Pick Your Poison: Sting Or The Ultimate Warrior

[IrishCanadian25]

I have been requested to come into this thread and spread the gospel of Sting according to IC25 by my good friend NorCal, and I am all too happy to oblige. I am thrilled to see the poll going in the right direction.

This is a great comparison, because you have not only two masked superstars of the last 20 years, but a former tag team - "The Bladerunners" head to head. Unlike many tag teams that split up, both men had significant singles success and both won major World Titles.

HOWEVER, much like The Rockers, The Thrillseekers, etc - one was significantly better than the other, and that was Sting.

Warrior was a one trick pony. He ran to the ring and absolutely overpowered his opponents. His intensity was unmatched in the WWF at the time, but it was because of his overwhelming power game. Yes, he was extremely entertaining.

Sting, on the other hand, is to this day one of the most versatile performers ever to lace them up. He had the SAME power game Warrior did. I understand he didn't have the muscle mass (partially because he didn't have the syringe bill) Warrior did, but Sting was pound for pound probably the strongest competitor in wrestling for some time. If you think I am exagerating, I will remind you all of Sting's war with Harley Race and his tag team "The Colossal Kongs" who each weighed 500 lbs.

[youtube]hrDJL-DhTIM[/youtube]

Sting bodyslammed BOTH of them in rapid succession during a match at the same time people fawned over Lex Luger slamming Yokozuna. So the power edge? EVEN!

Sting ALSO had the highflying ability and agility that Warrior lacked (the air time he gets on the Stinger Splash still amazes me) as well as the technical skills from the Stinger Splash to his general repitoire. Again, Warrior just has the power game.

Then, we get to the microphone. Warrior is well known for rambling nonsensical fanatical bullshit. Sting, on the other hand, connected with EVERYBODY because of his natural mic ability. He advanced feuds, got fans rolling, and just had a good time on the mic.

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!

This is a great post, though 10 years ago I'd still say Sting. But the longevity Stng has shown is a testament to his dedication to the business, the work ethic and shape he keeps himself in, and the fact that he's not a raving lunatic. As TNA fans told him, Sting "Still Has It."

Sting gave fans looking for a protagonist to Ric Flair a great solution, and a paradoxal talent. Warrior was just a solution for fans sick of Hulk Hogan. Sting was handed the WCW World Title several times because he could carry it. Warrior dropped the ball when he carried it, resulting in WWF putting the strap back on Hogan. There is a reaosn Warrior only held the WWF title once, and for 9 months.

Everytime someone points to the feud between Warrior and Savage, I remind you of two things - 1) Savage carried that feud, and 2) Sting feuds with the likes of Hogan, Vader, and Flair were not only vastly superior, but sustainable.

I am done with THIS post because my Gin Martini is getting warm. But anyone wanna refute me? I am ready to rumble.

 

[jmt225]

*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

Okay, now you're just making false assumptions. I liked Savage, but I liked Warrior more when I was younger. So you shouldn’t put me in that "smark" category of praising Savage while burying Warrior. It wasn't too long ago where nearly everyone on this board was jumping down the Warrior's throat because of a video someone posted of his interviews, and I was very quick to defend him. As I said in my first post, I am a Warrior fan. Always have been. However, I do like Sting more and feel that the Stinger was far better than Warrior in every aspect of pro wrestling. I completely understand if you feel differently, but some of the shit you say is just completely false. In your first post all you did was bitch about fans who don't like Warrior and claimed how much Sting sucked, instead of just listing reasons why you like The Ultimate Warrior more.

Anyway, to get to the quote now... so Warrior went over Hogan clean, huh? Well, first of all, Hogan did have Warrior beat when the ref was down, so that takes away the clean theory. Secondly, even Hogan has stated that looking back on it, Warrior shouldn't have won that match. He said it was a mistake. In fact, on the Warrior DVD he said he knew Warrior's run would be unsuccessful because the crowd cared more about Hogan's departure from the ring more so than they did Warrior's celebration.

