Rock Region, Fourth Round, 60 Minute Iron Man Match: (2) Sting vs. (3) Undertaker

[JJYanks121]

I already pointed out in an earlier post that the stip didn't favor 'Taker, but because of Sting's lack of powerful attacks to put 'Taker away, I don't think it favors him either. I see it as neutral, so then I use other criteria to vote on and I think 'Taker would win.

But it's not neutral. The entire point of the Iron Man match is not to have powerful attacks, but to go an hour and use the time to your advantage. Taker has never done more than 30. Sting has. It's not neutral. It's only neutral to you because it benefits your argument. Look, if there was another match type, I might be backing Taker here, but in a match where he's got to have something that he doesn't have (stamina), he it's not neutral. And further, it's not like Sting is some jobber. He's Sting and he's beaten people booked like Taker (monsters). That's actually the crux of what Sting is exists to be. He is a monster slayer and Taker is another monster for him to slay in a match that favors him.

 

[SSJPhenom]

But it's not neutral. The entire point of the Iron Man match is not to have powerful attacks, but to go an hour and use the time to your advantage. Taker has never done more than 30. Sting has. It's not neutral. It's only neutral to you because it benefits your argument. Look, if there was another match type, I might be backing Taker here, but in a match where he's got to have something that he doesn't have (stamina), he it's not neutral. And further, it's not like Sting is some jobber. He's Sting and he's beaten people booked like Taker (monsters). That's actually the crux of what Sting is exists to be. He is a monster slayer and Taker is another monster for him to slay in a match that favors him.

Outside of a roll up pin, how is Sting going to get falls? The Scorpion Death Lock isn't going to work because'Taker can power out or if he's to tired to power out he's not going to tap and I don't think the Death Drop will do the trick either.

Somebody had it pegged earlier. 'Taker will get several falls early. Sting will start to catch up and be one fall short and the match will end with Sting having 'Taker in the Death Lock as time is running out.

 

[justtxyank]

Outside of a roll up pin, how is Sting going to get falls? The Scorpion Death Lock isn't going to work because'Taker can power out or if he's to tired to power out he's not going to tap and I don't think the Death Drop will do the trick either.

Somebody had it pegged earlier. 'Taker will get several falls early. Sting will start to catch up and be one fall short and the match will end with Sting having 'Taker in the Death Lock as time is running out.

I mean I hate to go super deep into kayfabe here, but are you seriously saying that you don't thing Sting could get a pinfall with the Scorpion Deathdrop? That move has gotten Sting pinfalls over The Giant/Big Show, Sid Vicious, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Randy Savage, etc.

Taker MIGHT no-sell one, but that move has been booked to pretty much a lights out finisher historically. He used to take out the entire nWo with it lol. Also not sure why you think Taker would kayfabe be able to power out of the Scoprion Deathlock? Sting was a powerbuilder and was booked to be pretty strong lol.

 

[Bernkastel]

I vote Taker here ultimately due to personal bias. And because I do think Taker will be a closer opponent for the Rock if he gets by Andre. But I do see the arguments for Sting and I am perfectly fine if he wins. I think Sting was probably the bigger star of the two, especially in his peak, in fact there's really no contest that he was. But Taker has had more exposure in a larger wrestling company for longer, so his name value carries a lot more weight within wrestling circles. Because of that I think Taker has reached legendary status that Sting hasn't and has had a deeper impact on the industry as a result. It's close. Sting has the accolades and name value, while Taker has the legacy, longevity, and consistency. If this were that Mania match that fans have wanted to see forever, even with the Streak gone, I'd be backing Taker.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Considering Taker was the 1st person to power out of the Sharpshooter and actually break the grip I'd say it's a very real possibility he would power out of the Scorpion Death Lock, especially since Sting doesn't do that particular move quite as well as Bret Hart does. Also, Taker was kicking out of finishers before anyone, this is the same guy who took a DDT on the floor from Jake Roberts and ended up beating him 2 minutes later so if he can kick out of Jake Roberts DDT why can't he kick out of the Scorpion Death Drop?

