Miami Region, Fifth Round: (1) The Rock vs. (2) Sting

[klunderbunker]

This is a fifth round match in the Miami Region. It is a standard one on one match. It will be held at Sun Life Stadium in Miami, Florida

#1. The Rock

Vs.

#2. Sting

​

This match takes place one week following the fourth round. Beginning with this round, the final three rounds will take place on one night. The margin of victory will determine the amount of damage and energy spent in a round. For instance, a win by 50 votes would mean the winner expended very little energy, whereas a win by 1 vote would mean the winner spent a good deal of energy in a hard and close match.

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

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.

 

[JGlass]

It's no secret that I'm not exactly The Rock's biggest fan. Hell, I might be one of the guy's biggest detractors on this website. I've seen him live three times, and every time he comes out I feel nothing but anger for the guy.

But even I can't take away this guy's accomplishments. He was WWE's number two guy for years, only behind Stone Cold in terms of popularity. And after Steve Austin took his ball and went home The Rock pulled out his balls (context is everything) and made sure the WWE still had an attraction.

We'll just gloss over that 7 year period where he decided he was too good for wrestling to his return, where he still proved to be wildly popular as well as a winner, beating John Cena at this year's WrestleMania.

And when it comes down to it, it's hard to make an argument against The Rock. One of the best talkers of all time (writers/teleprompters or no, it's all about the final product), he put on some great matches, and he's one of the biggest names in wrestling history.

And then we have Sting, a guy who has been to the top just about everywhere in America except for the WWE. He was THE guy in WCW until Hogan came along, and even managed to be one of WCW's top draws in the nWo days. After WCW came to an end he bounced around for a while before finding his way to TNA where he was, once again, a huge attraction.

The thing people forget about Sting is that while he never achieved Hogan like worldwide fame, he was arguably the second biggest name in wrestling in the early-mid 90s, and he blew the roof off of any building he wrestled in.

Like The Rock, Sting's accomplishments are too numerous to begin to list. He was the complete package, and the only thing missing from his resume (in the eyes of some anyway) is a WWE run.

We all know only one of these legends can win, and to the younger guys like me, the choice seems obvious. Rock. He's one of the two guys that made wrestling cool in the late 90s, early 2000s, and he has wins over such names as Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, and even John Cena.

Well, I can't appeal to the nostalgia of my generation, or even argue against it. But what I can appeal to is your sense, and remind you that this is not a wrestling match between two superstars or two employees, this is a wrestling match between two wrestlers. And at the end of the day it is clear that Sting is the better wrestler.

I'm not going to try to besmirch The Rock's ability, because he's obviously one of the best, but Sting was/is better in literally every aspect of the sport. He's stronger, more athletic, tougher, and more technically sound.

Stronger- Let's talk about pre-movie star Rocky, since I think we can all agree that there's something very unnatural about his current size. The Rock was strong, no doubt about it, but The Rock bottom isn't exactly a move that demonstrates muscle. All The Rock has to do is get his opponent a few inches off of the ground and then fall forward.

Now the Scorpion Death Drop doesn't really require much strength either... but this does!


"But JGlass," you say, "Rick Rude wasn't exactly Mark Henry. It's not that impressive." To which I reply, "Okay, let's see you hold 250 pounds over your head for thirty seconds."

More athletic- It's pretty hard to be more athletic than a former college football player, but Sting managed to do it. We've already determined that he's stronger, but what about the other aspects of athleticism? Stamina, quickness, and durability are just a few of the things that go into that.

Well, it's kind of hard to beat a guy that wrestled 60 minute matches in the earlier pat of his career when it comes to stamina. Sting was a phenomenal specimen that from a very young age was able to keep up with some of the most seasoned veterans in a wrestling match. That skill would only increase with age.

He's not short of quickeness either. Sting, while no pipsqueak, isn't exactly one of the big men in wrestling's history either. He's a mere 6'2 250 pounds, so he wasn't exactly overwhelming rivals like Vader or Sid Vicious with his size. He beat them on quickness and technical prowess (which we'll get to later). This is the opposite of The Rock, who while also not one of the giants of wrestling, didn't face all that many guys that were smaller than him. Sure, he had his wins over guys like Kane and Big Show, but true to the nature of WWE, it wasn't The Rock's speed that allowed him to overcome the big men, it was him being able to fight through their strength and counter with strength of his own.

Toughner- This should be a given, as Sting is one of the toughest mother fuckers in the history of wrestling. He's like Taker in that they can take insane amounts of punishment and come back from seemingly nowhere. He's survived matches with Vader, Meng, and Muta, guys that are infamous for dishing out severe punishment.

Once again, The Rock is no pushover. After all, he's survived matches with Mankind... but Sting has beaten Cactus Jack at his own game too.


Technically Sound- This is where Sting REALLY has The Rock beat. The Rock does not have a reputation for being a technical wrestler, and why should he? He has the worst Sharpshooter in the business, his finishing move involves him falling forward, and the rest of his repertoire is pretty much power moves and brawling moves.

Sting has the power, he can brawl, but he's also a technical guy. He's beaten such technical geniuses as Funk and Angle, and not by forcing them to play his game either. The guy can trade holds and mat wrestle just as well as any of them, something that, to my knowledge, The Rock has never been able to do.


So what does The Rock have that can beat Sting? I don't know, nothing that I'm aware of. To me, this is a match up that Sting can definitely win. Each guy's resume is equally impressive, but when it comes down to it, Sting's wins are just more impressive in nature.

Vote Sting.

 

[Tastycles]

A pretty comprehensive post there. I'm not really sure how I feel about this. I've never really 'got' Sting, but I appreciate that he's very good at his job. Similarly, The Rock is also a great wrestler, but one whom I was much more on board with. So who to pick? Well, I'm going to take the easy route out. Except I wrote the next sentence in the process of changing my mind. The Rock was on top when the tide turned in the Monday Night Wars, but the whole reason Nitro had been on top in the first place was because of the nWo and the developing Sting saga. Oh I don't know. On the basis that I remember Rock losing a lot more of his big matches, I'm going Sting, but someone could easily persuade me otherwise.

 

[cult_of_icecream_bar]

Rock was never the top face in the Attitude era till he became a big time movie star.He always played second man to austin.Sting on the other hand was most of the times leading WCW.He single handedly kicked nWo's ass.Rock has more than often lost big matches.Sting,he almost never lost big matches.Sting is technically superior to Rock.It's okay if you vote rock for his return.But dont give biased arguments for him.My vote:Sting

 

[rmr21ela]

The Rock in Miami, i cant see The Rock losing. Sting is great but i see the rock winning a close one after along battle, Rock catches stinng somewhere and hits a rock bottom

my vote: the rock

 

[Big Sexy]

This goes to The Rock. He is better then Sting in almost every way. He is a bigger star, a bigger draw, miles better on the mic, and just as good in the ring. When it comes to kayfabe primes, The Rock was at his best in the early 2000's as the WWE's top face (along with Austin). That Rock really only lost when there was a ton of interference. Sting isn't going to have anyone to interfere on his behalf.

I'd also like to refute the point that many are making about the Rock losing a lot even in his prime. First, during the Rock's prime the WWE had more talent on its roster then any other promotion during any other time period. I also already pointed out that when the Rock was at his peak as a face it took a lot of interference to take him down. Second, maybe all of you are forgetting but Sting lost a lot as well. In fact he lost just as much if not more then the Rock against top guys and he did it while in a lesser talent pool. People are remembering Sting as some dominant force who rarely lost when in reality that couldn't be any less true.

Sting is a legend who had a tremendous career but he never has been and never will be at the level of The Rock in terms of impact on the wrestling business. Whether you want to vote based on kayfabe, impact, drawing ability, entertainment value, your vote should be going to The Rock.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

The place where this match is being held does favour Rock immensely. I do not think any promoter would book Rock to go out in the first round of the tournament in his hometown.

But that is not the only reason we should base our arguments off. We have to determine the better pro wrestler as well among the two and I really do feel that it is The Rock.

See, the thing that you would notice if you go through Sting's career is that the guy really failed to step up his game when it was really required for him to do so. Moreover, whenever someone significantly better or even simply more charismatic came along, he receded to the background. Consider a few examples:

1. Sting cements his place as the top face in WCW by 1991 on the back of a great feud with the four horsemen. Flair leaves and Sting presides over one of the worst phases in WCW history business wise. Ratings are down and attendance figures are really low. So when WCW really needed their home made star to fire, he failed.

