Where should Sting be on a Greatest of All Time List???

[mizowns]

Where should we place Sting on a Greatest of All Time list?

The Franchise of WCW, the golden boy, and then a epic babyface in one of the greatest storylines ever with NWO, in one of the greatest eras ever.

Where should he bein a Greatest of All time list?

Top 5? Top 10? Top 15? Top 20?

 

[Navi]

Where should we place Sting on a Greatest of All Time list?

The Franchise of WCW, the golden boy, and then a epic babyface in one of the greatest storylines ever with NWO, in one of the greatest eras ever.

Where should he bein a Greatest of All time list?

Top 5? Top 10? Top 15? Top 20?

Didn't Powerslam used to put out a list every year or so and there was always bitching and complaining over who was on it, who they missed and in what order wrestlers were placed.

When it comes to things like this, I would make up my own list as I don't usually agree with others. For example who I would put in my number one spot probably wouldn't make it to anyone else's list period.

It all depends on how you view the product I guess and what you get out of it. Personally I watch it to be entertained, don't like to think to much about it because then it becomes work and not entertainment.

But yea Sting would probably make most people's lists. I have no idea where he would be, but he'd be there.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Didn't Powerslam used to put out a list every year or so and there was always bitching and complaining over who was on it, who they missed and in what order wrestlers were placed.

In addition, there is the tendency of many folks to ignore wrestlers from the past, suggesting that something that happened before their ability to remember must be of no importance. For instance, I've seen lists of greatest wrestlers that didn't include Bruno Sammartino, which is absurd. Someone might say to me: "If I haven't seen him, how can I rank him?" to which I'd answer: "If that's the case, how can you make a valid list?"

Based on his accomplishments and visibility in his profession over many years, I'd put Sting in the top 10. When he was big, he was really big.....and even today, look at how many folks are interested in seeing him perform again, even at age 56.

 

[JiggaGeoff]

Top 15. Let's be reasonable here. Sting is good, no doubt about it; but there are a lot of bigger and better guys. You have to remember, Sting was still being built up when guys like Ric Flair and Ricky Steamboat were packing arenas in the 1980s. Sting made it big around a time when a lot of other guys made it big. He's up there, but I can think of at least 10 people more deserving, so I'll go with 15.

 

[John McCass]

As Sally said, one can't make a list without including old school legends. And this being sad, I can't rank the all time greatest wrestlers because, I don't have much experience as a viewer of professional wrestling. But, as much as I have seen and know about, Sting should be in everyone's atleast top 15 of all time. You can hear the pops he is getting whenever he appears at this point of career where everyone retires.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Pro wrestling has had huge names going way back to the 20th century such as Muldoon, Gotch, Hackenschmidt and too many others to list so top 20 in history could be a stretch
In the more modern day era if I was to think of one person representing all of WCW I would think of Sting. If you were counting the last 30 years I would say maybe top 15. I'm not sure of the criteria of greatest of all time but if it was my personal list I would put him in my top 10.

 

[BuriedByCena]

I disagree with you guys. I absolutely hate adding old school legends for the sake of adding them. That is a horrible way to critic anything. I don't care if they were a big name in 1950. It is 2015 and the fact is, no one cares about them. If they were as amazing as you claim they are, they would stand the test of time. They would be able to hold their own against someone like The Rock, Stone Cold and other ACTUAL greats.

The fact is, most pro wrestlers sucked from 1900 -1980's. They didn't have characters, they had horrible mic skills and they all fought the same style. It wasn't until the 80's to now where wrestling exploded and they actually became great, household UBER famous names.

I have no problem leaving Bruno Sammartino off my list. I don't care if he held the WWWF title for 50 years straight. It's a cool fact for him but let's be honest, he is a nobody. He never achieved anything. His fanbase is a couple old people from new york. He is no where NEAR the level as someone like Hulk Hogan is.

Maybe he might make a top 100 list for his insanely long title reign, but other than that...he is boring.

I am the type of critic that hates things like "Citizen Kane". It's not a bad movie per se, but at the same time lets quit overrating it. When you praise a movie like that, you are basically saying everything since then has sucked. That is how I feel about Bruno and other old wrestlers you guys listed.

