Sting Comments on Facing the Undertaker and Joining WWE

[GrandSword]

Speaking if the Hall of Fame.. the WWE is inducting the Four Horsemen, which Flair is a part of and apprently going to attend. Is there anything stopping WWE from inducting Sting, with or without his or TNA's permission? Interesting and a topic for another time I guess...

TUFFY54, Sting vs. The Undertaker is a dream match for many of us, but with Sting never being in WWE, would today's audience even know who he is? Would the whole lead up to the match have to be a HUGE recap of Sting's career due to Vince owning the WCW video library to ensure that his audience knew exactly what challenge this 50 year old man presents to the Phenom.

Sting is my favourite wrestler of all time, and I've always been a WCW man over WWF, so him going there would to me be a sell out. However I have rethought this thinking over the years as WWE kind of = WWF + WCW, with Vince in charge. The Stinger deserves that Wrestlemania moment. I'm just worried it has come too late as Sting's generation is long past and the Cena and the Orton's are even themselves making way for the Sheamus', the Punks and the D-Bryans...

 

[TheOneTheyCallOn]

Sting vs. The Undertaker is a dream match for many of us, but with Sting never being in WWE, would today's audience even know who he is? Would the whole lead up to the match have to be a HUGE recap of Sting's career due to Vince owning the WCW video library to ensure that his audience knew exactly what challenge this 50 year old man presents to the Phenom.

This is pretty much the exact reason I was saying that he needs to be there for a good 6 months or more before leading into it. Sure vince can show clips and whatnot there is nothing wrong with that, but what else would work better then the man himself the Icon Sting getting into the ring and proving to today's audience why he is a threat. This and if he is going to WWE he simply needs to have a run not a one off.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Why do people keep comparing Sting to The Undertaker as if they're similar characters? They used to both be dark and brooding, but 'Taker kept doing that schtick while Sting broke away from it and has been Steve Borden with some face paint on since then.

Anyway, I'm against the idea of Sting going to the WWE in any fashion. First of all, I can't even imagine the measly "pop" he'll have as his music hits. This is not to trash the WWE in any way, but any reasonable human being with at least one braincell on active duty can comprehend that Sting is an absolute unknown to the majority of the current WWE audience.

He has never been shown in video packages, he has never been talked about, he's never been mentioned on commentary, in a promo. Nothing. He only had a single appearance in a wCw DVD perhaps, and that's as far as it goes, it might not even be that much.

Sting's theoretical debut in WWE will be as akward as Grand Master Sexay's return last year or whenever it was. Most fans these days just don't know who he is, and that's fine, I didn't know who Ric Flair was when he came in as half owner of the WWF back in the day, I was young.

So in that sense, his debut and eventual storyline won't be as hot as people think. Yes, it'll be amazing for some fans but WWE always cared about what the masses wanted, and the masses don't give a flying fuck about Sting. Will they give a fuck eventually after the WWE has re-introduced him and ran a plethora of video packages? Perhaps, but it won't be that special moment we all think it will.

Plus, Sting going to the WWE after being known for never stepping foot in there (which is really the only significant accomplishment he has other than being an icon and a legend) is a lot like Undertaker losing at WrestleMania, which also happens to be his one and only unique accomplishment he'll be remembered by, other than being an icon and a legend.

Sting doesn't hold any belt records like Flair, he's not Hogan, he didn't build wrestling. He doesn't have something grand to hang his hat on, especially after working for TNA for so many years.

Having that one final huge moment would be fine and dandy for him, but is it really worthed? Is it really worthed all those years of keeping away from the WWE and staying in TNA or wCw and helping those respective companies? Sting's made his money, he seems like a clever guy. He also had his fair share of amazing moments. The only thing WWE can offer at this point is the biggest crowd he's seen in about a decade or so and more money. He had moments, he made money, he built a legacy. What the hell does he need WrestleMania for? If he ever cared about crowds and money he wouldn't have debuted for TNA in the first place. There's something else at play here - love for TNA. Does he have that love for WWE? I don't think so.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Sting made one of the worst decisions in the history of wrestling.

