New York Region, Kentucky Subregion: Second Round: (4) Sting vs. (13) Stan Hansen

[klunderbunker]

The following contest is a second round match in the New York Region.

This match takes place in the Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky.

#4 Sting

Vs.

#13 Stan Hansen

This contest is one fall with a 20 minute time limit. The match will take place in a 16 x 16 ring with no ramp leading to it. Any traditional managers for either competitor will be allowed at ringside.

As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.

The most votes in the voting period wins and in the case of a tie, the most written votes wins. There is one written vote per user, meaning if a poster make ten posts saying Bret should win that will count as a single vote. In the event of a second tie, both men are ELIMINATED, no questions asked. Only winners advance.

Voting is open for four days and all posts must be non-spam.​

 

[Dark Horse]

Ok, I'll break the ice here. Sting it is. If for no other reason than I don't know enough about Stan Hansen to say I think that he'd beat Sting in a pie eating contest let alone a wrestling match. Just the fact that I've never really heard of him, never heard of anything he's ever done, and he's never been held in any high regard by anyone I've ever known tells me I've got to vote for Sting.Now I'm sure that Mr. Hansen was a real tough cookie, but I've known for years that Sting was the man. He's beat all the right people, been involved in all the right things in wrestling, his character has evolved over a long illustrious career, and we'll even be seeing him again rather soon.

I'm willing to wager that at least 9/10 people know who Sting is, but don't know who Stan Hansen is. That might not bode well with the die hards who know everything about Hansen and have long eloquent and well thought out arguments as to why he would supposedly wipe the floor with Sting, but it's the truth isn't it? Why would anyone vote for someone they know nothing about? Call it a hunch but I think this is going to be a rough go for Stan Hansen as a result. Chalk it up to bad-luck of the draw.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

This is a tough one. Sting has a legacy that few men can compare too. He's won the world title in the NWA, WCW and TNA, and is one of the few men to ever say no to Vince McMahon. He's stuck to his guns on most occasions, and he's had a career that few could equal. On the flip side is a man who is tough, hard hitting and out-right deadly in the ring. The guy's earned respect across the globe, in much the same way a guy like Sting has. Accolades wise Hansen isn't up there with Sting, but there's more going for him than meets the eye. Not sure where to go. Leaning towards Sting but there's time to convince me.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Ok, I'll break the ice here. Sting it is. If for no other reason than I don't know enough about Stan Hansen to say I think that he'd beat Sting in a pie eating contest let alone a wrestling match. Just the fact that I've never really heard of him, never heard of anything he's ever done, and he's never been held in any high regard by anyone I've ever known tells me I've got to vote for Sting.Now I'm sure that Mr. Hansen was a real tough cookie, but I've known for years that Sting was the man. He's beat all the right people, been involved in all the right things in wrestling, his character has evolved over a long illustrious career, and we'll even be seeing him again rather soon.

I'm willing to wager that at least 9/10 people know who Sting is, but don't know who Stan Hansen is. That might not bode well with the die hards who know everything about Hansen and have long eloquent and well thought out arguments as to why he would supposedly wipe the floor with Sting, but it's the truth isn't it? Why would anyone vote for someone they know nothing about? Call it a hunch but I think this is going to be a rough go for Stan Hansen as a result. Chalk it up to bad-luck of the draw.

It's official. This is the most moronic and ignorant post I've read on these forums and trust me, there have been a lot.

Stan Hansen has beaten legends in this business whether it be in America or in Japan. I can't do his accomplishments enough justice so Lariat will come in here and school you. I assure you that a whole lot of people that participate in this tournament know who Hansen is and you voting for Sting just because you don't know about Hansen shows how ignorant you are. Hansen can beat everyone in this tournament and has beaten Vader who has numerous wins over Sting. Hansen can most definitely go over Sting in a match.

 

[Dark Horse]

It's official. This is the most moronic and ignorant post I've read on these forums and trust me, there have been a lot.

