If Sting doesn't get Undertaker, was it all a waste of time?

[Creepy Old Man]

The Triple H match was good. Not great, but good. Some thought it was overbooked, but it was the ideal time to bring DX vs. nWo to life, and we got a brief interaction between Sting and Shawn, who will now never face each other. The problem is, it wasn't a sought-after match; in all my years of wrestling fandom I never once heard anyone pining for that bout. The initial dream match was Hogan vs. Sting, the tanned, charismatic strongmen of their respective brands going at it. In the latter half of the 1990s it became Bret vs. Sting, two company loyalists who used the same hold. Since the end of the 90s it's always been Undertaker vs. Sting, two shadowy figures who represent their respective brands better than anyone else. That's what fans post about on message boards, that's what the fans chanted for in Sting's last television appearance, that's what fans overwhelmingly voted for in a WWE poll asking who they wanted Sting to face next. It's also what Sting has lobbied for, for years now.

Sting was already presented by WWE as one of the greats before he signed. The company has made money from retrospective content featuring the guy, and have been fair in acknowledging him as an all-time performer. Sting also had the legacy of being the one man who had carved a legendary career without ever inking a deal with WWE. He didn't need Vince McMahon, in a business that IS Vince McMahon. The Triple H match just doesn't seem enough justification for giving all of that up. For me and many others, only an Undertaker match was good enough reason for coming in.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Messiah]

Never cared about that match, last thing i want to see is 2 guys way past their prime competing in a match, especially on the biggest stage. Sting has made money for WWE and he'll have a few matches.. Of course it wouldn't be a waste of time.

Most people just wanted to see Sting in a WWE ring, that alone makes it worth it.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I still care about Sting-Undertaker and want to see it whenever they might put it on, but I'll admit it would have been ideal for Sting's debut match in WWE. There was something about the notion of the guy who never performed here before going against the guy we've known the longest.

Legend against Legend........Mystery vs. Mystery

Then again, as long as they don't wait too long to stage it, we saw at WM31 that both guys can still go to the well and put on a fine contest, which is something I had wondered about both of them.

Yes, in some ways the time is past for this one....but if they do it, you'll be watching, right? The build-up would be classic.

 

[kadroan]

I wouldn't say it's a waste. It's just unfortunate if it never happens but I can't get mad, Sting could have signed with WWE over TNA and it probably would have been happened.

It wouldn't surprise me if the match happens at WM 32. Vince is all about his money.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

I don't get the "past their prime" thing, personally. Everyone wrote off the Undertaker after one weak - and concussed - performance against Lesnar, totally ignoring the fact he'd had a good or great match for the previous seven years. This year he returned to put on a good match with Wyatt. He can clearly still perform at a high level.

Sting got himself into much better shape for WM31, and busted out a dropkick, a top rope splash, and Stinger Splashes like it was 1999. He moved fast and executed his moves crisply. I don't see any problem with his ability either. Sure, both men have a lot less hair than they once did, but they can still go, they're still masters at working the live crowd, and the spectacle surrounding the match will be something else.

 

[AustinHartLesnarHBKTaz80]

No it was not a waste.

The greatest talent, one of the biggest names in the history of professional wrestling to never step foot in a WWE ring finally got to do that, win or lose, on the biggest stage of them all, Wrestlemania.

So NO, even if he decided to call it quits, it was not a waste of time.

Next for Sting? Hall of Fame. You deserve it.

 

[OYDK]

I think it was a waste to have HHH go over Sting in the first place. I understand it in the sense that, HHH is full-time on-screen figurehead while Sting hasn't been seen since his loss, but HHH never really gained anything from it and it didn't go anywhere... Would have been nice to see one of the greats win his first ever Mania match, but I digress.

As for OP's question; I think the signing of Sting would only be a "waste" if he were to never have another match. Doesn't have to be against Taker, but I would like to see him go up against SOMEBODY at Mania 32. To bring him in and have him lose his only match at Wrestlemania to HHH would be bordering on ridiculous... at least in my opinion.

 

[Kamala316]

The only WWE match fans wanted to see Sting involved in was against the Undertaker. That would of been the true case of the Franchise of WWF/E vs. the Franchise of WCW. But instead, HHH pulled his political strings, and weaseled his way (again) into a WrestleMania match (again), and got himself booked to win (again). Was Sting in it for the payday, or just to wrestle in one WrestleMania? Only he knows. But that being said, if Sting's one cameo in WWE was to lose to HHH, it would be one of the biggest wastes of an opportunity to make a REAL wrestling moment.