2. Flair comes back and both WCW and Sting's popularity rises yet again due to first teaming and then again feuding with him. However, in 1994 Hogan arrives and Sting is pushed back to the midcard.

3. Starrcade 1997. This is not entirely Sting's fault but some blame should fall on him too. I mean, if he was so hot then how did WWF manage to best WCW while Sting was holding the title? Sting's appeal during the whole angle was uptil the point that he did not speak. After that happened, he just became another guy.

4. 1998. Goldberg comes along and where does Sting go? Back to the midcard for the Stinger who starts feuding for the US title and the tag titles.

Compare that to The Rock. The Rock always stayed at the main event level once he became a main eventer. When Steve Austin left in 1999 to have his neck surgery, WWF faced a crisis pretty similar to the one WCW faced in 1991 when Flair left. Yet Rock seamlessly stepped up to this arduous task of replacing Austin and did not make Austin's absence feel like a big deal. Sting could not do the same with Flair. When Austin returned, Rock, unlike Sting was able to sustain his position.

This is what puts Rock over Sting, in my opinion. They are pretty evenly matched in all other aspects. Both are huge draws. Rock can cut a great promo but Stinger, while not being as hilarious as The Rock, can manage an equally good reaction. Both are great in the ring and have been a part of legendary matches and feuds. Sting with Flair and Rock with Austin. Both men have beaten all sorts of great wrestlers. The likes of Hogan, Flair, Angle and Funk in Sting's case and the likes of Austin, Triple H, Undertaker, Angle in Rock's case. As for longlevity, Sting may have wrestled longer but we all saw how big a reaction Rock got after returning after 7 years. That itself speaks of the impact Rock has had on the business.

The only difference as I mentioned is when it comes to staying power. Rock, with his charisma, was the guy who always stayed at the top or very close to the top. Sting faltered on many an occasion. Ergo, Rock is a greater superstar than Sting.

Vote Rock.

 

[JGlass]

This goes to The Rock. He is better then Sting in almost every way.

Except the place that counts: winning the big match.

He is a bigger star, a bigger draw, miles better on the mic, and just as good in the ring.

Bigger star? Yes, but that doesn't matter. Bret Hart was/is a bigger star than CM Punk, and Punk beat him.

Bigger draw? Once again, it's irrelevant. The Rock lost to guys that were lesser draws throughout his career (which isn't hard to do, as The Rock losing to just about anyone not named Steve Austin is losing to a lesser draw).

Miles better on the mic? If repetition is your thing maybe. Now sure, you can argue that The Rock was effective on the mic, but so was Sting. A single howl and Sting had the building shaking with excitement.

Just as good in the ring? No. If you can say The Rock is miles better on the mic, then I get to say that Sting is miles better in the ring, because while both were equally effective, Sting had the ability to make a match with any type of wrestler into something great, while The Rock relied on on the same formula in just about all of his matches.

Meanwhile, Sting has put on great matches with a variety of opponents ranging from a classic heel like Ric Flair to a monster SHW in Vader to a hardcore icon with Cactus Jack and even put on your typical wrasslin' show with Hulk Hogan.

The Rock's match were all glitz and glamor until The Rock buckled down and got the win. Sting was a wrestler who would adjust his style to get the win against any type of opponent. The Rock can try to dig his feet into the dirt and make a final push against the Stinger, but Sting will just readjust to beat a more intense Rock.

When it comes to kayfabe primes, The Rock was at his best in the early 2000's as the WWE's top face (along with Austin). That Rock really only lost when there was a ton of interference. Sting isn't going to have anyone to interfere on his behalf.

And during his prime Sting only lost when he got screwed too. Both of these guys had periods in their career where they were unbeatable, so it's a push. This is a great match, a clash of the titans type of thing. It's just that the titan with the face paint is better.

I'd also like to refute the point that many are making about the Rock losing a lot even in his prime. First, during the Rock's prime the WWE had more talent on its roster then any other promotion during any other time period. I also already pointed out that when the Rock was at his peak as a face it took a lot of interference to take him down. Second, maybe all of you are forgetting but Sting lost a lot as well. In fact he lost just as much if not more then the Rock against top guys and he did it while in a lesser talent pool. People are remembering Sting as some dominant force who rarely lost when in reality that couldn't be any less true.

I'd argue that when Sting was losing a lot he wasn't in a small talent pool... by any means. He basically had everyone in Japan and America that wasn't in WWF to compete with. Flair and the 4 horsemen, Vader, Funk, Muta, and Jake Roberts were guys that Sting feuded with in his earlier years, and he holds wins over all of them.

It's also worth mentioning that many of Sting's losses came after interference or bad luck as well. He lost the strap match to Vader because the ref got in the way. He lost to Flair because of interference from the 4 horsemen.

And you're right in that Sting lost his fair share of matches, even in his prime... but there was a point in WCW where Sting won all his BIG matches, and only lost due to interference. Sting beat Hulk Hogan for the belt twice before dropping the belt to Savage because Nash powerbombed him. So what did Sting do? He won the tag titles off of Nash and Hall at the next PPV, and then Sting beat The Giant at the following PPV for both the belts.

In the mid-late 90s, Sting won when there was something big on the line.

Sting is a legend who had a tremendous career but he never has been and never will be at the level of The Rock in terms of impact on the wrestling business. Whether you want to vote based on kayfabe, impact, drawing ability, entertainment value, your vote should be going to The Rock.

In kayfabe, Sting is leaps and bounds ahead of The Rock. He's beaten just about everyone that The Rock has, and often times when they were closer to their primes (Hogan, Booker T, Nash) or when they were just as dominant as they were when The Rock beat them (Angle, Big Show, Rob Van Dam).

The place where this match is being held does favour Rock immensely. I do not think any promoter would book Rock to go out in the first round of the tournament in his hometown.

Yeah, but Miami would have been WCW territory back in the day, which is Sting's turf. Sting wouldn't lose to an outsider on WCW turf.

See, the thing that you would notice if you go through Sting's career is that the guy really failed to step up his game when it was really required for him to do so.

Actually, the exact opposite is true, as I just explained to Big Sexy. When all the chips were on the table, Sting won. He beat Hogan (who had the backing of the nWo) twice for the title, and after being screwed out of the belt by Hall and Nash he beat both of them for the tag titles, and then he beat The Giant for control of both belts.

1. Sting cements his place as the top face in WCW by 1991 on the back of a great feud with the four horsemen. Flair leaves and Sting presides over one of the worst phases in WCW history business wise. Ratings are down and attendance figures are really low. So when WCW really needed their home made star to fire, he failed.

I'm not going to indulge in a debate over drawing or statistics, because they don't matter in a wrestling match. Plenty of guys that have drawn less have beaten guys that have drawn more.

2. Flair comes back and both WCW and Sting's popularity rises yet again due to first teaming and then again feuding with him. However, in 1994 Hogan arrives and Sting is pushed back to the midcard.

What does his place on the card have to do with anything? This is especially irrelevant because he'd go on to beat Hogan numerous times.

3. Starrcade 1997. This is not entirely Sting's fault but some blame should fall on him too. I mean, if he was so hot then how did WWF manage to best WCW while Sting was holding the title? Sting's appeal during the whole angle was uptil the point that he did not speak. After that happened, he just became another guy.

Starrcade 1997? You mean the highest grossing WCW PPV in their entire run? The one that Sting main evented... and won... against Hulk Hogan... for the title?

4. 1998. Goldberg comes along and where does Sting go? Back to the midcard for the Stinger who starts feuding for the US title and the tag titles

These arguments are starting to become redundant. If you're going to vote on drawing power and main eventing, then Hogan wins every year. But this is a wrestling match, and that stuff goes out the window.

I'm deleting the rest of your post not because it's bad or because it's wrong, but because the arguments you're making don't matter. What matters is what happens in the ring. It would be a good, hotly contested match, as when these guys were in their primes they were both extraordinarily hard to beat. The difference maker is that Sting has been able to topple giants, beat superstars of astronomical proportions despite the fact that the odds were against him. He had to face Hogan with an nWo army behind him, but he won. He had to face Cactus Jack in a hardcore environment, and he won. He had to face a prime Van Vader, and he beat him too. He had to face Ric Flair and his horsemen, and... well, you know where this is going by now.

The Rock has his fair share of big wins, no doubt, but none of them compare to Sting's unbelievable, historic wins.

 

[Big Sexy]

Except the place that counts: winning the big match.