In his radio interview Sting claimed that WCW and now TNA have always given him what he needed. Last year the WWE offered to induct Sting into the WWE Hall of Fame and have him wrestle the Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Lets not forget that Mania was in Atlanta, Stings WCW hometown for years, and in front of 70,000 fans. When Sting turned down the offer WWE went with Triple H vs. Taker and the two had an incredible 30 minute match that was one of the best of the year.

Sting decided to stay in TNA and was rewarded for this by being given the TNA championship. A few weeks later he defended it at Victory Road against Jeff Hardy. Hardy came to the ring high and was pinned in 2 minutes as the fans chanted "bullshit". The match was so embarrassing that TNA made a formal apology to its fans and offered them free web access to make up for the ruined PPV.

Sting had two choices: The first would have allowed him to have an epic match 20 years in the making against the biggest star in wrestling in front of 70,000 of his hometown fans. The second saw him be totally embarrassed by the company he worked for in front of a jam packed crowd of 900 people.

People like to claim that Sting made the right choice because he would have gained nothing from losing to the Undertaker. Losing clean to Hornswaggle at a WWE house show would have been better for his career than the crap he went through with Jeff Hardy.

Sting says TNA always gives him what he needs, apparently he needed to be one half of the most embarrassing and disgraceful main event in the history of wrestling.

So much for objectivity…

I was ready to try and debate this with you until you decided to post that, because there was no possible way TNA, Sting or even WWE could have known that what happened at Victory Road would have happened, and frankly, Sting chose TNA because they gave him everything he wanted, which undoubtedly included the comfort of familiarity, (at least) one last run as TNA World Heavyweight Champion, creative control over his own character and more. You can speculate all you like, but there's no telling whether WWE would or could be willing to even replicate that, let alone add to it.

Your opinion reeks of selfishness IMO.

I understand that. I don't think it's an easy decision and obviously it's a large decision for Sting, that's why it hasn't happened yet. I just don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that he could understand how big of a deal the Streak is and be willing to get pinned for it.

Of course this is just all me speculating.

Why? What does Sting get out of being the final nail in the coffin? And no, "competing at WrestleMania" is not a good enough answer, because he had that opportunity numerous times over the last few years, by his own account, and he wouldn't have had to have been fed to a situation he couldn't possibly have come out on top of, so why now?

 

[phoenixphreek]

Why? What does Sting get out of being the final nail in the coffin? And no, "competing at WrestleMania" is not a good enough answer, because he had that opportunity numerous times over the last few years, by his own account, and he wouldn't have had to have been fed to a situation he couldn't possibly have come out on top of, so why now?

People can change their minds over time. And there's a difference between being just one of Undertaker's numbers and being the last one.

And as Vince gets more desperate he might be willing to pay more. $$$

 

[It's Damn Real!]

People can change their minds over time. And there's a difference between being just one of Undertaker's numbers and being the last one.

And as Vince gets more desperate he might be willing to pay more. $$$

Again, what does Sting get out of being the final nail in the coffin?

You, and others, continue to talk about this from the perspective of Sting not being affected by never having been in the WWE before, as if losing his first (and likely only) match in WWE is irrelevant. It's not.

Yes, people can change their minds, but I just don't see what's truly in this for Sting, other than the opportunity to bow out on the largest stage possible, which I'm not personally convinced is enough to potentially sacrifice the things he'd undoubtedly get were he to stick with TNA through to the end.

 

[phoenixphreek]

Again, what does Sting get out of being the final nail in the coffin?

You, and others, continue to talk about this from the perspective of Sting not being affected by never having been in the WWE before, as if losing his first (and likely only) match in WWE is irrelevant. It's not.

Yes, people can change their minds, but I just don't see what's truly in this for Sting, other than the opportunity to bow out on the largest stage possible, which I'm not personally convinced is enough to potentially sacrifice the things he'd undoubtedly get were he to stick with TNA through to the end.