 

[ECW]

Sting has already been in the ring with some of wrestling's greatest long before he signed with the WWE. First, in the NWA, then in WCW, and finally in TNA. Not every great wrestler has to be a "WWE Superstar" altho ViNcE would have you think that. If he doesn't meet Taker, so what? The world won't come to an end. As a lifelong Sting fan I've seen him take on most everybody and if he quits now, I'm good. Real good.

 

[Prince Vee]

It should've been the match that happened probably at least 5 years back at Wrestlemania, when both of them were in good physical conditions for a lengthy bout.

I didn't enjoy Triple H vs Sting as a Wrestling fan because there were no great spot except for Sting performing a Top rope Splash on everyone albeit I enjoyed as a Sports Entertainment fan.

Sting should've won the match though. Now its not like Sting should really face The Undertaker to accomplish his career satisfaction. Please Leave those two guys alone. They both are legends and gave us more entertainment over the years. Let them spend some time for their own. We don't necessarily need that match of course neither Sting nor The Undertaker.

Cheers!!

 

[Woodstuff]

I think 'taker v Sting will be the last match both men wrestle. It would be dumb of WWE to only use Sting for 1 match (considering he can still go at the level he did), and even dumber to put the biggest match on first.

Realistically, who else was there for Sting to fight? His debut match had to be against an attitude era name, because of the history between Sting and WWE. Rock is arguably too big of a draw to put against a guy 60% of the audience have never heard of before. Big Show? Kane?

HHH is one of the few logical opponents for Sting that can still wrestle a decent match. I don't think the return will be a waste of time, because I think it's building to something bigger than a loss to HHH and a speech on the Raw post-show.

 

[World Class Mark]

Semi-complicated explanation, but the ANSWER to the question is NO.

It's not a waste of time to bring "The Franchise" from WCW to WWE (by way of TNA, lol). It *IS* a waste of time if the only purpose was to have him job to the Piece of Trash, only to never hear from Sting again. There was never any clamoring to see Sting wrestle Piece of Trash.

So, one has to assume Sting wrestles again. In which case, NO, it wasn't a waste of time to bring Sting to WWE -- regardless of whether he wrestles Undertaker or not. WCW has its many fans, as does Sting, so it was a win-win situation to feature him on "the granddaddy of 'em all," even if we had to see that awful awful AWFUL entrance of Piece of Trash, LMAO.

So, NO it wasn't a waste. And YES, I'm looking forward to seeing another Sting match...

 

[AustinHartLesnarHBKTaz80]

I hope Stone Cold asks Sting on his live podcast:

"Why agree to the match with Triple H at Wrestlemania? How did you feel about the finish???"

 

[Navi]

Having Sting lose that match against HHH presents us with a bit of a problem now doesn't it?

We haven't heard from either Sting or Taker since Wrestlemania, and we know they have to sell out Cowboy Stadium in Dallas next year. So it would be logical for the WWE to have Sting/Taker at that Mania, it would sell seats and both men live in Texas, so they'd both be in front of a their home crowds.

The issues I see happening are, how do you explain to the WWE universe that Sting will basically have two matches in the WWE before he retires and will lose both of them. You can't have him go over Taker in Taker's last match can we? That would ruin Lesnar's claim of being the only one to beat Taker at Mania, and no one wants to see Taker go out with a loss.

The best thing to do would be have them as a tag team together. That way both men would be sharing the ring duties, and go out together as winners. The problem with that is we saw very little of both men before Mania last year, so they would have to show up this year in order to promote their match. I have no idea who they'd be facing, haven't thought this one that far through yet.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The best thing to do would be have them as a tag team together. That way both men would be sharing the ring duties, and go out together as winners.

You're probably right, yet what a shame it would be if true. I really dislike the idea that neither competitor can realistically be expected to lose.....and that's the reason the contest wouldn't happen......especially a mega-match such as 'Taker vs. Sting.

Yet, as much as I find it distasteful, I have to agree. How can Sting lose 2 out of 2 matches in WWE, a company he finally came to in order to cement his legacy? And even more, how can Undertaker lose the last match of his illustrious career? Wouldn't it have better had Sting come to WWE a few years earlier, lost to 'Taker.....and then have 'Taker lose to Brock Lesnar the next year? Sting could go on to win a match or two after that, just so he leaves a winner.

What would I like? Put the two of them in there one-on-one, promote the living hell out of it.....and whomever wins....wins. Screw the legacies, screw the storylines.

That's what I'd like. What do I think we'll see? The two of 'em teaming up to battle the dastardly forces of evil.

We'll cheer.....but be thinking of what could have been.

