WCW Semi-Final: 60 Minute Iron Man Match; The Undertaker vs. Sting

Discussion in 'The 3rd Annual Wrestlezone Tournament (2009)' started by Shocky, Jun 4, 2009.


The Undertaker vs. Sting

  1. The Undertaker

  2. Sting

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Shocky

    Shocky Kissin Babies and Huggin Fat Girlz

    Jan 17, 2007
    Likes Received:
    The following match takes place in the WCW Region, from the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, GA.

    Iron Man Match: Wiki


    The Undertaker


  2. Y 2 Jake

    Y 2 Jake Slightly Autistic

    Dec 31, 1969
    Likes Received:
    Tough choice here. Both move so slow they easily have the stamina to go for an hour.

    I've heard this is a dream match. Not for I.

    I vote Undertaker. Why you ask. He's just better isn't he. All the debating in the world won't change that. If you vote for Sting, well then, you're just a Sting fan, aren't ya!

    Tombstone > Scorpion Death Drop

    Hells Gate (?) > Scorpion Death Lock

    Old School Rope Walky Thing > Stinger Splash

    Steel Chair To The Throat > Baseball Bat
  3. SavageTaker

    SavageTaker Everybody Has A Price!

    Feb 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Lets see here. The Undertaker is bigger and heavier than Sting. I think that is going to give The Undertaker the advantage in this match or at least the advantage in the early part of the match. Even though Sting has faced Big Men in the past none of them were like The Undertaker. 'Taker knows how to used his size and weight to his advantage which is one of the main differences between The Undertaker and the other Big Men Sting has faced. Can Sting handle someone who is bigger, heavier, arguably more agile than him, and maybe even stronger? I really don't think he can and I'm voting for The Undertaker.

    Now I'm not saying that The Undertaker is going to dominate Sting because that's the last thing that would probably happen. But going into this match I see 'Taker having the advantage. If 'Taker doesn't waist all of his energy at the beginning of this match (and the same would apply to Sting) I think he could go the whole hour and defeat the Golden Boy of WCW and move on to the next round and face the winner of the Hogan and Benoit match.
  4. Uncle Sam

    Uncle Sam Rear Naked Bloke

    Aug 24, 1973
    Likes Received:
    I dunno. I just think Sting's overrated. Whereas I've seen the error of my ways with guys like Randy Savage or even Cena, Sting will always remain with the El Caneks of the world for me.

    The Undertaker's just in a different league. In a regular match, in any ring, I'd vote for him. Definitely. This gimmick doesn't really alter much.

    I suppose the main thing is the ability to score "wins". The Undertaker's absolute myriad of finishing moves definitely helps there. He's got two submission finishers, three regular finishers and a few obscure moves which have finished opponents off in the past. Plus, he's proved decisively more difficult to pin or submit than Sting.

    The Undertaker wins. Sting fans should take solace in the fact that The Great Khali should have been the one here, also beating Sting.
  5. It's...Baylariat!

    It's...Baylariat! Team Finnley Baylor

    Apr 2, 2009
    Likes Received:
    People are not giving Sting credit when it's warranted. For some reason, we voted Sting over Lou Thesz. Why not vote Sting over Undertaker?

    Well, because Undertaker is a big match guy. So is the Stinger, but this will be twice that I'm voting against one of my all time favorites. And it's simply because Taker has the longevity to go the 60 minutes like Sting would, and more things could finish off Sting than the Deadman.

    Taker has the Tombstone, Last Ride, Hell's Gate, and the Chokeslam. Sting has the Scorpion Deathlock and the Scorpion Deathdrop. Those moves would get Taker for a possible 3 count, but not the multiple times needed to win this match. In their primes, this would be a match of the year candidate, but I have to put Undertaker over here.

    Vote: Undertaker
  6. Blade

    Blade "Original Blade"

    Jul 29, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Like Lariat said, Undertaker has 4 ways to put Sting down. He could get one point if he hits each one of those moves, assuming he doesn't hit them more than once like he did with the tombstone at Wrestlemania.

    I also think Undertaker would have more stamina. He's been able to keep up with guys like Bret Hart, HBK, Kurt Angle and Lesnar, all of whom have gone 60 minutes. Sting has kept up with guys with alot of stamina, but not the same way Undertaker has.

    Personally I think it all comes down to when people consider Undertaker's "prime".
    If we're talking about the current Undertaker, then he should win. He may be old and have a few injuries, but for a match like this he would go all out to make sure he won.
    But I think Sting would be able to beat Badass Undertaker due to how heavy and sluggish he was then.
  7. Jack-Hammer

    Staff Member Moderator

    Mar 26, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Hmmmm....I know there's a question regarding the Undertaker's stamina since he's never been in a 60 minute match before. I think he has the juice and conditioning to do it, but I do think he'll start to run out of gas around the 45 minute mark, which could possibly allow Sting to pick up a fall or two.

    However, when I compare the two physically and look at their offense, I just think the Undertaker will wind up taking the match when it's all said and done. When I look at Sting's primary moves: the Scorpion Deathlock, Stinger-Splash and the Scorpion Deathdrop, I don't see anything that can keep the Undertaker down. If Taker can get out of Bret Hart's Sharpshooter, he can do the same to the Scorpion. As to the SS, Sting doesn't have nearly the weight behind him to really affect the Undertaker. He's shrugged off similar moves from much bigger, heavier and stronger guys before. The deathdrop is just a reverse DDT, also a move he's taken in the past and gotten up from.