Stan Hansen has beaten legends in this business whether it be in America or in Japan. I can't do his accomplishments enough justice so Lariat will come in here and school you. I assure you that a whole lot of people that participate in this tournament know who Hansen is and you voting for Sting just because you don't know about Hansen shows how ignorant you are. Hansen can beat everyone in this tournament and has beaten Vader who has numerous wins over Sting. Hansen can most definitely go over Sting in a match.

Hey, ya know what, that's great. I'm glad for you and Stan Hansen but I've never really heard of the guy. So am I supposed to do something that really really would be stupid and just vote for some guy I know nothing about? Just take your word for it and ignore my own insights because you think that means I'm ignorant? No.

School all you want, as I said I'm sure he was a tough guy and all that, I'm sure he even might be able to beat Sting. However, I know more about Sting, I grew up watching him, it makes sense for me to vote his way. How that is ignorant makes no sense. Sorry I participated.

 

[JXL]

This has "Greatest Match of All Time" written all over it.

Both are great athletes and both are bonafide legends of the business. Sting has the strength, speed, and agility to hang with the best, but Stan Hansen is like an iron wall and streamline you if you get in his way. He's beaten Hogan (in his prime), Flair (in his prime), Dusty (in his prime), Vader (in his prime), Taker (before he was the Deadman), and much more. I'm willing to bet if by 1 second Sting is caught in the Lariat, he would not get up (well, maybe once).

Awesome match-up, lots of brutality, and a Lariat to finish seconds before the time limit.

My vote: The Lariat (not the user, although I wish )

 

[Tastycles]

I'm not a fan of the strong style, if I'm honest, but I'll give credit where it's due, and Hansen certainly was a formidable wrestler. However, he rarely did the business in the American market, where this match is, arguably because he was so stiff. Sting on the other hand is without doubt the most decorated wrestler never to have graced the WWE with his presence and has had immense success everywhere he has gone. Ultimately, he would absorb Hansen's attacks, before ultimately outlasting and outsmarting him for the win. The score won't be close, the match would be, Sting wins.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

You folks are unreal. So far, I've seen ONE sound argument as to why Sting beats Hansen. The rest don't really have a logical reason to vote for Stinger. And that's fine... I'll make the best case possible and tell you why Sting would not only lose this match, but it wouldn't even be THAT close.

1) Sting + big men = trouble.
Sting has a LOT of trouble with bigger wrestlers. Vader absolutely DOMINATED Sting. As a child, I cried because he beat Sting so bad. And folks, Vader's as bad ass as they get in wrestling. And Stan Hansen beat him so badly, he nearly knocked his eye out. You can say he was too stiff or whatever... but Hansen is a mean sum bitch. And at 6'5, and over 300 lbs, Sting can't really do much to hurt the Lariat. A Stinger splash might daze him... and there's NO way Sting gets Hansen in a Scorpion Deathlock... because Hansen rarely goes off his feet long enough to be put in a submission.

2) Hansen's record vs. Sting's record
How can anyone say Sting is the most decorated wrestler to never be in the WWE? He was the NWA world champion when the belt was crap... and it took a small package to beat Flair for his most meaningful title reign. And anyone that says him beating Hogan is more meaningful is foolish. It's not. Hogan was crap and Sting was slightly above crap back during the NWO days. Whearas Hansen is consistent. He beat people's asses until the day he retired. He's beaten a who's who of the greats in this industry. He's beaten Flair (house show in the early 80's... but was given a 'Dusty Finish' because Hansen's lariat arm was loaded.), he's also bodyslammed Andre the Giant... and was one of the first to do so. And, yes... he does have a clean win over Hogan... albeit it was when Hogan was Sterling Golden... but call a spade a spade. Hansen's beaten Hogan, too. Hansen's also beaten Japan's greatest wrestlers... Giant Baba, Inoki, Kobashi, Misawa, Jumbo Tsuruta, and even beat the legendary Terry, BY GAWD Funk! Back when Funk was coming off NWA World Heavyweight title reigns. So if I had to stack up records against Sting and Hansen, I'd like Hansen's chances.

3) Hansen's Lariat
That move... although not as sudden is as short and high impact as the Diamond Cutter, the Sweet Chin Music, and other finishers... it's effect is there. The Lariat's knocked Lex Luger's nearly two year US Title reign on it's ass. It's knocked Andre the Giant nearly silly. It's finished off many, MANY competitors. And all it takes is for it to land ONE time. And Sting's lights are out. Period.

