Who was truly the greatest: Sting or Undertaker

[relentless1]

With Sting going into the HOF this year, it got me thinking about the same old rivalry that will probably new be: Sting v Undertaker. Both men were stalwarts for their respective companies, both worked their butts off and achieved legendary status. But which one meant the most to wrestling overall?? in 50 years when both guys are long dead, who will we be taking about more? who will have left a greater impact on this business?

 

[Aquaman6686]

Undertaker has no legacy. Everything he did was flushed down the toilet to stroke Brock Lesnar's ego. Undertaker was made to look totally inferior and WWE outright stated "Undertaker CANNOT DEFEAT Brock Lesnar". Everything he ever did was meaningless.

 

[OYDK]

But which one meant the most to wrestling overall?? in 50 years when both guys are long dead, who will we be taking about more? who will have left a greater impact on this business?

Based on this criteria, I gotta go with The Undertaker. Taker is somebody who has remained at the top of the wrestling business for over 25 years now. 25 YEARS. While Sting did much the same, his time in TNA is what ultimately decides this for me. No disrespect to TNA, but in regards to professional wrestling, it's the "minor leagues" so to speak. While Taker was winning World Championships, putting on classic matches, and padding his undefeated streak at Wrestlemania, Sting was toiling away in TNA obscurity. Had he jumped to WWE in 2001 this would be a much more heated debate but Sting, for all intents and purposes, "disappearing" for 15 years really hurt his legacy as one of the greatest ever.

It's funny because I'm more of a Sting mark, but Taker has undoubtedly compiled one of the greatest careers of all time. Sting has also had an incredible career, but I don't know if it ranks up there with Taker's. Taker will go down in WWE history as a once in a lifetime talent.

 

[J.J.]

First of all people do live pass a century lol.

Sting was able to work good matches well into his 50s. I've been against him competing in WWE since he signed but honestly he did well considering he'so close to 60. Undertaker just hit 50 and I feel he's unable to carry a match anymore - especially looking at those he has been booked against. That would be only thing I see that drastically separates the two.

Undertaker has had memorable matches in the latter part of his career as well as good gimmick matches and been involved in a couple major WWE moments such as the debut of Kane and the HIAC match against Mankind. Despite his popularity, Undertaker took a backseat to The Rock and Austin and even in later years to Orton and Cena. Much like Sting did to Flair and Hogan.

Sting was the face of WCW. Even if he was clouded by Hogan's arrival for a while, his feud against NWO is a great moment in WCW history. Sting was mentioned up there with Austin during the peak of the latter 90s. But I cannot overlook the Flair, Luger, Butch Reed and Terry Funk matches.

This is just a brief overview I am providing as I don't want to JH the topic but in short I pick Sting. I've seen Sting on TV since '87 and I've always admired his work more.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Based on this criteria, I gotta go with The Undertaker. Taker is somebody who has remained at the top of the wrestling business for over 25 years now. 25 YEARS. While Sting did much the same, his time in TNA is what ultimately decides this for me. No disrespect to TNA, but in regards to professional wrestling, it's the "minor leagues" so to speak. While Taker was winning World Championships, putting on classic matches, and padding his undefeated streak at Wrestlemania, Sting was toiling away in TNA obscurity. Had he jumped to WWE in 2001 this would be a much more heated debate but Sting, for all intents and purposes, "disappearing" for 15 years really hurt his legacy as one of the greatest ever.

It's funny because I'm more of a Sting mark, but Taker has undoubtedly compiled one of the greatest careers of all time. Sting has also had an incredible career, but I don't know if it ranks up there with Taker's. Taker will go down in WWE history as a once in a lifetime talent.

This. I couldn't agree with this more. Thankfully, I don't have to exert my nerves much to decide for my own self who really is "the greatest", now!

But just like you, I'm a huge Sting mark. I adore the guy! Steve Borden to me seems like one of the nicest, most honest guys out there..in a profession that isn't exactly known to breed "nice, honest guys"! I have the same opinion about Kane(Glenn Jacobs) and Taker. Respect! How surprising..all of these guys who had something or the other to do with demons, darkness, evil, scorpions(in kayfabe of course), etc..are the nicest guys in the wrestling business.

I will forever feel wistful about the fact that Sting wasted the latter part of his career(2008-2014) in TNA and didn't jump ship. Alas. At least he should've been with the WWE from 2010, or else should have retired. Nonetheless, Taker has such an amazing legacy..so many classic matches...from Wrestlemania to fucking SMACKDOWN!

Triple threat title match with Rock and Angle from Vengeance 2002.
SD WWE title match versus Kurt Angle, in Sep '03.
His match with Cena from Vengeance '03.
His matches against Angle, Shawn Michaels, Batista, Orton, and Austin.
And who can forget the classic against Bret Hart from Summerslam 1997!