As for Sting. I don't know. Probably top 30. I would have to make my own list and really think about it.

I also want to mention that we have higher standards now. A 10/10 wrestler in 1900-1980 is like a 5/10 wrestler at best in 2015. Bruno would be considered a jobber in current WWE. People should NEVER rate people based on old standards or "good for their time". The fact is, he would be considered a jobber now.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I disagree with you guys. I absolutely hate adding old school legends for the sake of adding them. That is a horrible way to critic anything. I don't care if they were a big name in 1950. It is 2015 and the fact is, no one cares about them. If they were as amazing as you claim they are, they would stand the test of time. They would be able to hold their own against someone like The Rock, Stone Cold and other ACTUAL greats.

The fact is, most pro wrestlers sucked from 1900 -1980's. They didn't have characters, they had horrible mic skills and they all fought the same style. It wasn't until the 80's to now where wrestling exploded and they actually became great, household UBER famous names.

I have no problem leaving Bruno Sammartino off my list. I don't care if he held the WWWF title for 50 years straight. It's a cool fact for him but let's be honest, he is a nobody. He never achieved anything. His fanbase is a couple old people from new york. He is no where NEAR the level as someone like Hulk Hogan is.

Maybe he might make a top 100 list for his insanely long title reign, but other than that...he is boring.

I am the type of critic that hates things like "Citizen Kane". It's not a bad movie per se, but at the same time lets quit overrating it. When you praise a movie like that, you are basically saying everything since then has sucked. That is how I feel about Bruno and other old wrestlers you guys listed.

As for Sting. I don't know. Probably top 30. I would have to make my own list and really think about it.

I really don't agree, Basically what you mean is if you werent born it didnt happen or wasn't important? I'm sure their will be some idiot wrestling fan 50 years in the future saying because rock made a couple of movies, steve austin hated his boss for a couple of years and hulk hogan had a couple of hulkamaniacs doesn't make them anywhere near the greatest 100 of all time, Personally I like Sammartino and don't find him boring at all, your favourites such as Randy Orton, Zack Ryder and Dolph Ziggler I don't find particuarly interesting to watch but to each his own

 

[Wald]

When it comes to old school guys being added I usually just ask where wrestlers rank in the modern era of pro wrestling. By that I mean the Vince McMahon Jr/Hulk Hogan/Wrestlemania era, people are more able to get a handle on things with that and it represents a definitive timeline of what most of us know as pro wrestling.

So, with that in mind, where does Sting rank in the all time list in the modern era? Well I always put Hogan, Austin and Rock out there on a pedestal on their own and call them Category A wrestlers. Nobody can touch those three. Category B then includes the likes of Flair, Undertaker, Savage, the Hitman, Triple H and Shawn Michaels and it is in to that category that I would put Sting. Sting is a guy who was/is a major star, who drew lots and lots of money (Starrcade 97 was tied with Wrestlemania V as highest grossing PPV up until the Attitude Era really blew up the industry) and was/is a very good wrestler. Whereabouts I'd put him in that category is anyone's guess but he's a Top 15 wrestler of the Wrestlemania Era of wrestling for sure

 

[FarFromFine]

Yeah, you have to limit it to modern era or you'll get the hipsters of the wrestling world spouting off every old school guy they can think of like this guy:

Pro wrestling has had huge names going way back to the 20th century such as Muldoon, Gotch, Hackenschmidt and too many others to list so top 20 in history could be a stretch

Not that there weren't great wrestlers back then, it's just so different now that it's apples and oranges. It's like trying to compare quarterbacks in football before and after the forward pass was added.

I was born in 1985 so I was a bit young when Sting was first getting national attention, but I was a big fan immediately as a small child. Looking back as an adult, even then as a kid I knew that he wasn't the top guy even in WCW. I knew that if he got the title it would be a short reign and I knew that he wasn't as good as guys like Ric Flair and Vader. I know WWF/E ruined Vader's legacy but he was a monster with all of the legitimacy in the world back then. He made you feel the way you do about Lesnar now, just 20 years before.

