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

[Jack-Hammer]

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.

And none of them had the athletcism, capability or physical resiliency of the Undertaker. As to Vader, Vader is one of those few losses Taker suffered over the course of his career. I'd have been impressed by it if he'd done it on his own without the benefit of outside interference.

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.

Agility I'd probably agree with, but not strength. In Kayfabe, the Chokeslam is essentially taking a man by his throat, lifting him off the ground and slamming him to the mat. Never seen Sting do that to anyone, particularly to men billed north of 320 lbs.

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.

No one is saying Sting can't go the distance. What so many doubt is Sting's ability to keep the Undertaker down. Taker has simply been in matches against opponents with a much tougher, more brutal offense than Sting has ever mustered in a match. Sting's 3 primary moves are moves Taker has taken via other wrestlers and he's shrugged all of them off.

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.

Sure, anything's possible. But likely???

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.

Hell's Gate is a move Sting isn't going to be able to power out of. Doesn't have the leverage or physical strength to do so. Taker has gotten out of the sharpshooter, first one to do so if I'm not mistaken. The SDL/Sharpshooter has proven ineffective against him. As for Hell's Gate, Taker's essentially pulling Sting's throat down across his shin. Sting may have only lost by submission twice, Taker has NEVER lost by submission.

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.

Sting is more decorated true. That doesn't automatically mean anything, however. Take Jerry Lawler's son Brian, AKA Grandmaster Sexay, for example. He's won a total of 49 championships in his career, more than Sting and the Undertaker combined. The fact he's won more titles than two of the biggest names in the history of the business doesn't mean I'm going to be including him on that list anytime soon. And, given that, the fact Sting is more decorated doesn't mean he goes over Taker or is better. Taker has had 6 world title reigns and, of all those reigns, only one has come to an end cleanly. The Undertaker is someone that's really beyond titles. He doesn't need them to get over or make his career. Never really has. It's nigh-near impossible for the guy to be beaten cleanly. Barring outside interference, Sting would not win this match. As to a better career and more entertaining, just as easily debatable. I agree that Taker has been placed in some shitty feuds in his time, but he managed to make fans care about every single one of them. Were the Giant Gonzalez, King Kong Bundy, Kama, the Great Khali all horrible opponents? Absolutely. Did fans still tune in and care about seeing Taker take them on? Absolutely. Taker was dealt a shitty hand by creative at times, but he took the sow's ear given to him and turned it into a silk purse almost everytime. Keeping fans interested despite having a crappy opponent is a mark of greatness. As to who had better matches, I'd put Taker's matches with Bret Hart and HBK up against any Sting ever had in his entire career. The only opponent I can think of that gave Sting matches to even remotely compare with those MIGHT be the ones he had with Ric Flair.

 

[Murfish]

Sam's Superb Summary​

I will refrain from the childish response of 'more like not so superb'.

- 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.

Cause, ya' know, Taker will actually become more resistant to injury and concussion after he is pinned. That makes sense, right?

- 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.

If you punch somebody and they get knocked out and they get up five minutes later, will your first inclination be to kick them in the stomach? More finishers are more of a distraction than anything else. There's no need to fix what isn't broken.

- The Undertaker is tough to pin, and nigh on impossible to submit. Good night, Scorpion Death Lock.

The Death Lock is one facet and Taker doesn't have to tap. Sting could have him pass out, which Taker is capable of doing(Last Man Standing Matches).

-S'about it.

At least you didn't put me in the equally childish position of saying 'vote Sting' to your hypothetical 'vote Taker'.

I will, however, indulge myself with a "that's is about it, is it?"

That isn't about it, is it?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

In kayfabe terms Undertaker wins. If it takes Sting 45 minutes to pin Ric Flair then how would be be able to get multiple pins over the Undertaker in an hour?

Undertaker has a better gimmick, he's been part of better angles, even if you think his early matches were shit, hardly anybody can match him now.

Even Sting's transformation isn't as great as people think it was. It would have been better if he'd gone from Surfer Sting to Crow Sting. But he's already stopped dying his hair and he was wearing mostly black anyway before he went away. All he did was eliminate lime green from his attrire. Even then, 6 months after he faced Hogan, he wasn't a loner anymore. He was in the Wolfpac.