To some people, getting to put on a great match on the biggest wrestling show of all time would be worth it. And of course, to others, it wouldn't be.
Who knows which category Sting falls into

oh and he also gets the big pay day

 

[Headman]

Not a snowballs chance in hell does the Undertaker take the pin to a guy walking into the company (regardless of who he is) for the first (and likely last) time. What purpose would that serve him? What does that say for him, in fact, as a performer, and worst yet... you think Sting is the man to beat the Undertaker's undefeated streak at Wrestlemania?

Come on, man. Perspective.

Again, it's not fruitless. It's a high profie match at wrestlemania. If it's his one match or not it's the one thing really missing from Sting's career. We're not talking about getting routed by the Taker either. We're talking about two men in their 50's going out there for what could be both of their last matches and giving everything they have. It wouldn't matter if it was Sting's one and only match in the WWE because it's not as if everyone in the world doesn't already know who Sting is. He wouldn't be repackaged, he would be bringing his entire legacy with him and matching it up against that of the Undertaker. What would be fruitless is if this match never happened.

Again, what does Sting get out of being the final nail in the coffin?

You, and others, continue to talk about this from the perspective of Sting not being affected by never having been in the WWE before, as if losing his first (and likely only) match in WWE is irrelevant. It's not.

It is. It won't hurt Sting one bit. Are we suddenly going to start flooding the message boards after the match saying "See! Sting couldn't hang in the WWE!". No, Sting is a legend. It would be a hell of a send off.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

To some people, getting to put on a great match on the biggest wrestling show of all time would be worth it. And of course, to others, it wouldn't be.
Who knows which category Sting falls into

oh and he also gets the big pay day

Something he could theoretically get in TNA, too. Moot point considering he could have taken the pay day years ago and stuck to loyalty and comfort instead.

 

[phoenixphreek]

Something he could theoretically get in TNA, too.

Nothing in TNA compares to performing at Wrestlemania though. Not even slightly.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Nothing in TNA compares to performing at Wrestlemania though. Not even slightly.

I was referring to the pay day comment, not the size of the stage. I get that WWE is the larger and more successful name of the two.

 

[solidsnake]

the mere idea of having him in wwe and wrestliung seems very lucrative i wonder how amazing it would be if it actually happens some time soon.......eager to watch it....

but i agree with quite a few others above and say that he shouldnt be called for a one of match if he just has to be buried by the undertaker......it would be really unfair to him....

 

[Monkey_Mania]

You're right, it does seem completely pointless for Sting to sign and lose. Or does it? I mean as a wrestling fan it's a match that many want to see, and many would put down a lot of money for. It's one of those things where Wrestling needs it to happen. How many times had we wished that Bret Hart had faced Hogan, or that Austin had faced Hogan. Iconic matches that we never ever got to witness and will never get the chance too.

As a wrestling fan I still need this match to happen while both men still have enough left in the tank to put on a memorable Mania match. Egos aside, let this match happen for the history of wrestling.

 

[Reflection]

I'll keep it short. In my opinion, while Sting vs Taker is a great idea (like Cena vs Rock), Sting coming to WWE for one night only to lose to taker does not sound that good.
Instead, putting these two Icons in a tag team match versus the two biggest faces of the company, The champ and The People's champ, sounds like a much better treat to me.
I can go on all day imagining all the ways the match could play out.

 

[GameOver]

Am I the only one who has little to no interest in seeing Sting versus the Undertaker in 2012 or beyond? I figure this year is likely Taker's final WM, possibly one more next year. Obviously Taker versus Sting is not happening this year, and by April of 2013, both guys will be even more shadows of their former selves. Sting is no spring chicken anymore either; didn't he just injure his foot again recently?

I would have loved to see Sting/Undertaker about 5 years ago. I would have loved to see Sting follow up on that with matches against guys like HBK, HHH, Punk, Orton, or Cena, with a concluding rematch against Taker again. But that ship has sailed, and it would be an injustice to both guys for it to happen in 2012 or 2013.