    One or two of Sting's top moves might stun Taker enough to get a quick fall, but I don't see them as being effective in the long run. Taker has the Tombstone, Chokeslam, Hell's Gate and the Last Ride, all four are extremely effective. It wouldn't necessarily surprise me if Sting were to get out of all of those moves at least once, but getting hit by them to or even three times? I just don't see it. The Undertaker has been up against far more punishing offense than what Sting can really muster and has walked away and I don't think that Sting can stand up to what Taker can ultimately dish out.
  8. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    It's really not, Jake.

    Sting went 45 minutes with Flair, full speed, and wasn't gassed at the end of it. I'm sure he'd be able to handle 'Taker for 60 minutes.

    Not for me either, because Sting > Undertaker in every possible way imaginable.

    Lame. Why?


    Not really. 'Taker is a great wrestler, but he's nowhere near close to Sting's level. In fact, just look at how long it took for 'Taker to actually start delivering good matches. It's funny, because it wasn't until he became a MMA mark before he learned how to have a truly great match in the ring (with his matches against HBK and Hart being the only exceptions in the nineties, and that was only because he was carried). Whereas Sting has been having great matches his entire career. That Flair match was just a couple of years after he joined the business.

    All the debating in the World won't change the fact that you're 100% wrong, too. ;)

    I'm a Sting fan and I gladly admit it. But I'm voting for Sting, well, because A) He's better than 'Taker and B) He would beat 'Taker in this type of match.

    It might look cooler, but the Scorpion Death Drop got louder pops, thus making it better.

    No, just no. It's cool when Nick Diaz does it, but 'Taker looks like a tool.

    Again, looks cooler, but what makes the crowd go wild? The Stinger Splash is the correct answer. Plus... think about this, how many moves are really named after a wrestler? When someone does a jumping splash into a corner, it will always be described as the Stinger Splash. That's pretty legendary.

    I'd take a chair shot over someone hitting with me a Baseball Bat, so... no. Wrong again, Jakey.

    Does that mean anything against Sting? No, it doesn't. Sting has beaten tons of bigger and more powerful wrestlers than him in his career.

    Yes, early part in the match. But when the Stinger makes his comeback, he won't led up and he'll start picking up pinfalls/submissions left and right, and 'Taker wouldn't be able to rebound from it.

    Sting has beaten both Giant and Vader. Giant has beaten 'Taker quite a few times, and Vader was unstoppable in his day. So, yes... I would say Sting has faced big men who were more dominant and flat out better than The Undertaker.

    So you're telling me Vader and Big Show didn't know how to use their size?

    Definitely, especially in this type of match.

    'Taker would dominate Sting for a while, but if you ever watched Sting in the ring... his comeback is unstoppable and considering how much time he has to work with... he gains a lead around 30/40 minutes into the bout and adds on to it. It's as simple as that.

    But he would. If he doesn't, then Sting dominates the entire match, because Sting gets stronger as the match goes on. His character has displayed this countless times throughout his career.

    Can you explain to me why you feel this way? I really am curious...

    Quite the opposite, actually.

    But it does. In a regular match, 'Taker would stand a chance, but this caters to Sting's abilities.

    Which Sting would do as time would keep going.

    Sting would rebound from everything 'Taker would have to throw at him, and then take advantage of 'Taker gassing out as the match progresses.

    Khali rightfully isn't here and if he was, the match would be a blow-out in Sting's favor, as it would be in a real WCW ring. Khali going an hour, man?

    Sting went over Lou Thez because he's better than Lou Thez.

    How so? Today is 'Taker's prime. Watch his match against Shawn Michaels. That was give or take, 30 minutes long. And 'Taker was gassed out the end of it. I'm willing to admit 'Taker would get the first pinfall over Sting, but the fact is... the guy will eventually gas and Sting will take full advantage of it. 'Taker gassing + Sting's comeback = Multiple wins for Sting.

    Sting was one of the first wrestler's I've ever seen counter the Tombstone Piledriver like he did. So, Sting can hit the Tombstone on 'Taker whenver 'Taker tries it on him. The Last Ride... Sting knows how to counter a fucking power bomb, too. Hell's Gate? Stupid move, but if Sting were to get caught, he'd tap out quickly to save himself for later on. And the chokeslam... Sting would be able to handle that.

    You see what I said about Hell's Gate? 'Taker does just the opposite and fights the Scorpion Deathlock like a dumb ass, thus leading to getting extremely fucked up. And the Deathdrop would put 'Taker down late, late into the match, for sure.

    And I like Lariat, but he was wrong in this case.

    Yeah, 'Taker would get a couple of points, but that doesn't disregard the fact that the Stinger would get more, thus winning the match.

    No way, man.

    And 'Taker himself has never gone over 40 minutes.

    Ric Flair has wrestled more 1 hour matches than anyone in history, perhaps, and Sting was able to go with him for 45 minutes. And the way he looked at the end of the match, he easily could've gone another 15.

    If you consider Undertaker's prime anything other than today, then Sting wins the match 30 to 3. Undertaker from his WWE debut up until the Biker gimmick, gasses after only twenty minutes.

    Current Undertaker vs. Current Sting? Yes. Current Undertaker vs. Sting in his prime? Absolutely not.

    I'm sure 'Tkaer would go all out too, but unfortunately for he and his fans, it wouldn't be enough to beat someone like Sting, in a 60 minute match, in fucking WCW.

    I believe Sting would defeat any version of The Undertaker under these circumstances.

    Anyways, I would break the rest of your post down, but it would be me basically just repeating myself. So, I'll just get to the main point.

