard.

 

[JGlass]

Oy, this is a tough one. I love Sting and have little to no allegiance to Ed Lewis, but I do know of his exploits, and when it comes down to it, it's hard for me to decide who would win in a kayfabe match.

On the one hand, Sting has always been something of a superhuman in the same way The Undertaker is. He no sells tough shots, he gets up after severe beatings to give one of his own, and just like Spider-Man, he's been known to team up with other superstars like Lex Luger, or Robocop.

But let's not forget who Ed Lewis was. He was The Strangler, a guy so vicious in the ring that fans were legitimately worried for the welfare of his opponent. He invented feuds, he was one of the original hookers, and he taught Lou Thesz everything he knew.

I'm leaning towards Sting right now. Sting worked in an industry that was much more competitive than Lewis: once you became a star in Lewis's day, it seems like you were pretty much cemented since suddenly everyone wanted to see you wrestle, but with little televised wrestling, you would be in demand across the wrestling world for a long time. Sting managed to stay relevant across four decades, being a force of sorts in all of them.

But does Ed Lewis really deserve to be punished by economics? I don't think so. I'm going to take me time on this one and look at each side carefully. I recommend everyone does the same.

 

[pipebomber]

sting... talk all you want about ed lewis's win loss streak... wrestling was different back then... when sting has a match on TV the whole country can watch it, if not the whole world. In Ed Lewis's day the people who showed up could watch it, that ment in order to put somebody over they had to win alot more consistantly. Thats just booking, however since I know little of Ed Lewis Im gunna go with the stinger, simply cause he reached a broader audience

 

[Shadowmancer]

you realise that the opposite should happen, either you learn more about him or you don't vote. you should not vote from a position of ignorance. Ed Lewis without taking into account inflation is a bigger Draw than Sting. He held that record for attendance for a damn long time, he was an international star when it was not a simple thing to be.

 

[Davi323]

I predicted that Sting would move on in the official predictions contest bracket, however I find myself being persuaded by both Gelgarin and Kotre Ibusihimix's arguments. I am going against my own bracket, I voted for Ed "the Strangler" Lewis.

 

[Fizzy]

I'm not a Sting fan. There, I said it, I am a member of the IWC and I am not a Sting fan. When this matchup was first announced, I was going to refrain from voting due to my lack of knowledge regarding Ed Lewis's career.(something many posters should seriously consider.) That said, when I learned who Lewis was, I knew Gelgarin would be here, ripping everybody apart and i'm happy to say I have not been disappointed. He and Kotre have convinced me to vote for Lewis, not because I dislike Sting, but because they have truly convinced me that Lewis deserves to go over.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

No, it's something that perfectly illustrates the logical fallacy of your arguement.

Would you prefer Heath Slater beat Chris Jericho (more than once), Chris Jericho beat Rock and SCSA therefore Heath Slater would beat Rock and Stone Cold or does that penetrate your thick skull? Because following your logic you would have to make that arguement.

Not really, seeing as there is no direct way to compare Sting and Lewis as to who they have or have not beaten, there has to be some way to compare and contrast who might win beyond Lewis is a legitimate badass who would win just because he could. As such, comparing Sting going over the biggest star of his generation to Sting going over the biggest star of a past generation is far from a massive stretch.

You're comparing inventing everything that can be considered pro-wrestling to Vince McMahon having the funds to drive every other promoter out of buisness? Yeah, what Hogan did and what Lewis did are totally the same thing.

No I'm comparing Lewis et al tweaking a business that was already predetermined to incorporate storylines to Hogan and McMahon taking it from catch as catch can real men having believable matches (that people had tired off) to a business of larger than life, almost cartoonish, characters that was more embraceable to the A-Team and MTV (Rock N' Wrestling) generation of the 80s and then repeating the feet with Eric Bischoff by bringing in more realistic (if still OTT) fare in the 90s. Both Vince and Bischoff put themselves to the wall on the gamble that these changes would succeed.

That figure was as much because he could legitimately defeat everyone he faced as it was because of the booking. And those are the words of Lou Thesz, who would know that wort of thing.

So he should go over because he can go into business for himself? Unlikely, if he was to deviate from script in the opening round of a tournament - he'd have his butt thrown out anyway and his name blackened. From what I can ascertain, this would not even be likely - Lewis appeared to be honourable and only likely to shoot if his opponent tried to be smart (something Sting never had a record for doing).

Hogan wasn't also a hooker of the highest callibre.

I'll avoid all sex tape puns and simply state that Hogan didn't have to shoot to ensure kayfabe was adhered to and I think that you booking a scripted contest through UFC style shoot doesn't really fit the mold of this competition were many of the contestants are not legit hardasses.

[YOUTUBE]5hfYJsQAhl0[/YOUTUBE]

Cool - I love Billy Madison, but, asides from massively devaluing the impact Hulk Hogan has had on the sport and using the "But he was a real tough guy!" defence, this doesn't discredit any point that I have made.