Gretzky/Lemieux. Magic/Bird. Great matches which had their day which I wouldn't want to see today. Let Taker wrap up his illustrious career in WWE, and let Sting do the same in TNA. Leave the fans wondering what could have been, rather than thinking, that's it?

Which of course makes me a huge hypocrite. Because seeing Sting descend from the rafters in a WWE to cut a promo, only to be interrupted by darkness and the gong, that would still be a mark out moment. Logic may say one thing, but in all likelihood, emotion would say something else.

no you aren't. I'd agree, 5-10 yrs ago absolutely but in this day and age Sting can't carry shit. Don't get me wrong he's been the most entertaining he's ever been with his recent Joker gimmick (atleast to me) but inring he doesn't still have it, he looked really out of shape the last few yrs he wrestled, he'll Ric Flair looked in better shape.

If Sting comes to WWE for 1 brief run i'd have no problem with it, but wouldn't mark out in the least, and if he sticks to his guns and stays in TNA then more power to him for sticking it out in a company that sorely needs him.
The real draw from a long term fan perspective is you have the 2 of the biggest names that never jumped ship and stuck with there respective companies through thick and thin and never gave in. It's more then legend vs legend or Icon vs Icon etc. It's truly the Conscience of the WWF vs the Heart and Soul of WCW.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

The thing that most strikes me about this is that it seems Sting has matured over the years, as have a lot of wrestling fans that stuck with him "way back when". When WCW eventually went under and was bought out by the WWE, Sting stayed "loyal" and refused to jump ship, and instead went down with the boat like a true captain. Part of me respected him for that, but at the same time I thought it was kind of foolish. Everything evolves, and Vince was just doing business as a true business man should. It's not really VKM's fault that WCW sunk itself, or that he was able to be it out-right - now whether the final WWE-WCW product became so terrible because of it, is a totally different story...

Fact is, it seems Sting has "gotten over" his issues with the McMahons. I think a lot of that previous hatred and refusal to work for him was the spirit of a young guy who had made a huge name in the industry, and somewhat bought into the "pride and honor" that went along with the NWA/WCW brand name. Lots of respect for that - he's a true pro wrestler that remembers the roots of the industry, but again...a bit foolish in my opinion. I get that he thought Vince was a shaddy business guy. He had every right to work for who he wanted, and if he didn't like the way they operated, than more power to him. Do I wish I could have seen some of the matchups that would have come from Sting joining the WWE? Of course! But in the end they probably would have ruined him like they did Goldberg, Booker, and just about every big name that came over during that time.

Now it's 2012, and the WCW event is well behind us. THere's nothing Sting can do about it now, and I think he realizes it. He's gone from main event player to true "Icon" and legend in the time he left WCW and joined forces with TNA. He's the "one guy" that never played ball for Vince's team, and I think that comes with a litter leverage Sting would never have had a decade ago. Yes, I want to see Sting wrestle in a WWE ring at least once before he retires, but that's really only because I'm a sucker for one-time, legendary moments in pro wrestling. Should he lose to the Undertaker? Hell no! Should he beat the Undertaker? WEll...no. As much as I want that to happen, there's no win-win situation that can possibly come from it. Sting is a legend, Undertaker is a legend, but Sting doesn't deserve that honor - he may be on par with Taker, but he's not superior in my book. EVen if he was, there's just no point. It's unnecessary fan service...

If they could make it work, everything worked out for Vince, Sting, and everyone else involved, AND they came up with a win-win scenario...I'd love to see it happen. He wouldn't HAVE to face Taker, it's just the "dream match". He could go over Cena. He could go over Punk. Hell, he could go over Rock or Triple H. You really want to piss in the cornflakes of the more legalistic hardcore fans, bring back FLair or HBK from retirement for "one more match"... So many options, but Taker makes the most sense. I don't know, and at this point I think I'm rambling. I don't care about WCW/NWA/TNA alliances. I don't care about promises made over a decade ago that mean nothing today. I care about pro wrestling and putting on the best damn show possible... Sting in a WWE ring could do that, but I'm also not a fan of forcing something to happen if it's not in the best interest of the performers and bookers in question. THeir lives come before my happiness as a fan - no questions asked.