Now Sting has done decent with big guys (or top stars) in his career but as I said initially it's very rare that he does it right away. Granted, 60 minutes is plenty of time to figure the dead man out but this is the same Sting who got murdered by Vader 3 times in a row before he started to figure him out, that's probably Stings biggest detriment in this match because he's never faced The Undertaker, it's never happened and The Undertaker is unlike anyone Sting has ever faced in his entire career, he's going to have to think to beat him. Sting hasn't shown me he can figure out the Undertaker in 1 match and even if he does in this match it will be after a horrendous beating, after being down a few falls and it will probably be late in the 2nd half of the matchm by that point it will be too late for him.

Taker hasn't had any marathon matches that I'm aware of but in his prime he would wrestle 20 minute matches without even breaking a sweat. Taker isn't Rey Mysterio, he could easily cut a pace and dictate a match tempo that will take him the whole hour, he may not be able to do that in his mid 40's but in his late 20's-early 30's I don't see it being an issue for him.

I don't see Sting outlasting Taker in this match, I don't see it happening. If he was familiar with Taker and had a history with talent that work like Taker it would be closer but Taker just isn't the type who loses his 1st match against big talent. If John Cena, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Rock and Stone Cold can't beat The Undertaker in their 1st match against him why would Sting?

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

I don't see Sting outlasting Taker in this match, I don't see it happening. If he was familiar with Taker and had a history with talent that work like Taker it would be closer but Taker just isn't the type who loses his 1st match against big talent. If John Cena, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Rock and Stone Cold can't beat The Undertaker in their 1st match against him why would Sting?

Okay, once upon a time there was this deranged freak running around tearing his hair out and playing with rats in the boiler rooms of the arenas... His name was Mankind and he not only beat the Undertaker in their first showdown, but he went back-to-back. You know who never got booked to go over Sting outside of cheap-finish tag matches? Mick Foley.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Okay, once upon a time there was this deranged freak running around tearing his hair out and playing with rats in the boiler rooms of the arenas... His name was Mankind and he not only beat the Undertaker in their first showdown, but he went back-to-back. You know who never got booked to go over Sting outside of cheap-finish tag matches? Mick Foley.

Just throwing that out there.

So Stings going to have a manager to bail him out like Mankind did? I didn't think so. Is Sting a heel? Didnt think so either. Besides, last I checked Cactus Jack and Mankind aren't the same character, that's like using Isaac Yankem stats against Kane. The situations in both cases were entirely different as well, even Foley has acknowledged when he was brought into WCW during his 2nd run it was solely to build Sting, in WWF they were looking to build Mankind, not the guy Mankind was facing. From the very beginning it was obvious WWF saw something in Foley that WCW didn't which is why he got to go against guys like Taker right away and actually get to be something more than just someone who was there to get beat. We're talking about 2 entirely situations here.

Lastly, the argument as a whole is a 2 parter, one is pointing out many names bigger than Sting fell to The Undertaker in initial encounters but on the flip side Sting doesn't fare well against top monsters at first either. It's like I said before, if Sting needs multiple matches to figure out someone like Vader than he's going to need multiple matches to figure out The Undertaker. He's facing a guy that can hit just as hard as Vader but is also faster and has a higher pain threshold. It's going to be a lot of trial and error for Sting and Taker isn't a guy you can do that for long with.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I mean I hate to go super deep into kayfabe here, but are you seriously saying that you don't thing Sting could get a pinfall with the Scorpion Deathdrop? That move has gotten Sting pinfalls over The Giant/Big Show, Sid Vicious, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Randy Savage, etc.

Taker MIGHT no-sell one, but that move has been booked to pretty much a lights out finisher historically. He used to take out the entire nWo with it lol. Also not sure why you think Taker would kayfabe be able to power out of the Scoprion Deathlock? Sting was a powerbuilder and was booked to be pretty strong lol.

Because there was this one guy, you might remember him, I think his name was Bret Hart. Anyway, he put 'Taker in the Sharpshooter in a match, which is a more crisp and tighter version of the Scorpion Death Lock, and 'Taker powered out of it not once but twice. That's more evidence that he would break out of the Scorpion Death Lock then what most of you have for 'Taker not being able to last an hour which is literally, "In 'Taker's longest match, when he was around 50 and only wrestling once a year, he looked gassed at the 30 min mark".

Vote 'Taker.