Undertaker defeats Sting in every way possibe. Even when it comes to growing old gracefully. Undertaker has proper facial hair and while he may be receding, he isn't going feather liight on the top. Before too long Sting will have a Hogan.

 

[jmt225]

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

I didn't mention Funk as being apart of Flair's slower paced matches. And no... Flair vs. Race is no where near as good as Flair and Sting's matches against one another.

Undertaker is above him in every single way.

In Jake's World; no one else's.

Status,

Maybe this is true, but that's only because of WWE, and not Undertaker's talent. And you know this.

gimmick,

Absolutely not. Sting's crow gimmick was cooler than anything 'Taker has ever done. And Sting's Sufer Blonde gig was one of the best babyfaces of all time.

ability,

I can see why one would argue this, but at the end of the day, consistency means more and Sting was more consistent than 'Taker ever has been throughout his entire career.

etc.

Actually, nope, there's nothing else. Sting's the bigger draw, 'Taker sucks on the mic, his charisma isn't no where near Sting's, Sting had the better body, ect.

You're definitely fucking with me here.

Not in the least bit.

Yeah, Sting has good matches.

I know, right?

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.

His matches against Joe, Angle, Jarrett, and even Abyss were all good matches. At least... the majority think so. And I agree with them.

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.

But the fact remains that Sting deserves credit for his ability to get fans to believe in him.

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.

The gimmick was awesome because it was happening to a person everyone loved to being with, first of all, and second of all, no one knew what was coming next with it. Sting was as mysterious as any wrestler has ever been in the business, and that's why it worked so well. No one, and I mean NO ONE, else could've ever pulled that off the way he did.

They wouldn't have though, would they?

No, instead he just goes home for months on in.

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.

See, I watched both growing up. And I think you would have a much greater appreciation for Sting and what he was were you able to watch from the start of his career. That way, come 1996 when the only time you see him is sitting in the raptors, you don't sit there and think, "Wow this guy is boring, he needs to come down." You didn't know who he was, so of course you would rebel against him not doing anything for a year and a half, while everyone who knew him stayed loyal and went nuts whenever he hit the ring.

And Sting has never half-assed anything, Jake.

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

Yeah, and Sting is over 50-years-old. But he still works his ass off and he delivers on pay-per-views.

'Taker, on the other hand, is younger, and that's a load of bullshit saying he has good matches weekly. His matches on Smackdown for the most part are absolute crap. And his pay-per-view matches aren't that good either unless there's a gimmick involved, or he's in the ring with someone like HBK.

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.

Those matches are great, Jake. I think you would appreciate them more if you had seen them while they happened, rather then seeing them today, when you've already seen the be-all-end-all the business has ever produced.

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

Watch the match again. Sting had a TON of offense.

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.

Then how come most of his matches as the American Bad Ass were shit, eh? He wasn't a 'zombie' then.

And who's been part of more memorable angles over the years?

Umm.. Sting. Most of 'Taker's angles sucked. The only reason some of them ever get remembered is because they were ridiculous. 'Taker vs. 'Taker, Paul Bearer being buried in concrete, the entire Kane storyline, ect.

We are talking about two wrestlers here who've had long careers, certainly careers that run as long as we've been fans.

And Sting has had the much more entertaining career, as far as I'm concerned.

When did Undertaker retire?

When did I say Undertaker retired?

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?

One thing you're missing here is how long Sting vs. nWo lasted and how Sting had the best moments in the entire angle. So, that one feud counts for ten of 'Taker's feuds as far as I'm concerned, because most of 'Taker's feuds were shot and forgettable.

Also, Sting's rivalry with Flair, Muta, Luger, Goldberg, Meng, ect. all led to great TV.

And as far as 'Taker's angles goes, the only one I ever truly enjoyed was when he was with the Ministry. And even that got ruined when that idiot Vince turned out to be the Higher Power.

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?

Perhaps.

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

My point is 'Taker has great matches about three times a year, but since they're so great... he gets way too much credit for his overall body of work. I'd take 50 good, entertaining matches over 3 great matches.

Can't see it myself.

So far you're right.... 12-8 for 'Taker. But it's still somewhat close and I don't see anyone really pulling away.

Never. Even maybe, but bigger no.

Yes, bigger. When Sting started doing that, the crowd would explode every single time.