And the only reason I brought up the Savage thing was to show that people did care about other wrestlers than Hogan at the time. The way you're repeatedly posting about Warrior's victory over Hogan is insinuating that no other babyface could've ever accomplished getting pops while in the ring with Hogan in 1991, and I think that's bullshit. Had Hogan made good on his deal to put over Bret Hart, I'm positive the crowd would've been split for that one. Or if Hogan went up againsted a face Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 6, there's no way you or anyone else could ever convince me that the crowd would've been 100% behind Hogan.

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

Watch Jake's DVD.

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

Wrestlemania ALWAYS does good business, but that doesn't mean the overall product does. Take WWE right now for example. They garner some very low ass ratings and pay-per-view buys, but Wresltemania 24 still did tremendous business.

Point is, just because Wrestlemania 6 did well, doesn't mean WWE's business wasn't decreasing at that point. In fact, just look at the buyrate from each Wrestlemania:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfppvbr.htm

1987 (Wrestlemania 1) - 10.2
1988 (Wrestlemania 2) - 6.5
1989 (Wrestlemania 3) - 5.9
1990 (Wrestlemania 4) - 3.8
1991 (Wrestlemania 5) - 2.8
1992 (Wrestlemania 6) - 2.3

See how they're dropping, Norcal?

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.

Yeah, he made WWE good money for ONE show. That was it. Sting did it for WCW countless times.

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.....

Who cares? What does that have that have to do with popularity? So VINCE MCMAHON decided that Warrior should win. Wow. You keep saying this like the fans decided the outcome of the match.

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.

No he was not. When Warrior's music hit in the late eighties during his hot streak, the people went nuts. He never got that reaction during his returns with the exception of Wrestlemania 8. But his momentum died very quickly, not because of his personal issues, but because the fans were tired of his act.

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

Ummm.... I don't know, so he could possibly get over with the audience when he returned, instead of putting them to sleep with his same, tired shit?

 

[midgensa]

This is not a very good one here. I don't see any logical argument for the Ultimate Warrior on this one. He had ONE really good run. Sting has been an icon for years now and continues to be one of the top guys in the business. The Stinger (9-time World Champ) wins this one easy.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've just been sitting off to the side, because I like both guys a lot. Sting's my favorite wrestler, and I think I'm probably the biggest Warrior supporter here. So, I've just been looking for dumb arguments that I can actually pay attention to.

Wrestlemania ALWAYS does good business, but that doesn't mean the overall product does. Take WWE right now for example. They garner some very low ass ratings and pay-per-view buys, but Wresltemania 24 still did tremendous business.

Point is, just because Wrestlemania 6 did well, doesn't mean WWE's business wasn't decreasing at that point. In fact, just look at the buyrate from each Wrestlemania:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfppvbr.htm

1987 (Wrestlemania 1) - 10.2
1988 (Wrestlemania 2) - 6.5
1989 (Wrestlemania 3) - 5.9
1990 (Wrestlemania 4) - 3.8
1991 (Wrestlemania 5) - 2.8
1992 (Wrestlemania 6) - 2.3

See how they're dropping, Norcal?

That isn't accurate.

PPV buy rates are much different than PPV buys. The difference is availability of PPV to different people, and the way the PPVs are distributed. For example, Wrestlemania 1 was available to a VERY small number of people, and instead was generally broadcast in closed circuit TV. As the number of people who had access to PPV increased, the buy rate decreases, not because less people are buying, but because a lower percentage of people who have it available are buying.

Here are the numbers you REALLY need. Don't ask me where I got them, because I couldn't tell you now. I've had them for a long time. I apologize for not having all of them.