 

[JJYanks121]

The thing that most strikes me about this is that it seems Sting has matured over the years, as have a lot of wrestling fans that stuck with him "way back when". When WCW eventually went under and was bought out by the WWE, Sting stayed "loyal" and refused to jump ship, and instead went down with the boat like a true captain. Part of me respected him for that, but at the same time I thought it was kind of foolish. Everything evolves, and Vince was just doing business as a true business man should. It's not really VKM's fault that WCW sunk itself, or that he was able to be it out-right - now whether the final WWE-WCW product became so terrible because of it, is a totally different story...

Fact is, it seems Sting has "gotten over" his issues with the McMahons. I think a lot of that previous hatred and refusal to work for him was the spirit of a young guy who had made a huge name in the industry, and somewhat bought into the "pride and honor" that went along with the NWA/WCW brand name. Lots of respect for that - he's a true pro wrestler that remembers the roots of the industry, but again...a bit foolish in my opinion. I get that he thought Vince was a shaddy business guy. He had every right to work for who he wanted, and if he didn't like the way they operated, than more power to him. Do I wish I could have seen some of the matchups that would have come from Sting joining the WWE? Of course! But in the end they probably would have ruined him like they did Goldberg, Booker, and just about every big name that came over during that time.

Now it's 2012, and the WCW event is well behind us. THere's nothing Sting can do about it now, and I think he realizes it. He's gone from main event player to true "Icon" and legend in the time he left WCW and joined forces with TNA. He's the "one guy" that never played ball for Vince's team, and I think that comes with a litter leverage Sting would never have had a decade ago. Yes, I want to see Sting wrestle in a WWE ring at least once before he retires, but that's really only because I'm a sucker for one-time, legendary moments in pro wrestling. Should he lose to the Undertaker? Hell no! Should he beat the Undertaker? WEll...no. As much as I want that to happen, there's no win-win situation that can possibly come from it. Sting is a legend, Undertaker is a legend, but Sting doesn't deserve that honor - he may be on par with Taker, but he's not superior in my book. EVen if he was, there's just no point. It's unnecessary fan service...

If they could make it work, everything worked out for Vince, Sting, and everyone else involved, AND they came up with a win-win scenario...I'd love to see it happen. He wouldn't HAVE to face Taker, it's just the "dream match". He could go over Cena. He could go over Punk. Hell, he could go over Rock or Triple H. You really want to piss in the cornflakes of the more legalistic hardcore fans, bring back FLair or HBK from retirement for "one more match"... So many options, but Taker makes the most sense. I don't know, and at this point I think I'm rambling. I don't care about WCW/NWA/TNA alliances. I don't care about promises made over a decade ago that mean nothing today. I care about pro wrestling and putting on the best damn show possible... Sting in a WWE ring could do that, but I'm also not a fan of forcing something to happen if it's not in the best interest of the performers and bookers in question. THeir lives come before my happiness as a fan - no questions asked.

See, there are things you say in there that just show how blinded we fans can be by the "one that got away". You absolutely CANNOT have 52 year old Sting come in and beat Cena or Punk. Triple H.........maybe, but you aren't having old man Sting beat your top two draws. Think about it from a business perspective, if your top two babyfaces can be beaten by a man in his 50's, why should we buy them as champions. To bring in a legend, that doesn't mean that you cater to their every whim and if the guy so much as loses once he is "wasted'. Which brings me to my next point.

Why is it that people say Goldberg was wasted? Guy got 1 year with the company, beat both of the top draws remaining (Rock and Triple H), and was a main event player from day 1. What could they have done better? Should he have gone undefeated in the WWE and left as that? Again, look at this with a business perspective. Are you going to have a guy come in, run roughshed over the roster and just leave? What kind of sense does that make? As it stands, he basically did that. Goldberg's run was very strong in my opinion and I'll never understand how he was "wasted". If anything, I think he was used a lot better in the WWE than he was in WCW from 1999 on.