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

So Stings going to have a manager to bail him out like Mankind did? I didn't think so. Is Sting a heel? Didnt think so either. Besides, last I checked Cactus Jack and Mankind aren't the same character, that's like using Isaac Yankem stats against Kane. The situations in both cases were entirely different as well, even Foley has acknowledged when he was brought into WCW during his 2nd run it was solely to build Sting, in WWF they were looking to build Mankind, not the guy Mankind was facing. From the very beginning it was obvious WWF saw something in Foley that WCW didn't which is why he got to go against guys like Taker right away and actually get to be something more than just someone who was there to get beat. We're talking about 2 entirely situations here.

Lastly, the argument as a whole is a 2 parter, one is pointing out many names bigger than Sting fell to The Undertaker in initial encounters but on the flip side Sting doesn't fare well against top monsters at first either. It's like I said before, if Sting needs multiple matches to figure out someone like Vader than he's going to need multiple matches to figure out The Undertaker. He's facing a guy that can hit just as hard as Vader but is also faster and has a higher pain threshold. It's going to be a lot of trial and error for Sting and Taker isn't a guy you can do that for long with.

Mankind went over Undertaker in the first match without Paul Bearer. Bearer didn't join him until later that year when he went over Taker in the Boiler Room Brawl. I never said that Mankind/Cactus were the same character but they are the same man, and both characters were booked in the same Upper Mid/Main Event slot(though Mankind DID end up becoming the bigger character LATER). You stated that Undertaker wasn't one to lose the first encounter to a big name, and I was simply pointing out that he did in fact lose to Mankind. And it was just icing on the cake that Sting was always going over Cactus.

You're pointing out flaws that Sting COULD have in this match while also not taking into consideration the flaws Taker has like we've never actually seen him make it past the 35 minute mark in a match, and when he's been AROUND that point he's always looked rough and blown up.

The fact is Sting wins this match on experience going the 60 minutes multiple times throughout his career. And while we're on the basis of comparing the Sharpshooter and the Scorpion Deathlock... You're comparing Bret Hart whom is more about technique to Sting who is more about torque and power. Just because Taker powered out of Bret's doesn't mean he'll be powering out of Sting's.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Mankind went over Undertaker in the first match without Paul Bearer. Bearer didn't join him until later that year when he went over Taker in the Boiler Room Brawl. I never said that Mankind/Cactus were the same character but they are the same man, and both characters were booked in the same Upper Mid/Main Event slot(though Mankind DID end up becoming the bigger character LATER). You stated that Undertaker wasn't one to lose the first encounter to a big name, and I was simply pointing out that he did in fact lose to Mankind. And it was just icing on the cake that Sting was always going over Cactus.

You're pointing out flaws that Sting COULD have in this match while also not taking into consideration the flaws Taker has like we've never actually seen him make it past the 35 minute mark in a match, and when he's been AROUND that point he's always looked rough and blown up.

The fact is Sting wins this match on experience going the 60 minutes multiple times throughout his career. And while we're on the basis of comparing the Sharpshooter and the Scorpion Deathlock... You're comparing Bret Hart whom is more about technique to Sting who is more about torque and power. Just because Taker powered out of Bret's doesn't mean he'll be powering out of Sting's.

So apparently we're going to just forget that even though Bearer turned on Taker at Summerslam he still cost him the 1st match at King Of The Ring (both matches ended with Bearer hitting Taker over the head with the urn). At the time Mankind wasn't a big name, yeah he became one but he wasn't quite there yet in his debut. Either way it doesn't matter because they were brought in for entirely different reasons and they were different characters to boot, Cactus was brought in to put Sting and other top talent over, Mankind was brought in because WWE tried to make him a top talent. Yeah Taker lost their 1st encounter but like I said it's a completely different situation in almost every way. Also, when Sting beat Cactus it was at a time Cactus was starting to get noticed, he was alot higher on the totem pole when he got to Taker. Lastly in 96 Mankind wasn't a big star, when Taker beat the guys I mentioned they were big stars (well, except Cena).

