The Who's Better Poll #2

[Slyfox696]

Are you joking me? Sting vs. Hogan? I'll give you it was one of the greatest BUILDUPS, but it was also probably the biggest disappointment in wrestling history. Their Starrcade match is generally seen as the point where WCW started to seriously decline. Shouldn't a great feud, ya know, have good matches? And not the turd that was the 97 Starrcade match that pissed off every wrestling fan on the planet while simultaneously making Sting look like a total pussy who couldn't win without Bret Hart?

Sorry but I'll take a Rock-Austin feud with several great match-ups over a Sting-Hogan feud with one of the worst disappointments in wrestling history and not a single quality match to their credit any day of the week.

Xfear, I'd take you seriously, but you'd have to actually understand what the debate was for that to happen.

The person referenced Austin vs. McMahon might have been the greatest storyline ever, and I said, "Yup, right up there with Sting vs. Hogan, and WCW vs. the nWo (of which Sting was the focal point)."

So, basically your post was horrible logic. In order to refute a rebuttal, you're using a feud which has nothing to do with the argument. Xfear, you're better than this. I was comparing Sting vs. Hogan to Austin vs. McMahon. Are you going to try and tell me that Sting vs. Hogan was any worse than Austin vs. McMahon? Because if you are, I refuse to take you seriously ever again on anything wrestling. But the storyline, the feud...THAT is what drove wrestling in 1997 and 1998, with these two stories being the biggest deal wrestling has ever seen.

So, before you post again, try and at least understand what everyone else is talking about first.

Other way around, Sting mark.

Umm, no it isn't. Because that's what YOU said. You said that Sting was THE favorite of 1/3 of wrestling fans, but Austin was in the Top 5 of most wrestling fans.

Do you not even understand what you write?

Sting is in the top 5 and Austin leads most people's list. If you think i'm wrong, take a look at the poll results.

Yes, because the 60 people who have voted on an Internet wrestling forum is a GREAT representation of how 10-20 million wrestling fans around the world think. You know what? I love arguing you. You have some of the dumbest quotes in wrestling forum history.

but, most, if not all, arguments you made for Sting are completley biased and not really in the realm of reality.

12 time World Champion, 20 year main-eventer, biggest draw in wrestling in 1997, a career with many big time feuds and matches...since when have facts become "biased and not really in the realm of reality"?

See, the problem here is not that I'm not in the realm of reality, it's that the Austin marks around here seem to think that three years catering to the lowest class of entertainment fan seems to have dick to do with greatness in professional wrestling. That's what Austin did. He catered to the Jerry Springer crowd; he cussed, he swore, he drank beer, he drove trucks in the arena and out...and yet, outside of his magnificent battles with Bret Hart, can anyone look me in the eye and say ANY of the matches during his mega run were "great"? Hardly. You can make an argument that Rock vs. Austin 2 was epic, and that several matches were "decent", but where is the greatness? Where is Austin's appeal to those who appreciate professional wrestling, and not shock tv?

The truth of the matter is that Austin was a one trick pony, and still is a one trick pony. Austin got over on the cultural shift of the 90s, from the Cosby Show to Married with Children to Jerry Springer, where it was how far can we push the envelope. That's what Austin did, and many argue not even as well as the Rock did. Austin benefited from crazy angles, and insane stunts.

Sting, on the other hand, was so damn awesome, that he literally didn't say a word for over a year, and could put merchandise on 2/3 of an arena back in 1997. Austin got over by driving zambonis and beer trucks, Sting got over by being a pro wrestler.

And THAT is the reality of the matter.

Sting/Luger is nowhere near Austin/mcmahon.

Agree, but Sting vs. Hogan is.

Doesn't compare. It's crazy to even mention them in the same breath. Sting/hogan was a major letdown. The build was awesome. When it finally happened it sucked. Terrible.

As opposed to the matches that Austin had with McMahon? What were those?

They were terrible. I find it funny you dismiss the match of one feud for being terrible, and yet completely overlook how awful the matches of the other feud was.

