Pick Your Poison: Sting Or The Ultimate Warrior

[Monkey_Mania]

Jumping on the bandwagon. Who is better Sting or Warrior?

They both entered the business together. They then formed a tag team known as the Blade Runners. Then they split and now both are Legends. The question is, who is better?

In My opinion its Sting. This guy is incredible. He had charisma, athletic ability, and a very decent moveset. He understood the basis of ring psychology and was one of the absolute best in the Nineties. His transistion from surfer Sting to Crow Sting is legendary. He went on to have the best fued of all time with Hogan. Had numerous clashes with the best in Ric Flair and im going to say it, If it wasnt for Sting Ric Flair would not be as good as he was. At his age he can still tear it up in the ring and has proven time and time again that he is a boneafide legend.

 

[KoolKade]

Sting hands down. He was the better worker, and could give you a better and longer match. The Warrior was one-diminsional. He was probably good for 15 minutes maxium in the ring. Both these guys were ggood, colorful, and charismatic, but Sting takes this one.

 

[RVDgurl]

I don't think this is even a fair question. The Ultimate Warrior, although he had a few years of great success, does not even compare to the accomplishments of Sting. Sting has had better success throughout his career, has stayed relavent longer, and is more skilled than the Warrior. Not even close- Sting takes this one.

 

[Mugatunow]

Sting definetly takes out Warrior. Sting is still able to put on a classic at any time, never screwed with anybody, always goes out of his way to please the fans. Sting all the way. And unlike what ESPN said, Sting could kick the crap out of Pacman Jones any day.

 

[hndsmepete]

Sting. He's a much better wrestler than Warrior ever was or will be. Sting is incredibly charismatic & has stood the test of time in the wrestling business. I always thought Warrior was incredibly goofy in the ring & on the mic, but had an alright theme song.

 

[klunderbunker]

Has to be Sting here. With Warrior there's just nowhere near the longevity of Sting. Sting and Warrior broke into the business at the same time and Sting is still a big time player in one of the main promotions in the country. Warrior is wrestling a former jobber in Spain for a quick payoff. In the ring both had a unique style, but Sting's made sense, and had some variation to it. Warrior's was just insane. Their promos are both entertaining, but Sting's were at least in english. Last but not least, Sting seems to be well respected in the business and by his peers. Warrior seems to be almost universally disliked. Has to be the Stinger.

 

[jmt225]

I think this would’ve been a better question and much more debatable if you would’ve put The Undertaker against Sting instead of The Ultimate Warrior. ‘Taker and Sting’s careers resemble way more so than Sting and Warrior’s.

Anyway, the reason why Sting ultimately kills the Warrior in this question is mainly because of one thing: longevity. Sting was a top draw from 1988 until around 1999. That’s over ten years Sting helped carry WCW. He was by far WCW’s most over babyface ever (I could easily make the argument that in the overall picture, Sting ranks in the top three of most over babyfaces of all time), and he played a major role in wrestling’s boom period in the nineties. The Ultimate Warrior, on the other hand, only had a short period of time where he was a draw, and that of coarse was when he won the title from Hogan and the run that followed. After Wrestlemania 7, however, people stopped giving a damn about him. To make matters worse for his case in this question, all his returns back to pro wrestling never made a huge fuss.

 

[BigDaddyKewl]

I have to go with the Warrior. I never get tired of watching of watching his old matches. I also think he had better ring presence because he was more muscular and his colorful attire. Warrior didnt have to make sence on the mic, it was his intensity and manerisms that made his promos. I think its not fair to compare there wrestling skill because they had different styles. Sting was more the mat technician and Warrior was the powerhouse. The Warrior the only man that held he Intercontenental and WWE title at the same time.

 

[TheDevilsReject]

I too would have to go with Sting here. He had very good matches and was good on the mic as well. He was on top for awhile in WCW, he was a main eventer for most of his time in WCW. Further more his angle with Hogan was one of the best ever and his angle with the NWO help wrestling in that big boom period in the late 90's.