Taker has only started to look rough when he was getting up in years, when Taker was at his peak he didn't get blown up, a 40 plus year old Sting isn't exactly an iron man and he has looked pretty damn slow for over a decade. Doesn't matter though, it's not two 40 somethings wrestling in this match anyways. I'm just saying although I've never seen Taker wrestle 60 minutes I've seen him wrestle long matches without breaking a sweat, especially in his prime. At the end of the day it's wrestling and Taker doesn't have to kill himself to make it the whole hour, especially how he works. At least when I talk about Stings flaws they are things that have been shown and proven over time, like how he has great difficulties with guys like Taker in early encounters. I love Sting but he isn't exactly Albert Einstein in the ring and he makes ALOT of mistakes, mistakes someone like Taker would undoubtedly make him pay for.

Lastly, let's ask Kevin Nash who puts on the most devestating Sharpshooter because I promise he isn't saying Sting. Also in a kayfabe sense The Undertaker is the only guy in WWE history that broke out of the Sharpshooter and actually broke the grip, I've seen more than one guy break the Scorpion Death Lock, just saying.

Putting everything aside let's just look at a prime Undertaker vs. prime Sting for a second. Taker is a guy who rarely sells I'm his prime, he's a guy that was never pinned clean until Stone Cold did it in '98, nearly EIGHT YEARS after he debut. He's a guy who could get DDT'ed on the floor by Jake Roberts (a guy who literally or figuratively put everyone else on a stretcher doing that on the floor) and he just shrugged it off and won 2 minutes later, he beat Hogan in his first title match (someone who is much bigger than Sting every was) and beat big star after big star following that. Sting on the other hand has lost an incredible amount of times for someone who was on top, he's a guy who has often been foolish in his matches to a detriment, he's often a slow learner when dealing with difficult opponents, often needing a chunk of tries to finally pull it off and unlike Taker in his prime, Sting could be beaten clean. So unless Sting is going to actually do his homework before their 1st match (something he's never really done) and is going to cheat his ass off (again, something out of character for him) then his odds are pretty damn low in pulling this off. It's great if he can blow up Taker after 30-40 minutes but he still has to pin him, make him submit or get him counted out and all 3 situations it's going to take something more than Stings arsenal to get the job done.

All in all I'm just saying Sting will probably need a few tries to figure it out and even then he's at most getting 1 or 2 falls, I have no doubt Taker could do a bit better than that even if he blows up after 40 minutes.

 

[Tastycles]

Whenever I was trying to go category for category on either of these guys, I really struggled to figure out which was better. In fact, in the end I just didn't know who I could pick and I came to understand why so many people were desperate to see these guys wrestle at WrestleMania. For me it came down to two very narrow things. Firstly, I think Sting probably had superior stamina which helps with the stipulation, but more importantly, I think Sting was more often the focus of the promotion he was in, which I think probably edges it for him. There's not a stupid answer here.

 

[JJYanks121]

So apparently we're going to just forget that even though Bearer turned on Taker at Summerslam he still cost him the 1st match at King Of The Ring (both matches ended with Bearer hitting Taker over the head with the urn). At the time Mankind wasn't a big name, yeah he became one but he wasn't quite there yet in his debut. Either way it doesn't matter because they were brought in for entirely different reasons and they were different characters to boot, Cactus was brought in to put Sting and other top talent over, Mankind was brought in because WWE tried to make him a top talent. Yeah Taker lost their 1st encounter but like I said it's a completely different situation in almost every way. Also, when Sting beat Cactus it was at a time Cactus was starting to get noticed, he was alot higher on the totem pole when he got to Taker. Lastly in 96 Mankind wasn't a big star, when Taker beat the guys I mentioned they were big stars (well, except Cena).

Taker has only started to look rough when he was getting up in years, when Taker was at his peak he didn't get blown up, a 40 plus year old Sting isn't exactly an iron man and he has looked pretty damn slow for over a decade. Doesn't matter though, it's not two 40 somethings wrestling in this match anyways. I'm just saying although I've never seen Taker wrestle 60 minutes I've seen him wrestle long matches without breaking a sweat, especially in his prime. At the end of the day it's wrestling and Taker doesn't have to kill himself to make it the whole hour, especially how he works. At least when I talk about Stings flaws they are things that have been shown and proven over time, like how he has great difficulties with guys like Taker in early encounters. I love Sting but he isn't exactly Albert Einstein in the ring and he makes ALOT of mistakes, mistakes someone like Taker would undoubtedly make him pay for.

