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

[FitFinlay4Life]

Starrcade 1997:
1.9 buyrate (650k buys)
Card:
1 Eddy Guerrero (c) vs Dean Malenko [Cruiserweight Championship]
2 Scott Norton, Vincent and Randy Savage vs The Steiner Brothers and Ray Traylor
3 Bill Goldberg vs Steve McMichael
4 Saturn vs Chris Benoit
5 Buff Bagwell vs Lex Luger
6 Diamond Dallas Page vs Curt Hennig (c) [US Championship]
7 Larry Zbyszko vs Eric Bischoff
8 Sting vs Hollywood Hogan (c) [World Heavyweight Championship]

WrestleMania 18:
1.6 buyrate (880k buys)
Card:
1 Rob Van Dam vs William Regal (c) IC Belt
2 Diamond Dallas Page (c) vs Christian European Championship
3 Maven (c) vs Goldust Hardcore Championship
4 Kurt Angle vs Kane
5 The Undertaker vs Ric Flair No disqualification match
6 Edge vs Booker T
7 Steve Austin vs Scott Hall (with Kevin Nash)
8 Billy and Chuck (c) vs The APA, The Dudley Boyz and The Hardy Boyz Tag Team Championship
9 The Rock vs Hollywood Hulk Hogan
10 Jazz (c) vs Trish Stratus and Lita
11 Triple H vs Chris Jericho (c)

So in 1997, 1.9% of people with the ability purchased Starrcade to see Sting take on 'Hollywood' Hogan (the highest selling WCW PPV of all time), 4 and a half years later 1.6% paid to watch the Rock do the same. Basically the Rock gets the aura of being this great attraction because the vast majority of his career was during the greatest boon period professional wrestling encountered as an entertainment industry and he was ably assisted by strong storylines and characters to work off.

Yet, when the Stinger was given the same support, he helped make Nitro such a dominant force that Vinnie Mac had to rip off ECW to stop from going out of business. Plus, it is strongly believed that the reason for Hulk turning heel was that he could not rival Sting's popularity despite the company booking him as the number one good guy.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

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.

See above post...

2. It's in Miami.

WCW Territory against a guy NOT called Cena, it'd be much closer back when WCW was in business (like in Sting's prime or like in this tournament which had a WCW Region). WWF is that 'up north' organisation, so Rock would have that tainting his popularity.

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

Erm... Ric Flair... Hulk Hogan? And doesn't making both guys 'icons' kind of remove the whole 'prime' thing?

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.

Lots of title wins has an unfortunate flipside, lots of losses! Not what I think you're trying to promote.

 

[AwesomeRko]

See above post...



WCW Territory against a guy NOT called Cena, it'd be much closer back when WCW was in business (like in Sting's prime or like in this tournament which had a WCW Region). WWF is that 'up north' organisation, so Rock would have that tainting his popularity.



Erm... Ric Flair... Hulk Hogan? And doesn't making both guys 'icons' kind of remove the whole 'prime' thing?



Lots of title wins has an unfortunate flipside, lots of losses! Not what I think you're trying to promote.

Sting was a big draw and I'm not trying to refute that but he was not consistently on the level of Rock. The one example you gave is a good one but it still doesn't change the fact that in 2000, the year Rock took the reigns as the top guy in the company WWE ratings reached unparallelled figures, or the record breaking 1.2 million buyrates Rock elevated WM 28 to this year.

In Rock's prime from say 98 to 2002 WWE toured everywhere, the fact that traditionally WCW has a greater association with the city would not negate Rock's hometown support.

Rock has beaten Hogan, Austin and Cena arguably the three most popular superstars of all time, alongside himself on the grandest stage of them all. He has proven that he thrives in these massive once in a lifetime type scenarios.

Sure seven title reigns points to seven titles losses but that's just wrestling title reigns generally don't last anywhere near as long as they did back in the day. Sting dropped the title against Vader six days after winning it in 1993. Rock's reigns rather illustrate that he was constantly competing at elite level and was impressive enough to win more world championships in seven years than anyone in WWE histiry before him.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

First off, credit due, nice reply.