Mania 28 against Cena wasn't a big match? Mania 18 against Hogan wasn't a big match? Mania 19 against Austin wasn't a big match? How about Summerslam 2000 against Triple H and Kurt Angle, Summerslam 2001 against Booker T, the Survivor Series 1998 WWE Title tournament, Survivor Series 2001 when he was the sole survivor for team WWE against the Alliance, RR 99 over Mick Foley in an I Quit match, and the actual RR match in 2000 that he won? I guess all of those huge matches at the biggest ppv's of the year in WWE were nothing .

Bigger star? Yes, but that doesn't matter. Bret Hart was/is a bigger star than CM Punk, and Punk beat him.

But he shouldn't have.

Bigger draw? Once again, it's irrelevant. The Rock lost to guys that were lesser draws throughout his career (which isn't hard to do, as The Rock losing to just about anyone not named Steve Austin is losing to a lesser draw).

Depending on your criteria it could be irrelevant but I was simply showing how the Rock is superior to Sting in basically every way.

Miles better on the mic? If repetition is your thing maybe. Now sure, you can argue that The Rock was effective on the mic, but so was Sting. A single howl and Sting had the building shaking with excitement.

That "repetition" gets him more pops as a face and more heat as a heel then Sting could ever dream of getting during a promo.

Just as good in the ring? No. If you can say The Rock is miles better on the mic, then I get to say that Sting is miles better in the ring, because while both were equally effective, Sting had the ability to make a match with any type of wrestler into something great, while The Rock relied on on the same formula in just about all of his matches.

Completely false. Almost every top guy has a formula to their matches including Sting. Rock is extremely underrated in the ring and I'll take his best matches over Sting's any day of the week. No way is Sting better, let alone miles ahead, of The Rock in the ring.

Meanwhile, Sting has put on great matches with a variety of opponents ranging from a classic heel like Ric Flair to a monster SHW in Vader to a hardcore icon with Cactus Jack and even put on your typical wrasslin' show with Hulk Hogan.

Rock has also put on great matches with Foley and Hogan. Not to mention with the likes of Steve Austin, Triple H, Kurt Angle, etc..

The Rock's match were all glitz and glamor until The Rock buckled down and got the win. Sting was a wrestler who would adjust his style to get the win against any type of opponent. The Rock can try to dig his feet into the dirt and make a final push against the Stinger, but Sting will just readjust to beat a more intense Rock.

Or the Rock would come out on top like he usually did in those icon vs icon matches. Sting can do all the "readjusting" he wants. Whether you go by kayfabe or just who was a flat out bigger star, Rock goes over Sting.

And during his prime Sting only lost when he got screwed too. Both of these guys had periods in their career where they were unbeatable, so it's a push. This is a great match, a clash of the titans type of thing. It's just that the titan with the face paint is better.

Better at what exactly? You can say he is better all day long but that doesn't make it true.

I'd argue that when Sting was losing a lot he wasn't in a small talent pool... by any means. He basically had everyone in Japan and America that wasn't in WWF to compete with. Flair and the 4 horsemen, Vader, Funk, Muta, and Jake Roberts were guys that Sting feuded with in his earlier years, and he holds wins over all of them.

I'll give you Flair because Sting always owned him but Sting never faced Terry Funk one on one, he was .500 against Muta, he had a losing record against Vader, and Jake Roberts was a career mid carder who never won a title in the WWE or WCW. I'm going to go ahead and take Stone Cold, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Jericho, and Big Show over your group.

It's also worth mentioning that many of Sting's losses came after interference or bad luck as well. He lost the strap match to Vader because the ref got in the way. He lost to Flair because of interference from the 4 horsemen.

So they both only lost mainly due to interference at their peaks. Which means we go on to other factors like caliber of opponents, drawing power, etc. When you look at those other factors, Rock > Sting all day every day.

In the mid-late 90s, Sting won when there was something big on the line.

From 1993 until Starrcade 97, Sting won the WCW title zero times. He had a few opportunities but lost. The rest of the time he was stuck in the upper mid card. From Starrcade 97 through the end of the decade he lost just as many big matches as he won. Many were due to interference but that just brings us back to the push we have with him and Rock.

In kayfabe, Sting is leaps and bounds ahead of The Rock. He's beaten just about everyone that The Rock has, and often times when they were closer to their primes (Hogan, Booker T, Nash) or when they were just as dominant as they were when The Rock beat them (Angle, Big Show, Rob Van Dam).

Sting's only victory over Booker T came before Booker ever won the WCW title so you are wrong there, Sting has also lost to Booker T one on one while The Rock hasn't. And Sting certainly hasn't beaten almost everyone the Rock has. Sting has not beaten the likes of Steve Austin, Triple H, Undertaker, Chris Jericho, John Cena, and Kane.

Both guys have impressive resumes filled with wins over big names, but in the end, The Rock is just flat out better. Rock was at his peak when the biggest wrestling company in history was at its peak. Stings first peak came when WCW was a shit company with a depleted talent pool. His second peak marked the beginning of the end for WCW (not Sting's fault but it is what it is). Unless you're voting based off face paint, this goes to the Rock.

 

[JGlass]

Mania 28 against Cena wasn't a big match? Mania 18 against Hogan wasn't a big match? Mania 19 against Austin wasn't a big match? How about Summerslam 2000 against Triple H and Kurt Angle, Summerslam 2001 against Booker T, the Survivor Series 1998 WWE Title tournament, Survivor Series 2001 when he was the sole survivor for team WWE against the Alliance, RR 99 over Mick Foley in an I Quit match, and the actual RR match in 2000 that he won? I guess all of those huge matches at the biggest ppv's of the year in WWE were nothing .

Well, you don't seem to grasp that I haven't taken anything away from The Rock. He's obviously a fantastic wrestler that has a reputation for winning bit matches. I never said he wasn't, so congratulations on doing what you do best and making a shitty strawman argument.

But Sting is just as good at winning those big matches, if not better.

But he shouldn't have.

Doesn't change the fact that he did. And there have been upsets in real life where guys with less drawing power have beaten guys with more drawing power. Let's stick with Punk and point to his win(s) over Cena. Let's look at Triple H beating Austin or Rock on any given occasion, over virtually any of Chris Jericho's wins over major talent.

Depending on your criteria it could be irrelevant but I was simply showing how the Rock is superior to Sting in basically every way.

Except the way that matters.

That "repetition" gets him more pops as a face and more heat as a heel then Sting could ever dream of getting during a promo.

Completely false. Almost every top guy has a formula to their matches including Sting. Rock is extremely underrated in the ring and I'll take his best matches over Sting's any day of the week. No way is Sting better, let alone miles ahead, of The Rock in the ring.

Every year the "Rock is underrated in the ring" arguments come out, and the fact of the matter is: he's not. People don't say he's bad in the ring, they don't even call him mediocre. He can put on a fun match and show a good story, but he's not one of the all time greatest in-ring story tellers or psychologists.

But Sting is.

Rock has also put on great matches with Foley and Hogan. Not to mention with the likes of Steve Austin, Triple H, Kurt Angle, etc..

Putting on a great match with Kurt Angle? Impossible!

I'm pretty sure Kurt Angle could drag a 4 star match out of a rag doll, so let's not point to that as if it's some kind of indication that someone is a great wrestler.

Both guys have put on their share of great matches, but what makes it difference is how they win their matches.

The Rock wins his matches by mounting a sudden comeback and hitting his opponent with one of his electrifying finishers.

Sting wins his matches by saying, "Fuck this shit, I'm done selling!" and the proceeding to beat the shit out of his opponent until he breaks them.

Or the Rock would come out on top like he usually did in those icon vs icon matches. Sting can do all the "readjusting" he wants. Whether you go by kayfabe or just who was a flat out bigger star, Rock goes over Sting.

Sting has a pretty favorable record against icons as well.

The thing with The Rock is, if you can just avoid getting caught in his 3rd finisher, you can usually beat him. People kicked out of the Rock Bottom with surprising regularity, but it was much more difficult to kick out of the Scorpion Death Drop.

Better at what exactly? You can say he is better all day long but that doesn't make it true.

Please refer back to my first post where I go trait by trait what makes Sting better than The Rock.

I'll give you Flair because Sting always owned him but Sting never faced Terry Funk one on one, he was .500 against Muta, he had a losing record against Vader, and Jake Roberts was a career mid carder who never won a title in the WWE or WCW. I'm going to go ahead and take Stone Cold, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Jericho, and Big Show over your group.

Well if you want to go to WCW during the height of the nWo... that was a pretty star studded roster too, and Sting was fairly dominant then.