Austin was way better.

If he was way better, then how come his time main-eventing was between 3-4 years long, while Sting has been doing it for 20 years?

His feud with vince was what changed the landscape of monday nights.

Agree, in part...the other part being WCW being completely handcuffed by Time Warner, and then shutdown by the AOL/Time Warner merger.

Raw was the show to watch while that feud was going on. Rock/Austin happened because of that feud. The austin/mcmahon feud laid the foundation for the wwe for the next ten years.

What the fuck? No it didn't.

It laid the foundation for the next 5 years, at the most. Did 2008 have ANYTHING to do with the Austin/McMahon era? Not even close.

 

[Miko]

Cant really add much to whats already been said, so I wont bother, too much time and effort really.

I'll just reiterate the points of Stings massively long career at the top, being part of the most bought fued of all time and selling out arenas all the while just poncing about in the rafters. Pretty much the reason I watched WCW (outside of Warriors short stint).

Not that I underappreciate Austin, his years on top saved the WWF and all that, he became one of the most popular wrestlers of all time and one of the most recognisable even today. Still outside of his battles with The Rock I didnt care much, The Rock was why I watched WWF.

So yeah, I wouldnt bother picking between the two, I am too lazy really. However I will vote Sting as he seems to be really underrapreciated, also I liked him more.

 

[Thriller Ant]

This question can go either way, depending on what you are asking. If you are asking who is more important to the business, it's probably Austin. He was one of the 2 or 3 top guys at the height of WWF/E. But, if you are asking who the better pro wrestler is, it's Sting.

Sting was one of, if not the, the top faces in WCW when it was beating WWF in the ratings every week during the Monday Night Wars. He has the ability to tell a story in the ring during a match, something that Austin couldn't really do. He is also good on the mic, which people tend to forget because he didn't speak during the NWO period. He has good looking offense, and at the same time can make his opponent's offense look amazing. Austin was just a personality who could brawl. Sting is a wrestler.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

This one isn't as clear cut as Mysterio and Cena, at least not with me.

Both guys have won their fair share of championships, and the whole debate over which title is more prestigious or was more prestigious during a certain time and all that won't solve much.

In-Ring Ability: Sting
Higher Quality Opponents: Too close to call
Drawing Potential: Austin
Athleticism: Sting
Mic Work: Austin
Better Character: Austin

Overall, I have to give it to Austin. Sting was a better overall in-ring competitor and athlete but Austin's true strength didn't lie there, his strength was just the character itself. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a completely different type of character. The first legitimate anti-hero in wrestling I think. Austin helped bring about a historic change in wrestling, whether you think that's a good thing or not is really besides the point. I know a some people hate the Attitude Era, but the fact is that Austin set the industry on its ear in a way Sting never did or could for that matter. Austin reached a level of celebrity comparable to Hulk Hogan in the mainstream media. Austin was a guy featured in Entertainment Weekly, was on the cover of TV Guide and, even to this day, people that don't even watch wrestling still know who he is.

 

[The Catacomb]

Learn to read, slyfox. You know which one I was referring to in that quote. Don't try to bend other people's words so your arguments seem righteous. Obviously you're a sting mark and i'm a stone cold mark. Nothing you say is gonna change my mind and nothing i can say will change yours. Just don't alter someones' words to your own liking 'cause you're being pissy.

Just to be clear, i'm not trying to bash on sting 'cause he's one of my favorite wrestlers behind austin, undertaker, mankind, and jericho. It's just that I think there is no way, overall, that sting beats austin. Actually, I think Austin/Sting would be a better fantasy match than Austin/Hogan. but, that's for another thread.

 

[Slyfox696]

Learn to read, slyfox.

I can read just fine. Don't blame your inability to communicate on others.

You know which one I was referring to in that quote.

Yes, I understood what you meant to say...that doesn't change what you actually DID say.

What you said was stupid. Even you can't deny that.

Don't try to bend other people's words so your arguments seem righteous.