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

Oddly, I've never seen Sting get put down for a three after a Tombstone Piledriver, either.

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.

Well then, by this logic, Sting can just get his baseball bat and beat 'Taker to death with it. I mean, it'll just cost him one DQ, so overall, it'd be worth, eh?

Indifferent, really.

You have no soul.

Sam understands me.

But not even he has a thought process like yours.

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

Which still wouldn't hurt as much as getting bashed over the head with the baseball bat.

In kayfabe terms Undertaker wins. If it takes Sting 45 minutes to pin Ric Flair then how would be be able to get multiple pins over the Undertaker in an hour?

Sting has beaten Flair in under 20 minutes before, so that's irrelevant.

The one time Flair and 'Taker met in the ring (and keep in mind Flair was past 50 at this point), it took 'Taker 20 minutes to defeat him.

Undertaker defeats Sting in every way possibe. Even when it comes to growing old gracefully. Undertaker has proper facial hair and while he may be receding, he isn't going feather liight on the top. Before too long Sting will have a Hogan.

Dude, Undertaker is only 44, Sting is 50. There's no telling what 'Taker will look like in 6 years, as he's already balding himself.

 

[MattMoses]

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.

Coincidentally one of the only people to make Sting tap as well, and that was a well past his prime Sting in TNA.

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.

Of course. But I was pointing out how silly it is to say disregard Sting's submission finisher, well, just because he's the Undertaker. There's evidence of the Undertaker tapping to a submission move, and Sting's Scropion Deathlock has proved sucessful against the very best in the business, defeating Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair (we're talking a prime Ric Flair here, not the old sagger Undertaker defeated in '02), Kurt Angle, Bret Hart, Jeff Jarrett, Rick Rude, Lex Luger, etc. And he damn well looked like he was on his way to beating Goldberg with it too if it wasn't for Hogan's interference.

I think due to the length of this match, and the fact that he's never gone this long, once 'Taker's been worn down enough, there's every possibility he'd give in to the Scropion Deathlock.

He's no Jerry "The King" Lawler.

Nah, he's Steve Borden, recognized former thirteen time world heavyweight champion.

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.

Obviously. In my point of view, Sting has had many better matches than The Undertaker has.

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.

And you doubt Sting could keep him down for one count why? Oh, I get it, he "sits up". Well, I guess if this is the argument for the Undertaker throughout this tournament, he might as well win. It's not like he's been defeated loads of times before, is it? Surely not.

The Undertaker is defeatable. He's been defeated by many worse wrestlers than Sting, very few of which have the experience, versatility and match advantage Sting has here.

The Undertaker had multiple finisher moves that work in numerous situations.

Luckily for Sting, he's had many an experience with people using chokeslams and powebombs. I can't even thinlk how many times he reversed powerbombs from the likes of Vader, Vicious, Nash, Hall (powerbomb like set-up). And those chokeslams, well, isn't everybody reversing those things these days?

And as jmt previously mentioned, often in WCW, Sting would be set up for the tombstone and beatifully reverse it all the time. This would undoubtedly happen here.

Absolutely perfect for an Iron Man match where you're required to score numerous falls.

That's assuming 'Taker can last the entire hour without completely gassing.

The Undertaker is tough to pin, and nigh on impossible to submit.

Sting was tough to pin during his heyday. In this day and age, 'Taker is supposedly better than he's ever been, yet loses more frequently.

And none of them had the athletcism, capability or physical resiliency of the Undertaker. As to Vader, Vader is one of those few losses Taker suffered over the course of his career. I'd have been impressed by it if he'd done it on his own without the benefit of outside interference.

Vader often had outside interference in WCW, yet that didn't stop Sting from winning.

Agility I'd probably agree with, but not strength. In Kayfabe, the Chokeslam is essentially taking a man by his throat, lifting him off the ground and slamming him to the mat. Never seen Sting do that to anyone, particularly to men billed north of 320 lbs.

Well, I've seen Sting bodyslam The Giant (at his prime in terms of size) on quite a few occasions with ease, I've seen him superplex Avalanche, someone who was well over 400lbs at the time, and I've seen him walk around the entire ring carrying Vader.