So they both only lost mainly due to interference at their peaks. Which means we go on to other factors like caliber of opponents, drawing power, etc. When you look at those other factors, Rock > Sting all day every day.

Uh, no we don't. We can go on who is the tougher win, and that's Sting.

From 1993 until Starrcade 97, Sting won the WCW title zero times. He had a few opportunities but lost. The rest of the time he was stuck in the upper mid card. From Starrcade 97 through the end of the decade he lost just as many big matches as he won. Many were due to interference but that just brings us back to the push we have with him and Rock.

A low quality argument from a low quality poster. Fake titles mean nothing, especially when they were 1) competing in different eras and 2) competing in different companies. Furthermore, the place on the card doesn't matter, especially when Sting has jumped back and forth as much as he has but has dominated no matter where he was on the card.

Sting's only victory over Booker T came before Booker ever won the WCW title so you are wrong there, Sting has also lost to Booker T one on one while The Rock hasn't. And Sting certainly hasn't beaten almost everyone the Rock has. Sting has not beaten the likes of Steve Austin, Triple H, Undertaker, Chris Jericho, John Cena, and Kane.

Valid, I may have gotten a little excited there due to the similarity of opponents that resulted from the Invasion angle and then the guys that jumped ship to TNA. Still, there are plenty of big names Sting has beaten that The Rock has not, like Vader, Muta, Baba, Flair, etc.

Both guys have impressive resumes filled with wins over big names, but in the end, The Rock is just flat out better. Rock was at his peak when the biggest wrestling company in history was at its peak. Stings first peak came when WCW was a shit company with a depleted talent pool. His second peak marked the beginning of the end for WCW (not Sting's fault but it is what it is). Unless you're voting based off face paint, this goes to the Rock.

Or who the better wrestler is. Popularity doesn't get you wins in a wrestling match, or Austin would be undefeated. Drawing power doesn't automatically make you win, or else Hogan would have been world champion for 20 years. What matters is ability, and while The Rock may have faced more popular competition, he certainly didn't face tougher competition. You don't get tougher than Vader. There are few people harder to outfox than Ric Flair. But Sting toughed out Vader, and outfoxed Ric Flair. The Rock may have his win over Steve Austin, and he may have beaten Triple H and Kurt Angle, and they were good... but not quite as hard to beat as the guys Vader competed with.

 

[nightmare]

Sure Rock has alot going for him but what exactly is that? When you think back of Rock, most remember his catchphrases\promos, then the fact he went 'hollywood' and left us all, then you remember his matches. His promo work is legendary, well deserved props there. When he left there was a big void, it was felt by all. His matches are held by many to be shining points in the Attitude Era, but his time was short. Real short in comparison to Sting. Rock had some big matches that will be remembered for years, but only remembered 3rd after his mic skill and when he left for LA.


Sting will be remembered for many things as well. Titles, big money matches, battles with legends, etc. First thing I will hit on is this huge point that overshadows any feud that Rock had during his time.


STING vs The NWO.


Rock captured our hearts by working the crowd into a frenzy with his quips and one liners. The fans cheered everywhere he went. Sting said not a single word for weeks and weeks and weeks. The crowd blew the roof off everywhere he went. That is power. His image alone got earth shaking responses from the crowd, whereas Dwayne had to resort to dick jokes and catchphrases. Remember Sting hiding in the rafters and the place going nuts just catching a glimpse of him stalking above the arena? Powerful stuff, without a single word- for an entire year.


Now we all know Rock had big battles through the years- SCSA, NOD, Ministry vs Corporation, etc. In one feud, Sting blew all that out of the water with drama, suspense and action. One feud that lasted longer and had more at stake than anything Rock had going. At Uncensored 97 the whole situation took a turn and the NWO was in alot of trouble. He dropped down and took them all out as the show finished. Scorpion Death Drop's for all who got in his way.


Sting took on an entire faction comprised of main event stars and mid card mainstays- by himself for weeks. How many times did Sting drop down and dismantle a dozen guys at once? Weekly, without saying a single word. When the NWO threatened to take over the company, they all looked to one man- Sting. When did the Rock ever fight an entire faction of huge stars to save the company? How many weeks in a row did Rock beat a dozen guys at once? Never. Sting and a bat took out an entire faction of superstars and legends and every week he struck fear in their hearts. Intimidation by action- not by words, is a very powerful thing.


This changed the game. One man to rally the troops. They originally turned their back on him and questioned his loyalty, so what did he do? Said F you all, and went it alone. He wanted the main man, the cause of all this destruction- Hulk Hogan. As the weeks progressed he gave the WCW guys a chance to redeem themselves. He handed the bat over and when the other guy refused to attack, he knew where their allegance was. From then on, when those loyal WCW men were in danger- Sting came to the rescue. He gladly went through every member of the NWO one at a time and even (quite often) more than a dozen at one time. A man, his bat and a painted face- stood against the most evil, ruthless, company threatening faction in history. Then he went after Hogan. He had Hogan scared and on the run, hiding behind all those men, in fear that Sting would tear him apart. It finally happened and even though a controversial fast count took place, he made Hogan tap for the belt.

From there the NWO legacy took a downturn and was never as strong or unified again.


When did Rock have a storyline that had that much going? Obviously none, because WCW during that time was destroying WWF in the ratings each week. Why? Because the NWO was huge and everyone wanted to see what the hell Sting was going to do next to stop them. He did all this without saying one word, for over a year.


Part 2 coming soon... Title wins and Main Event status.

 

[Big Sexy]

Well, you don't seem to grasp that I haven't taken anything away from The Rock. He's obviously a fantastic wrestler that has a reputation for winning bit matches. I never said he wasn't, so congratulations on doing what you do best and making a shitty strawman argument.

But Sting is just as good at winning those big matches, if not better.

No he really isn't better at it which is why I posted just a handful of the Rock's biggest wins at the WWE's major ppvs. Why don't you put together Sting's biggest wins and we can compare and contrast.

Doesn't change the fact that he did. And there have been upsets in real life where guys with less drawing power have beaten guys with more drawing power. Let's stick with Punk and point to his win(s) over Cena. Let's look at Triple H beating Austin or Rock on any given occasion, over virtually any of Chris Jericho's wins over major talent.

Yes upsets happen. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious and also pointing out that Sting is the underdog here to a superior Rock. No one is saying Sting can't win but in a match of this magnitude, the Rock would win.

Except the way that matters.

Which is?

Every year the "Rock is underrated in the ring" arguments come out, and the fact of the matter is: he's not. People don't say he's bad in the ring, they don't even call him mediocre. He can put on a fun match and show a good story, but he's not one of the all time greatest in-ring story tellers or psychologists.

But Sting is.

You are overrating the fuck out of Sting's in ring ability and still underrating Rock's. Sting is certainly not one of the all time greatest storytellers. Both guys are very good in the ring but if they aren't even, the slight edge goes to The Rock.

Putting on a great match with Kurt Angle? Impossible!

I'm pretty sure Kurt Angle could drag a 4 star match out of a rag doll, so let's not point to that as if it's some kind of indication that someone is a great wrestler.

It takes two to tango and I was merely pointing out that the Rock has had just as many if not more great matches then Sting has with a variety of opponents.

The Rock wins his matches by mounting a sudden comeback and hitting his opponent with one of his electrifying finishers.

Which has worked on some of the biggest names wrestling has ever seen.

Sting wins his matches by saying, "Fuck this shit, I'm done selling!" and the proceeding to beat the shit out of his opponent until he breaks them.

Except he still lost his fair share of matches just like Rock has. However, I'll take Rock's list of victories over Sting's.

The thing with The Rock is, if you can just avoid getting caught in his 3rd finisher, you can usually beat him. People kicked out of the Rock Bottom with surprising regularity, but it was much more difficult to kick out of the Scorpion Death Drop.

The Rock Bottom and/or People's Elbow have kept down guys like Hogan, Austin, Triple H, Angle, etc.. If it's good enough to keep them down then it's good enough to keep Sting down. I'm not sure there is a finisher in existence that no one has ever kicked out of. At least not in the modern era.

Please refer back to my first post where I go trait by trait what makes Sting better than The Rock.

I'd rather not go back to the post where you talked out of your ass and stated your opinion with no real substance.

Well if you want to go to WCW during the height of the nWo... that was a pretty star studded roster too, and Sting was fairly dominant then.

Dominant? Sting rarely wrestled during the first year and a half the NWO was in existence because of his disappearance and then reappearing with the black and white face paint. Before leaving he lost along with Luger to the Outsiders at Hog Wild 1996 and then he beat Hogan when he returned at Starrcade 97. When he was back full time in 1998 he went 4-4 at WCW ppvs (3-2 in singles matches). I wouldn't call that dominant.