You obviously haven't been here very long...

Obviously you're a sting mark and i'm a stone cold mark.

Don't really give a fuck what you are, and me being a fan of Sting has fuck all to do with this debate.

I debate all the time against my personal feelings. Hell, just look at our recent Wrestlezone tournament. I'm a big fan of what Edge does in the WWE, and I've never been a big Steve Austin fan, but I still supported Austin over Edge because he was better. Personal opinion means nothing in a debate. The sooner you learn that, the better.

Nothing you say is gonna change my mind

Then it's a shame you'd rather be wrong than corrected.

Just don't alter someones' words to your own liking 'cause you're being pissy.

I didn't alter your words at all, in fact, you just admitted I took them EXACTLY as you posted.

Try to post less stupidly, and you won't have this problem.

Just to be clear, i'm not trying to bash on sting 'cause he's one of my favorite wrestlers behind austin, undertaker, mankind, and jericho.

And to be clear, Austin is one of the all-time greats.

But to try and make the argument that three years on top, with a gimmick that appealed less to pro wrestling fans and more to shock tv fans, is markedly superior to a guy who has been main-eventing for 20 years in the wrestling business, and was the biggest draw in the world at one point is a completely blind and ridiculous argument.

 

[jrocc4dub]

If he was way better, then how come his time main-eventing was between 3-4 years long, while Sting has been doing it for 20 years?
Politics held Austin back in WCW. Do you even remember how awesome he was as Stunning Steve Austin? How bout the Hollywood Blondes. Also, i seem to remember Austin breaking his neck. Maybe that has something to do with the longevity talk? And you kinda prove my point that Stings been main eventing for 20 years and never made near the impact that Austin did in his few years on top.

Agree, in part...the other part being WCW being completely handcuffed by Time Warner, and then shutdown by the AOL/Time Warner

What the fuck? No it didn't.

Yes it did. The whole corporate champion deal. You do remember that Flair couldn't beat Austin so the rock joined the corporation to help Flair rid the wwe of Austin don't you? Maybe you were busy watching sting hang out in the rafters for a year.

It laid the foundation for the next 5 years, at the most. Did 2008 have ANYTHING to do with the Austin/McMahon era? Not even close.[/quote]


Ok. Whatever. The way guys characters are portrayed as having shades of gray to them is because of Austins character. What exactly did sting ever do to change the biz? Nothing. Austin>sting. Sorry but thats the bottom line.

 

[Slyfox696]

Politics held ****** back in WCW. Do you even remember how awesome he was as Stunning ***** ******?

No, I don't remember how awesome Aust!n was back in WCW. Of course, the reason for that is because I actually watched WCW back then. And he wasn't great at all.

How bout the Hollywood Blondes.

How about them? While he was working the midcard, Sting was main-eventing. What's your point?

Also, i seem to remember ****** breaking his neck. Maybe that has something to do with the longevity talk?

How does that explain the near 10 years before his injured neck when Aust!n wasn't in the main-event?

And you kinda prove my point that Stings been main eventing for 20 years and never made near the impact that ****** did in his few years on top.

Like I said, Aust!n's impact was based on shock, not pro wrestling.

Yes it did. The whole corporate champion deal. You do remember that ***** couldn't beat ****** so the rock joined the corporation to help ***** rid the wwe of ******, don't you? Maybe you were busy watching sting hang out in the rafters for a year.

The corporate champion angle didn't last 5 years, much less ten. Did you even watch wrestling?

Ok. Whatever. The way guys characters are portrayed as having shades of gray to them is because of ******s character. What exactly did sting ever do to change the biz? Nothing. ******>sting. Sorry but thats the bottom line.

Shades of grey? You mean like Scott Hall and Kevin Nash? You know, the FIRST guys to really run with the whole cool heel persona, both in the WWF and then as the Outsiders in WCW?

Hall and Nash were doing it before Austin. So, if you want to use the "shades of grey" argument, then give credit where it belongs.