    People are seriously not giving Sting his credit, here. First of all, kayfabe wise, the match takes place in WCW, for Christ sakes. 'Taker's little super powers don't happen here. But Sting is still Sting. You see where I'm getting at? There's no way, in a million years, does Undertaker comes into Sting's backyard and defeats him, especially in this type of match. How anyone could ever think any different is truly beyond me.

    As far as who's the better worker in their prime... I will admit, that is debatable. 'Taker's match resume these past four years or so is spectacular; there's no denying that. However, 'Taker used to stink up the joint time and time again for years and years in the nineties all the way up to the new millennium, whereas, Sting ALWAYS tore the house down. Even today, in shitty TNA, against shit opponents under ******ed rules, Sting is still able to main event and put on great matches. The guy is truly one of the greatest to ever step foot in a wrestling ring. And when you look at both career's entirely, Sting's is better than 'Taker's.
    Mr. TM, Shocky, SavageTaker and 2 others like this.
  9. Uncle Sam

    Uncle Sam Rear Naked Bloke

    Aug 24, 1973
    Likes Received:
    That's a fucking long post. Excuse me if I cut to the just of it somewhat.

    Except The Undertaker is very much better than Flair. Right guys? Right?

    Except wrestling ability, of course. And consistent star power.

    You're right, he's above it. Never saw that one coming, did ya?

    I've got 24 years and counting for Sting. Did it take The Undertaker that long? Besides, good matches, schmood shcmatches. It's winning that counts in this, and 'Taker has done it in abundance.

    Hmmm, uhhhh, nahhh...


    A) No. B) ... No.

    Ah, but it's the versatily and all-round goodness of The Undertaker that makes him so good; something I'd wager that nobody who Sting has faced has possessed.

    He's the fucking Undertaker. You know, the guy that sits up after apparently being taken out. He's the most resilient wrestler in the business.

    The "six degrees of separation" way of argument has already been discredited.

    And it just goes on and on like this. You have my notes.
    gd likes this.
  10. Jack-Hammer

    Staff Member Moderator

    Mar 26, 2009
    Likes Received:
    The Undertaker is just out of Sting's league. Always has been, always will be. There is absolutely NOTHING Sting can throw at him that he simply won't sit up from, roll his eyes up into his head, and go on about his business. The Undertaker has been in a lot of gimmick matches over the years whether it be Last Man Standing, Casket, HIAC, Ladder, Buried Alive, First Blood, etc. and he hardly ever loses. The only clean win over him, that I'm aware of, in a one on one gimmick setting was Brock Lesnar at HIAC. Every other time has been due to outside interference. Overall, I can probably count the number of times he's lost cleanly over the past 15 years using both hands. If the Undertaker had stayed the exact same over the years as he had when he first came to the WWE, I'd vote Sting in a heartbeat. He's evolved over the years, actually uses more than just the right hand, blatant choke in the corner and the Tombstone. Sting has never been up against someone with Taker's and overall athletic and in-ring ability to boot. Kayfabe-wise, Taker is said to be near 7 feet. Not many near 7-footers can do what he can. Truth is, none of them can.

    He's taken Steve Austin's Stone Cold Stunner, Randy Orton's RKO, Chokeslams from the Big Show or Kane, Powerbombs from Kevin Nash or Batista, Swanton's from Jeff Hardy, 5-Star Frog Splashes from RVD, Bret Hart's Sharpshooer, Figure-Four from Ric Flair, Chris Benoit's crossface, Kurt Angle's Angle Slam and Ankle-Lock, Ken Shamrock's Ankle-Lock, Sweet Chin Music from HBK, The Rock Bottom from the Rock, Foley's Mandible Claw and entire unorthodox offense, and so on and so forth. He's taken the best they can dish out and he's gotten out of all of them. He's taken considerably harsher, more brutal offense than Sting could ever dish out and he's nearly always come out with the win. It'll be no different here. I'm not saying the Undertaker would run over the guy like he wasn't there, but Taker is a different breed from the VAST majority of guys Sting faced in WCW.
    TwistofRKO likes this.
  11. ZEUS

    ZEUS Pre-Show Stalwart

    Mar 8, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Sting is one of the most under appreciated superstars of the 80s-90s. Today, he isn't that good, but really, he is a part time guy. In his prime, Sting was probably the most well balanced wrestler in the game, considering his speed, strength, intelligence, and intensity. That said, in a regular match, I'm picking Undertaker 7 times out of ten.

    But, this isn't a regular match. Sting has the conditioning of a horse, and he would last a lot longer than The Undertaker, who has problems working 25 minutes without being gassed. The first 1/4 of this match would be Undertaker all the way, but I don't think he would score more than one, maybe two pinfalls. In the next 45 minutes, the advantage definetely goes in the way of the Stinger. Sting's finishing moves, especially the Death Drop, put down everyone. Undertaker would be no exception, especially after 30-45 minutes of action.

    And for everyone saying that Undertaker will just sit up, he usually is down long enough to be pinned before he "just sits up".

    Think about this as well. If Undertaker has ever had problems with a specific type of wrestler, it is the smaller guy with some speed and skill. Taker walks through the giants of the world rather easily, but when facing a guy like Bret Hart, HBK, or Stone Cold, he always found things a bit more difficult. Sting is very much like HBK, just take a bit of speed away and add some strength. In a 60 minute match, HBK would run over the Taker. Sting should do the same. Taker does have his 4 finishers though, so even though Sting should have the advantage for most of the match, Undertaker has ways to beat him basically out of nowhere. I still think that this was the best bet for Sting to get through, and that he SHOULD win this match.

    God, that kills me. I'm a huge Taker fan and wanted to see him win, but I honestly don't see him getting through Sting in this type of environment.
    jmt225 likes this.
  12. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Jun 16, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I think I'm going to go Undertaker on this one. Undertaker has many ways of ending a match, which helps, and also the fact that I think his size undoes some of Sting's usual advantages.