A low quality argument from a low quality poster. Fake titles mean nothing, especially when they were 1) competing in different eras and 2) competing in different companies. Furthermore, the place on the card doesn't matter, especially when Sting has jumped back and forth as much as he has but has dominated no matter where he was on the card.

Lol so because you don't have a decent rebuttal now I'm giving low quality arguments and am a low quality poster. Fake title or not you'd think a top superstar like Sting wouldn't go 4 years in between winning the top title in the company. I would also hope that Sting dominated the mid card because it would be embarrassing if he didn't. The only "low quality" anything is coming from you homie.

Valid, I may have gotten a little excited there due to the similarity of opponents that resulted from the Invasion angle and then the guys that jumped ship to TNA. Still, there are plenty of big names Sting has beaten that The Rock has not, like Vader, Muta, Baba, Flair, etc.

Rock has beaten both Flair and Vader. Neither were in their prime but Rock was also a mid carder when he beat Vader. I also don't recall Sting ever facing Baba but I could be mistaken. I'll still take the list that Rock has beaten and Sting hasn't over the list you just provided.

Or who the better wrestler is. Popularity doesn't get you wins in a wrestling match, or Austin would be undefeated. Drawing power doesn't automatically make you win, or else Hogan would have been world champion for 20 years. What matters is ability, and while The Rock may have faced more popular competition, he certainly didn't face tougher competition. You don't get tougher than Vader. There are few people harder to outfox than Ric Flair. But Sting toughed out Vader, and outfoxed Ric Flair. The Rock may have his win over Steve Austin, and he may have beaten Triple H and Kurt Angle, and they were good... but not quite as hard to beat as the guys Vader competed with.

So Vader is a tougher opponent then the likes of Steve Austin, Undertaker, and Triple H? That's the bullshit you are now trying to argue? Those three surpass Vader in both popularity and toughness in terms of getting victories. Vader's only main event runs came when WCW was at its worse talent wise. Vader's main competition included Sting, Ron Simmons, Davey Boy Smith, and Cactus Jack. Not exactly a whose who of elite superstars. Once Flair came back and then Hogan entered WCW, Vader dropped from his top spot. You can try to argue Sting's early 90's competition vs Rock's competition but it is just going to make my job a lot easier.

 

[JGlass]

No he really isn't better at it which is why I posted just a handful of the Rock's biggest wins at the WWE's major ppvs. Why don't you put together Sting's biggest wins and we can compare and contrast.

Two over Hogan, a couple over Vader, a couple over Flair, multiple ones over Angle later in his career, Cactus Jack, and many many victories over the nWo.

Yes upsets happen. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious and also pointing out that Sting is the underdog here to a superior Rock. No one is saying Sting can't win but in a match of this magnitude, the Rock would win.

I'm sorry, did I say the word underdog anywhere in there? I just said he didn't draw as much as The Rock, that doesn't mean he's an underdog. Rey Mysterio outdraws The Great Khali, but if they were in a match, who's the underdog?

You'll really force anything, won't you?

Which is?

Wrestling ability, which Sting has more of. Before you come back at me asking me for some examples, I will reiterate that you should go read my opening post. You can't miss it, it's the first response, and it's better than any of the filth you've been vomiting up.

You are overrating the fuck out of Sting's in ring ability and still underrating Rock's. Sting is certainly not one of the all time greatest storytellers. Both guys are very good in the ring but if they aren't even, the slight edge goes to The Rock.

They aren't even, but the advantage rests decidedly with Sting. As Gelgarin pointed out in the Thesz thread, Sting's job wasn't to entertain The Rock's fans, it was to entertain the fans of WCW and Japanese wrestling... which he did a tremendous job of. And when it came time to entertain a new crop of fans Sting adjusted and was able to entertain them too. And then he wrestled for ANOTHER new era of fans, and he's done... well okay, he's only done an alright job in TNA, but he was a dominant force in both the mid 80s to early 90s, and then the late 90s to the early 2000s.

The Rock had his 3 year run of dominance, and that's cool, but Sting managed to be dominant against two different eras of wrestlers. If that doesn't show that he has what it takes to beat The Rock, nothing does.

Meanwhile, The Rock wasn't even close to one of the best in his time. Sting was arguably the most entertaining wrestler in the promotion during his first run of dominance. The Rock? Steve Austin, Jericho, Angle, Taker... all better wrestlers and better storytellers than he was.

Not that it matters, what matters is being able to beat those guys, which both guys were able to do.

It takes two to tango and I was merely pointing out that the Rock has had just as many if not more great matches then Sting has with a variety of opponents.

I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this, and I'd venture to guess that when it comes to Sting marks vs. Rock marks, few do.

And it's still irrelevant. Once again, what matter is who has the skills necessary to beat the other. We're not arguing who's more entertaining, we're arguing who would be able to keep the other one down for three.

There's no objectivity to whether or not a joke is funny. There is objectivity to getting your ass kicked.

Which has worked on some of the biggest names wrestling has ever seen.

But is a dangerous game to play with a guy like Sting.

Except he still lost his fair share of matches just like Rock has. However, I'll take Rock's list of victories over Sting's.

I'm getting mighty tired of the, "My guy has beaten these guys, your guy has beaten these guys," argument for a variety of reasons. First off, it's silly because they haven't faced the same guys, and while your list of names is impressive, it's just as impressive as mine. Second of all, we're not making any progress, just rehashing the same shit over and over again. Thirdly, this isn't about who they can beat, it's about which one of them would win in a fight.

You don't compare Spider-Man to Wolverine by saying, "Well Wolverine has beaten giant sentinels, Magneto, and Sabertooth, and Spider-Man has only beaten Doc Oc and The Lizard, so Wolverine would kick his ass."

No, you say Wolverine would beat Spider-Man because he could cut through his webs and when they get in a fist fight, Spider-Man will find it hard to punch an adamantium skeleton.

What I did in my first post is really all that matters: give facts on how Sting is stronger, more technically sound, and all around better than The Rock. All you've done is talk about why Rock is the (allegedly) better entertainer. This isn't about entertainment, this is about fighting.

The Rock Bottom and/or People's Elbow have kept down guys like Hogan, Austin, Triple H, Angle, etc.. If it's good enough to keep them down then it's good enough to keep Sting down. I'm not sure there is a finisher in existence that no one has ever kicked out of. At least not in the modern era.

It took Rock a good two or three finishers to keep his opponents down in any of his biggest matches, and Sting vs. The Rock is certainly a big match. And Sting is definitely the caliber wrestler that could eat two Rock Bottoms.

I'd rather not go back to the post where you talked out of your ass and stated your opinion with no real substance.

Says the guy trying to convince people that Rock's drawing power has anything to do with winning a wrestling match.

Dominant? Sting rarely wrestled during the first year and a half the NWO was in existence because of his disappearance and then reappearing with the black and white face paint. Before leaving he lost along with Luger to the Outsiders at Hog Wild 1996 and then he beat Hogan when he returned at Starrcade 97. When he was back full time in 1998 he went 4-4 at WCW ppvs (3-2 in singles matches). I wouldn't call that dominant.

Considering the nature of the matches he lost? He was still pretty dominant. Not to mention he was a total badass that lead the charge against the nWo.

Lol so because you don't have a decent rebuttal now I'm giving low quality arguments and am a low quality poster. Fake title or not you'd think a top superstar like Sting wouldn't go 4 years in between winning the top title in the company. I would also hope that Sting dominated the mid card because it would be embarrassing if he didn't. The only "low quality" anything is coming from you homie.

If I wanted the opinion of a low quality poster, I'd go to The Prison, thank you very much.

Furthermore, maybe you should look into the history behind the WCW title before you throw out that Sting had a long dry spell. Part of the reason was probably because in those 4 years Hogan held the belt for 969 days, or 2 and 2/3 years. Besides him, the belt was pretty much traded between the same group of guys: The Giant, Savage, and Flair.

It's not like Sting was passed by 10 guys for the belt or anything, for over half of that 4 year dry spell the belt was stuck on Hogan, and for the rest of it it was being traded between a few other big names.

Rock has beaten both Flair and Vader. Neither were in their prime but Rock was also a mid carder when he beat Vader. I also don't recall Sting ever facing Baba but I could be mistaken. I'll still take the list that Rock has beaten and Sting hasn't over the list you just provided.