So Sting may be more popular and may have more fans and more people may know him... but if we're saying who's the better wrestler and who would win in a random match... I'm going with Hansen and I don't think I'd have too many people saying I'm stupid for saying so.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Sting is awesome, always has been. The Crow gimmick has always been a favourite of mine and he has beaten the best this business has to offer in the last 20 years. I was going to vote Sting straight away...but then I read Lariats argument.

I admit, I am no Stan Hansen encyclopedia, I have only ever seen a small number of the guys matches but reading Lariat's post has made me think....could Hansen beat Sting? I know the legend of his lariat, and seeing the list of people that Hansen beat and knowing how respected he is and his reputation as one of the toughest sons of bitches who ever got in the ring...I am tempted to vote for Stan.

Fuck it, I will.

Stan Hansen, with a lariat that nearly takes Stingers head off.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Hey, ya know what, that's great. I'm glad for you and Stan Hansen but I've never really heard of the guy. So am I supposed to do something that really really would be stupid and just vote for some guy I know nothing about? Just take your word for it and ignore my own insights because you think that means I'm ignorant? No.

School all you want, as I said I'm sure he was a tough guy and all that, I'm sure he even might be able to beat Sting. However, I know more about Sting, I grew up watching him, it makes sense for me to vote his way. How that is ignorant makes no sense. Sorry I participated.

Dude, come on, stop whining. You're better than this.

If you don't know anything about one of the participants, then either:

a) wait until the end to vote, after some of the more "in-the-know" posters have had a chance to lay out their arguments,

b) do some research yourself. One of the great things about these tournaments is that it gives you a great chance to learn a little more about the sport you're here because you're a fan of, or

c) post but don't vote. When you vote for one guy because you've "heard of him" more, you cheat the other guy. A lot of music fans don't know who Ry Cooder is, but if you vote for Billy Ray Cyrus as a better musician without doing some research, you miss the fact that Cooder is among the greatest guitarists in history.

I am still torn on this match, and it may even be a draw for me. Both guys have excellent legacies. I am not voting yet, if at all, but I will say it'll take some awfully good Sting posts to put me past Lariat's pro-Hansen work.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

So... it's a lopsided vote, yet NO logical case has been made for Sting. I'm seriously wondering why we even have this many wrestlers in the tourney if we're going to vote based on a popularity contest.

It's sad really... some don't really know Hansen that well... well... let me shine a light or two on some of his better matches.

[YOUTUBE]GzGSbMIxAz8[/YOUTUBE]

That's Hansen bodyslamming Andre the Giant... when that had been done maybe once before that.

[YOUTUBE]AmK8mt4QWBg[/YOUTUBE]

Notice in this match that Hansen stands toe to toe with Vader and doesn't blink an eye lash. Many wrestlers were scared shitless to get into the ring with Vader. Hansen loved it. And beat him something fierce in this match.. and yes... the match went to a draw. Went to a draw in their WCW match, too.

[YOUTUBE]vLVCA1Q0uas[/YOUTUBE]

And X will appreciate this. Hansen's Lariat comatoses a very game Misawa in the Triple Crown Final match in Japan. Hansen takes a LOT of punishment in this match. And comes out on top.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Stan Hansen is the man. Without any sort of doubt in my mind one of the top 5 toughest men to ever lace up the boots. Now with that being said my vote has to go to Sting. I started watching Wrestling at the very young and tender age of 3 years old and the first thing i can remember is the NWO was always getting their asses kicked by Sting. The first PPV I remember Sting and Scott Hall headlined it. Sting will almost always hold a special place in the wrestling section of my heart and in 10 matches he and Hansen would draw almost every time in my mind. Vote Sting

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm not sure on this at all. Both of them are great and have the accomplishments to back up their ability. There wa never anything pretty or fancy about Stan Hansen and there didn't need to be. Hansen was just a tough, stiff sumbitch that earned the respect of fans wherever he went. Even though Hansen isn't Japanese, there are probably only a handful of Japanese wrestlers that can boast to being as or even more revered than Hansen in Japan.

