Undertaker will SHIT all over Stings legacy at Wrestlemania XXX

[KingHill]

Undertaker will win the match, we all know that. So what's the point?

Bringing a 54-year old wrestler from WCW that didn't want to go to WWE 2001 because he didnt know how he was going to be used.

That's from Stings mouth: "I didn't know how they would use me?"

So now we got a match between two old legends, but the outcome is pretty clear. There is no odds on this match, Undertaker will bury Sting.

Stings legacy shouldn't be tossed that way. Sting is one of the biggest legends in this industry and one of the biggest faces of all time.

I feel Vince will just shit on Stings legacy and will make him lose because he's the WCW guy.

I rather see Undertaker vs Daniel Bryan, if someone breaks the streak it would be a major boost, to beat Undertaker.

But we all know deep down that Sting will not win the match, and if the outcome of the match is already clear it will not be that entertaining. Vince, we already know the outcome of it.

The fans will know "Undertaker will kick out out at the 2 count".

So have a Undertaker match vs a PG Star - Daniel Bryan or Cena instead of Sting.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Of course we already know the outcome of that hypothetical match. That's not the point. The point would be the match between two men found success in two different promotions, finally meeting face to face on a huge stage. There's only so many people who are recognizable by fans that have NOT been in the WWF/WWE yet.

It's not dissimilar to Hogan Vs. Flair (the first time) or Hogan Vs. Rock.

And a loss wouldn't be SHITTING all over Sting's legacy.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Who the hell said that Undertaker would be facing Sting? Who even said that Sting will show up by Wrestlemania. I highly doubt that they would book this match even if Sting did return.

 

[MasterDebator]

We've known the outcome of every Undertaker match for the last decade. Get over it.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Sting has been in TNA for years, just facing The Undertaker at Mania would be a great thing for his legacy. How would WWE use Sting? Better than TNA.

It's about spectacle and Undertaker vs. Sting would provide that. The outcome isn't important. But I don't see it ever happening at Mania. Undertaker has had one of the top two quality matches on each Mania card since 2007. With the few Mania matches he has left, he'll likely want to maintain that standard. He won't be able to do that against Sting.

But Undertaker vs. Sting at another show. I'm sold.

 

[cherrickb]

Undertaker will win the match, we all know that. So what's the point?

Bringing a 54-year old wrestler from WCW that didn't want to go to WWE 2001 because he didnt know how he was going to be used.

That's from Stings mouth: "I didn't know how they would use me?"

So now we got a match between two old legends, but the outcome is pretty clear. There is no odds on this match, Undertaker will bury Sting.

Stings legacy shouldn't be tossed that way. Sting is one of the biggest legends in this industry and one of the biggest faces of all time.

I feel Vince will just shit on Stings legacy and will make him lose because he's the WCW guy.

I rather see Undertaker vs Daniel Bryan, if someone breaks the streak it would be a major boost, to beat Undertaker.

But we all know deep down that Sting will not win the match, and if the outcome of the match is already clear it will not be that entertaining. Vince, we already know the outcome of it.

The fans will know "Undertaker will kick out out at the 2 count".

So have a Undertaker match vs a PG Star - Daniel Bryan or Cena instead of Sting.

It won't happen though. WWE allegedly just inked Sting and with the 90 day no compete clause in TNA's contract (as has been reported, he wouldn't be able to appear on programming till mid-late April at the absolute earliest.

Don't get so worked up over nothing. If it ain't DB, it will probably be someone like Brock ... but it doesn't really do anything for Brock, it would for DB however, but not sure how those plans are going to change now that Punk walked out.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's highly unlikely that Sting will be facing Taker at WM XXX. First off, Sting hasn't even officially signed with WWE, at least that's what the latest reports say, though he's said to be extremely close to doing so.

Secondly, the latest reports say that it's still Taker vs. Lesnar and that Lesnar's next scheduled match won't be until WrestleMania.