I don't know where I pulled Baba from, that was a weird brain fart/typo/mistake. I meant Lex Luger. No idea why I put Baba.

So Vader is a tougher opponent then the likes of Steve Austin, Undertaker, and Triple H? That's the bullshit you are now trying to argue? Those three surpass Vader in both popularity and toughness in terms of getting victories. Vader's only main event runs came when WCW was at its worse talent wise. Vader's main competition included Sting, Ron Simmons, Davey Boy Smith, and Cactus Jack. Not exactly a whose who of elite superstars. Once Flair came back and then Hogan entered WCW, Vader dropped from his top spot. You can try to argue Sting's early 90's competition vs Rock's competition but it is just going to make my job a lot easier.

I kind of wish IC25 was here to set you straight as to why Vader was undoubtably tougher than just about anyone in the world of wrestling, and is arguably one of the toughest guys in the history of the sport.

It's not something you can explain, it's something you witness when you watch a Vader match, and not the bullshit in WWF, but the real stuff in Japan or WCW when he was a force. This was a guy that could mutilate you at will and could eat your offense and spit you out. Easily the toughest guy Sting ever faced, and had The Rock faced a prime Vader he would have been his toughest opponent as well.

 

[Big Sexy]

Two over Hogan, a couple over Vader, a couple over Flair, multiple ones over Angle later in his career, Cactus Jack, and many many victories over the nWo.

I'll take Rock's victories over a better version of Mick Foley, a better version of Kurt Angles, not to mention all time greats like Austin, Taker, Triple H, and Cena.

I'm sorry, did I say the word underdog anywhere in there? I just said he didn't draw as much as The Rock, that doesn't mean he's an underdog. Rey Mysterio outdraws The Great Khali, but if they were in a match, who's the underdog?

You'll really force anything, won't you?

You said upsets happen. For something to be an upset there has to be someone who is seen as lesser or at a disadvantage. That's the definition of an underdog. I'm not saying he is some huge underdog but Rock would be slightly favored.

Wrestling ability, which Sting has more of. Before you come back at me asking me for some examples, I will reiterate that you should go read my opening post. You can't miss it, it's the first response, and it's better than any of the filth you've been vomiting up.

I read it and it was mostly bullshit. A bunch of paragraphs of you talking out your ass and stating 100% opinion. Obviously a lot of opinion is going to come into play here but my combination of facts and opinions is greater then your 100% opinions.

They aren't even, but the advantage rests decidedly with Sting. As Gelgarin pointed out in the Thesz thread, Sting's job wasn't to entertain The Rock's fans, it was to entertain the fans of WCW and Japanese wrestling... which he did a tremendous job of. And when it came time to entertain a new crop of fans Sting adjusted and was able to entertain them too. And then he wrestled for ANOTHER new era of fans, and he's done... well okay, he's only done an alright job in TNA, but he was a dominant force in both the mid 80s to early 90s, and then the late 90s to the early 2000s.

He entertained a small number of fans in the second rate, early 90's WCW and then he entertained fans in the late 90s while WCW started to lose control to the Austin and Rock led WWE. I've never said Sting failed to entertain people, he did a fine job of it. The Rock just did it better and did it with a larger number of people.

The Rock had his 3 year run of dominance, and that's cool, but Sting managed to be dominant against two different eras of wrestlers. If that doesn't show that he has what it takes to beat The Rock, nothing does.

Sting may have what it takes to win a match against The Rock but if this was a one off winner takes all match to move on in a tournament like this then Rock would be victorious.

Meanwhile, The Rock wasn't even close to one of the best in his time. Sting was arguably the most entertaining wrestler in the promotion during his first run of dominance. The Rock? Steve Austin, Jericho, Angle, Taker... all better wrestlers and better storytellers than he was.

What is your definition of entertaining? If it's purely in ring ability then Sting certainly was never the best at any point in his WCW career. If you are talking about the total package then Rock definitely was the most entertaining wrestler in WWE during the early 2000's.

And it's still irrelevant. Once again, what matter is who has the skills necessary to beat the other. We're not arguing who's more entertaining, we're arguing who would be able to keep the other one down for three.

Some people use things like drawing power when voting which is why I brought it up. If we're just talking about who would win the match then that still goes to The Rock. His resume of victories trumps Sting's.

I'm getting mighty tired of the, "My guy has beaten these guys, your guy has beaten these guys," argument for a variety of reasons. First off, it's silly because they haven't faced the same guys, and while your list of names is impressive, it's just as impressive as mine. Second of all, we're not making any progress, just rehashing the same shit over and over again. Thirdly, this isn't about who they can beat, it's about which one of them would win in a fight.

And the Rock would win in this fight.

What I did in my first post is really all that matters: give facts on how Sting is stronger, more technically sound, and all around better than The Rock. All you've done is talk about why Rock is the (allegedly) better entertainer. This isn't about entertainment, this is about fighting.

You didn't give facts. You showed a video of Sting press slamming Rick Rude and then spouted out bullshit on the other things. Sting may have strength on the Rock but he is in no way more athletic, he isn't tougher, and you saying Sting is technically sound is laughable.

The Rock is 6'5 250 and can do a kip up, he has kept pace with the likes of Jericho and Benoit to pick up victories, and has used his athleticism to beat the likes of Taker, Big Show, and Kane. He has also gone 60 minutes before. Athleticism goes to Rock.

Rock has beaten Mick Foley in an I quit match. He took a ridiculous amount of chair shots from Austin at Mania 17 and was still kicking out. He has faced some of the toughest motherfuckers of the modern era and come out on top. Sting has also never faced Funk one on one like you stated in your toughness point. At the very least, toughness is a push.

When it comes to technical ability the Rock has held his own against Benoit, Jericho, and Kurt Angle and has even made Angle tap out. Technical ability is once again a push at the very least.

It took Rock a good two or three finishers to keep his opponents down in any of his biggest matches, and Sting vs. The Rock is certainly a big match. And Sting is definitely the caliber wrestler that could eat two Rock Bottoms.

Then Rock would give him three like he did against Austin at Mania 19.

Says the guy trying to convince people that Rock's drawing power has anything to do with winning a wrestling match.

When did I say that? I said the Rock was a bigger draw and that was another advantage he had on Sting as a professional wrestler. Not everyone uses the same voting criteria in this tournament. I was merely covering everything the Rock had over Sting.

Considering the nature of the matches he lost? He was still pretty dominant. Not to mention he was a total badass that lead the charge against the nWo.

Yet instead of taking out the NWO he joined the Wolfpack branch of the NWO.

If I wanted the opinion of a low quality poster, I'd go to The Prison, thank you very much.

You'd probably fit in better there.

Furthermore, maybe you should look into the history behind the WCW title before you throw out that Sting had a long dry spell. Part of the reason was probably because in those 4 years Hogan held the belt for 969 days, or 2 and 2/3 years. Besides him, the belt was pretty much traded between the same group of guys: The Giant, Savage, and Flair.

I guarantee I know my history better then you. During the 4 years in between Sting's title reigns the belt was held by 6 guys. Vader, Flair, Hogan, Giant, Savage, and Luger. If Sting was so dominant then why were lesser guys like Vader, Giant, and Luger getting reigns over him? If Sting was so dominant then he should have been able to sneak in a run over a face Hulk Hogan. Kind of like Rock still won the belt when Austin was healthy and still around. Rock is on the elite top level as a face with the likes of Hogan and Austin. Sting was seen as lesser then Savage and Hogan which is why he didn't get a run during that time. Once those guys turned heel and Sting came back, that's when he got more runs.

I kind of wish IC25 was here to set you straight as to why Vader was undoubtably tougher than just about anyone in the world of wrestling, and is arguably one of the toughest guys in the history of the sport.

It's not something you can explain, it's something you witness when you watch a Vader match, and not the bullshit in WWF, but the real stuff in Japan or WCW when he was a force. This was a guy that could mutilate you at will and could eat your offense and spit you out. Easily the toughest guy Sting ever faced, and had The Rock faced a prime Vader he would have been his toughest opponent as well.

Doubtful. Vader was tough no doubt but he was also beatable even in his prime. Sting beat him a couple times, Flair beat him a couple times, Ron Simmons beat him, Dave Boy Smith beat him. Just because a guy is tough doesn't mean he is unstoppable. Meng/Haku may be the toughest superstar of the modern era but I wouldn't use a victory over him to show why one all time great should go over another.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I'm deleting the rest of your post not because it's bad or because it's wrong, but because the arguments you're making don't matter.