While 'Taker does manage to chokeslam the bigger guys, they're about the worst looking ones I've ever seen in my life, and barely manages to get them off the ground for maximum impact. Sting, who weighed a lot less and is somewhere in the region of six inches shorter, managed to physcially dominate larger opponents more convincingly than Undertaker chokeslamming them.

No one is saying Sting can't go the distance. What so many doubt is Sting's ability to keep the Undertaker down. Taker has simply been in matches against opponents with a much tougher, more brutal offense than Sting has ever mustered in a match. Sting's 3 primary moves are moves Taker has taken via other wrestlers and he's shrugged all of them off.

But this is kayfabe, and as mentioned in a previous thread, Hogan doing a leg drop is kayfabe much more powerful than someone like Kane doing it, because of who he is. Sting doing a reverse DDT would be much more effective than some random mid-carder doing it (I honestly can't think of anyone who used this as a finisher but Sting).

Sting is more decorated true. That doesn't automatically mean anything, however. Take Jerry Lawler's son Brian, AKA Grandmaster Sexay, for example. He's won a total of 49 championships in his career, more than Sting and the Undertaker combined. The fact he's won more titles than two of the biggest names in the history of the business doesn't mean I'm going to be including him on that list anytime soon.

Hold on a second. Are you honestly comparing a bunch of indy titles to recognized world heavyweight championships in the biggest wrestling promotions in the business?

Some people like to take success into consideration in this tournament, and Sting, championship accomplishment wise, is far ahead of the Undertaker.

And, given that, the fact Sting is more decorated doesn't mean he goes over Taker or is better.

I don't think anybody is using how decorated a performer is as prime criteria for voting.

The Undertaker is someone that's really beyond titles. He doesn't need them to get over or make his career. Never really has.

Neither has Sting, really. He's just been the top guy, and best performer in his company for longer than 'Taker was in his.

 

[Uncle Sam]

No way should this poll be as close as it is. I refer you back to Sam's Superb Summary:

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.

The only thing The Undertaker lacks is direct precedent. But it just takes a moment of thought to realise that this match is his for the taking.

He is the most resilient wrestler of all time. If you could keep The Undertaker down at all, let alone for those long, long three seconds, at pretty much any point during his career, then you were revered for probably being one of the toughest sons of bitches that ever walked planet Earth. Hence why it's unlikely Sting would even score one decision.

The Undertaker has only ever tapped out once in his career, and it didn't even count. It was done by the ultimate submission artist that is Kurt Angle during The Undertaker's ever-so-slightly-human American Badass phase. The Scorpion Deathlock is a non-factor.

In a match that's all about scoring as many decisions as possible, there couldn't be a better suited athlete than The Undertaker. The Chokeslam, the Tombstone Piledriver, the Last Ride, Hell's Gate, that other submission that he used for a while. Sting doesn't want to tap out? No problemo, 'cos that shit's been known to make people pass out and give them internal bleeding. There is not a wrestler with more ways to put you down than The Undertaker.

 

[MattMoses]

No way should this poll be as close as it is.

You're right, Sting should be in the lead.

He is the most resilient wrestler of all time. If you could keep The Undertaker down at all, let alone for those long, long three seconds, at pretty much any point during his career, then you were revered for probably being one of the toughest sons of bitches that ever walked planet Earth. Hence why it's unlikely Sting would even score one decision.

Okay, let's take a look at The Undertaker's entire run (PPV'S, all weekly shows he participated on) throughout the 90's (excluding '96, as I can't find it), and see how much he lost during those times people consider him "undefeatable".

1990

Wins: 2
Loss: 1

1991

Wins: 26
Loss: 30

1992

Wins: 55
Loss: 4

1993

Wins: 76
Loss: 16

1994

Wins: 84
Loss: 2

1995

Wins: 89
Loss: 12

1997

Wins: 96
Loss: 36

1998

Wins: 42
Loss: 52

1999

Wins: 39
Loss: 24

What does this show to me? That The Undertaker lost 177, that's One Hundred-Seventy-Seven times during the 90's. That's excluding the losses in 1996, and all of them from 2000 up until now. Obviously, he won more than he lost, but for someone so undefeatable, it isn't that great.

And just to add, Sting only suffered 84 losses throughout the entire 90's. That is, excluding 1996, and of course, he only had one match throughout 1997. So to me, it seems like it was much harder to defeat Sting than it was the Undertaker throughout the entire decade of the 90's.