    As for conditioning, Iron man matches don't necessarily go fall for fall. Sometimes one person builds a lead and the other chases it. I expect Taker to go about 4 or 5 - 0 or 1, before Sting keeps on going to the end and picks up a few more, with Taker getting a tombstone from nowhere right at the end and win about 6-5.
  13. Shocky

    Shocky Kissin Babies and Huggin Fat Girlz

    Jan 17, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Well this is a match, where, so far I have been swayed by the arguments. I was hell bent when this match came across that it would be Sting all the way, but now I believe that the Undertaker is going to win this match.

    I love Sting, and I think Sting needs to come full on Crow gimmick to go at what I believe would be a heelish Undertaker in this thing. Honestly, this match would be one that I would pay a lot of good old cash for.

    In the end though, the Undertaker has far too much in his arsenal, a testiment to his ability of not only staying over for 20 years, but being an upper mid card to main eventer that entire time. The man has an ability to recreate himself, and add to his arsenal, the likes of which I have never seen.

    Sting on the other hand has 3 big moves, the Stinger Splash, the Death Drop, and the Scorpion Death Lock. Well, you can throw the Death lock out of the way as soon as the match starts, because the Deadman doesn't lose by submission, ever. He took the Sharpshooter from Bret Hart, and simply kicked and Flung Hart out of the ring, something that had never been done before.

    I think the Undertaker takes a big lead an dSting eventually catches up, due to the Undertaker beginning to gas, but in the end, he holds out long enough to end the Stinger's run. I can be convinced otherwise, but that's where I stand now.
    SavageTaker likes this.
  14. TwistofRKO

    TwistofRKO The Legend Killer himself

    Jan 20, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Very good arguments for Sting, but it has to be the Undertaker.

    The Undertaker in his prime > Sting in his. That's in no way a slight to Sting, I'm a HUGE Sting fan, but much rather a huge kudos to the Undertaker's ring presence. He has a much larger arsenal, he's bigger, and he's been able to absorb insane levels of punishment and still walk away the winner.

    There's nothing Sting can throw at the Undertaker once and win with. If he were to score a pinfall he'd have to hit the Scorpion Death Drop at least twice, because that's not nearly enough to put the Undertaker out for a 3-count. Not to be ignorant, it just isn't. Look at Jack-Hammer's list of finishers that couldn't put 'Taker away, it's insane what the Undertaker can take. He's also taken his share of tombstone piledrivers and still kicked out.

    You can't kill the dead.
  15. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Now, I'm not the biggest Flair fan, but Flair's absolute best was in the late eighties/early nineties when Sting faced him, and that version of Flair is every good as bit as 'Taker ever has been, if you ask me. Flair vs. Sting, Flair vs. Steamboat, Flair vs. Terry Funk, Flair winning the Rumble... he did some amazing shit consistently during that time period. 'Taker, in the last four years, aka his prime, only does something amazing every big pay-per-view like Wrestlemania and Summerslam. He doesn't bring it every night like Flair did, or even Sting did for that matter. Guys like Sting and Flair performed tremendously on a nightly basis, whereas you have to treasure when you get something good out of 'Taker, because it doesn't happen often.

    Not really. I've seen Sting have just as many good matches as 'Taker has had, and he did it NIGHTLY, not just big pay-per-views.

    Sting was over his entire stay in WCW, which was longer than a decade. And if he were to have signed with WWE when WCW went out of business, depending om Vince's booking... Sting might have stayed a star to this day. Instead, he's helped get TNA where it's at today. He's probably not as big of star as 'Taker is now, but he's still doing great things for the business.

    Also, I guarantee 'Taker never received a pop as loud as the pops Sting has gotten in WCW.

    No, more like way below it.

    I was shocked, I tell ya. SHOCKED!

    Come on now Sam, you and I both know that's a bunch of horseshit. The Surfer Blonde Sting had great matches all the time. And The Crow had some great ones, too. And even today Sting has great matches.

    It seems like more, considering how boring he was before he learned MMA.

    Yeah, in WWE... and NEVER against Sting.

    Just because someone's versatile in the ring does not mean they're better than someone who doesn't do a bunch of different moves. By this logic, Dean Malenko's the greatest wrestler to ever live.

    Yeah, and always in a WWE ring. What happened when he was in a WCW ring, anyway? Don't be such a Mean Mark, Sam.

    In what way? Just because he can kick out of HBK's Super Kick or Edge's weak ass Spear at a Wrestlemania does not mean that 'Taker is the most resilient wrestler of all time. It means he performs well at Wrestlemania. When not at Wrestlemania, he gets knocked the fucked out by the Big Show, or beaten to pieces by The Great Khali.

    That's extremely false.

    When he's gassed, there's a bunch of shit Sting can throw at him. And this silly shit about 'Taker being so tough, I have something to show you how Sting would beat this motherfucker.

    Here is Kane's debut. Watch how he gives 'Taker the weakest Tombstone in wrestling history, and then see how long 'Taker is out for.


    Now, anyone familiar with Sting's work in the mid-nineties knows that nearly every match he had he did a spot where someone would set him up for the Tombstone Piledriver, and he'd reverse it and nail his own, beautiful version. That happens here, and as shown above.... 'Taker gets knocked out for a VERY long period of time from it.

    And all of them were in WWE, and none of them were against a man like Sting. Also, I see no 60 Minute Iron Man matches on that little list of yours, either, so how is this relevant, anyway?