Sting was popular and he had a few hot angles in his career. In the ring I compare him to a guy like Randy Orton. Doesn't put on a bad match but also rarely leaves you feeling like you just witnessed something special. The same way we know that Orton is not the top guy in WWE and never has been, I feel that with Sting in his career.

If he would have gone straight to WWE after the buyout and put on matches with the top guys there then he might be higher up in most people's minds. If he had become an attraction like Undertaker it would probably be different. However, he instead spent the last 10 years of his wrestling career with TNA and, though he had some good matches and did some good work there, he was out of the minds of most wrestling fans and out of the spotlight. If he had done 10 years with the WWE he maybe would have become a top 10 wrestler of all time but, as it is, I agree with Comrade_Mario here. He's a solid top 15 of the Wrestlemania Era but it's difficult to give him much higher than that because he spent so much of his career out of the spotlight.

Casual wrestling fans remember Goldberg as being better than Sting.

 

[MrGameTime]

So no one has yet put a list ok here goes, just to make it less argumetitive i wont list a top ten rather just list the top ten of all time who should be in it, if you understand, bringing in to account: star power, wrestling ability, longevitiy, promo, fame and storytelling ability.

In no order:
X Hulk Hogan
X Undertaker
X Stone Cold Steve Austin
X The Rock
X Rick Flair
X HBK
X HHH
X Sting
X Bret Hart
X John Cena

Never a fan of bruno watched his old matches if he was around in attitude era when wrestling was at its peak he wouldnt have made it.
Macho, eddie, lesnar, goldberg, angle , orton, edge, were top names but not elite.

 

[Dave]

I recently tried to make up a list for the WrestleZone Tournament and found it very difficult to come up with a definitive list of wrestlers that I felt comfortable with. However, I did make it to number 70 before I felt as though the water was too muddy or I didn't know enough about people to list them effectively and correctly. On that list, I have Sting at number 15 of all time. Of course, as has been pointed out in this thread, there is a clear bias on the side of new school wrestling because history really doesn't stand up to what is on show now.

Still, I am pretty comfortable that, even when I've overlooked some noticeable exceptions like Bruno Sammartino and Andre the Giant, Sting would still FalK somewhere in the top 30. Sting, just like Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair and every other main event level superstar, has his place in history. He's a cult icon, a legend of his time and definitely worthwhile of being mentioned alongside some of the very best in the business.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Sting is a top 10 guy, for sure. Lots of folks around here will likely not consider him that, due to the massive WWE bias that plagues the IWC. It's funny how the smarks rebel on a week-to-week basis and choose their own favourites, but as far as all-time performers go, they're truly dictated to by WWE and accept every mouthful of it. I mean, seriously, how often did you see Randy Savage - a 20th century household name and one of the greatest performers ever - on a millennial's top 10 list before his HoF nod this year? Warrior was rendered almost a joke figure before the audience was told by WWE last year that it was OK to like him again.

This is why I'm kinda glad Sting made the jump at last. A few years from now, the folks who saw Sting as some inconsequential guy from another promotion will be talking about how wonderful he was. In the end, WWE chooses how superstars are remembered by fans casual and smart alike, overhyping, re-writing or even erasing careers at will.

 

[Vader]

Good points being made about "Top Lists" being made irrespective of the historical wrestlers. For instance, everyone wants to credit Hulk Hogan for bringing wrestling into the mainstream, but the same argument can be made for Gorgeous George in the 1940s.

Sting is probably my favorite of all time for his ability for his dynamic gimmick, and charisma in and out of the ring. I also grew up watching him and WCW. While Sting definitely had a larger than life persona, he wasn't as unrealistic as the major players in WWF at the time of his push (Hogan and Warrior). I admire his Christian convictions. He also stayed with WCW and didn't go over to the WWE for so long. Sting was also able to stay relevant without a heel turn.

Objectively though I wouldn't say he's the best despite being my favorite wrestler. I favor guys that are entertaining in and out of the ring with a good ring skill-set and persona.

I will say that Sting is top 5, and I can't really see many objective things that would keep him out of that list.