You're saying that because Sting was allowed to beat Hulk Hogan he'd be booked over Ed Lewis? Are you freaking kidding me? That's the crux of your arguement? And if Lewis doesn't feel like losing he's going to do nothing and take it? No he wouldn't. He'd apply the strangle hold and the guy in facepaint taps out or passes out. No ands ifs or buts aout that. Sting wouldn't stand a fucking chance here.

Back to the "Lewis isn't professional enough to allow Sting to win" argument then.

Gelgarin may correct me here but I don't think Lewis wasted his time missing moonsaults, devaluing his finishers to the point of them being useless and getting outwrestled by such technical titans as Jeff Jarrett. In short, no he isn't.

So the whole way through this tournament, we discount every wrestler of the past 30 years because the business has evolved? Ric Flair's figure four has never been a given submission; Ted DiBiase's Million Dollar Dream wasn't; even look at the last WrestleMania - the previously unbeatable Hell's Gate couldn't get the job done on Triple H. As I have already stated, there is no direct version of Lewis today (even in the legit fighting UFC) because the business has moved on. As such, the Angle's of today have to be regarded as this era's equivalent.

Because guys in the Sting wouldn't have made the undercard in Lewis' day. Guys like Burns who could draw money wherever they went would be pretty high up the card because the wrestling buisness is (shockingly) a buisness and the guys who make money go up the card where they can make more money.

And you know this how?

Sting would have been a real original in Lewis's time, whereas Lewis was the type that there was variations of in the modern era but they were rarely pushed to prevelant positions (example Fit Finlay, Ken Shamrock) and when they were they have been accused of not drawing (example Bret Hart, Chris Benoit).

And a guy who was put over in WCW was Ron Simmons, who can be directly likened to Wayne Munn (both being famous collegiate footballers) – a guy that Lewis did put over, despite the fact that he wasn’t a shooter or proficient in the ring. Tell me Ron Simmons was more proficient in the squared circle than Sting.

Not wrestling well enough to beat a legitimate hooker who could beat you whether you wanted him to or not is actually a pretty good reason to be voted against in my books. There's also the whole "Ed Lewis is better than Sting by whatever means you use to compare them" too so it's not that simple.

This is a kayfabe tournament of a kayfabe industry, can we dispense with the shoot aspect at some stage?

Nope, but being the biggest draw in a less financially successful company is not a good endorsement when being compared to someone who was a massive draw.

Live attendances without TV ≠ Live attendances Plus TV audience.

Funny how WCW didn't really shoot ahead until Hogan and his croneys became the WCW franchise players. That's the point, dumbass. Sting couldn't outdraw WWF's big players so WCW bought them out and shockingly WCW started drawing more than WWF. In short, those guys deserve as much (if not more, given their past records of drawing money) of the credit for taking WCW past WWF.

And yet Sting versus Hogan was bigger than Hogan versus Flair or Piper or the Ultimate Warrior. You have mentioned McMahon buying out the top talent from his competition, including NWA/WCW, would Hogan be were he is today if he hadn't had a supporting cast of the cream of the territories who brought in their own fans? You are saying that Sting wasn't a draw because he couldn't draw as high as a company incorporating Hogan, Savage, Flair, Hennig, Piper, Steamboat, Luger, Funk, Roberts, LOD, Steiners and many others PLUS the Rock N Wrestling mainstream crossover with celebrity appearances, cartoons and their stars in movies and music videos PLUS the company operating in a completely different manner to what had gone before presentation wise. Against this, it is a great credit to Sting that WCW were still able to maintain a PPV model and that he could garner as many official accolades as he did, they even managed a successful tour of the UK in this time despite the fact that I remember the local press comparing the top stars and they picked WCW's version of the Nature Boy to be Johnny B Badd!

There's that, plus changing the way shows were promoted, inventing where shows were held, how wrestling was done (they literally took wrestling from catch wrestling to how we know it today), the idea of "feuds", the idea of faces and heels, the idea of "ring psychology", the idea of spots, the idea of moves that make no sence in a real fight (like say, Stinger Splashes, Scorpion Death Drops, Sharpshooters, and most of the rest of Sting's arsenal) and every finish you've ever seen or ever will see in a wrestling ring. What's Sting done that compares to fucking inventing professional wrestling?

He didn’t invent professional wrestling, they adapted it from a carnie attraction to a business in its own right by stealing all the wrestlers from the local carnivals and creating a roster (something similar to what Vince would do over half a century later). Many of these guys had already met in the ring before to further the reputation of each other and encourage would be hard men to “Step right up!”

As far as taking it to where it is today...

[YOUTUBE]Uaqd8mz4n3A[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]w4yzGulkZzQ&feature=relmfu[/YOUTUBE]​

This is a twenty minute UFC bout without the cage and with less punches and no kicks. Which was fine back then because realism and protecting kayfabe was paramount but if this bout occurred anytime in the last thirty years, the spectators would either riot or fall asleep. Oh, and it does put your comment about the ineffectiveness of Angle’s Ankle Lock in context – just how much of that bout does he have his opponent in the headlock / sleeper hold before he surcomes?

Now go ahead and show me how having Sting got TNA a TV contract? Since, ya know he'd made all of 5 live appearances before TNA inked the deal with Spike, and he returned on a regular basis months after that. Your move, Muppet.