Thirdly, if there's a 90 day no compete clause as part of Sting's TNA contract, which is something that TNA has reportedly been doing for several years now, he won't be legally able to appear on any WWE broadcast until sometime after WrestleMania XXX.

Fourthly, I haven't read any indicators to suggest that Taker vs. Sting at any WrestleMania event is even being talked about in WWE now. It was the plan at one time when Sting was said to be very close to signing with WWE a few years back, but that was then & this is now.

Fifthly, there's no way of telling if Taker will even be able to go another WrestleMania after this one. Taker's physical health has been well detailed the past several years and as stiff as Brock Lesnar is known to be, there's a real possibility there's a real possibility of WrestleMania XXX being Taker's last; if Lesnar does turn out to be Taker's opponent, that is.

If Taker vs. Sting does happen, then it's all but guaranteed that Sting will lose. Doesn't necessarily mean that his legacy gets "shit" all over, but he'll most likely lose and I feel that he should. The point of this match would be to simply generate money, plain & simple. Sting & Taker are, possibly, the two most respected men in American pro wrestling and have been for decades. Sting has never worked for WWE, so the novelty of this match would be something that a lot of people would pay to see. Sting's 54 years of age and, if reports are true, he's not exactly in the best physical shape of his life either. His last in-ring run in TNA clearly showed that he's not even close to what he was 5 years or so ago. Taker's streak being ended by a man in his mid-50s who hasn't been able to deliver the sort of quality we've seen Taker in his WrestleMania matches would be anti-climatic at the very, very best.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

First and foremost, no one INCLUDING DANIEL BRYAN, is breaking the streak.... Now that that is out of the way, I don't think Taker vs. Sting will "shit on Sting's legacy" if done correctly.

What I'd do, is have Undertaker win and then after he rolls out of the ring and heads down the ramp, have a group like The Shield or Wyatts come to the ring to attack Sting. Undertaker would then turn around and go back to the ring to defend Sting. Then you end Wrestlemania with both of them standing tall together in the ring AND you set up a potential short-term feud with Sting and Taker vs. Shield or Wyatts.

 

[kumarjtk]

is sting has legacy anymore? No now he is a tna wrestler not a wcw legend. Look at his recent matches he lost to ec3, magnus ect.

lossing to undertaker is not affecting sting.

 

[James]

Too bad the match won't be at this Mania. Sure they could build it up with these two months but I feel like it would be better to just wait for next year so it is actually more exciting to be honest.

 

[closet_fan]

is sting has legacy anymore? No now he is a tna wrestler not a wcw legend. Look at his recent matches he lost to ec3, magnus ect.

lossing to undertaker is not affecting sting.

Your grammar is terrible.

Anyway, Sting still has a legacy. And the crappy parts of it will be omitted by the WWE and by fans who will remember the WCW Sting.

Once Sting signs and is seen on tv, you can pretty much wipe out all memories of Sting's past with TNA. Much like Christian, Hardy's first stint, Booker T and Mick Foley etc.

Sting will be remembered for his last match with Flair on Nitro.

As for Sting and Undertaker, it won't be happening this year. Unless the situation with Punk changes, it now looks like Taker and Lesnar since I don't see anyone else outside of Bryan worthy of facing him.

Taker has faced HBK, HHH and Punk in the last 5 WMs. None of those losses have tarnished anything.

 

[The Eighties]

You can guarantee that if Sting has signed a WWE contract it will have plenty of things in it regarding how he is used in the company, so no one will be shitting on anything, plus if he does wrestle Taker there is no shame in losing, everyone else has.

I'm not sure how this no compete clause would work as I thought that only came into effect if you asked for a release. Once your contract runs out I'd have thought that would simply be it, I mean in Sting's case it's no big deal as he's got stacks of money, but for their other guys not being allowed to work for 3 months would be a disaster.

My guess is if Sting has signed then he'll debut the night after Mania as WWE will want to keep up the run of having something big happen on Raw the night after the biggest show of the year given how hot those Raw's have been.