Sting was a big draw and I'm not trying to refute that but he was not consistently on the level of Rock. The one example you gave is a good one but it still doesn't change the fact that in 2000, the year Rock took the reigns as the top guy in the company WWE ratings reached unparallelled figures, or the record breaking 1.2 million buyrates Rock elevated WM 28 to this year.

Again I would point to the variables - better storylines, bigger push, already viable contenders. When Sting was given a good storyline, WCW reaped the rewards both in TV Ratings and PPV rates. As for this year, we move away from talking about the drawing power of the wrestler The Rock to the actor first, wrestler a very distant second Dwayne Johnson something I doubt even Stone Cold himself can beat today.

In Rock's prime from say 98 to 2002 WWE toured everywhere, the fact that traditionally WCW has a greater association with the city would not negate Rock's hometown support.

Even today, there are matches where both guys get cheered. Sting, in his prime, was never jeered - sheesh, even when he turned heel on Hogan, the fans cheered him. I'd implore everyone to be realistic, Sting vs Rock would receive the same sort of reaction as Hogan vs Warrior not the same reaction as Rock vs Cena.

Rock has beaten Hogan, Austin and Cena arguably the three most popular superstars of all time, alongside himself on the grandest stage of them all. He has proven that he thrives in these massive once in a lifetime type scenarios.

The only one of those guys he's only met once is John Cena, he beat Hogan twice and I believe Austin edges their meetings. No one has beaten Hogan more times than Sting and Sting also dominated Ric Flair - in WCW that is the equivalent of dominating Hogan and Austin and not just in a one-off situation.

Sure seven title reigns points to seven titles losses but that's just wrestling title reigns generally don't last anywhere near as long as they did back in the day. Sting dropped the title against Vader six days after winning it in 1993. Rock's reigns rather illustrate that he was constantly competing at elite level and was impressive enough to win more world championships in seven years than anyone in WWE histiry before him.

Credit where it's due he is a recognized 9 time world champion (in fact he showed more longevity holding the big gold belt than the WWF/e title) but I would temper that by pointing out that Edge won 11 titles in 5 years, Jericho has won 6 titles in a similar time span to Rocky despite taking an extended sabbatical, Cena has 12 titles in 7 years, Trips 13 in 10, Orton 10 in 7, hell even Punk could be argued to have 6 title reigns in the last 5 years. In the same way that I'm always wary of massive unbeaten runs 'back in the day', I'm equally skeptical about loads of titles across a short period of time basically since the beginning of the Monday Night Wars.

 

[1On1WithTheGreatOne]

The Rock takes this one.

There's things that aren't being said enough in this arguement. The span of both wrestlers' careers.

Sting has been wrestling nearly 30 years. People in favor of Sting talk about The Rock not having a good enough career compared to Sting.

The Rock wrestled for 7 years.

The Rock was able to do almost everything in the WWE. And everything The Rock put out was pure greatness. I can't really say the same for the Stinger.

Don't agree? Well there's this:
http://youtu.be/_0NXkGRcDPM


For me the greatest wrestler has to be able to put out great performances, whether in the ring or on the mic. The Rock has been able to always give the audience the best show.

The Sting is legendary, but his work hasn't always been the best.

Also, think about the tournament so far. The Rock was able to get one over on Ric Flair, a man that Sting would lose sometimes to in matches.

The Rock takes this match, but Sting gives him one hell of a match.

 

[AwesomeRko]

First off, credit due, nice reply.



Again I would point to the variables - better storylines, bigger push, already viable contenders. When Sting was given a good storyline, WCW reaped the rewards both in TV Ratings and PPV rates. As for this year, we move away from talking about the drawing power of the wrestler The Rock to the actor first, wrestler a very distant second Dwayne Johnson something I doubt even Stone Cold himself can beat today.



Even today, there are matches where both guys get cheered. Sting, in his prime, was never jeered - sheesh, even when he turned heel on Hogan, the fans cheered him. I'd implore everyone to be realistic, Sting vs Rock would receive the same sort of reaction as Hogan vs Warrior not the same reaction as Rock vs Cena.