Sting is someone that's just equally revered. He carried the flag of WCW for over a decade and was always someone that could be counted on for giving the fans a great match. Sting had a great look, the physical attributes and the charisma needed to be a star in the modern era. As with Hansen, Sting's accomplishments speak for themselves.

I think this is a situation in which either could win. I don't know if I'll actually be able to vote here but I predict that Sting will win this by a landslide. Let's face it, a lot of modern fans don't know very much about Stan Hansen and won't bother to even find out anything about him. It's damned unfortunate but it's also pretty damned certain. Much of Hansen's greatest successes did take place in Japan rather than the United States and that also works against him in this tourney when you have a lot of fans that just think of wrestling as WCW, WWE, TNA or ROH.

 

[Dark Horse]

Dude, come on, stop whining. You're better than this.

You're right I am better than that, I was just being sarcastic. Unfortunately without being able to HEAR what I was saying it's hard for that to come across. Dude reacted like I just insulted his family or something and I'm just like "Damn hoss, chill out. I didn't know it meant that much to you" lol. In light of your suggestions and advice, I am going to go ahead and give a real response to make up for not looking into this more before I made my decision. I have looked into it now and here we go....What better road to redemption than the one that leads to the main supporter of the man I originally overlooked.

So... it's a lopsided vote, yet NO logical case has been made for Sting. I'm seriously wondering why we even have this many wrestlers in the tourney if we're going to vote based on a popularity contest.

It's sad really... some don't really know Hansen that well... well... let me shine a light or two on some of his better matches.

You know why no "logical" case as you put it, has been made for Sting? Because you don't even need one, all you have to do is say his name and nothing more need be said. Maybe your unrealistic expectations have you being let down because some guy that most people have never heard of aren't buying your puffery but that doesn't mean anyone is wrong for their choice, it just means it's not your choice. In case you missed it as well under the voting criteria it says AND I QUOTE:

"As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.""

So not only was I well within my means when making my choice as I did, looking at the other criteria you completely overlooked, Sting has this in the bag.

All I can say is tough shit. You're talking about a guy who wrestled largely in an era that most of the people here never saw, whose greatest successes were in promotions overseas that were never really shown here in the states or on a broad enough scale for anyone to have really seen in any relevant capacity, especially not enough for anyone to be as obsessed with this guy as you are. And, as is clearly shown by the vote, he must not have been that big a deal anyways and your argument really amounts to overpraise. Your original argument was filled with such propensity that I couldn't even take it seriously as your boot licking motivated you to completely discredit anything and everything Sting ever did.

What was your big argument against Sting? "Sting was slightly above crap back during the NWO days" "He has trouble against big guys" Here we go, logic abound. Fortunately for Sting, even at slightly above crap he was more relevant during the NWO days than Stan Hansen has apparently ever been and he still beat bigger guys regardless. During the MNW's he was easily one of the biggest stars of the era, before that he was the face of WCW and went over Flair which was a big deal no matter how hysterically you try to cheapen it. And sure, Hansen beat Flair at some point somewhere too, and look at how big a deal that made him. So much so that you can practically hear crickets chirp when you mention him.

I actually wasted the time to watch the videos you posted and I can say without bias that it was nothing short of vapid. From what you presented as being some of his best work, all I can gather from that was that he was stiff as a board, moved about as well as Mr. Roboto, didn't have a fraction of the natural charisma or character that Sting did as either the bleached blond Sting, Crow Sting, or even modern TNA Sting. Being a big mindless brute doesn't mean shit. Sure he was "tough" but big deal, I've seen a ton of tough guys, everyone has, but there's only one Sting.

Sting is the better wrestler, the bigger more successful character, the more successful wrestler period who holds a bigger and more storied legacy than and house of cards you could ever build for Hansen, and whether you agree with it or not he will be remembered now and forever as the biggest star to never work for Vince McMahon. Sting in his prime is a better showman, a better all around wrestler, a bigger draw, more relevant in history, more popular, and is actually tougher than most give him credit for. This vote is as it should be, a landslide victory for one the biggest stars of all time.