Wrestlemania 3: 400,000 buys
Wrestlemania 4: 585,000 buys
Wrestlemania 5: 650,000 buys
Wrestlemania 6: 550,000 buys

So, as you can see buys don't go down, but generally go up. Now, with regard to the lower amount of buys, try and keep this in mind. When Wrestlemania first started, PPV was a very new thing, so the WWF had the run of the mill on PPV events. However, by 1990, WCW was on PPV, as was boxing, kickboxing, and other events. Thus, it was drawing buys away from the WWF, because people could only afford so much. In addition to that, by this time there were a lot of cable and satellite de-scramblers going around in homes, where people would illegally descramble the PPV signal, and watch the show for free. Hell, that is how I got my copy of Wrestlemania 6, thanks to my grandfather. Before, that was not really a problem. Finally, you have to remember that you don't just gauge success by the PPV, but also the distribution of the PPV. Thus, merchandise from the show, advertising from the show, and recordings of the show also contribute to the success of Wrestlemania 6.

Yeah, he made WWE good money for ONE show. That was it. Sting did it for WCW countless times.

Warrior made good money for WWF as many times as Sting did for WCW. I'm a huge Sting fan, but if you're going to try and tell me that Sting was drawing huge for WCW in 92-94, you're flat wrong.

Sting has only been a major big-time draw ONCE in his life. And that was in 1997, when he didn't even work a match until the end of the year. And Starrcade was a HUGE drawing success. But, that was the only show that really Sting can claim drawing huge. And that show drew huge, but not that much bigger than Wrestlemania 6. Plus, Warrior drew at Summerslam, Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania 7 and Summerslam '91 as well. And those events drew well also.

Who cares? What does that have that have to do with popularity? So VINCE MCMAHON decided that Warrior should win. Wow. You keep saying this like the fans decided the outcome of the match.

Do you not get the significance of this?

The fact that Hogan allowed Warrior over him clean, and the fact that McMahon allowed Warrior over Hogan clean shows just how HUGE Warrior was. No reasonable promoter lets someone who is not over cleanly pin the biggest draw in wrestling history. The fact that Warrior went over clean the biggest draw in history shows just how popular Warrior was.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Debates are more fun when Slyfox is polarized to one side or the other, vis-a-vis the Hulk Hogan vs Ric Flair dynamic. So this means TWICE that Norcal's "Knight in Shining Armor" hasn't come through for him. I love every second of it.

Sly, fantastic stats on the PPV buys. It is really so difficult to rank PPV buy rates because there are so many x-factors. Back then, the questions were about "availability" of PPV to people. My house had cable TV, but no converter box, so we couldn't get PPV. I had to go to a friend's house. Nowadays, you have bars showing the PPV's (which is where I see them) and ratings are marred by Tivo users.

Sly, neither of us were in the room when the choice was made for Hogan to put Warrior over clean, so we cannot unequivocally say what was going through the minds of Hogan, Vince, and Warrior then and there. But I feel that putting the strap on "The Ultimate Warrior" was an experiment. Think about it - Hogan had been champ for a year after Savage had been champ for a year. Look at your number for WrestleMania 5 - BIG jump in PPV buys. Maybe they figured the formula worked to have another top guy hold the belt until putting it back on Hogan the following year. Maybe they realized that they could "strike while the iron was hot" with Warrior in terms of freshness and new merchandise and marketing opportunities for a year.

But obviously the experiment didn't work. Warrior held the belt for 9 months, and his other major PPV win was over - Rick Rude? Before dropping it to Slaughter? You cannot tell me that worked out as well as they'd have liked, so back the belt goes on Hogan.

Again, just a theory. I also don't think Warrior / Slaughter drew. In fact, I feel it's "the forgotten title change."

Sting, on the other hand, got MANY runs with the belt. He drew with Flair for almost 2 decades (the paradox here is Warrior drawing with Hogan) and with Vader for 3 years (Warrior - Savage). THEN, Sting also drew with Hogan in 1997 (as you very accurately pointed out) and even in TNA last year.