Source: http://www.solie.org/W_L.html

The Undertaker has only ever tapped out once in his career, and it didn't even count. It was done by the ultimate submission artist that is Kurt Angle during The Undertaker's ever-so-slightly-human American Badass phase. The Scorpion Deathlock is a non-factor.

Sting, throughout 24 years, to my knowledge, has only ever tapped twice. One of those was by Kurt Angle, while Sting was actually pinning Christian Cage, and I'm quite sure Sting had him pinned for longer than three seconds, yet the referee chose to declare Angle the winner, which was well after the three seconds Sting had Cage pinned.

It's entirely possible that Sting can get The Undertaker to tap. There's never been any evidence of 'Taker going for a very long period of time(s), yet Sting has excelled in Iron Man Tournaments, Battlebowl Tournaments, European Cup Tournaments and matches lasting in the region of 45 minutes upwards. I'm sure Sting could wear 'Taker down enough to get a win with the Scorpion Deathlock.

As for 'Takers other finishers, these are moves which Sting has countered time and time again, from a variety of wrestlers. Sure, 'Taker will hit a few of them, maybe a few times, but you can bet he'll have a hard time hitting them as frequently as he'd like.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Absolutely not. Sting's crow gimmick was cooler than anything 'Taker has ever done. And Sting's Sufer Blonde gig was one of the best babyfaces of all time.

I wasn't under the impression that The Undertaker was supposed to be cool. I thought he was a goth. But in what was is The Crow gimmick more intresting? can understand how you'd be intrested by him not wrestling and how you'd finally want to see him wrestle after 18 months. But that was 12 years ago and he's still doing the exact same thing.

I can see why one would argue this, but at the end of the day, consistency means more and Sting was more consistent than 'Taker ever has been throughout his entire career.

Have you watched anything from Sting over the past 10 years?

Actually, nope, there's nothing else. Sting's the bigger draw,

Once, for one match, after 18 months of build.

Neither are big draws, they've never been successful number ones in the company for long periods of time. If either has been considered a huge draw it's soley down to thepeople they were facing. Hogan & Austin. Maybe a couple of others along the way.

'Taker sucks on the mic, his charisma isn't no where near Sting's,

He hardly talks, and his gimmick wouldn't work if he suddenly started doing Val Venis hip movements.

Sting had the better body, ect.

Undertaker has always had himself covered. You might see the odd nipple, but it's a rare thing.

Undertaker is taller.

His matches against Joe, Angle, Jarrett, and even Abyss were all good matches. At least... the majority think so. And I agree with them.

Nobody, nobody says the matches with Abyss are good. Not even Stings family.

But the fact remains that Sting deserves credit for his ability to get fans to believe in him.

Like most of the suff I'm replying to now, I don't know what this refers to. So I'll just say the same thing applies to The Undertaker.

The gimmick was awesome because it was happening to a person everyone loved to being with, first of all, and second of all, no one knew what was coming next with it. Sting was as mysterious as any wrestler has ever been in the business, and that's why it worked so well. No one, and I mean NO ONE, else could've ever pulled that off the way he did.

Really? Undertaker has sold matches whilst not even being on TV.

See, I watched both growing up. And I think you would have a much greater appreciation for Sting and what he was were you able to watch from the start of his career. That way, come 1996 when the only time you see him is sitting in the raptors, you don't sit there and think, "Wow this guy is boring, he needs to come down."

But I had watched Sting before 1996. I also think his change in gimmick was good, just not as good as it could've been. I wanted to see Hogan vs. Sting just like anybody. But what happened to him several months after? He was about third in line to the Wolfpac crown, feuding with The Giant over the tag titles.

You didn't know who he was, so of course you would rebel against him not doing anything for a year and a half, while everyone who knew him stayed loyal and went nuts whenever he hit the ring.

But I had watched him before. I always knew that he was WCW's version of Hulk Hogan. Shame WCW ended up getting the real Hulk Hogan.

And Sting has never half-assed anything, Jake.

Do you want me to hate you? Look at any of his matches from 1999-2001 and look at most of his TNA matches now.

Yeah, and Sting is over 50-years-old. But he still works his ass off and he delivers on pay-per-views.