In terms of Sting's Crow gimmick, it's difficult to gauge how strong that gimmick was based on Sting, or how strong it was because of the theatrics around Sting.



With that said, there are other guys I think that you could make a case for that have been more entertaining at the peak of their careers than Sting has. Big case for Angle, Cena, Michaels, and Benoit despite not having the same microphone abilities. I think some of Hart's best work was during 97, he was a great in ring talent and shined as a heel.

We can make cases for guys like Hogan, Austin, and the Rock. These guys definitely meant more for the popularity of wrestling. However, Hogan's talent was entirely one way on the microphone. The Rock and Austin were a step up from guys Warrior and Hogan, but they were still gimmick heavy.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Yeah, you have to limit it to modern era or you'll get the hipsters of the wrestling world spouting off every old school guy they can think of like this guy:


Not that there weren't great wrestlers back then, it's just so different now that it's apples and oranges. It's like trying to compare quarterbacks in football before and after the forward pass was added.

I was born in 1985 so I was a bit young when Sting was first getting national attention, but I was a big fan immediately as a small child. Looking back as an adult, even then as a kid I knew that he wasn't the top guy even in WCW. I knew that if he got the title it would be a short reign and I knew that he wasn't as good as guys like Ric Flair and Vader. I know WWF/E ruined Vader's legacy but he was a monster with all of the legitimacy in the world back then. He made you feel the way you do about Lesnar now, just 20 years before.

Sting was popular and he had a few hot angles in his career. In the ring I compare him to a guy like Randy Orton. Doesn't put on a bad match but also rarely leaves you feeling like you just witnessed something special. The same way we know that Orton is not the top guy in WWE and never has been, I feel that with Sting in his career.

If he would have gone straight to WWE after the buyout and put on matches with the top guys there then he might be higher up in most people's minds. If he had become an attraction like Undertaker it would probably be different. However, he instead spent the last 10 years of his wrestling career with TNA and, though he had some good matches and did some good work there, he was out of the minds of most wrestling fans and out of the spotlight. If he had done 10 years with the WWE he maybe would have become a top 10 wrestler of all time but, as it is, I agree with Comrade_Mario here. He's a solid top 15 of the Wrestlemania Era but it's difficult to give him much higher than that because he spent so much of his career out of the spotlight.

Casual wrestling fans remember Goldberg as being better than Sting.

Seriously? If you could actually read I did say if it was more modern day I would rate him in top 15 and depended on what the criteria was on the greatest of all time but if you want to take what I said and quote out of context then go ahead,
You sound like you think your the authority for the history of pro wrestling? You completely took me out of context anyway but even if I did say only that I'm certainly entitled to my opinion I'm not having some 10 year old fascist telling me "you have to limit it to modern era" Your certainly welcome to disagree with my opinions but how dare you tell me you have to do anything?
Thats why I enjoy these boards hearing all the different opinions not for your opinion only.

 

[FarFromFine]

Seriously? If you could actually read I did say if it was more modern day I would rate him in top 15 and depended on what the criteria was on the greatest of all time but if you want to take what I said and quote out of context then go ahead,
You sound like you think your the authority for the history of pro wrestling? You completely took me out of context anyway but even if I did say only that I'm certainly entitled to my opinion I'm not having some 10 year old fascist telling me "you have to limit it to modern era" Your certainly welcome to disagree with my opinions but how dare you tell me you have to do anything?
Thats why I enjoy these boards hearing all the different opinions not for your opinion only.

If getting called out and picked on in a forum gets you upset you must be very new to the internet. Welcome! We're all entitled to our opinions so we're in agreement there. My opinion just happened to be that you came off like a pretentious twit by name dropping guys that wrestled in an entirely different sport than what we watch these days. It's so dissimilar that the two are basically incomparable.

Grow some thicker skin if someone saying that you're pretentious gets you so fired up. It'll make life easier.

 

[FromGlasgow]

If getting called out and picked on in a forum gets you upset you must be very new to the internet. Welcome! We're all entitled to our opinions so we're in agreement there. My opinion just happened to be that you came off like a pretentious twit by name dropping guys that wrestled in an entirely different sport than what we watch these days. It's so dissimilar that the two are basically incomparable.