 

[8thwotwATG]

The nod goes to Hansen in this one. Sting's difficulty in coping w/ big men for sure works against him here in facing not only a guy who is bigger than he;but arguably a wrestler who can match holds with him, plus brawl better. Sting hangs in there for a while, even hitting his stinger splash, getting Hansen down and attempting to apply the scorpion deathlock. Hansen powers out before Sting can completely apply the hold and proceeds to beat the living hell out of Sting w/ some of his customary stiff, high impact offense. A lariat ends things at about the 15-16 minute mark for the 1-2-3. Sorry Sting, your lack of sucess against big men, combined w/Hansens' penchant for violence against everybody he faced spells doom for you, losing a close one.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

You know why no "logical" case as you put it, has been made for Sting? Because you don't even need one, all you have to do is say his name and nothing more need be said. Maybe your unrealistic expectations have you being let down because some guy that most people have never heard of aren't buying your puffery but that doesn't mean anyone is wrong for their choice, it just means it's not your choice. In case you missed it as well under the voting criteria it says AND I QUOTE:

"As for voting, vote for who you think would win this match based on the criteria you choose. Some suggestions would be (not limited to): in ring ability, overall skill, their level of influence at the highest point in their career, ability to connect with the crowd, experience in major matches or simply personal preference etc.""

That's all well and good and that's how you should vote. I'm not even that upset over the votes. I figured it would be lopsided.

So not only was I well within my means when making my choice as I did, looking at the other criteria you completely overlooked, Sting has this in the bag.

Here we go.

All I can say is tough shit. You're talking about a guy who wrestled largely in an era that most of the people here never saw, whose greatest successes were in promotions overseas that were never really shown here in the states or on a broad enough scale for anyone to have really seen in any relevant capacity, especially not enough for anyone to be as obsessed with this guy as you are. And, as is clearly shown by the vote, he must not have been that big a deal anyways and your argument really amounts to overpraise. Your original argument was filled with such propensity that I couldn't even take it seriously as your boot licking motivated you to completely discredit anything and everything Sting ever did.

Overpraise? So those videos were just me 'overpraising' Hansen's work? Then GUILTY AS CHARGED. My job is to convince people that Hansen can win a match against Sting. I didn't convince you. Big whoop. But to discredit Hansen is ignorance. I never one time discredited Sting either. Get your facts straight. I named reasons Hansen would beat Sting and compared records and things of that sort. That's the intentions of this tourney. And just because he wasn't successful in the US like he was in Japan doesn't make him a bad wrestler or inferior to Sting. Most of Hansen's lack of success comes from politics keeping him down. If you would have done reasonable research on this matchup, you would know that.

What was your big argument against Sting? "Sting was slightly above crap back during the NWO days" "He has trouble against big guys" Here we go, logic abound. Fortunately for Sting, even at slightly above crap he was more relevant during the NWO days than Stan Hansen has apparently ever been and he still beat bigger guys regardless. During the MNW's he was easily one of the biggest stars of the era, before that he was the face of WCW and went over Flair which was a big deal no matter how hysterically you try to cheapen it. And sure, Hansen beat Flair at some point somewhere too, and look at how big a deal that made him. So much so that you can practically hear crickets chirp when you mention him.

Sure. You talk about Sting's 'relevance'. I'm talking about an actual wrestling match. And in an ACTUAL WRESTLING match... Hansen beats Sting. I'm not matching them up in a pose down or in a promo competition... it's a wrestling match and I've stated my case as to why Hansen wins said wrestling match. But you already knew that right?

I actually wasted the time to watch the videos you posted and I can say without bias that it was nothing short of vapid. From what you presented as being some of his best work, all I can gather from that was that he was stiff as a board, moved about as well as Mr. Roboto, didn't have a fraction of the natural charisma or character that Sting did as either the bleached blond Sting, Crow Sting, or even modern TNA Sting. Being a big mindless brute doesn't mean shit. Sure he was "tough" but big deal, I've seen a ton of tough guys, everyone has, but there's only one Sting.