Warrior was very entertaining, but I feel he was more a product of the WWF Marketing Machine than his own abilities. Sting didn't have the McMarketing Machine behind him, but he still drew in the #2 promotion.

In the end, I say the voting properly reflects how Sting was head and shoulders above Warrior.

 

[Slyfox696]

Debates are more fun when Slyfox is polarized to one side or the other, vis-a-vis the Hulk Hogan vs Ric Flair dynamic. So this means TWICE that Norcal's "Knight in Shining Armor" hasn't come through for him. I love every second of it.

Sly, fantastic stats on the PPV buys. It is really so difficult to rank PPV buy rates because there are so many x-factors. Back then, the questions were about "availability" of PPV to people. My house had cable TV, but no converter box, so we couldn't get PPV. I had to go to a friend's house. Nowadays, you have bars showing the PPV's (which is where I see them) and ratings are marred by Tivo users.

Sly, neither of us were in the room when the choice was made for Hogan to put Warrior over clean, so we cannot unequivocally say what was going through the minds of Hogan, Vince, and Warrior then and there. But I feel that putting the strap on "The Ultimate Warrior" was an experiment. Think about it - Hogan had been champ for a year after Savage had been champ for a year. Look at your number for WrestleMania 5 - BIG jump in PPV buys. Maybe they figured the formula worked to have another top guy hold the belt until putting it back on Hogan the following year. Maybe they realized that they could "strike while the iron was hot" with Warrior in terms of freshness and new merchandise and marketing opportunities for a year.

But obviously the experiment didn't work. Warrior held the belt for 9 months, and his other major PPV win was over - Rick Rude? Before dropping it to Slaughter? You cannot tell me that worked out as well as they'd have liked, so back the belt goes on Hogan.

Again, just a theory. I also don't think Warrior / Slaughter drew. In fact, I feel it's "the forgotten title change."

This is all true, but I can't be bothered to deal in "what ifs". All I will spend my time is facts. And the fact is that Warrior went over Hogan clean. There were a lot of ways that the WWF could have gotten warrior the belt. They could have had Perfect win dirty at the Rumble over Hogan, and then Warrior over Perfect at WM. But they didn't. They had Warrior pin Hogan CLEAN.

That should tell you something.

Sting, on the other hand, got MANY runs with the belt. He drew with Flair for almost 2 decades (the paradox here is Warrior drawing with Hogan) and with Vader for 3 years (Warrior - Savage). THEN, Sting also drew with Hogan in 1997 (as you very accurately pointed out) and even in TNA last year.

Getting runs with a title and drawing massively are two separate things. I'm as big of a Sting fan as any, but if you're going to tell me that Sting was a major draw in early 90s, I'm going to tell you that you are wrong.

Being the biggest draw in a second rate promotion means nothing. Flair and Sting never drew like Warrior vs. Hogan did, and neither did Sting vs. Vader. The only thing that WCW ever did that drew like the WWF did in the late 80s, early 90s was the nWo angle.

Warrior was very entertaining, but I feel he was more a product of the WWF Marketing Machine than his own abilities. Sting didn't have the McMarketing Machine behind him, but he still drew in the #2 promotion.

Warrior was very good at what he did. People like to hate the Warrior, but those are the people who think that guys with muscles automatically suck. Warrior played his character VERY well, had good ring psychology, decent storytelling ability, and knew how to work a crowd. Very important stuff.

Just because Sting drew in the #2 promotion doesn't mean that he drew well. That's like Saying that Danielson is a better draw than Shawn Michaels, because Danielson is the top draw of ROH, while Shawn Michaels may not crack the Top 5 of the WWE. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[jmt225]

That isn't accurate.

PPV buy rates are much different than PPV buys. The difference is availability of PPV to different people, and the way the PPVs are distributed. For example, Wrestlemania 1 was available to a VERY small number of people, and instead was generally broadcast in closed circuit TV. As the number of people who had access to PPV increased, the buy rate decreases, not because less people are buying, but because a lower percentage of people who have it available are buying.