    I agree 'Taker's in-ring ability is a lot better than it use to be, but there's nothing he could throw at Sting that he hasn't seen from other wrestlers already. Stupid fucking Hell's Gate being the one and only move in 'Taker's arsenal that may catch Sting, but like I said... Sting would be smart enough to tap out quickly and make up for it in the long run, IF that move is legal in the first place, which it probably wouldn't be in WCW.


    Lol, first of all... kayfabe or not, everyone knows 'Taker is no where near being 7 foot. And he even if he was, it wouldn't matter because Sting has taken down plenty of "Seven Footers" in his day in guys like Giant, Sid, Nash, ect.

    All in a WWE ring.

    I also love how you don't mention Hulk Hogan on that list, lol. 'Taker had to cheat to beat a 50-year-old Hulk Hogan in 2002. Yeah, that guy sure is one tough cookie.

    Yeah, but he's never taken Sting's best, and Sting is completely different from those individuals.

    But how do you know that? Kayfabe wise, Sting's Scorpion Death Lock was more painful than Hart's due to Sting's strength. And also kayfabe wise, hardly anyone kicked out of the Scorpion Death Drop, so I doubt 'Taker would, too. I don't care how much punishment this man has been able to take. He wasn’t able to kick out of Austin's Stunner at Summerslam 1998, so I have no reason to believe he would be able to kick out of the Stinger's Scorpion Death Drop.

    And Sting is different than every man 'Taker has ever faced, so what does that matter, exactly?


    I would too. And I would go into the match expecting Sting to win, and I'm 100% sure in a WCW ring... I would not be let down.

    But see... having a ton different weapons in your possession doesn't mean anything when the guy you’re targeting has a counter for every single one of them. Hogan didn't have a lot in his arsenal, but look at that motherfucker's win/loss record. Look at that piece of shit Goldberg for Chris sake. To me, it doesn't matter how many moves someone knows. When you're as smart, tough, and have as much heart as Sting has, it's going to be hard for anyone to put this man down in a big match situation, and I honestly don't think 'Taker would be able to pull it off in WCW. At Wrestlemaina? Yes, 'Taker would beat Sting, but no way in hell does he stand a chance in World Championship Wrestling.

    Nobody's ever recreated himself like Sting did in the mid-nineties and still end up having much more success as he had before. 'Taker's recreations have always been hit or miss, very inconsistent shit.

    But that's all he needs. Plus, like I said, the Tombstone reversal is there for him too and if worse comes to worst... the baseball bat is sitting in the corner, my friend.

    Okay, two things here:

    1. Sting would leave 'Taker in it long enough for him to submit. It's either Tap Out, or Pass Out. One would eventually come.

    2. Sting is a lot stronger and bigger than Bret Hart was and would be able to hold his position, I'm sure.

    No way, man. Kayfabe wise.... Sting kept WCW alive basically all by himself. And non-kayfabe wise, Sting is entertaining on a consistent basis, whereas 'Taker can provide us fans with good matches on big stages. His promos suck for the most part, and he takes a lot of time off.

    In my opinion, Sting ranks right up there with Hulk Hogan as for having the greatest in-ring presence of all time. So, to me, your statement helps Sting because it says someone with a larger in-ring presence has an advantage, and Sting has that. Though, I am willing to admit that it's debatable. But Sting as the Surfer Blonde knew how to get that crowd going, and as the Crow... fuck, that was some intimidating shit, man.

    Sting has beaten plenty of people who knows more moves than he does. And 'Taker has lost to people with less in their arsenal than what Sting processes.

    Sting has beaten plenty of bigger wrestlers. And 'Taker has lost to plenty of smaller wrestlers.

    So has Sting. And 'Taker has never had to absorb the type of adversity he would have to deal with when in a WCW ring against Sting.

    Then how come so many people, who are no where near Sting's level, have been able keep the man down for a three count?
    TwistofRKO likes this.
  16. It's...Baylariat!

    It's...Baylariat! Team Finnley Baylor

    Apr 2, 2009
    Likes Received:
    No, Sting went over because the majority of wrestling fans have a memory that goes back no further than the Hogan Era

    So, 44 year old Taker is his prime? I don't think so. Taker's prime was the 10 year span between 1995 to 2005. He's beat many, many people, and the reason he's never gone more than 40 minutes is because Taker beat them sooner. And if you're talking about more pinfalls, there's no way Taker gets pinned more than Sting. C'mon. The man sits up all the time. Every move. Sits up. Taker doesn't tap. Taker doesn't get a three count with the Scorpion Deathdrop. Taker wins this and now that I think about it, it's NOT EVEN CLOSE!

    No he won't. Falling nearly seven feet down isn't that easy to handle. Neither is a legit chokehold or a pile driver.

    So that's two pin falls. Taker would get four. 4 > 2

    I like jmt225 as well, but I'm not wrong.

    The Undertaker has headlined Wrestlemania after Wrestlemania. He's one of the legendary workers in our business. He's wrestled against the best in the wrestling world. Hogan, Austin, Rock, Angle, Lesnar, Cena, Michaels, Flair, and anyone else that was thrown at him. Sting is a legendary wrestler, but his legend simply doesn't compare to Taker's. Sting borrowed the Crow's character, the Undertaker made his OWN character. It would be an epic match, but it would be a win for the Deadman.
    Uncle Sam likes this.
  17. Y 2 Jake

    Y 2 Jake Slightly Autistic

    Dec 31, 1969
    Likes Received:
    I have a theory, if you can't rip apart a Y 2 Jake post then you aren't a good poster at all. I have so many holes in my posts if I own you you probably need to quit. Bare that in mind when I reply to you this time. I like you, but if I get the better of you with a wrestling post I will lose all respect for you. You should be shame faced.