My arguments do not matter to you because you have a different criteria for the vote. I personally believe that it is stupid to argue kayfabe in this round because if these two were ever booked to feud with each other in their primes, there is little doubt that they would share the wins equally.

Both these guys are neck and neck in almost every department. Big Sexy has already shown you that so I won't repeat what he has already said. It is clear though that both guys are big draws, both can get a great reaction from the crowd and both have been a part of some great feuds and matches and both have had their fair share of wins in big matches.

The only places where I can seem to differentiate between the two is when it comes to their performances in crunch situations and when it comes to getting overshadowed by similarly great talents. Sting did not perform as well as was expected of him in crunch situations like when Flair left for WWF and post Starrcade 1997. Rock did, when Austin left for his surgery. Sting also got overshadowed by great talents like Hogan and Goldberg. So much so, that he fell to the midcard. Rock was always able to hold on to that special place that he had created for himself in the heart of the fans.

So, I voted for The Rock.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

I'm having a hard time deciding which one of these men should win, they both have basically squashed every opponent they've had all tournament, and probably have most energy than anybody else in the final eight. But since I've come to a stalemate I really can only go off who I think is greater: The Rock.

We're in Miami for one, Rock's hometown. I don't remember him ever losing in his hometown, and I think he has huge momentum going into this match seeing as he's came off of returning to his hometown to beat the face of WWE John Cena.

I don't think Sting in WCW or TNA for that matter was as big as Rock in WWE. Rock was only ever overshadowed by Stone Cold but Sting was by Hogan, Goldberg, and many others. For now my vote goes to Rocky because he deserves to redeem himself and beat Sting.

 

[Larry]

I've read all I need to read to come to my conclusion.

I think that decisions here come down to one particular thing, whether or not you value what Sting did in WCW as being of equal, greater, or lesser significance to what The Rock was doing in WWF. I think that is what really effects the decision making in other areas and whether you bolster it or play it down. I personally recognize Sting's accomplishments all through his career as being no less significant than anything The Rock did due to where he did it. I also don't feel that Sting is less of a star or less of a wrestler because he never faced the WWF/E crop of talent. With that said, it really comes down to a meat and potatoes tale of the tape comparison of the two and I don't feel that Sting comes up short there either under any criteria. Be it in ring ability, mic work, big match performance, etc.... The areas of judgment I have seen others using seem to me to be more in favor of Sting than The Rock. Sting is still going today and is still great. I feel his time in TNA has been a great addition to his illustrious career and that you could even cite some of his body of work from there to hold up and compare to The Rock. I think it is important to note and recognize the fact that Sting has never been in the WWF/E but is still recognized as a legend in the business, I don't think anyone else can say that and it serves as a major testament to what a great legacy Sting built, and how significant he really was and continues to be. Without the WWE machine it's arguable that The Rock would have ever existed or that he would still be relevant today without that machine telling you how great he is and what a big deal he was. I love The Rock, I love the catchphrases and promo's, the whole in-ring shtick he does, the "boots to asses" and all of that. But, the razzle dazzle doesn't trump all that is Sting, not quite. I think in his prime, Sting WOULD out-wrestle The Rock pure and simple, and that he is probably tougher as well to take what The Rock brings to the table.

 

[pumpkinking8987]

Rock has the edge in almost every facet of the game.

Drawing Power has to go to the rock, Mania 28 was the most watched mania ever. It wouldnt have been so if the Rock wasn't booked against Cena. (he won that match i do believe) The "This is your Life" segment is the most watched segment on Raw ever.

Mic Skills: there is a reason that Sting went months on end without saying a word.

Ability: everyone is giving the ability to Sting but the question i have to ask is WHY. The Rock has had better matches over the course of a much shorter career. People keep saying how good the Sting v NWO feud was. It was a good storyline, but the actual Sting V nWo matches never lived up to the hype. Sting V Hogan was perhaps one of the biggest let downs in a match I have ever seen. Hogan was past his prime sure and the booking did suck but couple years later the Rock goes out and has one of the most memorable Mania matches with Hogan at WM18.
If you think that Sting is a better wrestler just go back and count all the 5 star matches Sting has had, and do the same for THE ROCK... i have no doubt that Rock will come out ahead of Sting.

Sting fueded with Cactus Jack in the Prime of his career. It was a good feud but it was no where near as good as Rock vs Mankind. So against similar oppenants Rock put on better more exciting matches.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

The WZ Tourney Sigs are nauseating.




Now that we have that outta the way.

The Rock takes this.



But it is a tough vote for me swung only by his record in the last 10 years. It is a damn DAMN impressive accomplishment that he has beaten all the TOP names of wrestling at Mania no less. But there are arguments.

Vs Austin at WM XIX- Austin's last match and jobbed to the 'more' active superstar.

Vs Hogan at WM X8- Over the hill Hogan.Then again, Hogan refused to to do the same for HBK or Orton at SSlams

Now this one is priceless...


Vs Cena at WM 28- Cena is still very much, The Man. I was one of those few left befuddled by the decision Rocky going over Cena but there you go.



This far in the tourney, I see little going against The Rock. I'm not even sure if my argument of a 'win is a win' counts here; otherwise I will bring up that Rock has beaten Hogan TWICE and that Sting never beat THE top dog in Goldberg. Both had heavy interference if you may recall.


In Miami, against The Rock has become a big enough deal for him not to lose. The region plays a big factor here.

These two are pretty evenly matched in the ring but strength wise its a point for Sting. However in a one on one contest, The Rock simply is too big to lose.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Damn this bloody dose, I'd hoped to get this in before voting started. Sting deserves to go over the Rock for one very simple reason - dedication. It is the one area where one eclipses the other, but lets look through the different criteria.

Draw

Some people may try to persuade you that the Rock is an infinitely bigger draw than Sting but don't fall for the smoke and mirrors, this is far from cut and dried. Look through the prime of the Rock - he had a plethora of assistance in garnering big viewing figures... and he wasn't even the biggest name in the company! When Sting was given a strong storyline, do you know what happened? WCW kicked the WWF's ass EVERY week for the extremely long time that storyline ran and he wasn't even in the ring for the longest part of that.

Popularity and Venue

Well, first off, is the Rock playing good or bad guy? His career is pretty much a coin toss one way or the other - Sting was always a face in his prime. "But this is in Miami, so advantage Rock!" Yup, but Miami is traditionally NWA/WCW territory and the Rock is WWF. Plus, Sting isn't John Cena, we ain't gonna have 'Cena-hate' with the Stinger.

If you want a direct comparison, just look back to when these two guys took on nWo 'Hollywood' Hogan. Sting was blatantly the most popular guy when he feuded with Hulkster, despite the nWo having achieved a 'cool' factor following. When WM18 came around, despite the fact that the nWo was portrayed as much more ruthless (they did try and kill the Rock), Hogan was cheered more than the Rock when they met.

A final gauge here is the PWI Most Popular award, which the Stinger has won a record four times and has placed a further record nine times (a total of 13). Rock has two most popular along with a further three placements (a total of 5). Now, the Rock's is very impressive, especially given his times as a heel and the fact his initial run only lasted seven and a half years but, against this, consider the fact that Stings rankings are across 23 years (1998-2011), that he wasn't really a viable option for some of the years and that he was with a smaller promotion on occasions that he has both won and placed and you can see the longevity of his popularity.

Ability

The Rock is no slouch in the ring... but Sting was and is to this day simply better. Several guys have already addressed this, so I'll try and keep this 'fort' slightly shorter by not repeating what has gone before.

Dedication

Seriously? This is were Sting eclipses Dwayne. Sting has never done anything other than promote wrestling from his entry and has done his damnedest to put the business over. The Rock has always been about the Rock to the extent that he was attempting to distance himself from the very character that attracted the mainstream in the first place until something drew him back last year. Even since then his contributions have been restricted to a tag match were he discredited two guys who we were to believe were WWe Champion material prior to Survivor Series, a singles match he had to be carried in due to not being in ring shape and was still given the win despite the fact that Cena is a regular competitor, whereas he may make all of one or two more in-ring performances, and multiple promos vastly variant in their quality. Sting, despite taking great flack from certain quarters (yes, I'm looking at you Sal), has turned down the greater money to try and provide an alternative to the WWe. Like or love TNA, if you don't believe their existence is beneficial to the grap game overall, you need to have your membership revoked.

Kayfabe

Another close category, I believe Sting would go over a heel Rock (re: Flair & Hogan). If both were to go head to head as good guys, I would give Sting the edge just because he will always be thought of as WCW's No1 good guy - Rocky'll always be in SCSA's shadow as the face (pun intended) of Attitude. In an independent competition, you have to believe No1 defeats No2.