Here are the numbers you REALLY need. Don't ask me where I got them, because I couldn't tell you now. I've had them for a long time. I apologize for not having all of them.

Wrestlemania 3: 400,000 buys
Wrestlemania 4: 585,000 buys
Wrestlemania 5: 650,000 buys
Wrestlemania 6: 550,000 buys

So, as you can see buys don't go down, but generally go up. Now, with regard to the lower amount of buys, try and keep this in mind. When Wrestlemania first started, PPV was a very new thing, so the WWF had the run of the mill on PPV events. However, by 1990, WCW was on PPV, as was boxing, kickboxing, and other events. Thus, it was drawing buys away from the WWF, because people could only afford so much. In addition to that, by this time there were a lot of cable and satellite de-scramblers going around in homes, where people would illegally descramble the PPV signal, and watch the show for free. Hell, that is how I got my copy of Wrestlemania 6, thanks to my grandfather. Before, that was not really a problem. Finally, you have to remember that you don't just gauge success by the PPV, but also the distribution of the PPV. Thus, merchandise from the show, advertising from the show, and recordings of the show also contribute to the success of Wrestlemania 6.

I'll take your word for it.

Point well taken.

Warrior made good money for WWF as many times as Sting did for WCW. I'm a huge Sting fan, but if you're going to try and tell me that Sting was drawing huge for WCW in 92-94, you're flat wrong.

Sting has only been a major big-time draw ONCE in his life. And that was in 1997, when he didn't even work a match until the end of the year. And Starrcade was a HUGE drawing success. But, that was the only show that really Sting can claim drawing huge. And that show drew huge, but not that much bigger than Wrestlemania 6. Plus, Warrior drew at Summerslam, Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania 7 and Summerslam '91 as well. And those events drew well also.

But see, Sting might not have been a huge draw his entire time in WCW, but he was still drawing. Sting has worked so many more years than Warrior that there's no way anyone could ever convince me that in the overall picture, Warrior made more money for the WWF than Sting did for WCW when everything is combined.

The fact that Hogan allowed Warrior over him clean, and the fact that McMahon allowed Warrior over Hogan clean shows just how HUGE Warrior was. No reasonable promoter lets someone who is not over cleanly pin the biggest draw in wrestling history. The fact that Warrior went over clean the biggest draw in history shows just how popular Warrior was.

My problem with the redundancy of mentioning that Hogan put over Warrior is that that is the only argument Norcal was making as to why Warrior is better than Sting in his mind. Think about that. Does it make sense to say that one pro wrestler is better than the other just because he had one huge win in his career? It does if you want to compare the Ultimate Warrior to someone like the Brooklyn Brawler, but not to someone to the likes of Sting.

 

[Slyfox696]

But see, Sting might not have been a huge draw his entire time in WCW, but he was still drawing. Sting has worked so many more years than Warrior that there's no way anyone could ever convince me that in the overall picture, Warrior made more money for the WWF than Sting did for WCW when everything is combined.

So, then, would you say that Sting was a better draw than Steve Austin?

After all, Austin really only drew for 2 or 3 years total. Sting did it many more years than Austin.

Would you like to say that Sting is a bigger draw than Austin?

My problem with the redundancy of mentioning that Hogan put over Warrior is that that is the only argument Norcal was making as to why Warrior is better than Sting in his mind. Think about that. Does it make sense to say that one pro wrestler is better than the other just because he had one huge win in his career? It does if you want to compare the Ultimate Warrior to someone like the Brooklyn Brawler, but not to someone to the likes of Sting.

I won't speak for NorCal but I'll give my opinion on in.