 

[The Samoan Heritage]

I personally wouldn't say Sting's wwe career would be a waste if he doesn't face Undertaker. But I will say that his WWE career so far has definetly been anticlimactic. Sting has just been an after thought, it feels like he was never even in wwe. You compare Sting's Wwe "run" to Steiner's, Nash's, and Goldberg's and it just isn't the same. I never watched WCW on a regular basis so when Goldberg debuted in wwe it felt like a huge deal. When I saw Goldberg I instantly became interested in him because wwe made him feel like a Star and the fact that he went after THE ROCK was HUGE.
Sting not so much, I know who he was from watching TNA (and old wcw shows) but wwe didnt seem to really treat Sting like he was a LEGEND/ICON. They could've did a lot more with the Sting and Triple H build up instead of Sting showing up for 3 minutes every time and leaving. (They could've had Triple H see Sting in a mirror only to look back and no Sting. They could've had Triple H/Steph walk into their room filled with Cows. Heck they should've had Sting with his Bat the first few appearances instead of coming out and pointing his finger.)
I'm all for Sting vs Undertaker especially if their entrances and build up are as good as Taker vs Michaels was(don't care much about the match itself). But Sting's wwe "career" has left alot to be desired and I don't think having a match with Taker will exactly complete it.

 

[MartialHorror]

Personally, I can't see 'Sting-Undertaker' being as good as 'Sting-Triple H'...which wasn't anything special. I can't even see why they'd fight outside of the novelty. To me, it would be an incredibly hyped disappointment.

Maybe it will happen. But that would be an amazingly boring feud. They'd show up like...once or twice each? At least Undertaker recently had Bray and Sting had Triple H to carry the feuds for them.

 

[stingray11214]

Was it a waste? It was going to be the minute Sting signed to do a match.

Look, no way in hell was VKM going to allow Sting to go over. That would have de-legitimized everything that happened in the Wars. It would have made WWE look like the weaker company if Sting won. So, Trips could have been crippled beyond recognition in the mold of The Droz, and he would have still pinned Sting.

Secondly, most of the people who watch/attend RAW or SmackDown do not even know who Sting IS or WAS. Unless you came of age in the late 80's or 90's, or watched TNA, Sting was just another performer to these people. He was a nobody, some schmuck like Fandango. The IWC wanted him in WWE. The IWC was clamoring or a Sting-Taker match. Who else was? NOBODY! Did you think the 8yo dragging his parents to RAW, screaming "I wanna see Super Cena!" is gonna give a rats ass about Sting? Remember, it is that 8yo kid that is WWE's target audience, not the IWC.

In reality, I was hoping that after he left TNA, Sting just rode off to his Ministry. He did not have anything to prove to the WWE "Universe". Sting's legacy was created WITHOUT Stamford. Sure, WWE owns his video library from his NWA/WCW days. But, HE still owns Sting. And, he can still make money off his likeness as he owns it. Sadly, I think his legacy got cheapened by his WrestleMania appearance. Sad.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Here's the thing about Taker: his health is pretty much a touch & go situation. His body's so worn out that WWE can only plan certain things around him almost on a weekly basis; he might feel like a million bucks for a few weeks while he might feel like a piece of dried out crap over the next month or so. IF reports are accurate as to his condition following his match with Lesnar, Taker was in pretty rough shape for much of the rest of 2014; several months after WrestleMania XXX was in the history books, various reports claimed Taker still wasn't doing so hot and was still suffering from some of the after effects of his bout with Lesnar. As a result, for all anyone knew and would know for a helluva lot of time, Taker was done and the show had to go on. By the time plans for WM were coming out and being finalized, maybe Taker hadn't informed WWE he was able to wrestle, so they had to go with option B instead. However, WWE includes plans for Taker because he's a huge star, because people still love watching the guy and because he's been supremely loyal to WWE above & beyond any other wrestler in the history of the roster.

As for Shawn Michaels, the man's retired and has no interest in wrestling again. Are they supposed to hold his family hostage until he agrees to have one more match whether it be with Sting, Bryan, Lesnar or whomever? HBK's almost 50 years old himself, so he may have a helluva lot of ring rust, even if he is still in really good shape, that'd be extraordinarily hard to shake off.

Sting showed up at WrestleMania XXXI, fans got their massive nostalgia fix and even more so with the inclusion of the original nWo and DX making their presence felt in Sting's match against Triple H. They got to see him wrestle in a WWE ring for the first, possibly even the only time, in a historic career in what was a memorable situation, so I don't see how it could all be a waste of time just 'cuz he didn't face Taker.

 

[L@RISANO]

I think it was a waste to have HHH go over Sting in the first place. I understand it in the sense that, HHH is full-time on-screen figurehead while Sting hasn't been seen since his loss, but HHH never really gained anything from it and it didn't go anywhere... Would have been nice to see one of the greats win his first ever Mania match, but I digress.