Grow some thicker skin if someone saying that you're pretentious gets you so fired up. It'll make life easier.

lol @ pretentious twit, you sound like something out of a lord snooty comic.
whatever you think, I'm not getting into a debate with some weird 10 year old kid on the internet.

 

[Woodstuff]

lol @ pretentious twit, you sound like something out of a lord snooty comic.
whatever you think, I'm not getting into a debate with some weird 10 year old kid on the internet.

You kind of are...

I'd put Sting in the top 15, purely because he spent so much time out of the mainstream spotlight. Top 5/Top 10 guys IMO need to have made their names known beyond wrestling forums and Legends conventions. Sting will be a cult icon to hardcore fans for years to come, but how he's remembered to younger/casual fans will depend entirely on his current WWE run. Compared to guys like Austin/Hogan/Rock ect, I think Stings name barely holds any weight to whatever % of the current fan base is made up of casual fans and kids. They know he's a big deal from WCW, but until he proves himself with a decent WWE run, he doesn't have the star power to be ranked any higher than top 15.

 

[FlairFan2003]

I disagree with you guys. I absolutely hate adding old school legends for the sake of adding them. That is a horrible way to critic anything. I don't care if they were a big name in 1950. It is 2015 and the fact is, no one cares about them. If they were as amazing as you claim they are, they would stand the test of time. They would be able to hold their own against someone like The Rock, Stone Cold and other ACTUAL greats.

The fact is, most pro wrestlers sucked from 1900 -1980's. They didn't have characters, they had horrible mic skills and they all fought the same style. It wasn't until the 80's to now where wrestling exploded and they actually became great, household UBER famous names.

I have no problem leaving Bruno Sammartino off my list. I don't care if he held the WWWF title for 50 years straight. It's a cool fact for him but let's be honest, he is a nobody. He never achieved anything. His fanbase is a couple old people from new york. He is no where NEAR the level as someone like Hulk Hogan is.

Maybe he might make a top 100 list for his insanely long title reign, but other than that...he is boring.

I am the type of critic that hates things like "Citizen Kane". It's not a bad movie per se, but at the same time lets quit overrating it. When you praise a movie like that, you are basically saying everything since then has sucked. That is how I feel about Bruno and other old wrestlers you guys listed.

As for Sting. I don't know. Probably top 30. I would have to make my own list and really think about it.

I also want to mention that we have higher standards now. A 10/10 wrestler in 1900-1980 is like a 5/10 wrestler at best in 2015. Bruno would be considered a jobber in current WWE. People should NEVER rate people based on old standards or "good for their time". The fact is, he would be considered a jobber now.

Bruno was a nobody ?? You do realize that the entire WWE was built around him as champion, if he had failed the company probably goes under by the end of the 60s, next to Hogan there is no single individual star that did more as an active wrestler to build the WWE brand than Bruno. It's not even close.

 

[FlairFan2003]

You kind of are...

I'd put Sting in the top 15, purely because he spent so much time out of the mainstream spotlight. He'll be a cult icon to hardcore fans for years to come, but how he's remembered to younger/casual fans will depend entirely on his current WWE run. Compared to guys like Austin/Hogan/Rock ect, I think Stings name barely holds any weight to whatever % of the current fan base is made up of casual fans and kids.

I know a lot of WWE fans and they all knew and loved Sting. Other than Flair I cant think of one "WCW guy" my WWE friends knew and enjoyed more than Sting, he is extremely well known. He'll probably get the biggest ovation of the night at this year's Mania, if not him then Taker

 

[FlairFan2003]

If you're talking "All Time" then you're looking at guys like Buddy Rogers, Gorgeous George, Bruno, Harley Race, not too mention Nick Bockwinkle.....that's awfully tough.

If pro wrestling had a Mount Rushmore Hogan, Flair, & Vince McMahon would be on it.