He delivers in multi man matches and when he faces quality opponents. I don't know many wrestlers who don't have good matches in situations like that. If Kurt Angle can have good matches with Mark Henry then it stands to reason he can get one out of Sting at what is supposed to be the biggest stow of the year for that company.

'Taker, on the other hand, is younger,

So? Undertaker has lots of time off to heal injuries. But when he's on TV he's wrestling house shows.

Sting has lots of time off and when he's back on TV he doesn't wrestle hopuse shows. None. He doesn't travel unless it's for a PPV. In fact, I doubt he's done a house show since 1996.

and that's a load of bullshit saying he has good matches weekly. His matches on Smackdown for the most part are absolute crap.

What's crap about them? Ok so they're not PPV quality. But they're easily good TV matches. It doesn't matter if he's facing Shelton Benjamin, Festus or Vladimir Kozlov. they at least have some merit. You can't say the same for Sting vs. Eric Young.

And his pay-per-view matches aren't that good either unless there's a gimmick involved, or he's in the ring with someone like HBK.

Oh I don't know. His non gimmick matches with Edge, Big Show, Triple H and even Kennedy were good. It's not like Big Show or Kennedy are quality opponents.

Those matches are great, Jake. I think you would appreciate them more if you had seen them while they happened, rather then seeing them today, when you've already seen the be-all-end-all the business has ever produced.

Did you watch then in 1989? If you did you were a child, weren't you?

Watch the match again. Sting had a TON of offense.

Long match though, innit. I'm sue we'll both agree that it was at it's best when he was getting beaten down. I can't deny Sting's selling ability.

Then how come most of his matches as the American Bad Ass were shit, eh? He wasn't a 'zombie' then.

He was love sick, Sara, that bitch.

Umm.. Sting. Most of 'Taker's angles sucked. The only reason some of them ever get remembered is because they were ridiculous. 'Taker vs. 'Taker, Paul Bearer being buried in concrete, the entire Kane storyline, ect.

WRESTLING is ridiculous. I'm not seeing your point at all. Good or bad, they were memorable.

When did I say Undertaker retired?

You were on about Sting's longevity. Sting, under the Sting gimmick has been going for only a little longer than Undertaker.

One thing you're missing here is how long Sting vs. nWo lasted and how Sting had the best moments in the entire angle.

It was a contributing effort. the angle wasn't just Sting. He played his part just like Hogan, Savahe, Hall, Nash, Vincent, Adams, Norton & others.

So, that one feud counts for ten of 'Taker's feuds as far as I'm concerned, because most of 'Taker's feuds were shot and forgettable.

Undertaker has had more feuds, so it stands to reason that some will be forgotten. Even so, people will be able to remember more from him than Sting. After all, the n.W.o angle should count as one.

And as far as 'Taker's angles goes, the only one I ever truly enjoyed was when he was with the Ministry. And even that got ruined when that idiot Vince turned out to be the Higher Power.

You say the others angles were shit and then you go and say that you enjoy this one?

My point is 'Taker has great matches about three times a year, but since they're so great... he gets way too much credit for his overall body of work. I'd take 50 good, entertaining matches over 3 great matches.

Undertaker has only has three great matches a year? Maybe, but the same can be said for most of the big stars. Hulk Hogan probably used to have one, mostly because of how infrequently he actually wrestled.

Well then, by this logic, Sting can just get his baseball bat and beat 'Taker to death with it. I mean, it'll just cost him one DQ, so overall, it'd be worth, eh?

Only Undertaker is already dead.

Which still wouldn't hurt as much as getting bashed over the head with the baseball bat.

Course it would. How would a shot to the jugular not hurt more than a blow to the head. At the most a baseball bat will knock you out. Sting mostly hits people in the back, but that's beside the point. Undertaker can drive a chair into a throat then hit somebody over the head, then have a sit down after.

Sting has beaten Flair in under 20 minutes before, so that's irrelevant.

The one time Flair and 'Taker met in the ring (and keep in mind Flair was past 50 at this point), it took 'Taker 20 minutes to defeat him.

40, 50, Flair has always been old no matter how you look at it. It took HBK, 30 minutes to beat him at 60.

Dude, Undertaker is only 44, Sting is 50. There's no telling what 'Taker will look like in 6 years, as he's already balding himself.

Undertaker has already cut his hair off. You don't think he'll do it again? Sting is saving his, for some sort of special occasion, it would seem.