Lastly, let's ask Kevin Nash who puts on the most devestating Sharpshooter because I promise he isn't saying Sting. Also in a kayfabe sense The Undertaker is the only guy in WWE history that broke out of the Sharpshooter and actually broke the grip, I've seen more than one guy break the Scorpion Death Lock, just saying.

Putting everything aside let's just look at a prime Undertaker vs. prime Sting for a second. Taker is a guy who rarely sells I'm his prime, he's a guy that was never pinned clean until Stone Cold did it in '98, nearly EIGHT YEARS after he debut. He's a guy who could get DDT'ed on the floor by Jake Roberts (a guy who literally or figuratively put everyone else on a stretcher doing that on the floor) and he just shrugged it off and won 2 minutes later, he beat Hogan in his first title match (someone who is much bigger than Sting every was) and beat big star after big star following that. Sting on the other hand has lost an incredible amount of times for someone who was on top, he's a guy who has often been foolish in his matches to a detriment, he's often a slow learner when dealing with difficult opponents, often needing a chunk of tries to finally pull it off and unlike Taker in his prime, Sting could be beaten clean. So unless Sting is going to actually do his homework before their 1st match (something he's never really done) and is going to cheat his ass off (again, something out of character for him) then his odds are pretty damn low in pulling this off. It's great if he can blow up Taker after 30-40 minutes but he still has to pin him, make him submit or get him counted out and all 3 situations it's going to take something more than Stings arsenal to get the job done.

All in all I'm just saying Sting will probably need a few tries to figure it out and even then he's at most getting 1 or 2 falls, I have no doubt Taker could do a bit better than that even if he blows up after 40 minutes.

Not for nothing, but I'm going to go off of my point in the Cena thread to seal your fate. If Taker's prime is 1990-1998, he doesn't have a prayer at beating Sting. If this is prime Taker, he's less than Yokozuna in terms of legitimacy and legacy.

Taker until that point fought mostly big monsters, almost none of which carried any credibility other than being big. Other than the Hogan win, which was aided by Ric Flair and followed up by Hogan winning the title right back, who did Taker beat until 1996? Fat guys, tall guys, and walking penises (gotta love King Kong Bundy). Oh, and guys on their way out putting over the young guy like Snuka and Roberts (both of whom were midcard at best at that point and at any point really).

So, 1996-1998 is really the only portion of this time where Taker started being booked near the main event as opposed to a monster slaying other monsters in the midcard. If this is the time period we're talking about as "Taker's prime", it's at a very bad time for business where he'd be considered "on top" and even then, he wasn't. He got the title when Shawn decided to be a ******** and held it only until Bret Hart's heel turn set in. That is his only title run in that time period. Yes, he was booked in higher end feuds with better talents, starting with Bret himself in early 1996 and getting to beat Diesel (again on his way out - seems Taker gets to beat "big" names early in his career only when they're leaving the company).

More to the point though, other than being only moderately successful and definitely not THE guy of this era, Taker of this era never wrestled more than 15 minutes, let alone 30, let alone 60. The Taker that stands a chance in an Iron Man match is later Taker that had more title reigns and at least had a match or two go 30 minutes. You chose early Taker and that's the Taker that doesn't stand a chance in this match type. And even without your time constraints, do you want "impervious to midcarders" Taker from 1990-1993 that beat no one (no, beating Hogan as a pawn for Flair doesn't count), or do you want 1996-1998 Taker that, while a little better, is no longer impervious to pain and still hasn't wrestled over 15 minutes?

This is your choice, not mine. I personally would have gone with later Taker and even he loses in this match stipulation to someone as good as Sting. Early Taker though stands less of a chance.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I personally see 'Taker's prime as either the time period of 90-99 or 04-10. In either time period he was pretty much indestructible in kayfabe. I've already pointed out why I think 'Taker would win.

It's funny though, you pointing out that even though 'Taker was on top from 96-97, he still wasn't that successful. One can more than make same argument about Sting in the early 90s. Even though he was on top and the main WCW draw at the time while Flair was gone, he wasn't that successful. WCW was doing horribly and as Eric Bischoff has pointed out several times; when he took over control of WCW they had never turned a profit. So while Sting was on top in the early 90s, he was a horrible drawing champion and it took guys like Hogan, Savage, Hall, and Nash to start making WCW successful. Even when Sting got back on top in 97-98, one could argue that he was so over because of how over his opponents were in the nWo.