Where does Sting rank....that's tough.....He's Top 50 all time, maybe Top 30, I can think of a lot of guys I would rank ahead of him (Hogan, Flair, Bruno, Dusty, Austin, Savage) and a lot Id rank below him (Nash, Luger, Ultimate Warrior, Goldberg, Lawler, Barry Whyndam, Ricky Steamboat). Sting had a great look - that he morphed into another great look. He very early on developed on the mic and now is very good, maybe not Flair-Austin-Rock-HBK good but better than a lot of other top guys like Brett Hart, Luger, Hall, Randy Orton, etc....and in the ring he was always excellent, much better than the overwhelming majority of "muscle guys" and maybe in his prime just one step below the truly best main event level in ring performers.

I think somewhere in the Top 40 makes sense. It's hard to say exactly where, I can maybe see him in the Top 20 or Top 25 but with so many great legends of the past like Rogers, Piper, Harley Race, etc it's tough.

 

[FlairFan2003]

I disagree with you guys. I absolutely hate adding old school legends for the sake of adding them. That is a horrible way to critic anything. I don't care if they were a big name in 1950. It is 2015 and the fact is, no one cares about them. If they were as amazing as you claim they are, they would stand the test of time. They would be able to hold their own against someone like The Rock, Stone Cold and other ACTUAL greats.

The fact is, most pro wrestlers sucked from 1900 -1980's. They didn't have characters, they had horrible mic skills and they all fought the same style. It wasn't until the 80's to now where wrestling exploded and they actually became great, household UBER famous names.

I have no problem leaving Bruno Sammartino off my list. I don't care if he held the WWWF title for 50 years straight. It's a cool fact for him but let's be honest, he is a nobody. He never achieved anything. His fanbase is a couple old people from new york. He is no where NEAR the level as someone like Hulk Hogan is.

Maybe he might make a top 100 list for his insanely long title reign, but other than that...he is boring.

I am the type of critic that hates things like "Citizen Kane". It's not a bad movie per se, but at the same time lets quit overrating it. When you praise a movie like that, you are basically saying everything since then has sucked. That is how I feel about Bruno and other old wrestlers you guys listed.

As for Sting. I don't know. Probably top 30. I would have to make my own list and really think about it.

I also want to mention that we have higher standards now. A 10/10 wrestler in 1900-1980 is like a 5/10 wrestler at best in 2015. Bruno would be considered a jobber in current WWE. People should NEVER rate people based on old standards or "good for their time". The fact is, he would be considered a jobber now.

A 10/10 wrestler in the 80s would be a 5/10 now ?? Are you insane ? WWE wishes it had wrestlers with the creativity and charisma today as Piper, Flair, Savage, Dusty Rhodes....those guys on the mic and in the ring could kill 4/5 of todays roster in their 80s heyday without breaking a sweat.... You really think todays top stars are that much better than Brett Hart ???? Even with his lackluster promos he was a wrestling machine the likes of which 99% of this roster couldn't compete with.

Ever stop to think if more of today's stars were as entertaining as the past stars that the numbers might be so bad every week...

 

[relentless1]

Sting makes top 10 easy, he was the face of WCW which was a huge part of wrestling history as well as being the most popular star of the first half of the Monday Night Wars bar none.

Id say top 10 of all time would be:

Hogan
Flair
Austin
Rock
Sammartino
Andre
Thez
HBK
Sting
Cena

 

[mizowns]

Sting makes top 10 easy, he was the face of WCW which was a huge part of wrestling history as well as being the most popular star of the first half of the Monday Night Wars bar none.

Id say top 10 of all time would be:

Hogan
Flair
Austin
Rock
Sammartino
Andre
Thez
HBK
Sting
Cena

Undertaker should be on that list.

So you need to drop one from your top 10.

See, Top 10 list aint easy...There's someone falling out to Top 11-15.

 

[Goldie]

I think Sting would be top 30.... potentially might scrape in the top 20 in my list- though I'd have to think about it.
The likes of Hogan/Flair/Thesz/Bruno/Austin would be on a higher level to Sting.... though Sting wouldn't look out of place alongside Bret (though I'd still put Bret higher), HBK, Savage in the 2nd tier of legends.

Sting is arguably the greatest babyface in WCW (post NWA) when you look over that period. Even if his WWE impact is small.... hes done enough in his career to be ranked up there.