 

[RVDgurl]

Undertaker wins this match. He is bigger, stronger, and in the prime of his career he was just as quick. Taker has more diversity in his offense and he has always been that big match type of guy. By no means will Sting be a pushover in the one, but Taker will prove to be too much.

 

[gd]

I voted Undertaker for a couple of reasons. First, him and Sting are very similar, except Undertaker is bigger and stronger, which would be very important in this match. Secondly, Undertaker has about 5 or 6 moves that he could finish Sting off with, while Sting has about 2 he could finish Undertaker off with. It would be hard for Sting to defend against such a variety of potential finishing moves.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The simple truth is that the Undertaker is able to absorb far more punishment than Sting is capable of dishing out. Taker has been on the receiving end of offense, just some of which I've mentioned in an earlier post, that would grind Sting's bones to dust and has shrugged it off almost every single time. As has also been mentioned, Taker has a brutal offense with a number of devestating finishers, each of which is more than capable of putting Sting down. When I look at Sting's finishers, it's almost enough to make me laugh because he simply has NOTHING that can keep Taker down. A reverse DDT, a submission hold that he's gotten out of numerous times in the past, and a jumping avalance splash in the corner. As I said, NOTHING that will stop the Undertaker.

I know some keep harping on the submission angle and, just face it, Taker has NEVER tapped out. Sting has on two occassions and, while that does show a lot of physical toughness, he's still tapped. Taker simply will not tap. If two submission specialists like Bret Hart and Kurt Angle couldn't do it, neither will Sting.

 

[Murfish]

I love how Taker supporters have left the ever present setting argument out of this one. Why? This is WCW. Taker was Mean Mark Callous in WCW, and Sting was a god.

No way should this poll be as close as it is. I refer you back to Sam's Superb Summary:

I like how you avoided that post where I refuted all of your summary. That's cool.

The only thing The Undertaker lacks is direct precedent. But it just takes a moment of thought to realise that this match is his for the taking.

He is the most resilient wrestler of all time. If you could keep The Undertaker down at all, let alone for those long, long three seconds, at pretty much any point during his career, then you were revered for probably being one of the toughest sons of bitches that ever walked planet Earth. Hence why it's unlikely Sting would even score one decision.

A) Sting is considered to be an all time great. He could beat Taker in a match.
B) Taker is more than capable of losing; and if you can pin him after one death drop, then doing a few more will probably get you something. I think it'll be more pins.
C) But is he known for his stamina? No. When's the last time he's had a 60 minute match or even come close to that?

The Undertaker has only ever tapped out once in his career, and it didn't even count. It was done by the ultimate submission artist that is Kurt Angle during The Undertaker's ever-so-slightly-human American Badass phase. The Scorpion Deathlock is a non-factor.

SCSA, also considered one of the toughest badasses of all time, passed out in a Sharpshooter. Taker doesn't need to tap. All he needs to do is pass out, which, considering that you have to be semi-knocked out to be pinned, isn't impossible. Oh, and Sting is a master of the Sharpshooter.

In a match that's all about scoring as many decisions as possible, there couldn't be a better suited athlete than The Undertaker. The Chokeslam, the Tombstone Piledriver, the Last Ride, Hell's Gate, that other submission that he used for a while. Sting doesn't want to tap out? No problemo, 'cos that shit's been known to make people pass out and give them internal bleeding. There is not a wrestler with more ways to put you down than The Undertaker.

You mean an athelete that will get tired pretty damn fast? Iron man matches have come and gone with minimal falls(see: Hart v Michaels). All Sting needs to do is get two falls and be intelligent about how he carries himself. Sixty minutes is plenty of time to get the best of Taker twice. How many times has the Hell's Gate been used on an all time great? It's been used mainly to crush useless SHW's and Edge(the human punching bag). More ways = distractions. He's not a master of the Last Ride, Hell's Gate, and even the Chokeslam. Sting has long since bended the Death Drop and Lock to his will.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I love how Taker supporters have left the ever present setting argument out of this one. Why? This is WCW. Taker was Mean Mark Callous in WCW, and Sting was a god.