I think 'Taker would win this match stipulation and all. People can say that he was gassed against Trips at WM 28 all they want (50 year old man wrestling once a year got gassed, go figure) but a prime 'Taker never really ever showed stamina issues. Especially with the style of wrestling he employs, I think he'd have no problem going an hour.

Vote 'Taker.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Not for nothing, but I'm going to go off of my point in the Cena thread to seal your fate. If Taker's prime is 1990-1998, he doesn't have a prayer at beating Sting. If this is prime Taker, he's less than Yokozuna in terms of legitimacy and legacy.

I'm essentially going with physical prime here so lets go with 96-98 for argument sake. For the record he would beat Sting at damn near any point in his career.

Taker until that point fought mostly big monsters, almost none of which carried any credibility other than being big. Other than the Hogan win, which was aided by Ric Flair and followed up by Hogan winning the title right back, who did Taker beat until 1996? Fat guys, tall guys, and walking penises (gotta love King Kong Bundy). Oh, and guys on their way out putting over the young guy like Snuka and Roberts (both of whom were midcard at best at that point and at any point really).

On the flip side who beat Taker before '96? I don't recall him losing much and when he did I can't think of 1 where he's losing clean. Since I said 96-98 earlier I'll just mention right off the bat he beat Bret Hart and had him beat for the title until Diesel interfered, 2 months later he beat Diesel who was still a top guy and recently got off a year long title reign, speaking of title reigns he beat Yokozuna at a time he was a top heel as well in '94. There wasn't too many big stars around that time but Taker still beat them, the only top stars he DIDN'T beat were the ones he didn't face. Point is, The Undertaker was ALWAYS treated special and for good reason.

So, 1996-1998 is really the only portion of this time where Taker started being booked near the main event as opposed to a monster slaying other monsters in the midcard. If this is the time period we're talking about as "Taker's prime", it's at a very bad time for business where he'd be considered "on top" and even then, he wasn't. He got the title when Shawn decided to be a ******** and held it only until Bret Hart's heel turn set in. That is his only title run in that time period. Yes, he was booked in higher end feuds with better talents, starting with Bret himself in early 1996 and getting to beat Diesel (again on his way out - seems Taker gets to beat "big" names early in his career only when they're leaving the company).

I'm sorry I don't recall WCW being a booming business when Sting was the unequivocal top guy. Stings early 90's run was not some profitable, monster draw for WCW until the nWo came around and during that time even though his character was over his in ring work was absolutely atrocious, he couldn't even wrestle 5 minutes against Hogan without looking completely gone. So which Sting are we talking about? The one who drew even less money than WWF in one of their worst financial periods or the one who couldn't wrestle a 10 minute match? Either way, I don't like Stings odds.

More to the point though, other than being only moderately successful and definitely not THE guy of this era, Taker of this era never wrestled more than 15 minutes, let alone 30, let alone 60. The Taker that stands a chance in an Iron Man match is later Taker that had more title reigns and at least had a match or two go 30 minutes. You chose early Taker and that's the Taker that doesn't stand a chance in this match type. And even without your time constraints, do you want "impervious to midcarders" Taker from 1990-1993 that beat no one (no, beating Hogan as a pawn for Flair doesn't count), or do you want 1996-1998 Taker that, while a little better, is no longer impervious to pain and still hasn't wrestled over 15 minutes?

This is your choice, not mine. I personally would have gone with later Taker and even he loses in this match stipulation to someone as good as Sting. Early Taker though stands less of a chance.

Are you really suggesting that an older Taker is in better shape to go 60 minutes? Really? What makes you think Taker is incapable of wrestling 60 minutes, especially in '96-'98? Just because he hasn't done it before? If Dusty Rhodes can fat ass his way through a 60 minute match ten it's going to be a walk for Taker. If a mid 40's Taker can have an excellent match going over 30 then it's going to be NO PROBLEM for an early 30's Taker to do the same thing as long as he has the right opponent. I love how you use the "Taker was never THE GUY" argument when Sting couldn't draw shit as THE GUY or at least when he was THE GUY and wrestling hour long matches because he sure as shit wasn't fit enough to do that as Crow Sting (Taker is in better shape for this match than Crow Sting ever was). You're essentially using the fact that Taker wasn't the guy because he was treated as a special attraction.