So there. Undoubtedly, Taker is the greatest, though my heart wants to consider Sting as an equal. And to be honest, The Undertaker was pretty unidimensional and wrestled really lousy matches up to 1996. Ironically, it's after 1996 with the likes of Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Steve Austin, and Mankind! , that he came to be The Phenom that we perceive him to be!

 

[Charismatic Enigma]

Well, ultimately the history books will show it as Undertaker because WWE bought history.

I also think the time in TNA (until WWE buys their tape library, and probably even still then) hurt Sting's legacy.

That said, if we factor truth into the equation, Undertaker was largely rewarded for his loyalty during the mid '90s when virtually every star but Shawn, Bret, and him jumped shipped. His contributions though are often overstated. While he was certainly a present figure in the attitude era, I could easily argue that he was often shoehorned into angles and was a much more insignificant part of the reason for the success of that era than his contemporaries. He did go on to have some classic matches at WM certainly, but a lot of the magic of those matches was propelled by the streak, which we much remember was entirely the result of booking, and nothing to do with him as a performer. So while all those near falls made the hair on your neck stand up as the years went on, that was a product of favorable booking. If it had been anyone else in that role it may have helped to create similar drama for their matches. I will never discredit Taker's longevity, ability to stay relevant, and put on quality matches well past most people's retirement age.

Sting on the other hand, I actually think was the better overall performer in both match quality and mic skills, but he also had a lot of quality opponents to work with, namely Flair. If we were only comparing them up until 2001, then without a doubt I'd give the nod to Sting. However, in the post WCW era, their careers went on very different trajectories simply due to logistics and booking, so it's hard to make a fair comparison after that.

I personally like Sting better as a person. I think Undertaker has overstayed his welcome and his "a little too convenient" excuses of not wanting to break character to get out of doing things has started to rub me the wrong way, as he can break it to be in a motorcycle video, or ya know for the whole American Badass gimmick, but not to induct Paul Bearer in the HOF for example. I think Sting is much more down to earth, normal, humble guy, who does right for the business, and Taker strikes me as the kind of guy that will only allow his legacy to be touched for a friend like Lesnar, but otherwise has no problem chumping out someone like Bray Wyatt.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Sting on the other hand, I actually think was the better overall performer in both match quality and mic skills, but he also had a lot of quality opponents to work with, namely Flair. If we were only comparing them up until 2001, then without a doubt I'd give the nod to Sting. However, in the post WCW era, their careers went on very different trajectories simply due to logistics and booking, so it's hard to make a fair comparison after that.

True. I feel the same. If you compare them until 2001, probably Sting wins because up to 1996, The Undertaker was a rather unidimensional character and had showed little to no evolution. Basically, wrestled one "big wrestler" after another, resulting in endless utterly drab feuds and even worse matches. You can't really do much, after all, with Kamala, Mabel, Khali, King Kong Bundy, and Giant Gonzales..right? It's only with his Mankind feud did Taker truly shine. Followed by his feuds with Bret, Shawn, and Austin.

Strangely enough, Taker floundered once again after 1999, for 2 years, after which he shines with Lesnar and Angle. Followed by floundering with the likes of Mark Henry and Khali, and then shining with Angle and Shawn!

I personally like Sting better as a person. I think Undertaker has overstayed his welcome and his "a little too convenient" excuses of not wanting to break character to get out of doing things has started to rub me the wrong way, as he can break it to be in a motorcycle video, or ya know for the whole American Badass gimmick, but not to induct Paul Bearer in the HOF for example. I think Sting is much more down to earth, normal, humble guy, who does right for the business, and Taker strikes me as the kind of guy that will only allow his legacy to be touched for a friend like Lesnar, but otherwise has no problem chumping out someone like Bray Wyatt.

I didn't know him and Lesnar were real-life "friends" ? I had seen that UFC staredown video clip years ago, and have read Lesnar's book. I don't remember ever believing that Lesnar considers anyone a "friend" (besides Paul Heyman) in the wrestling business,and is notorious as an UN-amiable and private person.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Taker is somebody who has remained at the top of the wrestling business for over 25 years now. 25 YEARS. While Sting did much the same, his time in TNA is what ultimately decides this for me. No disrespect to TNA, but in regards to professional wrestling, it's the "minor leagues" so to speak.

Totally agree, and my thoughts on the matter deal not so much with TNA's standing, but Sting's choice to spend all those years with them.

I contrast Steve Borden's decision to work in TNA with Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees. Sting choosing to ply his trade in the minor leagues is like Jeter being called up by the Yankees but choosing instead to stay in Triple A because he was more comfortable there. He'd still be a great ballplayer but would be toiling in relative obscurity, thereby diminishing his 'greatness.'

If you wish to be regarded as an all-time great in pro wrestling, you don't willingly spend your time in the minors; you go where the most fans can see you do what you do.