As I said in the Shawn Michaels vs. Jerry Lynn match, greatness is greatness no matter where the match is being held. The truth is that Sting isn't up against "Mean Mark Callous", a young guy that hasn't made his mark, he's up against the Undertaker. In this case, a WCW god meets a WWE god and WCW goes belly up, just like it did in 2001.

I like how you avoided that post where I refuted all of your summary. That's cool.

A) Sting is considered to be an all time great. He could beat Taker in a match.
B) Taker is more than capable of losing; and if you can pin him after one death drop, then doing a few more will probably get you something. I think it'll be more pins.
C) But is he known for his stamina? No. When's the last time he's had a 60 minute match or even come close to that?

A) So is the Undertaker. Repeating he could beat the Undertaker over and over means nothing. I can click my heels together until they bleed and murmur "There's No Place Like Home", but I'm not going to be whisked off to Kansas.
B) Of course he's capable of losing, just not to Sting.
C)Neither guy is really known for their stamina. Sting hasn't gone 60 minutes in over 20 years, though no proof's ever been brought up that Taker can't.

SCSA, also considered one of the toughest badasses of all time, passed out in a Sharpshooter. Taker doesn't need to tap. All he needs to do is pass out, which, considering that you have to be semi-knocked out to be pinned, isn't impossible. Oh, and Sting is a master of the Sharpshooter.

Yes, but Steve Austin never powered out of the Sharpshooter, Taker has. Austin got half way out of it but couldn't break free. Taker has kicked out of it with enough force to launch Bret Hart out of the ring. The Sharpshooter, Scorpion Deathlock or whatever you want to call it is not a viable threat to the Undertaker.

All Sting needs to do is get two falls and be intelligent about how he carries himself. Sixty minutes is plenty of time to get the best of Taker twice.

Not when Sting doesn't have a single move in his entire aresenal that can put the Undertaker down. A reverse DDT, a jumping Avalance splash, and a somewhat modified Boston Crab are Sting's primary weapons. NOTHING Taker can't handle because he's handled them before.

 

[Murfish]

As I said in the Shawn Michaels vs. Jerry Lynn match, greatness is greatness no matter where the match is being held. The truth is that Sting isn't up against "Mean Mark Callous", a young guy that hasn't made his mark, he's up against the Undertaker. In this case, a WCW god meets a WWE god and WCW goes belly up, just like it did in 2001.

The point is that he didn't make it in WCW and he wasn't great for several years in WWF.

A) So is the Undertaker. Repeating he could beat the Undertaker over and over means nothing. I can click my heels together until they bleed and murmur "There's No Place Like Home", but I'm not going to be whisked off to Kansas.
B) Of course he's capable of losing, just not to Sting.
C)Neither guy is really known for their stamina. Sting hasn't gone 60 minutes in over 20 years, though no proof's ever been brought up that Taker can't.

Undertaker is not infallible, and if he can lose to a non-legend, then he can damn sure lose to Sting. Taker has lost to Angle(close to Sting'ss league) and Khali(not close to Sting's league) among others. An Iron Man match isn't worlds apart from a regular match, so if others can beat Taker, then so can Sting, which means that Sting could beat Taker in an iron man match.

Taker doesn't have a precedent, does he? I could say that Boink could work a 60 minute match, but there's no way of verifying it. Sting isn't going into this in his current state: he'll be a hell of a lot closer to the days when he could go for 60 minutes.

Yes, but Steve Austin never powered out of the Sharpshooter, Taker has. Austin got half way out of it but couldn't break free. Taker has kicked out of it with enough force to launch Bret Hart out of the ring. The Sharpshooter, Scorpion Deathlock or whatever you want to call it is not a viable threat to the Undertaker.

Sting has more muscle mass and when he was 'The Crow' he was strong and resilient. Oh, and 45 minutes into the match, I doubt Taker is going to have enough gas to pull something like that on Sting.

Not when Sting doesn't have a single move in his entire aresenal that can put the Undertaker down. A reverse DDT, a jumping Avalance splash, and a somewhat modified Boston Crab are Sting's primary weapons. NOTHING Taker can't handle because he's handled them before.

You'd think that a leg drop couldn't keep that many wrestlers down, but Hogan beat a lot of stars with it, including Taker. What exactly makes Undertaker so impervious to all of those moves? This is professional wrestling, where fake moves that do no actual damage to the opponent tend to put wrestlers away for the pin.