WWE then have a year to assess things and see if Taker vs Sting at Mania 31 would be as big of a deal as many think it is.

 

[BaconBits]

Sting's "legacy" is that he's the best guy to never perform for the WWE. The only thing that will SHIT all over Sting's legacy is actually performing for the WWE.

 

[ShawnBronald]

If things work out the way they should, Sting will debut either at 'Mania or on Raw the next night. This will be the start of the Sting/Undertaker program. Their first match should be at SummerSlam. Sting can get the victory over Undertaker. They can play it up that Undertaker has never faced Sting and doesn't know how to defeat him. The rematch is then set up to take place next year at WrestleMania 31 in California where Undertaker gets his win back and everyone is happy. This makes sense and hopefully is what will happen. Sting should get some airtime and ringtime before an event like WrestleMania and certainly should get a win or two before then. That way, jobbing to Undertaker doesn't look so bad and the match would have more meaning.

 

[MasterDebator]

You can guarantee that if Sting has signed a WWE contract it will have plenty of things in it regarding how he is used in the company, so no one will be shitting on anything, plus if he does wrestle Taker there is no shame in losing, everyone else has.

I'm not sure how this no compete clause would work as I thought that only came into effect if you asked for a release. Once your contract runs out I'd have thought that would simply be it, I mean in Sting's case it's no big deal as he's got stacks of money, but for their other guys not being allowed to work for 3 months would be a disaster.

My guess is if Sting has signed then he'll debut the night after Mania as WWE will want to keep up the run of having something big happen on Raw the night after the biggest show of the year given how hot those Raw's have been.

WWE then have a year to assess things and see if Taker vs Sting at Mania 31 would be as big of a deal as many think it is.

You raise an interesting scenario of Sting debuting the night after Mania. However, what would Sting do in the interim? Can he still work a schedule that would keep him relevant for an entire year? I haven't seen anything he's done in TNA because I don't watch the minor leagues, so my knowledge of where Sting is at in his career is very limited.

Also, do none of you think the WWE would feel like Sting v. Taker is a better option than Taker v. Lesnar? I'm leaning towards the latter being a bigger attraction for this year, but the former is certainly safer in every sense of the word.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

You raise an interesting scenario of Sting debuting the night after Mania. However, what would Sting do in the interim? Can he still work a schedule that would keep him relevant for an entire year? I haven't seen anything he's done in TNA because I don't watch the minor leagues, so my knowledge of where Sting is at in his career is very limited.

Also, do none of you think the WWE would feel like Sting v. Taker is a better option than Taker v. Lesnar? I'm leaning towards the latter being a bigger attraction for this year, but the former is certainly safer in every sense of the word.

Lesnar would attract more of a mainstream audience since he's known not only from WWE but also from UFC. More mainstream audience equals more buys thus more money, so that's the direction I think WWE would go if given the choice.

 

[Rocky84]

With the lack of excitement this years Mania is showing in potential matchups, I don't see why they would wait. They need to strike while the irons hot because there may not be a next year for these guys. Undertaker puts on one match a year and has to take a year to recover from that match. Sting isn't getting any younger himself. Another year in their lives is like dog years...they age at a faster rate lol.

I fear for Undertaker in a match with Brock. He challenged him almost 4 years ago when he was in better shape. Undertaker now would probably break his hips if he was tossed around by Brock. He's faced guys like Punk, HHH, and HBK for the past 5 years...they were all smaller than him. Brock would in all seriousness hurt Taker...and probably hurt him badly.

D.Bryan is looking more and more like an unrealistic option at this point unfortunately. Therefore, if they don't pick Sting and get the ball rolling on the build up and they put Taker against Brock...it'll probably be Takers last match ever seeing as how he wouldn't be able to recover from the bumps he'd be taking. There's no way they'd be able to tell Brock to calm down without it looking blatantly obvious to the fans.