Agreed. Sting is one of a kind. But that "Mr. Roboto" you talk about is a dangerous man and is considered a legend in pro wrestling. And Hansen may not have had as much charisma as Sting, but he had charisma. He was a cowboy. He didn't have to put on face paint and yell to the top of his lungs. He simply put on a cowboy hat, tobacco in his mouth, came to the ring, and beat people's asses. But that doesn't mean shit though. Also, Goldberg was a tough guy. So was Vader. They've beaten Sting.

Sting is the better wrestler, the bigger more successful character, the more successful wrestler period who holds a bigger and more storied legacy than and house of cards you could ever build for Hansen, and whether you agree with it or not he will be remembered now and forever as the biggest star to never work for Vince McMahon. Sting in his prime is a better showman, a better all around wrestler, a bigger draw, more relevant in history, more popular, and is actually tougher than most give him credit for. This vote is as it should be, a landslide victory for one the biggest stars of all time.

Sting will be remembered as an iconic CHARACTER in wrestling. Not for his wrestling ability. People remember Stan Hansen for being a legendary PRO WRESTLER. Big difference. And the only reason why the vote is the way it is... is because more people know who Sting is. And my house of cards? At least I built something. Unlike nearly the majority of the posters that voted for him. Most voted because they seen the name Sting. And that's fine and dandy. But if you're going to discount Hansen like you've done, you're fighting a losing battle and any fan with reasonable knowledge of Old-School wrestling will tell you that.

 

[LigerBomb]

Stan Hansen (who I will refer to as Stansen going forward) was tough. Like reaallllly tough. Eye-ball busting tough.

But Stansen was also fat. Not Garfield fat (fuck Mondays BTW). But fat enough that he worked in Japan a lot. What does that matter you ask? Well much like the Germans love their scat, Japan loves the fat. See Sumo if you doubt such irrefutable truths.

This match isn't in Japan. It's in Kentucky, which while possessing a great number of fatties (see the all-you-can-eat buffet lines at their KFCs), still like to pretend it's bad-ass, not a fly-over state, and somewhat relevant (fuck Rand Paul BTW).

What's more bad-ass? Heavy Metal entrance music, Crow make-up, leather coats and baseball bats; or 70's porno-staches and beer guts? Hell at a Kentucky wrestling show you don't have to pay to see the latter! Simply turn to your right or left if you want to see that.

Stinger FTW

 

[ABMorales787]

Lariat was a huge draw in Japan. Sting is a huge draw around the world.

Lariat has beaten huge names. Sting's still doing that today.

Lariat is one of the toughest sons of bitches in the history of pro wrestling history. Sting is still one of the most consistent wrestlers and characters in history.

Stan Hansen is a former 4 AJPW Heavyweight Champion and a former NWA International Champion. Sting just won his 14th freakin' World title. The TNA Championship.

Lariat was one of the most badass figures in history and Japan's leading foreign talent. Sting is one of wrestlings longest lasting, consistent, resepctable and historic figures of wrestling history. Triple H and Undertaker are not the Last Outlaws. That would be Sting and 'Taker. The two most devoted, respectable and definitive figures of wrestling.

Lariat may be stiff, a badass and a heavy hitter, but Sting still stands as one of history's truly time-tested icons of the wrestling biz.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I like and respect the big Texan, so I'd not feel right if I didn't address his biggest WZ supporter's post...

You folks are unreal. So far, I've seen ONE sound argument as to why Sting beats Hansen. The rest don't really have a logical reason to vote for Stinger. And that's fine... I'll make the best case possible and tell you why Sting would not only lose this match, but it wouldn't even be THAT close.

Whichever way it went, with the legacy and ability of the two guys - this would always be a close one.

1) Sting + big men = trouble.
Sting has a LOT of trouble with bigger wrestlers. Vader absolutely DOMINATED Sting. As a child, I cried because he beat Sting so bad. And folks, Vader's as bad ass as they get in wrestling. And Stan Hansen beat him so badly, he nearly knocked his eye out. You can say he was too stiff or whatever... but Hansen is a mean sum bitch. And at 6'5, and over 300 lbs, Sting can't really do much to hurt the Lariat. A Stinger splash might daze him... and there's NO way Sting gets Hansen in a Scorpion Deathlock... because Hansen rarely goes off his feet long enough to be put in a submission.