The fact that Warrior was allowed to go clean over Hogan shows how big Warrior was. It shows just how important he was going to be to professional wrestling. In the end, wrestling is about entertaining fans. How do you gauge who entertains fans better than by comparing drawing ability? And if Warrior was allowed to go over clean the biggest drawing wrestling in the history of the sport, that has to count for something, regardless to whom we are comparing.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

The fact that Warrior was allowed to go clean over Hogan shows how big Warrior was. It shows just how important he was going to be to professional wrestling. In the end, wrestling is about entertaining fans. How do you gauge who entertains fans better than by comparing drawing ability? And if Warrior was allowed to go over clean the biggest drawing wrestling in the history of the sport, that has to count for something, regardless to whom we are comparing.

Fantastic point, I only disagree slightly. I don't think the clean win showed how good Warrior WAS. I think it showed how good Vince and co. WANTED him to be. I still say it was a risk they took to create a new "superhero," and this was the best way they knew how to. Warrior hadn't drawn on his own yet and he'd had a short but intense reign as IC Champ when he faced Hogan. I also think it was Vince's faith in Hogan to play opposite another top face so well. But for the most part you are spot on.

IC25

 

[FlairFan2003]

Interesting thread...

There was one response that criticized Sting fans and those voting against UW saying in effect they must not remember UW from his prime and their only memories come from WWE's DVD. I'm 35 yrs old and remember when Hulk Hogan was trying to win the AWA Title from Nick Bockwinkle so I very clearly remember UW in his prime. From 1988-1990 you couldn't pay me to watch a UW match, Sting on the other hand always entertained.

The idea that Sting didn't get the kind of pops UW got is ridiculous. Watch the Great American Bash 1990 and see the reaction Sting gets. Certainly his responses in 1997 were huge. Sting not only could match UW's crowd response at every big show but he did it non stop for more than a decade. UW was a dead entity with only a few short unmemorable runs from 1992-1998.

In terms of ratings how many millions of dollars in revenue did WWE LOSE because TBS aired Flair vs Sting against WrestleMania IV - Was it three million , which is a lot of money today but much more in 1988 ? Starrcade 97 was the most watched PPV al year in Pro Wrestling with Sting in the main event against Hogan.

OK, so Sting drew HUGE numbers against Flair and Hogan, two of the biggest draws of all time. Sting however practically kept WCW in business from 1991-93 when Flair left for WWE. Like Undertaker, Sting always delivered top matches regardless of who he was matched up against or how ridiculous the angles were. He was the MVP of that company for most of the 90's. In the late 80's, other than Hogan, it was hard to find anyone more popular with fans in the US than Sting depsite not having the mammoth McMahon marketing machine pumping his every move.

Everyone I knew who watched wrestling thought UW was an interesting character but his interviews were rubbish and his matches stunk. By the time WWE put the belt on him in 1990 no one I knew particularly cared about him and we were counting down the days until Hogan came back. Sting remained a major force for more than a decade because he was much better in the ring and on the mic. UW faded quickly, no staying power.

Certainly, no one can compare UW's best matches to Sting's and not think Sting was better. I'd take Honky Tonk Man's matches over UW!!!!

Sting all the way - Now Sting vs Undertaker, that would be a great thread

 

[Greenlight13]

I fail to see how this is even a question, Sting is one of the very best to ever step into a ring, everywhere he has been he has been phenomenal, he has had countless amazing matches, one of the top stars in WCW, is over the age of 40 and still manages to hang with people like Angle in convincing and competitive matches, he is, in my mind, without question the very best guy to never work for the WWE/F (unless you count early Crockett promotions which i do not), whereas Warrior, to me, was just another meathead who got overpushed due to his wild crazy energy, his promos were toooo incoherent, not just a little bit, but to an unwatchable degree, and i dont personally think he was that good in the ring.

 

[jmt225]

So, then, would you say that Sting was a better draw than Steve Austin?

After all, Austin really only drew for 2 or 3 years total. Sting did it many more years than Austin.

Would you like to say that Sting is a bigger draw than Austin?