I implore everyone who is still to vote to give their love to the Stinger, he works for it. Dwayne? He just expects it... when he returns... finally...

 

[mrppv420]

I gotta give the edge on this one to Stinger. He's proven a lot more during his career than Rock. The Rock needs to stay away from Hollywood and wrestle until he's almost 60 to be able to accomplish everything that Sting has in his career that started in the late 80's and last I knew, was still running today in TNA. The Rock is good, but Sting is that much better.

 

[AwesomeRko]

Rock takes this for so many reasons.

1. He is a bigger draw and star than Sting was at any point in his career. Rock's popularity ranks alongside Austin and Hogan's. The response his comeback has generated and the fact that 2000, the year Rock carried the company whilst Austin spent most of the year on the shelf was WWE's most succesful year testifies to this.

2. It's in Miami.

3. This is a massive icon vs icon type match, Rock tends to win these.

4. Rocks accomplishment's in a seven year period during the most competive period in the history of wrestling. Megastars like Austin, Taker, Y2J, Angle, Foley and Lesnar were all compeitng at the top dueing this time. The fact that Rock's championship record is si exemplary within this short period is testament to his prowess and Sting's best 7 years don't match up.

 

[mrppv420]

Rock takes this for so many reasons.

1. He is a bigger draw and star than Sting was at any point in his career. Rock's popularity ranks alongside Austin and Hogan's. The response his comeback has generated and the fact that 2000, the year Rock carried the company whilst Austin spent most of the year on the shelf was WWE's most succesful year testifies to this.

2. It's in Miami.

3. This is a massive icon vs icon type match, Rock tends to win these.

4. Rocks accomplishment's in a seven year period during the most competive period in the history of wrestling. Megastars like Austin, Taker, Y2J, Angle, Foley and Lesnar were all compeitng at the top dueing this time. The fact that Rock's championship record is si exemplary within this short period is testament to his prowess and Sting's best 7 years don't match up.

It makes no difference if its in Miami. If Sting had the same kind of 7 year booking that The Rock had, he'd have as many titles too. And whats that about being a bigger draw? Ok, yeah, maybe........ juuuuuuust maybe. But take this into consideration. If the same types of numbers happened from the late 80's to early 90's happened during the Rock's 7 year run, he would have been future endeavoured. It was just the economy back then the young folks of today don't ever think about that. Sting still takes this one.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

It makes no difference if its in Miami. If Sting had the same kind of 7 year booking that The Rock had, he'd have as many titles too. And whats that about being a bigger draw? Ok, yeah, maybe........ juuuuuuust maybe. But take this into consideration. If the same types of numbers happened from the late 80's to early 90's happened during the Rock's 7 year run, he would have been future endeavoured. It was just the economy back then the young folks of today don't ever think about that. Sting still takes this one.

No he doesn't, region definitely matters. Especially since Rock is coming off maybe his biggest win in his hometown. Your whole argument is based off "if's". Your admitting Rock is also the bigger draw. Sting shouldn't win here, Rock is just the bigger man.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

It makes no difference if its in Miami.

Bull. Regions matter, otherwise there'd be no point in having them and you might as well set every match in neutral ground. You want to stress that point because The Rock just came off a huge win where most people expected him to lose, and he did it in his hometown.

If Sting had the same kind of 7 year booking that The Rock had, he'd have as many titles too.

And why did he not have that booking? Because he didn't draw as much money? You get booked a certain way for a reason. Rock got booked better than Sting because he was more important to his company than Sting because he drew more money.

And whats that about being a bigger draw? Ok, yeah, maybe........ juuuuuuust maybe.

Whatever way you swing it, that's a concession my friend.

But take this into consideration. If the same types of numbers happened from the late 80's to early 90's happened during the Rock's 7 year run, he would have been future endeavoured.

Thanks KB. I'm fairly certain he has mentioned that Andre against Hogan in 1988 (note that this is the late 80s) was the most watched televised wrestling match ever. Nothing wrong with the ratings then bra.

Austin was the guy who started drawing in views for WWF for '97 and '98 but '99 was a transitional year. During that time the torch got passed from Austin to Rock and the ratings for when The Rock was the man were higher than those for Austin. Shows centred around the Rock (including 'How is your life..') drew comparatively more than for any other show headed by any other person for the last 2 decades, which of course includes Sting. He's not somebody your going to beat on a drawing argument unless you go back to previous eras with territories and whatnot.

And in case you don't want to go on aaaalllll that my dude, most buys ever for Wrestlemania. Cena was there last year, Taker was, HHH was, CM Punk was, Jericho wasn't but he's never drawn curtains on a sunny day, the variable is The Rock. He brought in the biggest proportion of those buys than anybody else. And dude is 40 now, didn't change a thing.

It was just the economy back then the young folks of today don't ever think about that. Sting still takes this one.

Which, even if you adjusted for inflation would still see The Rock winning in that regard. Wow, not one good argument anywhere in there.

I came into this with the opinion that The Rock was pretty much better (not always by much) than in every respect than The ICON. If this were a match based purely on fan-dome I'd be scared to pick a winner, but if you are trying to be objective as I am, The Rock really ought to win.

I want to come in to this at a different kind of slant. Sting has been wrestling for about 20 years actively, The Rock wrestled consistently for about 6 and a couple of matches obviously last year. The point I wanted to make is by the fact that we're comparing these two men in terms of what they've achieved in the industry and how good they are and it's a close contest automatically shows that Rock's years were more impactful and that that is because of him being a superior wrestler. If they had careers that were more compatible in length, The Rock would obviously have taken this hands down by now, (not that he won't anyway) because he'd have a career which would have inevitably had far more action, far more titles and accomplishments for his remaining years. As it is, we're looking at a guy who was in the business six mere years and has a legacy that guys who've stayed for 20 dream of and is perhaps the third highest grossing star of the sports entertainment era, staring with Hogan, that you will find.

The reasons are many:

1) He's better on the mic - Whether you like his style or not, you have to gauge this by crowd reaction, and in no manner could Sting top The Rock at his best in getting the crowd to react. There's no shame in that, but it's a fact.

2) He's every bit as good in the ring - Yes, he is chronically underrated in the ring and no, it's not something I would bring up only now when it's convenient. I'd tell you any time that Rock's mic work overshadowed his in-ring talent to such a degree that it didn't matter what he did in the ring. But he was athletic, he could perform moves as well as anybody (except that darn sharpshooter) and he knew how to get the crowd to react just as much as he did when talking.

Sting was also very good in the ring. For as many good matches I've seen of Sting though, I've seen quite a lot of bad ones. Now, he doesn't deserve all the blame. Rock was facing people in his bodily prime from his mid 20s to his early 30s. Sting has been facing guys as old as 52 years of age on a semi-consistent basis. Jeff Hardy deserves much of the blame (as he does with most things) but I won't have a go at Sting. In his prime, he may have edged out The Rock in the ring, but he may not have. I can speak personally and say I remember more specific Rock matches in that six year period than I do from Sting for his entire career. That doesn't mean anything by itself, but it tells you that The Rock in the ring wasn't forgettable.

3) The Rock drew more - Already covered.

4) He was a better character - Sting fans have a good basis to edbate with me on this one but I'd stick to my guns. Sting's best character run wasn't surfer Sting, there wasn't much character to that Sting, he was just a really cool guy who could wrestle and whom people loved. His best character exploit was as Crow Sting. The guy that didn't talk for a year and a half and drove people wild because of it. He didn't say anything and you couldn't ever really know what he was thinking, but his character was so very powerful, he was the perfect antidote for the NWO. And hell, I was a big fan of Joker Sting as well, when it was in full swing.

The Rock was a brash, arrogant, cocky dislikeable guy. He shouldn't really have worked. But he did, and he did because people knew beneath what he said, he was every bit as good as he claimed to be. And if he wasn't, within a minutes time on the stick he convinced people that he was. At the end of the day it was the same arrogant punk that was the eyebrow-raising, trail-blazing, son-of-a-gun that drew in more people than Sting managed to even at his best, even when he was the absolute pinnacle of WCW. You can say Sting was a better character if you like, he was great, but The People's Champion was a different breed and all those phrases people say they hate and get sick of, people still pop every single time he uses them, so there' something seriously right about the guy he is in the ring.

I could go on but I think the point is proven. I haven't done this before but... Vote Rock. If you don't, you aren't voting for the best wrestler.