Vader had Harley Race in his corner the whole time and always beat Sting due to his interference and despite this Sting still had victories over the mastodon, Stan didn't have this problem - it was clean one on one. Sid Vicious, Mark Calaway, Glen Jacobs, John Tenta, Hogan, Hall, Nash, the Giant and Abyss - all bigger than Stan and defeated by Sting.

2) Hansen's record vs. Sting's record
How can anyone say Sting is the most decorated wrestler to never be in the WWE? He was the NWA world champion when the belt was crap... and it took a small package to beat Flair for his most meaningful title reign. And anyone that says him beating Hogan is more meaningful is foolish. It's not. Hogan was crap and Sting was slightly above crap back during the NWO days. Whearas Hansen is consistent. He beat people's asses until the day he retired. He's beaten a who's who of the greats in this industry. He's beaten Flair (house show in the early 80's... but was given a 'Dusty Finish' because Hansen's lariat arm was loaded.), he's also bodyslammed Andre the Giant... and was one of the first to do so. And, yes... he does have a clean win over Hogan... albeit it was when Hogan was Sterling Golden... but call a spade a spade. Hansen's beaten Hogan, too. Hansen's also beaten Japan's greatest wrestlers... Giant Baba, Inoki, Kobashi, Misawa, Jumbo Tsuruta, and even beat the legendary Terry, BY GAWD Funk! Back when Funk was coming off NWA World Heavyweight title reigns. So if I had to stack up records against Sting and Hansen, I'd like Hansen's chances.

He beat Hogan during the most successful period in Wrestling history, in fact he has never been beaten 1 on 1 by the Hulkster and whatever you may think about the roll up - WCW was built on Sting Vs Flair and more often than not Sting went over. How could Sting powerslam Andre, different eras sir. If you count Sterling Golden, then Sting has beaten the Undertaker, 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin, Kane and Mankind. He's also beaten Terry Funk, again he can't help when he was born. He doesn't have anything close to Hansen's gaijin experience but he did defeat the legendary Muta.

3) Hansen's Lariat
That move... although not as sudden is as short and high impact as the Diamond Cutter, the Sweet Chin Music, and other finishers... it's effect is there. The Lariat's knocked Lex Luger's nearly two year US Title reign on it's ass. It's knocked Andre the Giant nearly silly. It's finished off many, MANY competitors. And all it takes is for it to land ONE time. And Sting's lights are out. Period.

Luger got it back though and won the feud, something he never managed to do against the Stinger. It's his finishing move, of course it's a likely match ender but don't forget that Sting had his own Hulk ups in his prime too.

So Sting may be more popular and may have more fans and more people may know him... but if we're saying who's the better wrestler and who would win in a random match... I'm going with Hansen and I don't think I'd have too many people saying I'm stupid for saying so.

Nope, you've made a nice clean case for Stan to go over but while he was a top guy in Japan he never got above the mid card in the larger US market. Sting was a top guy for nearly his whole career and he has beaten every type of wrestler there is, including legit hard men and giants. I think he has a typical babyface battle against Hansen but comes out about the 18 minute mark with the 123 after a Scorpion Death Drop.

 

[GrandSword]

Great post by Lariat and FitFinlay4life.

Lariat I understand your frustration, I was outraged to see Kobashi was flogged by Bret Hart. The HItman may be one of the best of all time, but his movest could not put a dent in Kobashi. He is a human tank and one of his Burning Lariats would have knocked Hart out.

However I will concede that Sting in this big time match would have beaten Hansen. The Stinger is too fast and he has bodyslammed The Giant/Big Show to compare the Andre refernce. He is extremely battle tough- he has that cartoonish Hulk-UP power, where he gets up from a finisher and beats his chest. And has beaten anyone and everyone in this business. Even at 51 he walked into the ring and decimated World Champion Jeff Hardy a week ago (who had beaten everyone on the TNA roster for the past year).

Hansen would try to use his power to put him down, but Sting with his superior speed would put Hansen down, with two Deathdrops if required.. Sting for the win.