Sting is going to be wrapped up by the end of the week. TNA is hurting for money so much and are taking a nose dive as a business so I'm sure they wouldn't mind being paid to waive that non compete clause in Stingers contract. Happens in sports all the time when pro leagues buyout Euro players contracts to get them over. The money WWE would make from Sting now at Mania would be huge and totally worth it.

For the people who want him to wait a year to get him more familiar with the fans, I say that's ridiculous and almost naive. In this day and age, with all the content available to the consumer, you really think kids don't know who Sting is??? Every adult fan does...that's common sense, but kids absolutely do. They have WWE Classics to watch, countless WcW DVDs, YouTube, TNA, Wrestling Forums, their parents, word of mouth, etc...

They need to capitalize on this now...because there may not be a later.

 

[Pedigree1]

This hypothetical match had wheels and money written all over it some 6 years or ago. Stings last run in TNA well not real memorable at all. Given his age,54 or 55 Sting is not exactly in the best shape of his life right now. Undertaker has been putting on some legendary matches since WM24 IMO! Thats a good 6 year run at least,and given his age and health this one might be his last.

I would love to see Sting vs Taker,just not at WM! It would have been a huge WM match years ago but that ship has sailed! Have it another PPV im okay with it.. What about Stings 90 Day no compete clause which is pretty common for all performers.. Even if sting did sign,his clause prevents him from competing at WM. This is just a hypothetical match if it happens to create money! Its not shitting on anyones legacy

 

[RicSpade]

If sting is wrestling at 54 years old he better get in shape because the Sting I nornally see on TNA television bugs the crap out of me I can't take the former WCW NWA TNA World Champion seriously as a wrestler when he goes out and wrestles a 10 minute match in his fucking T-Shirt. I love Sting to death but c'mon. Now in regards to Taker and whether or not he'd be facing him at this point its looking like Brock Lesnar, which I think is a horrible idea, if its anyone else fine, but yeah. If Sting were to face Taker I know most people would say Taker would win, but what if that isn't the case? I mean I know Vince would never let someone that wasn't from his creation break the streak but wouldn't it make more sense to have a legend beat Taker if that legend could actually throw down a decent match? If Sting got into great ring shape I'd buy it but the Sting now isn't the Sting who was in WCW shape even 4 years ago so yeah

 

[ShawnBronald]

If sting is wrestling at 54 years old he better get in shape because the Sting I nornally see on TNA television bugs the crap out of me I can't take the former WCW NWA TNA World Champion seriously as a wrestler when he goes out and wrestles a 10 minute match in his fucking T-Shirt. I love Sting to death but c'mon. Now in regards to Taker and whether or not he'd be facing him at this point its looking like Brock Lesnar, which I think is a horrible idea, if its anyone else fine, but yeah. If Sting were to face Taker I know most people would say Taker would win, but what if that isn't the case? I mean I know Vince would never let someone that wasn't from his creation break the streak but wouldn't it make more sense to have a legend beat Taker if that legend could actually throw down a decent match? If Sting got into great ring shape I'd buy it but the Sting now isn't the Sting who was in WCW shape even 4 years ago so yeah

I think that's the main reason why he won't debut until after 'Mania and definitely why he won't be facing Undertaker this year. It's bad enough Undertaker has a huge gut and looks to be in bad shape, but at least he has an excuse. Sting will take the next two months to get in shape and grow his hair out. I'd imagine his 'debut' will be in vignettes and up in the rafters, so editing and dim lighting should help. When he actually has a match (by SummerSlam or next year's 'Mania), I think he'll look more like the Sting we used to know in WCW and not the old man we've seen lately in TNA. Time will tell, though.

 

[Charismatic Enigma]

I think you let Taker go over whoever he's gonna face this year, and during the end of the match when he's doing his one knee pose and his music is playing. We get some loud disruptive noise that cuts his music and the lights flicker in the arena and then a spotlight shines on Sting who's up in the rafters and points the baseball bat at Taker, Taker stares back at him and does his pose towards Sting, lights go off and we're done.