The bottom line is that we can get blinded by stars from other companies coming in for "dream matchups" but we can't sacrifice the long term for the short term. We can't have guys like Sting coming in and beating our full time wrestlers. Then again, I still don't know why it makes a difference if Sting comes in and wins his match, especially at 52. What would matter is the moment that Sting and say Undertaker stare each other down for the first time. What would matter is the moment they do the same before locking up at Wrestlemania. What would matter is the handshake they'd undoubtedly have after the match. The result of said match doesn't matter and we have to stop getting clouded by it. Not that it matters, as I think the window for Sting's usefulness as a wrestler has passed. Last year would have worked because no one thought last year was Taker's last match. Now, the reality of Taker retiring at 20-0 seems pretty real and if not Taker, I'm not sure Sting is getting brought in to face anybody else. So let's move on but lets forget some of these silly reasons for feeling the way we did about the situation.

 

[Jeremy5144]

At least I don't feel like a complete idiot for last year thinking that this match could've happened. My theory is that you can bet your bottom dollar that the first two cryptic videos were intended for Sting. Then when Wrestlezone confirmed that HHH was facing Undertaker I'm thinking Sting said no and that he wasn't going to do it this year but left the door open. He let the cat out of the bag stating that he was negotiating. Who knows when it was reported that he signed a deal I bet it was an agreement but backed out at the last minute. Look at it now we're buzzing about the last remaining dream match out there in the WCW/WWE era Sting vs. Undertaker.

Who cares if they are old they don't need to have a 5-star match to make this work it will be the story that makes the match isn't that what we've been waiting for as fans. Now that Sting has come out stating that he wants to keep wrestling I'm thinking this will be the last match of his career. I noticed that it was strange that he absolutely said the match with Hogan at BFG was the last one but as I could tell that he's feeling that he pissed off more fans than he appeased them. I wonder if he may show up again at WWE HOF with Flair and him and Taker discuss WM 29 and get the deal done.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

You absolutely CANNOT have 52 year old Sting come in and beat Cena or Punk. Triple H.........maybe, but you aren't having old man Sting beat your top two draws. Think about it from a business perspective, if your top two babyfaces can be beaten by a man in his 50's, why should we buy them as champions.

Good sir, the entire industry is based on big, jacked-up super heros beating the crap out of other big, jacked-up super villains, while wearing questionable outfits... They don't get arrested for their behavior, but in fact get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for it! You really think from a "business perspective" something like this is going to matter? All people will care about is reading that "Sting to WrestleMania" headline, and it will generate money. Wrestling doesn't matter to 90% of the population, mainstream or otherwise, and people who watch it and support it with their money aren't going away because Sting beats John Cena.

I can understand why it might look bad to have a 52 year old man who has never wrestled for the WWE come in and beat the WWE's flagship champion. Whether that effects the bottom dollar is a different story, and one I don't think many people are qualified to comment on - myself included. It's just hilarious how over-analytical we get about our WRESTLING product. How legalistic can we possible be about the most ridiculous "sport" in existence? What do you mean we can't have a 52 year old Sting come in and beat Cena or Punk!? There is a reason that every time Ric Flair wrestles a younger guy, you expect him to go over - he's Ric "Fucking" Flair! John Cena might be able to out-power Sting. He might be able to out-last sting. He might even be able to out-wrestle Sting given his current age and the shape of his body... But that doesn't take away the decades of in-ring experience that he has, or the fact that anybody, on any given day, can win any given match.

Undertaker is 46 and he goes over every single year... The world moves on - nobody cares! The only people who will be in an uproar are people like us that reside on forums and think it matters who goes over who. And 24 hours after it happens, we will have moved on to something more crazy that we desperate need to vocalize our opinion on. Don't kid yourself, this isn't a matter of booking, it's a matter of doing what's right for both parties involved. It's not like the deal fell through because they couldn't find somebody to "put him over". It fell through, likely because of money or a time commitment - and that is what it will always come down to.

