Xfear, I'd take you seriously, but you'd have to actually understand what the debate was for that to happen.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.
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.
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.Other way around, Sting mark.
Do you not even understand what you write?
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.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.
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"?but, most, if not all, arguments you made for Sting are completley 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.
Agree, but Sting vs. Hogan is.Sting/Luger is nowhere near Austin/mcmahon.
As opposed to the matches that Austin had with McMahon? What were those?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.
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.
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?Austin was way better.
Agree, in part...the other part being WCW being completely handcuffed by Time Warner, and then shutdown by the AOL/Time Warner merger.His feud with vince was what changed the landscape of monday nights.
What the fuck? No it didn't.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.
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.