As for OP's question; I think the signing of Sting would only be a "waste" if he were to never have another match. Doesn't have to be against Taker, but I would like to see him go up against SOMEBODY at Mania 32. To bring him in and have him lose his only match at Wrestlemania to HHH would be bordering on ridiculous... at least in my opinion.

Is it really fair to say that HHH gained 'nothing' from beating Sting? I don't think it is. Sting came in with the aim of beating Triple H and making him vulnerable for an eventual ousting, but the storyline took us to the direction of HHH coming out looking even more powerful as an Authority figure than ever before, and personally, I am looking forward to seeing someone from the current full-time roster truly go head to head with him by SummerSlam with the aim of knocking the Authority off its perch.


HHH over Sting wasn't a popular decision by any means, but in hindsight, with Brock's "babyface" turn on the Post-Mania RAW, it allowed HHH to truly sit on the Top of the Heel Roster, with Seth Rollins through his cash-in sealing himself as the next in-line.

 

[rmp0012002]

It wasn't a waste of time considering for Vince it was played out exactly how he had it planned. Sting gets a big build up, throw in a little WWE vs WCW rivalry and Sting ends up looking at the lights. Vince beats WCW again. There was no way HHH was putting over Sting and if Sting does get Taker at WM32 he'll be looking at the lights again that night too.

 

[MartialHorror]

Is it really fair to say that HHH gained 'nothing' from beating Sting? I don't think it is. Sting came in with the aim of beating Triple H and making him vulnerable for an eventual ousting, but the storyline took us to the direction of HHH coming out looking even more powerful as an Authority figure than ever before, and personally, I am looking forward to seeing someone from the current full-time roster truly go head to head with him by SummerSlam with the aim of knocking the Authority off its perch.


HHH over Sting wasn't a popular decision by any means, but in hindsight, with Brock's "babyface" turn on the Post-Mania RAW, it allowed HHH to truly sit on the Top of the Heel Roster, with Seth Rollins through his cash-in sealing himself as the next in-line.

The problem I had with this is the 'Triple H Vs Sting' match almost seemed to exist within its own continuity. NWO Vs DX made no sense as last we saw, the Kliq was still together and friendly. NWO was never Sting's ally. Triple H shook Sting's hand honorably, but shortly afterwards reinforced himself as a heel. Then the match was never really acknowledged again.

I think Triple H winning was the smart thing to do, just because he is in the ring a lot more, but I'm not sure he benefited too much from it.

 

[OYDK]

Is it really fair to say that HHH gained 'nothing' from beating Sting? I don't think it is. Sting came in with the aim of beating Triple H and making him vulnerable for an eventual ousting, but the storyline took us to the direction of HHH coming out looking even more powerful as an Authority figure than ever before, and personally, I am looking forward to seeing someone from the current full-time roster truly go head to head with him by SummerSlam with the aim of knocking the Authority off its perch.


HHH over Sting wasn't a popular decision by any means, but in hindsight, with Brock's "babyface" turn on the Post-Mania RAW, it allowed HHH to truly sit on the Top of the Heel Roster, with Seth Rollins through his cash-in sealing himself as the next in-line.

Personally, I think it's fair to make that statement. As poster above me mentioned, HHH pinned Sting, they shook hands, and than it was never mentioned again. Seriously, it was NEVER brought up again. If HHH were to come out and brag about how he beat the great Stinger, and say something along the lines of "This is what will always happen when you screw with HHH and The Authority", leading to some sort of big program culminating at Summerslam, than I would have had no problem with it. But, HHH has not even been in a program since Mania... I mean sure, he's the "dad" or whatever to Seth but his victory didn't leapfrog him into a feud with say, Roman Reigns or Brock Lesnar did it? It didn't really DO anything for HHH.

I don't buy the statement that he looks more powerful as an authority figure after his win. As a competitor maybe, but not as an authority figure. Had he lost, people would have taken him just as seriously as the COO as they do right now.

Like I said in my original post, I understand the logic in having HHH go over as he's a full-time on screen figure. But would the product really have changed at all had Sting gone over that night instead of H? Personally, I don't think so.

 

[spaldoni]

I don't think it would be a waste. I think Triple H and the WWE did an amazing job at building Sting. They showed him a tremendous amount of respect and told his story well. The only minor problem I had was the HHH, Steph, Rock and Rousey segment made Sting an afterthought. Other than that I enjoyed the build and the match. It was old school fun. Sting got to open Raw and followed with a great Mania showing. Do I still want to see a Taker/Sting match? Yes I do and I hope it happens because both men proved they still got it.