    Npw, let's begin.

    Nice try, a fast paced Flair match is still slow.

    He's above Sting's level of mediocrity.

    The beginning of the Undertaker's career is sorta like the end of Sting's career if you look at it.

    Intresting. I sort of agree. But it was 1996 when Undertaker stopped being a plodding zombie. That's about the same time Sting became a plodding crow.

    Not really. Good ones where and there. Vader was a beast, Rude was solid as well.

    Same as most Flair matches.

    We can't both be wrong. At least I backed the horse that will win.

    Can't argue with that logic. How about this for logic. It's been proven that Undertaker has the necessary skills to defeat himself. But could Sting beat Sting? I will only except a reply via a message in a bottle.

    The Death Drop get's a louder pop? Didn't know that. Either way, Tombstone is more devistating and like you said, looks cooler.

    Which one would most likely work in the context of this match?

    You're having me on brother. I've been Jake-d.

    I just call it a splash.

    A baseball bat over a chair driven into your throat? Whatever Trevor.
  18. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Feb 6, 2008
    Likes Received:
    So you were around for the Lou Thesz era, ay?

    Yes. Prime is when you're doing you're best. And 'Taker has never been better.

    Well, if you believe that, then Sting wins this match by a much wider margin than I was giving 'Taker credit for. If Sting faced any version of The Undertaker before 2004, then 'Taker gasses fast and dominates most of the match. At 44, 'Taker is in MUCH better shape then he was at 34. And that's a fact. Like I said earlier, he became a big MMA fan the last few years, and started training his ass off. That's why he's in such good shape.

    So has Sting.

    But there's a 60 Minute Time Limit here, so he can get 3 early pinfalls on Sting (which he wouldn't, but just sayin') and Sting could still win the match.

    Yes there is and I've already explained why countless times.

    So? Sting gets up without being hurt during his comeback, too.

    I can show you plenty of times where 'Taker didn't sit up.

    By theory, if 'Taker doesn't tap to the Scorpion Deathlock, he will pass out eventually, certainly long enough for Sting to get a 3 count.

    If Austin can get a 3 with the Stunner, then Sting can get a 3 with the Scoprion Deathdrop.

    Sting wins a close match if he faces the 'Taker of today. Stings wins in dominate fashion if he faced The Undertaker of 2004 and before.

    But Sting has shown himself to not only handle it when it happens, but also counter it.

    If it's a legit chokehold, then it won't be legal in an Iron Man match. So, wouldn’t another fall go in Sting's favor if 'Taker is disqualified?

    Besides, you said 'Taker's prime was 1995-2005, and 'Taker didn't start using that move until 2007.

    Like I said, Sting could reverse this into a Tombstone of his own, as he has done countless times before.

    'Taker would not get 4, and Sting would get more than 2. Both facts in this match were to take place in WCW.

    But good sir, in this case you very much are.

    Yeah, and this match is in WCW. Like I said earlier... if it were at Wrestlemania, 'Taker would win.

    So is Sting.

    So has Sting.

    Sting has wrestled 3 names on that list, maybe 4 if he ever faced Austin in WCW. And Sting has faced just as many, if not more, good wrestlers as 'Taker has ever faced.

    Actually it does. Just because he never signed with WWE does not take away from Sting's credibility as a legendary wrestler.

    Sting didn't borrow shit. That character has never been done in wrestling before. By this logic, Hulk Hogan didn't create Hulk because he took a couple of ideas from the comic book character.

    Also, what about Sting's surfer blond character. What did he "borrow" to create that?

    And WWE made The Undertaker, not 'Taker himself.

    Lol, well.. you don't make it too hard Jake and we've been here before, so I'm sure they'll be no trouble.

    Not all of them. Against Harely Race? Yes. Against guys like Sting and Ricky Steamboat? Absolutely not.

    1. Sting is not mediocre in the slightest bit.

    2. 'Taker is nowhere near being above Sting in any way, shape, or form, unless you want to include fucking Michelle McCool as being above someone in the wrestling business.

    But Sting has good matches today, so that's not really the case at all.

    Yeah, and his matches still didn't really produce, either. Hart, HBK, and you can include Foley if you want were his only good matches in the nineties. The matches against Austin, Rock, Nash, Sid, ect. were all mostly shit.

    Sting had a year and a half when all he did was sit in the raptors, but yet was still the most over babyface in the entire business. That alones speaks of how much the fans have always loved him. Let the Undertaker sit in the crowd for 18 months and not say a word during that period. The fans would've turned on him after only a month.

    Even if you don't agree, you have to at least say that Sting had more good matches regularly than 'Taker has ever had in his career. Sure, 'Taker has a lot of good matches under his belt, but they don't happen often. Sting's good matches happened more frequently than 'Taker's.

    Point was though, Sting has a match that a lot consider to be one of the greatest matches of all time, just after he joined the business. It wasn't until the HITC matches until 'Taker had matches on the same par, and he was in the business for well over a decade at that point.

    Sting's an all around better worker, man. There's no denying this. His longevity proves it.

    And just answer me this Jake and answer with honesty. You're a big DVD collector like me, if WWE released a Sting DVD, don't you think it would be ten times better than every shit DVD WWE has released of The Undertaker? I think so, and I think you're going to agree, and you know why that is? Because Sting's career has been far more entertaining than 'Taker's, and that makes him a much better overall worker as far as I'm concerned. Hell, even Sting's TNA DVD ranks up there with 'Taker's WWE DVDs; that's how much they all suck. And it's because his career has been boring as hell, with the exception of good to great matches every once and a while, but not often.