TNA had no headline acts when they were negotiating the TV deal with Spike. As you said Sting had made a handful of appearances with the promotion. Spike made it a part of the deal that TNA signed Sting as a marketable star. It was widely reported in the wrestling press at the time.

So you're saying he'd only have been over in Mexico because fans of other wrestlers would know who he is, rather than due to his own tallents? That's not a good endorsement of someone's ability to make people pay to see them. It's like saying a movie fronted by Steve Austin will be a blockbuster because he was in a movie alongside an assload of well known and established filmstars.

Your right, the fanatical wrestling fans of Mexico would have absolutely no idea who Sting is if it hadn’t been for their guys going to WCW because they never watched it prior to this! I didn’t state this was THE reason they’d know Sting – I was merely using them to illustrate that there was no way that they wouldn’t. Asides from that, Sting is exactly the style of guy who would go over big in Mexico – just look at Vampiro, who was never close to being at Sting’s level.

By 1991 Lewis was dead. This arguement is therefore worthless, you dumb fuck. And yeah, those 2 years between 1991 and 1989 were absolutely pivotal and there's no way that any other 5 ft 10 wrestler would hold the belt...

Oh wait, Benoit. Unless the one inch height difference invalidates him on some way. There's also several people who held the title that were 6 ft 1 (like HBK, Bret Hart and Ric Flair). Truely he would be like Napoleon attmepting to conquer a nation of giants.

I'm not even going to read any more arguements based on your time period assumptions. You're talking out of your arse.

My point was that, in the timespan that we appear to be operating in (assume that Ed is alive and at his peak age), guys of diminutive stature were not prominent – and 6’1” is significant taller when the majority of guys your facing are 6’4” plus. Ricky Steamboat cannot be compared to Ed Lewis and while Chris Benoit can, he was defeated by Sting when the two met for the World Title Belt. For the record, Napoleon was actually 5’7” so he was the same amount smaller than Ed than Ed was of the other small guys you listed.

I’ll repeat it again, as I appeared to be communicating out of my posterior at the time, that the closest guy in stature to Ed Lewis was Taz and he was not pushed to any great heights once he left ECW because Vince McMahon did not believe that him bullying guys half a foot and more taller than him was believable.

You realise that it takes under a minute to pass out from a properly applied blode choke, right? You know what a sleeper hold (or in this case, strangle hold) is? That's right, a blood choke. People have won fights in UFC with holds very similar to sleeper holds (especially the Rear Naked Choke, which is a sleeper with the free hand moved from the temple to gripping the other arm)

Look at the match attached, Ed had to repeatedly apply the sleeper before his foe finally succumbed.

Hard to do when you're busy passing out (which Sting would be). It's also hard to do without the help of your opponent (which Lewis wouldn't be).

For reference, Sting's submission finisher is completely impossible to apply without the consent of the opponent. Don't knock someone's finisher when the guy you're backing suffers from a worse weakness in that regard.

So, once again, we return to the argument that Ed Lewis is going to defeat Sting because he’s going to sandbag his offence and shoot his own.

Ed Lewis has a great legacy and was a great wrestler in his time but comparing his time to that of Sting, Hogan, Austin, HBK, Hart, Flair et cetera is comparing chalk with cheese. If you prefer the match above and believe it could translate today, by all means vote for the Strangler. My support is still behind this and no amount of name calling or red rep will change that.

[YOUTUBE]1lkHx8SjmLo[/YOUTUBE]​

 

[Pyro180]

The Stinger has lasted the test of time.
Sting = Win

 

[pumpkinking8987]

Who came up with these brackets. There is no way in hell STING deserves a #2 seed when wrestlers like The KING OF KINGS and THE HITMAN are #3 seeds.

I find it hard to take to much stock in his WcW title runs, Hell Booker T was a 5-time WcW champ wasnt he. Oh yeah and David Arquette did wonders for that belt's reputation. In the early years of wrestling there was a lot of promotions that had good credibility but STING wrestles in an era when there is a clear Number 1 company and he isnt in it. Sure he was the face of WcW but lets be honest when WcW pulled ahead in the ratings it wasnt because of STING it was because of the nWo.

I have never seen an Ed Lewis match from what i read he was an excellent wrestler. I have seen alot of Sting matches and looking back i cant remember ever seeing a Five Star match. I do remember watching what I would call the most disappointing match in wrestling history at Starcade 97 against Hogan. You may argue that hogan was past his prime, but 5 years later Hogan was still able to put on very good if not great matches with THE ROCK, TRIPLE H, as well as BROCK LESNAR.

I know that Sting is gonna win this match up but please dont let him make a serious run at this tourney.

 

[thatotherguy]

I'm not at all familiar with Lewis' work.

That being said, I don't think it's fair to compare him to Sting based on his in-ring work anyway – wrestling has changed a hell of a lot over the last few decades. Nor do I think simply counting number of days undefeated or length of championship or number of championships won as the standards for these things have changed as well. But comparing the two, based on some research, Lewis was a bigger star than Sting, for longer. Lewis it is.