Austin was one of WWE's top draws from 1997 until 2002. Take away the year he got injured, that's still four years. Four years in which he broke countless records when it came to ratings, pay-per-view buys, and merchandise sales. Warrior did nothing close to Austin's success'. Warrior broke no records to my knowledge, and he was only given the ball for not even an entire year.

But to answer the question, no Sting wasn't as big of draw than Austin. But I still say he was a bigger draw than the Ultimate Warrior.

The fact that Warrior was allowed to go clean over Hogan shows how big Warrior was. It shows just how important he was going to be to professional wrestling. In the end, wrestling is about entertaining fans. How do you gauge who entertains fans better than by comparing drawing ability? And if Warrior was allowed to go over clean the biggest drawing wrestling in the history of the sport, that has to count for something, regardless to whom we are comparing.

Okay, it can count for something, but it can't be the ONLY explanation given as to why The Ultimate Warrior is a better professional wrestler than Sting. If that's the only reason as to why you and Norcal believe Warrior is better than Sting, then you have no argument whatsoever. Everyone who has said Sting is better than Warrior can give you countless reasons as to why they feel the way they feel, but so far, Hogan putting Warrior over is the only reason Warrior backers have as to why Warrior's better.

 

[Slyfox696]

The idea that Sting didn't get the kind of pops UW got is ridiculous. Watch the Great American Bash 1990 and see the reaction Sting gets. Certainly his responses in 1997 were huge. Sting not only could match UW's crowd response at every big show but he did it non stop for more than a decade. UW was a dead entity with only a few short unmemorable runs from 1992-1998.

Matching pops and drawing are two totally different entities.

In terms of ratings how many millions of dollars in revenue did WWE LOSE because TBS aired Flair vs Sting against WrestleMania IV - Was it three million , which is a lot of money today but much more in 1988 ? Starrcade 97 was the most watched PPV al year in Pro Wrestling with Sting in the main event against Hogan.

So, you're telling me that a free show cost some buys to a PPV show.

I don't understand your point.

OK, so Sting drew HUGE numbers against Flair and Hogan, two of the biggest draws of all time. Sting however practically kept WCW in business from 1991-93 when Flair left for WWE.

This is false. The only person who kept WCW in business from 1991-1994 was Ted Turner. Anyone who says different is lying. WCW was absolutely bleeding money during those years.

Like Undertaker, Sting always delivered top matches regardless of who he was matched up against or how ridiculous the angles were. He was the MVP of that company for most of the 90's. In the late 80's, other than Hogan, it was hard to find anyone more popular with fans in the US than Sting depsite not having the mammoth McMahon marketing machine pumping his every move.

I agree with most of this.

However, you know who else fits that bill? Ultimate Warrior.

Everyone I knew who watched wrestling thought UW was an interesting character but his interviews were rubbish and his matches stunk.

His interviews were GREAT exposes on psychology, and he put on two of the greatest Wrestlemania matches of all time in back to back years.

By the time WWE put the belt on him in 1990 no one I knew particularly cared about him and we were counting down the days until Hogan came back. Sting remained a major force for more than a decade because he was much better in the ring and on the mic. UW faded quickly, no staying power.

UW faded, not because of staying power, but because of personal values. I'm not saying he could have been a 15 year guy, but he was still mega over at Summerslam 91.

Certainly, no one can compare UW's best matches to Sting's and not think Sting was better.

And yet, you cannot find ANY Sting match that compares to Wrestlemania 6 or Wrestlemania 7.

And that's coming from a HUGE Sting fan.

Austin was one of WWE's top draws from 1997 until 2002. Take away the year he got injured, that's still four years. Four years in which he broke countless records when it came to ratings, pay-per-view buys, and merchandise sales. Warrior did nothing close to Austin's success'. Warrior broke no records to my knowledge, and he was only given the ball for not even an entire year.

But to answer the question, no Sting wasn't as big of draw than Austin. But I still say he was a bigger draw than the Ultimate Warrior.