 

[JJYanks121]

Good sir, the entire industry is based on big, jacked-up super heros beating the crap out of other big, jacked-up super villains, while wearing questionable outfits... They don't get arrested for their behavior, but in fact get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for it! You really think from a "business perspective" something like this is going to matter? All people will care about is reading that "Sting to WrestleMania" headline, and it will generate money. Wrestling doesn't matter to 90% of the population, mainstream or otherwise, and people who watch it and support it with their money aren't going away because Sting beats John Cena.

I can understand why it might look bad to have a 52 year old man who has never wrestled for the WWE come in and beat the WWE's flagship champion. Whether that effects the bottom dollar is a different story, and one I don't think many people are qualified to comment on - myself included. It's just hilarious how over-analytical we get about our WRESTLING product. How legalistic can we possible be about the most ridiculous "sport" in existence? What do you mean we can't have a 52 year old Sting come in and beat Cena or Punk!? There is a reason that every time Ric Flair wrestles a younger guy, you expect him to go over - he's Ric "Fucking" Flair! John Cena might be able to out-power Sting. He might be able to out-last sting. He might even be able to out-wrestle Sting given his current age and the shape of his body... But that doesn't take away the decades of in-ring experience that he has, or the fact that anybody, on any given day, can win any given match.

Undertaker is 46 and he goes over every single year... The world moves on - nobody cares! The only people who will be in an uproar are people like us that reside on forums and think it matters who goes over who. And 24 hours after it happens, we will have moved on to something more crazy that we desperate need to vocalize our opinion on. Don't kid yourself, this isn't a matter of booking, it's a matter of doing what's right for both parties involved. It's not like the deal fell through because they couldn't find somebody to "put him over". It fell through, likely because of money or a time commitment - and that is what it will always come down to.

Right, but if you've noticed, Taker hasn't faced someone outside of HBK or HHH in 4 years at Mania. Notice how they are putting their up and coming stars in his matches. It wouldn't be smart to do as doing so would potentially derail the momentum of stars that actually stick around.

Let's look at the latest incarnation of this: Rock vs. Cena. Now, while Rock is much younger and in better shape than someone like Sting, he's not sticking around. He is there for a one-off match (maybe a couple of more if they can get him), but he's not becoming a full time wrestler again. Therefore, it would be a downright stupid decision for Rock to beat Cena if the Mania match is going to be their only match. You are saying to your audience that this part timer means more than the guy who works hard for them every day.

Again, let's tie this to Sting. You said it yourself, all people will care about is STING AT WRESTLEMANIA!!!!! Why then does it matter if he wins and why then would you have him GO OVER one of your top talents that's going to be there for years to come? The money is made when you announce that he will be there. If it is a one-off, which is the ONLY way WWE would ever bring him in, why have him win? Having him win does absolutely nothing for anyone and bring way more negative than positive. There's no possible argument, and certainly the argument you've already presented isn't sufficient, to convince anyone that Stnig SHOULD and deserves to win at Wrestlemania. He doesn't and he shouldn't win. Not like it matters because he won't be coming anyway, but the point stands.

 

[MrGameTime]

After listening to the radio interview Sting had with kiss fm, I can actually see this now really happening in the future.... Stings attitude seems to have changed alot from a good few years back when he felt Vince buried WCW guys.... If your questioning that he hasnt changed, then ask yourself why did he get so ever close to signing up last year AGAIN?

Sting wants the match as he said with out a doubt, you can quote him on it in the interview, the fans want it, McMahon certinaly wants it... I believe this match would outsell cena vs rock, but obviously hopefully for WM29, this match isnt really for the kids this match is for any real - long term wrestling fan. Its the match the world has forever wanted to see, the internet has gone crazy over just the thought alone of this match once again, WCW's original legend vs WWE's, the Icon vs The Phenom.
And I dont beleive for one second.. this rubbish some fans are saying that "no-one will know who Sting is and he wont even get a pop from the crowds" are you kidding me.... this is exactly the same situation back when Jericho debuted in the WWE with the rock in the ring, he was a midcard outsider from WCW, yet he got a huge reaction. Nearly all WWE fans know who exactly who Sting is.