Even when Undertaker's body wouldn't permit his working full time, he still did his thing on the biggest stage his sport could provide.......and because of it, every match was an event of importance.

Of the two, I pick 'Taker.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

The only answer is The Undertaker. The only time Sting was white-hot was during late 1996 to late 1997 when he was not actually wrestling but stalking the NWO. He had main evented with big names prior to this such as Flair, Jake Roberts, Vader, and Cactus Jack but he was never as big as Undertaker. Takers only sustained bad patch was 1992 to 1996 when he was against slow monsters and not very good wrestlers. He had main evented with Diesel and Yokozuna in that time though. I also think had Sting gone to WWE in 2001 he could have added to his legacy more than he has.

Finally - all these people saying Undertaker is selfish - he is not. He let his friend Lesnar end his streak so that Lesnar could look more powerful than he already did. Additionally, the marks saying he should have jobbed to Bray Wyatt - if Taker had lost at Wrestlemania 31 then he would have damaged his aura and his drawing power somewhat. However, think he should have won at Survivor Series then put Bray over at TLC. But that won't tarnish a 32 year career and one that has 26 years in WWE as a constant headliner and main eventer. Sting cannot equal that - and to be honest- nobody else can.

 

[J.J.]

The only answer is The Undertaker. The only time Sting was white-hot was during late 1996 to late 1997 when he was not actually wrestling but stalking the NWO. He had main evented with big names prior to this such as Flair, Jake Roberts, Vader, and Cactus Jack but he was never as big as Undertaker. Takers only sustained bad patch was 1992 to 1996 when he was against slow monsters and not very good wrestlers. He had main evented with Diesel and Yokozuna in that time though. I also think had Sting gone to WWE in 2001 he could have added to his legacy more than he has.

Finally - all these people saying Undertaker is selfish - he is not. He let his friend Lesnar end his streak so that Lesnar could look more powerful than he already did. Additionally, the marks saying he should have jobbed to Bray Wyatt - if Taker had lost at Wrestlemania 31 then he would have damaged his aura and his drawing power somewhat. However, think he should have won at Survivor Series then put Bray over at TLC. But that won't tarnish a 32 year career and one that has 26 years in WWE as a constant headliner and main eventer. Sting cannot equal that - and to be honest- nobody else can.

I'm not sure what you were watching but Sting was over from the late 80s until the decline of WCW. He was getting pushed and got over almost in no time. Not to mention he went an entire year making sparodica in-ring appearances in non-wrestling roles and was more over than anyone. I have been to countless shows and his reactions were better than anyone's during the 90s(in WCW). I don't think anybody was hotter than Sting in 91-92. Tell me who was? Sting vs Flair at the first Clash of the Champions, his matches against the Great Muta, feuding the Four Horsemen, his match against Luger at Superbrawl. While you're entitled to believe the Undertaker is better, to say Sting was only hot during those times you listed is silly.

I'm not going to call Undertaker selfish. But I will say that Lesnar did not need the rub from Taker to be over, he was already over from the second he came back to WWE. Even if Taker had lost to Wyatt last year, it doesn't hurt his 20+ year run in the company. The streak is the only thing that made his returns meaningful - that's not a jab at the Undertaker, that's saying because he has nothing else at this stage in his career to prove, which is why so many held onto wanting to see him face Sting despite both being far from their peaks.

I never had an issue with Sting in TNA and felt he worked some quality matches while he was there, apart from the WCW repeats. Abyss, Christian, Kurt Angle, AJ Styles, ect. Whose to say Sting's character would had been booked similar to how he was in WCW? I enjoy the fact he went to a WWE alternative instead of becoming a former WCW main eventer lost in the shuffle(Big Show, Booker T and DDP). The irony of this is while many view him going to TNA as tarnishing his legacy - there's multiple page thread on AJ Styles and the countless ways WWE should book him. While many will justify this as his stint in Japan - the majority of his career was spent and known in TNA. We can't pick and choose here.

 

[OYDK]

I never had an issue with Sting in TNA and felt he worked some quality matches while he was there, apart from the WCW repeats. Abyss, Christian, Kurt Angle, AJ Styles, ect. Whose to say Sting's character would had been booked similar to how he was in WCW? I enjoy the fact he went to a WWE alternative instead of becoming a former WCW main eventer lost in the shuffle(Big Show, Booker T and DDP). The irony of this is while many view him going to TNA as tarnishing his legacy - there's multiple page thread on AJ Styles and the countless ways WWE should book him. While many will justify this as his stint in Japan - the majority of his career was spent and known in TNA. We can't pick and choose here.