Which means that you agree that longevity in drawing really has no place in this argument.

Okay, it can count for something, but it can't be the ONLY explanation given as to why The Ultimate Warrior is a better professional wrestler than Sting. If that's the only reason as to why you and Norcal believe Warrior is better than Sting, then you have no argument whatsoever. Everyone who has said Sting is better than Warrior can give you countless reasons as to why they feel the way they feel, but so far, Hogan putting Warrior over is the only reason Warrior backers have as to why Warrior's better.

I never said it was the only explanation. In fact, I've never said that Warrior was better than Sting. I'm just defending the point about drawing.

If you want my honest opinion, I think Sting was better than Warrior. But, certainly, Warrior gets a horrible rap from IWC fans, primarily due to fans being worked by the business, and the WWE DVD division.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

In an attempt to rekindle this thread, we've already discussed the short-lived team "The Bladerunners" as the pre-cursor to both of these men's careers and of course this thread. Well, here's a fun match to watch, especially Tenay's commentary in the first 40 seconds:

[youtube]WchFkNDV44U&feature=related[/youtube]

Fun stuff.

 

[kieran_devlin]

Sting still wrestles and just last year won another world title.
Sting made WCW what it was, without Sting WCW was nothing.
Warrior was mega popular in his heyday but Sting was consistently popular.
Sting wasnt the self centred idiot that Warrior used to be.
Sting can work a full match where as Warrior get out of puff 30 secs into the entrance.
Stings moveset in way more vast and technical than Warriors.
The fact Sting was allways on top and Warrior disappeared for a few years shows that Sting is more Ultimate than old Warrior himself.

Warriors WCW run is futher evidence that he just isnt or wasnt as big as Sting.

Sting is one of the guys who compares to Shawn Michaels that still wrestles.

I wouldnt even put Sting in the same zone as Undertaker. Undertaker wrestles a different style was in a different company and was allways in the main event ever since joining WWF/WWE.

 

[Pathogen]

When I first became a fan of wrestling, I was a huge mark for the Warrior, but I was eleven years old! lol! Sting is clearly a greater wrestler, and speaks English on the mic, which I prefer. I never had much access to NWA or WCW, but I didn't need it to know he was vastly superior. I think it's a shame he refuses to work for Vince, Sting vs Undertaker would be truly phenomenal, I would mark in my pants! lol

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

It has to be the Stinger.

Warrior didnt do much in Wrestling, really, bar make a ton of money for an untalented guy.

Sting made his money by looking good, keeping up with the times, staying in with the crowd and the industry, not to mention all the world titles, and the matches he has had.

He may have never wrestled in the WWE, but that is something I applaud, and he will go down in history as being the one who told Vince to shove it. And for all the money he has, Vince just couldnt have him. Vince is like the child that cant have that big, tasty piece of candy. But thats his own fault for burying guys like Booker T and other WCW Wrestlers, and Sting made the right choice for his own sake.

Warrior jumped at that chance, and took it all for what it was worth. And his matches were all about the opponent, carrying him through the match, because he was that terrible.

He looked great. He looked like he could have been a HELL of a wrestler, but he simply wasnt.

On the other side of the coin, Sting has many Spots he does over and over in matches, but he has just done too much compared to Warrior to even make this poll close... and I dont think Warrior likes it.

Sting ran away with this poll a long time ago.

 

[Davi323]

I think this is a no-brainer. Sting all the way. Warrior had a lot of success in a few short years...but Sting had lasting power. He was a better wrestler than Warrior, and while maybe not as intense, Sting had something Warrior never had...a sense of drama, versus melodrama. Warrior was so over the top, it got annoying. And, lets face it. WCW got it right when they reinvented Sting as the Crow. He needed a persona change, the blond hair and flashy face paint was played out...and to his credit, Steve Borden went along with it. He successfully reinvented himself in a way Warrior never could. Warrior is a one trick pony.