I bet WWE are approaching this again as we speak now... as they know how much just the headline alone will make the company, Vince will throw any level of money at sting to sign him up as he knows how much it will make, Stings contract runs out very soon and hell even if he renews and is with TNA still I can see a cross promotion type deal happening, WWE would finally get there man and give the fans the match they want finally and TNA would get some more exposure, Which isnt a worry at all for WWE as TNA is no where near compeition on a realistic scale.

And also as for people saying "there too old now" this is WWE even if it isn't a real wrestling match as im sure it wont be with the condition of there bodies, just the stands off's, the promo's, the signatures alone would be all that is needed to satisfy the desire, As for who wins - have creative come up with something truly unique... a draw, a count out, or hell even I dont think sting would mind putting taker over he knows the streak deal and that it cant be broken, Im sure he always knew that, he just wants to give his fans want they have been asking him for years....
And to bulletproof this, back last year when near on signing yet again with the WWE ask yourself who did you think Sting had in mind to jump ship to actually face? it was only one man anyway wasnt it...Taker

As for other compeition for Taker at WM(s), really from the DX Angle, Lesnar even SCSA there isn't really anyone who would fufill the postion fully in my eyes. It has to be Sting there is no one else left that is on that same level who hasnt already faced taker in this business.

 

[gurvinder372]

If Sting agree to have a match with taker at WM main event, how will he explain his stand to his loyal fans who respected (idolized and adored him like anything) when he took that huge moral high ground.

Vince was not the one who doesn't wanted Sting, it was Sting who didn't want to join WWE. And this decision is possibly the biggest reason why Sting's name is mentioned in many discussions. What possible story WWE can make to sort of protect this legacy of Sting?

 

[DirtyJosé]

I'd really love to see anyone come up with a valid argument as to why Sting taking what would likely be one of the biggest pay days of his career and the most relevant match of his career since WCW's peak is a bad idea. I'll be shocked if the answer I get back doesn't revolve around McMahon.

At this point in his career, winning or losing doesn't matter. It's about the spectacle, the history involved. It's not like Sting needs a bump, and it's not like him losing would hurt. It's 2012, for fuck's sake; he doesn't need to be "saved". I seriously doubt McMahon would make Sting look bad going into the match, and I doubt even more that Undertaker and Sting could deliver anything other than a match for the ages. He gets his last worthy opponent (as does Undertaker). We get a stellar WM fight. What more is there to ask for?

 

[gurvinder372]

Sting has nothing to lose from it, he will only get more fans from WWE universe, as WWE machinery will only help Sting get established with young generation who may have no idea about him.

On the other hand, Taker and WWE have nothing much to gain from it other than the fact that Taker will get another legit opponent for a Wrestlemania match. It would be advertised as another icon vs icon match like Cena vs Rock. It would be interesting to see how WWE will manage to show Sting legacy to get him over with the younger demographic.

 

[Mustang Sally]

When WCW eventually went under and was bought out by the WWE, Sting stayed "loyal" and refused to jump ship, and instead went down with the boat like a true captain.

I have a question: was it that Sting "stayed loyal" or was it that he was one of the WCW employees who functioned under a "personal services contract" rather than an contract to be a professional wrestler for WCW? I seem to remember that guys like Flair and Nash had these unique employment contracts and didn't even have to wrestle to be paid. If it's true, that's obviously a foolish manner for the parent company to conduct business, but in the days when WCW was throwing money around like confetti, they did some pretty foolish things.

Was this the case with Sting? Was it not loyalty on his part, but rather, contract restrictions that prevented him from leaving the sinking ship?

Just wondering.