Special attractions are usually not made to be the top guy. Taker is a guy that during his prime was essential for WWE during the early to mid 90's, especially when it came to touring overseas, as in if Taker wasn't on the tour then the tour would get cancelled, that happened a number of times during his early days in WWE. He may not be the guy but if most cities in Europe and the Middle East are willing to pull out of the tour if Taker isn't there then he's obviously a draw in some respect and I have no problem saying that even though Taker was never THE GUY he still drew a hell of a lot more money than Surfer Sting ever did, the only reason Crow Sting might have him beat was because of Starrcade '97 (and once again, he couldn't wrestle 10 minutes during that time frame).

The argument of "he hasn't done it therefore he can't" is absolutely absurd, especially considering some of the people (who BTW were in much worse shape than Taker ever was) that did wrestle 60 minutes on a regular basis and the fact Taker works a slow, methodical pace which makes it much easier for him to last. The argument that "he was never the guy when Sting was" is equally absurd, especially considering his record against top stars is pretty damn good and considering Sting in the early 90's wasn't drawing that much money (WCW was losing around $5 million a year during that time) and when Sting did start drawing big money it was at a time he was physically at his worst (which is why his time on top during this era was relatively short).

If you're going to vote for Sting that's fine but don't act like he was the bigger star because he wasn't, don't act like because he was the guy that it's an automatic victory for Sting because it's not (especially against Taker) and don't act like Taker can't wrestle 60 minutes because he can. Sting is a formidable opponent for Taker and it's no crime if he wins but don't underrate Taker and overrate Sting because apparently that's the cool thing to do around these parts.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Gotta little heated in here. Nice.

Well I am still to vote and it is for Sting. I imagine the match and scenarios and Crow and Surfer Sting, both beat Taker in his Prime in a big stakes match. I don't think people realize how big white hot babyfaces runs are. Most are short but by god those are special.

Sting had 2, and both were great.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm going with Undertaker here. As Tasty said though, there isn't a bad option between the two.

Here's the thing for me though: Undertaker got better with age. Sting's best match is arguably his big one against Ric Flair back in 1988. It's great, but look at what Undertaker wound up doing late in his career. The HHH matches, the HBK matches, the Brock Lesnar matches and so on. Undertaker has completely changed his game multiple times and it never ceases to work for him.

On top of that though, there's the big moment. On April 6, 2014, an old man named the Undertaker, who wrestled about once or twice a year, lost to the most dominant wrestler of this or maybe any generation: a killing machine named Brock Lesnar. And people were in SHOCK. The idea that Undertaker could actually lose at Wrestlemania was unthinkable and no one believed it would ever actually happen. Someone being able to get that kind of a reaction out of a crowd in these circumstances deserves to move on here.

 

[L@RISANO]

I'm going with Undertaker here. As Tasty said though, there isn't a bad option between the two.

Here's the thing for me though: Undertaker got better with age. Sting's best match is arguably his big one against Ric Flair back in 1988. It's great, but look at what Undertaker wound up doing late in his career. The HHH matches, the HBK matches, the Brock Lesnar matches and so on. Undertaker has completely changed his game multiple times and it never ceases to work for him.

On top of that though, there's the big moment. On April 6, 2014, an old man named the Undertaker, who wrestled about once or twice a year, lost to the most dominant wrestler of this or maybe any generation: a killing machine named Brock Lesnar. And people were in SHOCK. The idea that Undertaker could actually lose at Wrestlemania was unthinkable and no one believed it would ever actually happen. Someone being able to get that kind of a reaction out of a crowd in these circumstances deserves to move on here.

I am a bit confused here. Didn't you already vote for Sting?

 

[klunderbunker]

I am a bit confused here. Didn't you already vote for Sting?

Indeed. Changed my mind since.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Undertaker doesn't even know how the Ironman match rules work. I mean, does anyone remember Judgement Day 2000? When he made his return in the Ironman match between Rock and HHH and he cost the Rock the match, because he went after HHH which resulted in a DQ fall.

 

[ShinChan]

Sting over Undertaker anytime.

For me, Sting is better than Undertaker in every aspect. I am more interested in Sting than Undertaker.

Both are the great wrestlers but I believe that Sting is a better one.

Would love to see this match in reality, although there are too less chances of it.