 

[Straight_Edge_Mystic]

Sting by far is completely better than Warrior. Sting, even though overshadowed by certain people in WCW, cough**Hogan**cough, I always viewed him as their constant. He had tons of charisma, knew how to wrestle better than the entire roster next to Bret and Flair, could to tell a story, and spoke coherently and his promos made sense. Warrior had tons of charisma and that is pretty much it. Sting is also one of the few that has withstood the test of time much like 'Taker, HBK, Flair. He was always a draw and continues to be that draw although TNA may not be using him correctly, he's probably the best overall performer they have currently. Whatever happened to Warrior. faded into obscurity and became a racist, homophobic, far right, ultra conservative that no one cares about. Sting is still talked about and loved by pretty much all or at least respected. He was also very loyal to WCW. he could have easily jumped ship, but he didn't because WCW needed him and his star power. Sting wins this easily.

 

[Mr. TM]

I think it was sting, mainly do his his longitivity. UW was big during his run, and was always in the back of your mind, kids loved him, and he acted like a hero. But Sting, during the WCW days was the glimpse of hope when the WCW was taken over by the NWO. The fact sting could put on a good show in the ring, and used a submission move also was a benefit. His promos were less over the top, and he made sense. This is why i think sting is the better of the two

 

[sniksag]

this is a ******ed question lol... sting .. he was the reason along with naitch and the horsemen and a few others people mainly watched wcw in its glory days...now in the wwf ultimate warrior was huge and people loved him i think he was bigger than sting ....while he was around at least, but warrior just let people down too much but tell me isnt wasnt the greatest thing almost everytime he returned... but sting has pretty much always been there for the fans and yiou have to admit for being over the hill he stills hang with the best of them. which i doubt warrior can.. they were both great but sting has proven time and time again why he is the better man

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

I would also have to go with The Warrior. While Sting is the better technical wrestler and can carry a match with almost anyone, Warrior had a certain unpredictability about him. I mean the man ran down the isle no matter how far it was and still wrestled a match. Does anybody remember the Warrior DVD where he was supposed to have waited to be trucked down the isle and he still ran all that distance? Hell, that's intensity for your ass.

Regardless of how bad his matches were, they went at one pace. HIS. I mean you don't find guys that command that kind of intensity and speed in the ring. Sure Sting brought excitement, but I don't think that he could have kept up with Warrior one bit. And while fans will pay to see Sting day in an day out, MILLIONS would pay to see Warrior every time.

So all of the disbelievers call him crappy? Well name another crappy wrestler who had that big of an impact. None exist. I mean think about it. how many prestigious names did they have to line up and dig up just to assassinate this man's character in the DVD? If it takes THAT many to take down ONE man, then he is a legend. Plain and simple.

 

[Rated K for Kennedy... Kennedy!]

Wow, some angry responses here. I've got to say the question is easier than people seem to be making it out to be:

Warrior- Bad for business (unreliable, sloppy, slightly maniacal), I honestly don't think that anyone who worked with him, other than Hogan could stand the sight of him. And his clusterf*** of a Nitro Debut is the worst debut EVER!!!

Sting- Tremendously hard worker, had some of the best matches of the early 90's with 'Naitch, evolved into Crow sting in the best character change of all time. Kept relevant even when not at his best, personified WCW and stayed loyal, giving back to the fans now he's doing "charity work" in TNA, lol.

STING is an ICON
Warrior has a memorable moment (and the moment was really Hogan's)

 

[mattitude2007]

Sting easily.

Longer lasting, better performing, and a bigger draw at his prime than the warrior was at his prime. Sting in 1997 was as big a draw as Austin, maybe bigger because Sting coming in near the end of Nitro every night is what kept the ratings above Raw.

 

[AnthonyM4]

If you would've asked me 10 or more years ago, who I think is better, I would probably say Warrior. That's definitely not the case anymore. Sting is much better than Warrior in every way when it comes to wrestling. Hell I don't think Sting ever did a promo that didn't make any sense. Sting can work long matches and not get as winded as Warrior would in 10 minutes. I mean can you imagine Warrior going an hour with Ric Flair? Neither can I!

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I never understood eithers popularitry. I've never been a fan of either, I only became more intrested in The Warrior once WWE highlighted just how shit he was to me. Now I enjoy watching him just because of how awful he is.