    Yeah, I have no fucking clue why I'm the only one defending Sting here, as there are a shitload of Sting fans on this board. They have to come around sooner or later, and I think there might just be enough for Sting to win. At least, I hope so.

    My logic in this case is fact, while yours is just Jake-like. Fun to read, but still doesn't make much sense.

    Sting's Death Drop at one time... yes.

    And like I said about ten times at this point, Sting has the Tombstone in his aresenal as well. And besides, I've seen Sting kick out of the fucking Tombstone before anyway.

    Dude, it's a choke. Who's to say it would even been legal?

    Feels good, doesn't?

    And Jake, you'll be the first admit, and I would agree, that you and your thoughts/descriptions are one of a kind.

    Even you Jake can defend a chairshot. It's hard to defend yourself against someone with a fucking bat.
    It's...Baylariat! likes this.
  19. NSL

    NSL Life's A Bitch, And Then You Mosh

    Nov 3, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I'm a huge fan of Sting...I wish I could vote for him here, but I can't. He'll do everything imaginable to win, but I can't see him keeping 'Taker down.

    We know Undertaker won't tap, and I don't see two faces getting DQ points over each other. Sting can do anything, but Deadman will sit up, and come right back at him. In the ultimate 1-0 Iron Man Contest, I'm going with Taker, and the Devil's Triangle at the 59:59 mark.
  20. Miko


    Feb 18, 2008
    Likes Received:
    To whoever said that Sting is one of the most under-appreciated wrestlers of all time, good fucking call.

    Undertaker doesnt match up with The Stinger, think of it this way, Sting was more or less the Stone Cold in WCW. He was the top dog outside and probably over Hogan, he was the best. Undertaker has never been the best, even at his most dominant during the early 90's he still couldnt beat guy's like Warrior, he beat Hogan with help from Flair.

    I'd say Undertaker's next best years are today, the years in which he loses to guys like Mr Kennedy, his big wins only really coming at WrestleMania, this isnt WrestleMania, this is WCW and Sting's Starcade record kicks the shite out of Undertakers streak.

    It's a choice between WCW's biggest star when they were stomping all over the WWF or one of WWF's attractions, could live with him, could live without him, as his regular breaks show. A 10 time (I think) World Champion vs a 6 Time World Champion.

    Longevity? Sting's been going longer. Success? Sting's had more. Big names? Sting's beat more and beaten them cleanly. Cool entrances? Starcade 97 tops anything Undertakers done. I think Sting would beat Undertaker as often as Austin did. Which is most of the time.
    jmt225 likes this.
  21. justinsayne

    justinsayne Cody Rhodes is an excellant

    Sep 8, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Yeah I can't see Sting hitting anything on Taker that would keep him down for a three count, the Stinger Deathdrop is nothing more than a reverse DDT, Taker has kicked out of worse, same can be said for the Stinger Splash, and on top of that Taker doesn't tap so the Stringer Deathlock won't do it, Taker has far more devastating finishers in his arsenal, The Tombstone Piledriver, Last Ride, Chokeslam and Hells gate, along with the various other submissions he has used in the past suggests that Taker would have the edge in this match, on top of that Taker sits up from just about every danm thing he gets hit with, Taker wins this, in an epic match that I would love to see
  22. Mr. TM

    Mr. TM Throwing a tantrum

    Mar 16, 2007
    Likes Received:
    This is the big stage here. Both men know about the big stage. Sting has thrived in Bound For Glory and Starrcade. We all know that the Undertaker has thrived in being at Wrestlemania, where he is an impressive 17-0. The question of who is better however is more debatable when looking at their records. Sting has faced many greats in that time, not winning them all, but still being well above 500. Undertaker has beaten a lot of men, but some of them have been passed their prime.

    This is a long match. 1 hour. The match has taken place, and required the best from its opponents. It will do the same from these two men. Who has the better stamina?

    Undertaker: his long run has been impressive in the WWE. But does he have what it takes to last the hour? He has not been known for lasting great lengths in the ring. But his recent Wrestlemania match against a very quick Shawn Michaels makes me ponder that. He was well passed his prime, and still managed to pull it out in a long match.

    Undertaker outside the ring however brings up a great resume for stamina. As many of you know, recently he has began to court to very sexy skeletor, Michelle McCool. She is very young, and you know what young women do? Have Kinky fucking sex. If Undertaker can last that long in bed with her night in and night out, I am sure he can last the full 60 minutes.

    I haven't decided yet, but I think the Undertaker might be getting my vote. He has more weapons in his arsenal than Canada... with at least 5.

    Also, if deadman respects him, he must be doing something right.



    That man is from the old school. Where going 60 minutes is like pulling a 9-5 job. So I am sure he can meet the Undertaker here. I once saw him wrestle close to 60 minutes, and hitting a splash. After 60 minutes of hard exercise, you wont see me splashing people, just a Nestle Iced Tea.

    I will need some persuasion people.
  23. Y 2 Jake

    Y 2 Jake Slightly Autistic

    Dec 31, 1969
    Likes Received:
    I don't remember us ever discussing anything before. True story.

    It's intresting how his slower paced matches, against Race & Funk, are actually a lot better than when he was with younger wrestlers.

    I was being complimentary when I said mediocre.

    Undertaker is above him in every single way. Status, gimmick, ability, etc. The only knock against him is that he's attracted to ugly women.

    You're definitely fucking with me here. Yeah, Sting has good matches. When he's the last man to enter a Lethal Lockdown, or when he's facing Kurt Angle, or when he's getting beaten down by Samoa Joe for 20 minutes, when he's one wrestler out of four, in tag matches and so on.