The only one of those guys he's only met once is John Cena, he beat Hogan twice and I believe Austin edges their meetings. No one has beaten Hogan more times than Sting and Sting also dominated Ric Flair - in WCW that is the equivalent of dominating Hogan and Austin and not just in a one-off situation.



Credit where it's due he is a recognized 9 time world champion (in fact he showed more longevity holding the big gold belt than the WWF/e title) but I would temper that by pointing out that Edge won 11 titles in 5 years, Jericho has won 6 titles in a similar time span to Rocky despite taking an extended sabbatical, Cena has 12 titles in 7 years, Trips 13 in 10, Orton 10 in 7, hell even Punk could be argued to have 6 title reigns in the last 5 years. In the same way that I'm always wary of massive unbeaten runs 'back in the day', I'm equally skeptical about loads of titles across a short period of time basically since the beginning of the Monday Night Wars.

Same to you dude, great argument!

I understand what your saying about the storylines, push etc and that would come into play if we were seeeking objective terms to decide the real life best wrestler. Yet we are dealing with a kayfabe match in which storylines and character development are a central part, thus whilst discrepancies in these areas may be unfair they do apply in this scenario. You just have to look at a guy like Ultimate Warrior often slandered for his lack of talent who achieved a monumental victory over Hulk Hogan thanks to a monumental push.

I never intended to suggest that the crowd would be 100% pro-Rock or hugely against Sting. I know that the crowd would be split to a degree. They are both massively popular, wrestling icons. I just think Rock has the hometown edge, just as Sting probably would in Venice Beach Ca.

Sting does have a fantastic record against two of the greatest ever. I used Austin which was a bad example but what I was getting at is Rock has experience in clashes actively billed as one off special attractions. Rock/Hogan as you mentioned turned out not to be but their initial clash was billed as icon vs icon and generations collide in a similar fashion to Rock/Cena this year. Rock's experience with these type of matches might just give him the edge in a tournament that's premise is founded on the same one-off dream type scenarios.

 

[cult_of_icecream_bar]

Using the win against cena for rock isnt much helpful.He face Cena as Dwayne Johnson-the guest celebrity,not as The Rock.Guest celebrities never and i mean never lose.If anyone else,say tom cruz faced cena,he'd win to.So let's put it out of discussion.And in wrestling hometown don't mean nothing.

 

[mrppv420]

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.

Nah, regions don't mean anything....... look at any tournament in any sport. It make no difference on the region, same as here. You can get beat in your own backyard as easily as anybody else. All I was saying about the draw was that there are young fans like maybe you, who have no idea what the arenas were like back then and have absolutely no clue on how the lack of dollars in the economy back then really hampered that. If you take today's money and put it in the late 80's/early 90's for Sting, and The Rock wouldn't even come close. But like I said, you young fans are just simply clueless.

 

[mrppv420]

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.



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.



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



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.



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.

Ok, since you're across the pond, I'll make this easy for ya. Anybody can be beat at any given time, no matter where it happens. Punk can lose in Chi-town, Cena can lose in Boston and The Rock can certainly lose in Miami.

The booking, well, if Sting had the powers that be from the WWF, then yeah, he would have been shot to the moon just like Rocky there, but nobody in the later end of the 80's to the early 90's had a clue on how to book.

Yeah, the concession was there because I wanted to make it easier for you young thumb suckers to understand. But seriously, use today's dollars and put it in the late 80's/early 90's there and Sting kicks his ass.

Yeah, the ratings were there, but the money was not. The average joe didn't make dick back in those days.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Ok, since you're across the pond, I'll make this easy for ya. Anybody can be beat at any given time, no matter where it happens. Punk can lose in Chi-town, Cena can lose in Boston and The Rock can certainly lose in Miami.

Ocean. I knew you weren't too bright.

Fantastic, obvious, excellent. The point is Rock is less likely, key word likely, to lose in his home town on a big occasion, and the evidence supplied is that he just won one of the biggest matches of all time... in his home town.