Sting always bored me to tears. I suppose he's got charisma. But he never engaged me. There was nothing about him that I found intresting. His matches in the late 80's early 90's were good. But I put that down to who he was working with. The Crow character was intresting for a while. But then like a lot of wrestlers he's never evolved. He's been doing the same gimmick for more than a decade now. That's why I groan when he appears in TNA. Not because of the matches, he's no worse now than he was before. He's just so boring. He's one of those wrestlers that can talk, but can't entertain me. The same as a face Bret Hart. Charismatic but dull as dish water.

Although everyone raves about him, so I must be wrong.

Warrior entertained me with a few Rude & Savage matches than Sting ever did.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Ive gotta side with Jake on this one. Everyone is lying to themselves becuase of WWE dvds here. Sting never even touched the Warriors level of poularity, and never went pop for pop with Hogan during hulkamania. And no one went over Hogan clean during Hulkamania, like the Warrior did. Sting was never close to as entertaining as Warrior. Of course though, he has a submission hold as a finisher, so he is automatically better

 

[jmt225]

Ive gotta side with Jake on this one. Everyone is lying to themselves becuase of WWE dvds here. Sting never even touched the Warriors level of poularity, and never went pop for pop with Hogan during hulkamania. And no one went over Hogan clean during Hulkamania, like the Warrior did. Sting was never close to as entertaining as Warrior.

I was a big Ultimate Warrior fan, but this is ridiculous. I know everyone has an opinion, but you're saying shit here that just isn't true. I mean, Sting never reached Warrior's popularity? Were you watching when the NWO storyline popped off? Sting was WCW's savior, and every time he entered that ring from 1996 until the end of 1997, the crowd went absolutely insane.

And Warrior is just like Goldberg. Yeah, he was super popular at one point, but how long did it last? For about two years, huh? Sting was a top face for over ten years. How can anyone say that someone who was only hot for two years was better than someone who was hot for over ten? That makes no sense. Also, like I said in my first post, every time Warrior made a return to wrestling, no one gave a shit. If he's as popular as you claim, the WWF and WCW's business would've skyrocketed every time Warrior showed up. Instead, shit stayed the same. Old fans didn't care, and new ones didn't lash on to him, so all of his returns ended up being a complete and total failure. Whereas Sting was able to remain in one company from 1988 until it closed in early 2001, and the fans cared about him every single second of it.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I'm going with Sting on this one by far. Warrior was decent but Sting was better than him on the mic, better in the ring and had a better overall character. Warrior's character got lame real quick. When Sting's surfer dude gimmick got boring he changed into The Crow which back in 1996-1998 was one of the coolest gimmicks in wrestling. Coming down from the rafters with the baseball bat. Classic Sting and classic Nitro back then. I'll take Sting from 1996-1998 over Warrior easily.

 

[Undercurrent]

I agree with another individual who stated earlier that this should truly be a Taker vs Sting thread.

The Ultimate Warrior was an extremely popular character who was a horrid worker, ridiculous on the microphone and had absolutely zero ring psychology. The Warrior came about during the right period of time but eventually fizzled out. He was also a complete asshole to his fans and nothing rings more true than a story in Bret's book that made me want to stab him in the eye.

Sting will always be regarded as one of the greatest of all time. He's always had a solid character throughout the duration of his career and could constantly evolve. He was a solid worker who could always put on one hell of a match, he was always solid on the microphone, oozed charisma, never played politics backstage and was the franchise of WCW. Sting has always been my all time favourite wrestler behind Bret Hart and it comes down to one main factor...Sting really did care about us and the business. Steve Borden despite the fact I'm non religious is still a hero to me as he's a fantastic human being.

There is absolutely no contest here...Sting destroys The Ultimate Warrior. How can we compare one of the greatest of all time to a flash in the pan?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I was a big Ultimate Warrior fan, but this is ridiculous. I know everyone has an opinion, but you're saying shit here that just isn't true. I mean, Sting never reached Warrior's popularity? Were you watching when the NWO storyline popped off? Sting was WCW's savior, and every time he entered that ring from 1996 until the end of 1997, the crowd went absolutely insane.