Match is set for 31 Sting v Taker. This will give Sting a year in WWE to wrestle a match here or there (Lesnar schedule) and give WWE time to show a ton of his WCW footage and remind you who he is, put out a best of DVD, etc. Then when next year rolls around it can be his retirement match, and the fact that he loses won't be perceived as shitting on his record because he will have had a year of wins and respect building prior to the match.

 

[hatehabsforever]

A common IWC misconception. Just because someone loses a match doesn't mean they got buried or that their legacy has in any way been lessened. I don't know if Sting versus Undertaker will ever happen, never mind at Wrestlemania or specifically WM30. But if it does, there is no reason to think that Taker will bury him or destroy his legacy. The match could happen and while I am certain the Undertaker will win, there is no reason to be concerned about one guy shitting all over the other guy's legacy and career. Frankly I'd be more concerned about harm coming to either or both if them simply because they are both well past their prime. After all it isn't 2000 anymore.

If the match happens, it should be a spectacle, not because of the quality of the match (because that will be average at the very best), but because of the careers and histories of the participants. And if viewed in this context, it should be a classic.

If it ever happens.

 

[MasterDebator]

A common IWC misconception. Just because someone loses a match doesn't mean they got buried or that their legacy has in any way been lessened. I don't know if Sting versus Undertaker will ever happen, never mind at Wrestlemania or specifically WM30. But if it does, there is no reason to think that Taker will bury him or destroy his legacy. The match could happen and while I am certain the Undertaker will win, there is no reason to be concerned about one guy shitting all over the other guy's legacy and career. Frankly I'd be more concerned about harm coming to either or both if them simply because they are both well past their prime. After all it isn't 2000 anymore.

If the match happens, it should be a spectacle, not because of the quality of the match (because that will be average at the very best), but because of the careers and histories of the participants. And if viewed in this context, it should be a classic.

If it ever happens.

Exactly. Why would Sting sign a contract that guarantees he'd get squashed at the biggest wrestling event of the year? Use your heads, people.

Furthermore, this match can happen nowhere but at Wrestlemania. These are two of the most storied, legendary professional wrestlers to ever grace a ring. You want to talk about shitting on a legacy? Have this match air at Battleground. That'd be a clear sign of defecation. No folks, if this match ever happens at all, look for it to be on wrestling's biggest stage. Anything less would be an insult.

 

[Mustang Sally]

If Taker vs. Sting does happen, then it's all but guaranteed that Sting will lose.

I agree. In the event the match does happen, either at this WM or next, it will be a must-see even if the result seems pre-determined. I'd pay to watch Undertaker-Sting even if I was 100% sure 'Taker was gonna bring it home.

These past years, the WWE machine has introduced just enough intrigue in 'Taker's WM matches that they were well worth viewing. I was pretty sure he would beat Triple H, but with Levesque being the boss and heir apparent, there was always a chance he'd pull the upset. With CM Punk, I again was pretty certain 'Taker would win, but in the manner Punk seemed to have the company by the throat since his Summer of Punk, I wasn't totally sure.

Some matches are so special..... such events..... that they're worth tuning in even if you know who's going to take the victory.

And, no matter who is fighting, there's always that element of doubt. Sure, many folks on this forum claim to know the result of every match (especially after it's already happened!). Well, I'm not one of those people....and to me, the possibility of a surprise ending is always there.

In addition, I wouldn't worry about Sting's legacy; that was built over a long, fruitful career. One loss at the end won't tarnish it.....and even if he loses, he'll still manage to look good doing it.

 

[JoVilla21]

Just have them face each other at SummerSlam. Just give Sting a couple matches (wins) before SummerSlam to build him up. From there, you build Sting vs Taker at SummerSlam, that way it won't be unpredictable as to who would win.

Plus, WM30 is already being booked and it won't make sense for Sting's first match in WWE be a loss.