The booking, well, if Sting had the powers that be from the WWF, then yeah, he would have been shot to the moon just like Rocky there, but nobody in the later end of the 80's to the early 90's had a clue on how to book.

Conjecture and excuses. Those same people that didn't know how to book made Sting a multiple time world champion in the time period. What are you questioning?

Yeah, the concession was there because I wanted to make it easier for you young thumb suckers to understand. But seriously, use today's dollars and put it in the late 80's/early 90's there and Sting kicks his ass.

So you first doff your cap for being a bigger draw, and then proceed to say that Sting definitely earned more. I think I'll let you come to terms with your own argument before you start trying to pass it on to other people.

My inflation calculator says in 1988 when Sting was becoming a mega-star, the inflation rate is approximately a factor of a half compared to what it is now. So in purchasing power, 2 mill now = 1 mill then. Worth considering.

Yeah, the ratings were there, but the money was not. The average joe didn't make dick back in those days.

I don't see what relevance average Joe has to this conversation. He's a nice chap, and he'd rather be left alone thanks.

You seem to keep making this point. It's almost as if you're blaming the money for Sting not making as much as Rocky. I've been scouting around for reports for a good while now and I've managed to draw up some figures. For comparison, Stone Cold reportedly earned somewhere in the region of 5-10 million in 1998 and a similar figure in 1999. The Rock had a contract for 600,000 active in 1999 but earned in excess of an additional 2 million from other aspects such as merchandise and television appearances. This was similar but lesser in 2000.

In '92-'93 Sting earned 750,000 a year as the biggest face in WCW. By the end of WCW's lifecycle, he was being paid 1.25 mill a year. His highest payrole was actually towards at that time, when WCW were renound for paying out lavish exorbitant salaries for a lower yield than would be received in WWE. That's 1.25 mill to a comparative over 2.5 mill, that's double the earning in Rock's best year compared to Sting's.

http://www.angelfire.com/tx/WrestlersDestiny/contracts.html

http://www.wrestling-caricatures.com/id143.html

Read the first one especially, including the bit where it says wrestlers are making on average by far more than ever before.

Back to the ol' drawing board.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Same to you dude, great argument!

See folks, this is how discussions should be held, respectful and covering the relevant points... having said that, not every post is as logical and well put so I can see why certain posts do get obliterated.

I understand what your saying about the storylines, push etc and that would come into play if we were seeeking objective terms to decide the real life best wrestler. Yet we are dealing with a kayfabe match in which storylines and character development are a central part, thus whilst discrepancies in these areas may be unfair they do apply in this scenario. You just have to look at a guy like Ultimate Warrior often slandered for his lack of talent who achieved a monumental victory over Hulk Hogan thanks to a monumental push.

And yet this is an independent match pitting WCW's franchise (which even the history tweaking and outsider hating WWe has admitted in their WCW Top50) against the guy who was number two during the Attitude Era (sorry, Trips).

Using the Warrior mightn't be the best idea to push Rocky though, he was a sacrificial lamb for both Goldberg and Lesnar.

I never intended to suggest that the crowd would be 100% pro-Rock or hugely against Sting. I know that the crowd would be split to a degree. They are both massively popular, wrestling icons. I just think Rock has the hometown edge, just as Sting probably would in Venice Beach Ca.

I don't know, for many years being the hometown guy was far from a guarantee of getting the biggest reaction (famously heel Ric Flair was cheered and face Ron Garvin was jeered at the first Starrcade despite the fact that the bookers believed that Garvin would be embraced as a defacto hometown boy in Chicago). As I said earlier, Miami was regarded as more a WCW area than WWF, I still think the majority of fans would be very much on the fence. I believe the Bret Hart Canada effect and the Cena reaction has made many people forget that, for the longest time, faces where respected irrespective of where they fought. If Sting beat Rock in Miami, as long as they where entertained, fans would still leave happy... plus, when it really comes down to it, this isn't WrestleMania, nor is it the main event and, as such, either guy with their legacies can be booked to progress.