And Warrior is just like Goldberg. Yeah, he was super popular at one point, but how long did it last? For about two years, huh? Sting was a top face for over ten years. How can anyone say that someone who was only hot for two years was better than someone who was hot for over ten? That makes no sense. Also, like I said in my first post, every time Warrior made a return to wrestling, no one gave a shit. If he's as popular as you claim, the WWF and WCW's business would've skyrocketed every time Warrior showed up. Instead, shit stayed the same. Old fans didn't care, and new ones didn't lash on to him, so all of his returns ended up being a complete and total failure. Whereas Sting was able to remain in one company from 1988 until it closed in early 2001, and the fans cared about him every single second of it.

I said went pop for pop with Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania. Please. Tell me that happened?? go ahead, say it. Yea. It didnt. I said match Hogans popularity level, something which Sting NEVER did. And Warrior wasnt popular as long as sting?? Really?? So from 1988 to 19998, in your opinion, wasnt the same amount of time??? Funny enough that Sting and Warrior actually started wrestling at the same time no?? The Warrior was even popular enough to regularly disappear, and come back without notice, with the same popularity. The returns failed only becuase Warrior was a looney toon mentally, not becuase he wasnt over. Please check your facts and history, and know the real stories involved with Warrior.

 

[Slim Pickns]

The Ultimate Warrior deserves far more credit than the IWC gives him. I have a feeling that if they went by their own memories and not the WWE DVD, there would be more people defending him. Sure he wasn't technical, but he wasn't a bad wrestler. Have you heard of him seriously injuring an opponent, other than the trap door he wanted injuring Bulldog. I bet 90% of the Warrior bashers either cheered him when he wrestled or have never seen him wrestle.

Out of curiousity why was this thread started comparing these two? I know they were tag partners to start out but some of these pick your poison threads are streching a bit (Angle vs Henning?). Either way, these are two of the most charismatic superstars ever, there energy levels could carry any match. Sting was obviously the better choice for longevity as he stuck with WCW for their entire run while Warrior left WWF three times. However, NorCals argument that Warrior was going pop for pop with Hulkamania is a valid Warrior argument. Do I think Sting would have been able to do that, yes I do, but the fact is he didn't get the chance, so its all speculation. The only part of Norcal's argument I don't agree with is that Warrior was over each time he came back. Are you saying he was over in his third WWE run feuding with Goldust and Lawler? Or his WCW run? I must be remembering it wrong, but he came back to great pops that died down in a week.

You can't really make a bad choice here both these guys were incredibly over and contributed a lot to the business. Yes, that goes for Warrior too, despite what WWE tells you.

 

[jmt225]

I said went pop for pop with Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania. Please. Tell me that happened?? go ahead, say it. Yea. It didnt. I said match Hogans popularity level, something which Sting NEVER did.

Ummm... what the fuck? Seriously, it's hard to grasp what point you're trying to prove here. You said he went pop for pop with Hogan, but then say he didn't. I don't understand.

Anyway, yeah... the crowd was split at Wrestlemania 6. Wow. The crowd also cheered Savage more so than they did Hogan at Wrestlemania 4. The crowd was also split between Hogan and Jake's short feud, during the REAL Hulkamania era. Believe this or not, by Wrestlemania 6, the WWF was going downhill and Hulkamania was dying a slow death.

Point is, Warrior, never in a million years, matched Hogan's popularity. No one has. For you to claim that is ridiculous.

And Warrior wasnt popular as long as sting?? Really??

In the overall picture, no he's not. If you look up the facts, Sting drew ten times more money than Warrior ever did or could. Sting drew big dollars for over ten years, whereas Warrior was only able to do so for a couple.

So from 1988 to 19998, in your opinion, wasnt the same amount of time???

Again, it's really hard to grasp what you're trying to say. Of coarse that was the same amount of time, but how much did Warrior actually work during those ten years? Sting not only worked the entire time, but was also top face of one of the biggest pro wrestling companies of all time during that period.

Funny enough that Sting and Warrior actually started wrestling at the same time no??

Okay? What does that prove?

The Warrior was even popular enough to regularly disappear, and come back without notice, with the same popularity. The returns failed only becuase Warrior was a looney toon mentally, not becuase he wasnt over. Please check your facts and history, and know the real stories involved with Warrior.