    Maybe, the shit matches and opponents were ok. But the same could be said of anything to come off Sting after the gimmick revamp.

    He was, if you exclude the Canadian market. Also take into account how shit WCW were at building up anybody outside of the n.W.o.

    The gimmick overhaul isn't as good as people remember. I've been thinking of making the thread for a while. I was just trying to figure out how to make it racially motivated. I suppose Sting did turn black.

    They wouldn't have though, would they?

    I really can't. But I grew up watching Undertaker weekly. I watched Sting as and when I could catch WCW, in the early 90's. Come 1996 when the UK got WCW weekly all I saw was Sting half arsing it.

    Not now. Undertaker has good matches weekly, Sting has average matches.

    I also have Sting matches on a lot of DVD's. Flair, the 90's and assorted others. I've not been truly impressed with anything I've seen.

    In which he spent most of it selling and not doing much.

    So? If you're playing a zombie you're hardly going to be on the receiving end of beat downs. One he turned more human he left Sting for dust.

    And who's been part of more memorable angles over the years? We are talking about two wrestlers here who've had long careers, certainly careers that run as long as we've been fans.

    When did Undertaker retire?

    Better than He Buries Them Alive? not a chance. Undertaker vs. Kwang owns.

    But seriously, a definitive set on both, Undertakers would be better and more intresting. For every match on the DVD you could punctuate with an angle. And angles are just as important as the matches themselves. If that's not the case then why was Sting vs. Hoagn WCW's largest buyrate?

    Ignore the matches for a second, what angles other than the n.W.O. one could be inserted onto this DVD and would they be better than the Undertakers?

    That TNA DVD where he spends half an hour talking about religion? Yeah, The Undetaker's have been shit, but do you think the next one will be?

    Even the biggest stars in the business only have great matches every once in a while.

    Can't see it myself.

    Never. Even maybe, but bigger no.

    Oddly, I've never seen Undeertaker get put down for a three after a Death Drop.

    I'm basing it off the fact that he doesn't get DQ'd for using it and that even if it is illegal he can take the DQ then pin a passed out Sting half a dozen times after.

    Indifferent, really.

    Sam understands me.

    It's not a chair shot though is it, as such. It's a chair driven into the throat.
  24. MattMoses

    MattMoses Getting Noticed By Management

    Oct 30, 2007
    Likes Received:
    This doesn't give The Undertaker ANY advantage in this match. Sting has proven successful against bigger, heavier guys on many occasions. Sid Vicious, The Giant, Vader (who the Undertaker failed to defeat, whereas a prime Vader was defeated by Sting on several occasions). Sting is incredibly strong and wouldn't have a problem with the weight and size advantage. He's convincingly defeated bigger guys than Taker many times.

    Bigger and heavier, no problem. I'd say a prime Sting was definitely more agile than Taker, and while there's probably room for argument, I'd say Sting is the stronger of the two.

    Sting knows to save his energy. He's been in many more longer battles than the Undertaker has, often participating in more than one match in the same night. He's the winner of the King of the Cable tournament, where he spent the majority of his first match (a tag-team) in the ring, picking up the win, then going on to battle Vader in over sixteen minutes for a victory. He won the Battlebowl 1991 battle royal, considerably harder than the Rumble, having to win a match prior to earn a spot in the battle royal, then throw your opponents over one ring into another, then eliminate then again. Also the winner of the 1989 Iron Man Tournament, facing the likes of Luger, Muta and Flair in a combined well over thirty minutes, and reigning supreme, all in one night. Atop of that, you have the lengthy matches with the likes of Flair, Windham among others, winner of both European Cup tournaments, etc. Sting has proven, years apart, that he can perform for a lengthy amount of time and come out the victor. Infact, when it comes to long lengthy affairs, I can hardly recall Sting ever losing.


    I believe this match was considered a draw. The Undertaker tapped about a fraction of a second before the referee's hand hit the mat for the three count. So, given a submission is locked in for long enough, it is possible for The Undertaker to tap.

    But if we're negating Sting's Scorpion Deathlock, let's take out the triangle choke/Hell's gate. I can only recall two occasions where Sting has ever lost by submission throughout his entire career.

    Overall, I think Sting is the better wrestler. He's more decorated, had better matches, had a better career, been more entertaining, beaten just as many big name superstars, and is who I'd consider a total package. This would be an amazing match, very close, but Sting takes it.
    jmt225 likes this.
  25. Uncle Sam

    Uncle Sam Rear Naked Bloke

    Aug 24, 1973
    Likes Received:
    I believe that's the only time that The Undertaker has ever tapped out, and it was to the greatest submission artist of all time - Kurt Angle. Chris Benoit? Pfft.

    He needs to breath though, right? I mean, he's human, so I'm supposing he needs oxygen to a) stay conscious and b) for the that pesky "staying alive" business.

    He's no Jerry "The King" Lawler.

    Depends on your point of view. I think The Undertaker is widely considered to have had numerous better matches... even if I maintain that Michaels/Taker wasn't that good.

    Well, unfortunately, no. You're about to be treated to the very first edition of:

    Sam's Superb Summary
    - The Undertaker is more resilient. Y'know, sitting up and everything. if Sting can keep him down for one count, which I doubt, he's not going to be getting any more soon after.
    - The Undertaker had multiple finisher moves that work in numerous situations. Absolutely perfect for an Iron Man match where you're required to score numerous falls.
    - The Undertaker is tough to pin, and nigh on impossible to submit. Good night, Scorpion Death Lock.
    -S'about it.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"