Sting does have a fantastic record against two of the greatest ever. I used Austin which was a bad example but what I was getting at is Rock has experience in clashes actively billed as one off special attractions. Rock/Hogan as you mentioned turned out not to be but their initial clash was billed as icon vs icon and generations collide in a similar fashion to Rock/Cena this year. Rock's experience with these type of matches might just give him the edge in a tournament that's premise is founded on the same one-off dream type scenarios.

But, then again, one of his victories over Hogan was used to increase the rub he passed onto Brock Lesnar and Rock / Cena 3 was used to make his defeat by Goldberg (a one on one special attraction) more telling.

In an independent tournament, either guy could be put over the other and no one would raise an eyebrow. As I stated earlier, however, I feel Sting deserves to go over the Great One because he has contributed more to the sport rather than simply buffing his own ego.

 

[The Brain]

Great match here. I’ll give my vote to Sting. He was the franchise player for WCW since Turner took over the company. For as popular as Rock was Sting was consistently WCW’s most popular star for a decade plus. Rock was only most popular the year Austin wasn’t around. I’m not selling the Rock short. He just always seemed to play second fiddle during his prime. The region isn’t going to help Rock here. This is the conclusion of an all time tournament. The fans are going to pack the place with or without Rock and there is enough star power here to leave the fans satisfied with any outcome. I can’t help but think of those three consecutive mania main event losses. Sting, on the other hand always shined bright on the biggest stage as his Starrcade record indicates. I know it’s probably too late but I vote Sting.

 

[Big Sexy]

Great match here. I’ll give my vote to Sting. He was the franchise player for WCW since Turner took over the company. For as popular as Rock was Sting was consistently WCW’s most popular star for a decade plus. Rock was only most popular the year Austin wasn’t around.

Rock was not only the most popular guy in WWE when Austin was gone in 2000, I'd argue that he stayed at the very least equal to Austin once Stone Cold returned. There's also no shame being second in popularity to arguably the most popular superstar of all time. In terms of popularity there's Hogan, Austin, Rock, and then everyone else.

Sting was the most popular in the early 90's in WCW but it's not like he had any competition. When you are competing with the likes of Luger and Davey Boy Smith for popularity your job becomes easier. Once Hogan and Savage entered WCW, Sting was put on the back burner. He rose to the top again once he disappeared and changed the face paint but it wasn't long until Goldberg took away the top spot from Sting.

 

[AwesomeRko]

Rock was not only the most popular guy in WWE when Austin was gone in 2000, I'd argue that he stayed at the very least equal to Austin once Stone Cold returned. There's also no shame being second in popularity to arguably the most popular superstar of all time. In terms of popularity there's Hogan, Austin, Rock, and then everyone else.

Sting was the most popular in the early 90's in WCW but it's not like he had any competition. When you are competing with the likes of Luger and Davey Boy Smith for popularity your job becomes easier. Once Hogan and Savage entered WCW, Sting was put on the back burner. He rose to the top again once he disappeared and changed the face paint but it wasn't long until Goldberg took away the top spot from Sting.

Absolutely this. From 2000 till he left Rock was the top guy in the company. From being first chosen in the first WWE draft, to breaking Hollywood, to leading team WWF and pinning Austin representing Team Alliance Rock was clearly the most over and biggest guy in the company from 2000 onwards. Sting was huge but he has never reached Rock's post 2000, or even arguably 1999 level of popularity.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

In the end, I think Rock takes this. It's a very close match up, I just think Rock is a little bit better than the Stinger. Sting, at his absolute apex, might have been more popular than the Rock was at his apex, but Sting got to play off Hollywood Hogan and one of the greatest angles ever. Rock never had that kind of heel to play off of. Not to mention Rock was excellent both as a face and a heel, while Sting was a pure face. In the ring Sting was a little bit better and crisper, but Rock was just the slightest bit more athletic. Sting was an extremely charismatic performer, but Rock is right up there with Hogan and Flair in this regard as the GOAT.

As I stated, though, Sting was more dependent on having a transcendent heel to really get the best out of him. His highest moments were when he was facing Ric Flair and Hollywood Hogan, two of the greatest heels ever (if not the top 2). Rocky didn't need that.

Vote Rocky. Barely.