No, they failed because the fans didn't give a shit.

Okay, let me say this. How many top wrestlers have been able to completely reinvent themselves and have it work out? Hogan did, HHH & HBK did with DX, and that's it off the top of my head besides one more guy, and that's Sting. Sting was able to go from WCW's top face as a blonde hero, to a dark 'Crow' like character and not only keep the fans he already had, but gain a ton of new ones at the same time. Can Warrior claim that? No. All he had was two years of real popularity. All his comebacks failed because the dude couldn't reinvent himself like Hogan and Sting did. He stayed the same old superhero that the fans grew tired of after only a couple of years. That alone, in my opinion, shows Sting was better than Warrior. He knew how to adjust to the times and make something fresh and new. Whereas Warrior still, to this day, thinks it's the eighties.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Ummm... what the fuck? Seriously, it's hard to grasp what point you're trying to prove here. You said he went pop for pop with Hogan, but then say he didn't. I don't understand.
.

I meant Sting never did. I botched that one like Batista.

Anyway, yeah... the crowd was split at Wrestlemania 6. Wow. The crowd also cheered Savage more so than they did Hogan at Wrestlemania 4. The crowd was also split between Hogan and Jake's short feud, during the REAL Hulkamania era. Believe this or not, by Wrestlemania 6, the WWF was going downhill and Hulkamania was dying a slow death.

*whipes tear off face from laughing so hard*

And please tell me.....WHO did savage face in the ME of WM 4?? and WHO was in his corner?? so how can you say they cheered him more when Hogan was in the ring WITH HIM ???? And did the crowd ever cheer more for Savage in a one on one situation with Hogan??? (the answer would be no)..I love how smarks will praise savage to the moon and back, becuase he was merely champ during the Hogan era, while the Warrior was not only champ, but WENT OVER HOGAN CLEAN, and he is just dismissed becuase WWE put out a DVD saying he sucks for two hours

not sure at all what "was also split between Hogan and Jake feud" means.

And yes, Hulkamania and WWE were slowly dying at WM 6... the record breaking crowd at skydome, and WM 7, is PERFECT proof of that

In the overall picture, no he's not. If you look up the facts, Sting drew ten times more money than Warrior ever did or could. Sting drew big dollars for over ten years, whereas Warrior was only able to do so for a couple.

What facts would these be that you have at your disposal?? I have some facts...a video tape of WM 6....and the ability of him making green for the WWE wasnt limited by his ability, it was limited to him being nearly mentally ******ed and probably a heavy cocaine user.

And aslo the overall picture, has the Warrior with a clean victory over the most popular wrestler ever, during the height of his popularity...hate to beat a dead horse...but yea.....

Again, it's really hard to grasp what you're trying to say. Of coarse that was the same amount of time, but how much did Warrior actually work during those ten years? Sting not only worked the entire time, but was also top face of one of the biggest pro wrestling companies of all time during that period.

and Warrior was able to return and automatically be on the same popularity level as sting anytime his crazy ass pleased?? Just becuase he wasnt there ophysically, he was just as popular as ever.

Okay? What does that prove?


No, they failed because the fans didn't give a shit.

Okay, let me say this. How many top wrestlers have been able to completely reinvent themselves and have it work out? Hogan did, HHH & HBK did with DX, and that's it off the top of my head besides one more guy, and that's Sting. Sting was able to go from WCW's top face as a blonde hero, to a dark 'Crow' like character and not only keep the fans he already had, but gain a ton of new ones at the same time. Can Warrior claim that? No. All he had was two years of real popularity. All his comebacks failed because the dude couldn't reinvent himself like Hogan and Sting did. He stayed the same old superhero that the fans grew tired of after only a couple of years. That alone, in my opinion, shows Sting was better than Warrior. He knew how to adjust to the times and make something fresh and new. Whereas Warrior still, to this day, thinks it's the eighties.

They started at the same time, so I was just showing that they had been around, dominating in popularity for comparable amounts of time, until the later years. And if The Warrior was only around for such a sparing amount of time, as you claim, then why the fuck would he need to reinvent??? LOL