The question the OP asked was, which of the two will be remembered for having a bigger impact in the wrestling industry and the fact is, in the grand scheme of things nobody will remember TNA. TNA lifers, as good as they may be, will never go on to become "legends" in the wrestling industry. 50-60 years from now, not many people will remember the names James Storm, Bobby Roode, or Abyss. When people talk about Sting, they certainly won't be talking about his 12 year stint in TNA, they'll remember him for his 11 year WCW career and his WWE debut. I'm not one of those people who just blindly bashes TNA, but it really is inconsequential when determining somebodies "legacy" in the wrestling industry.

As for him being booked like garbage had he signed in 01? Eh maybe, but I highly doubt he would have gotten lost in the shuffle. Sting was on a whole different level from the names you mentioned and even if WWE tried to "bury" him, so to speak, the fans would have never let that fly. Either way, he would have gone on to do some great things.

And your point on AJ. Again, no offence to AJ Styles, but without WWE he won't be remembered by the majority of wrestling fans. People on this board may be losing their minds over AJ Styles, but the casual audience will have no clue who he is.

 

[J.J.]

The question the OP asked was, which of the two will be remembered for having a bigger impact in the wrestling industry and the fact is, in the grand scheme of things nobody will remember TNA. TNA lifers, as good as they may be, will never go on to become "legends" in the wrestling industry. 50-60 years from now, not many people will remember the names James Storm, Bobby Roode, or Abyss. When people talk about Sting, they certainly won't be talking about his 12 year stint in TNA, they'll remember him for his 11 year WCW career and his WWE debut. I'm not one of those people who just blindly bashes TNA, but it really is inconsequential when determining somebodies "legacy" in the wrestling industry.

As for him being booked like garbage had he signed in 01? Eh maybe, but I highly doubt he would have gotten lost in the shuffle. Sting was on a whole different level from the names you mentioned and even if WWE tried to "bury" him, so to speak, the fans would have never let that fly. Either way, he would have gone on to do some great things. Saying workers who have worked all over won't be remembered because they weren't in WWE is asinine.

And your point on AJ. Again, no offence to AJ Styles, but without WWE he won't be remembered by the majority of wrestling fans. People on this board may be losing their minds over AJ Styles, but the casual audience will have no clue who he is.

Depends on how you want to use the word impact. Undertaker's impact? Undertaker's impact in Pro wrestling does not stretch beyond WWE. Undertaker has been a very serviceable worker in WWE and I won't deny his accomplishments but one thing that greatly sepatates Sting from him.

Sting was the face of WCW for a decade. That was with Ric, Flair, Bret Hart, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall around during their peak years. Undertaker, while great and a solid main eventer was often times overshadowed by Austin and The Rock. At WM 30 that moment in the ring was Hogan, The Rock and Austin. Those guys arguably had a bigger impact in WWE than Undertaker.

Sting chose not to come to WWE in 01 and every single year the question or rumor of him signing came up, even when it was clear he was under contract with TNA. Obviously his status in TNA for those years didn't greatly effect his presence in pro wrestling because he received a huge pop when the commercial showed that he would appear on the WWE game that year, wish his DVD release. Go back and watch his debut at Survivor Series.

Sting stayed working full time while Undertaker has idled since 2011 and going against the best workers WWE has given him. Sting was still competing and putting others over and working decent matches at 53. He faced a variety of workers throughout his career, regardless if he didn't come to WWE until the twilight of his career.

Saying that his TNA run diminishes parts of his legacy because he didn't jump to WWE sooner is a rather ignorant stance. Working quality matches, winning feuds, championships and putting over younger talent is what he did. He was never a guy to gripe and complain about doing it either. Somewhere along the way professionalism plays a part as well.

 

[filthyanimalz]

Sting, no questions asked, end of story. Next.

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

Undertaker has no legacy. Everything he did was flushed down the toilet to stroke Brock Lesnar's ego. Undertaker was made to look totally inferior and WWE outright stated "Undertaker CANNOT DEFEAT Brock Lesnar". Everything he ever did was meaningless.

Precisely Underflaker was a huge joke of a ghost character that had people laughing if he was a JASON from F13th! He lost his streak and match and Mc Moron decided to even it by making STING lose his first WM31 first and last moment of his career to please HHH and job to him in an old fashioned ultimatum to accept his HOF !

That is truly awful I would rather see STING beat Underflaker and to get his last WM match a win cause all this is meaningless and useless!

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

Depends on how you want to use the word impact. Undertaker's impact? Undertaker's impact in Pro wrestling does not stretch beyond WWE. Undertaker has been a very serviceable worker in WWE and I won't deny his accomplishments but one thing that greatly sepatates Sting from him.

Sting was the face of WCW for a decade. That was with Ric, Flair, Bret Hart, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall around during their peak years. Undertaker, while great and a solid main eventer was often times overshadowed by Austin and The Rock. At WM 30 that moment in the ring was Hogan, The Rock and Austin. Those guys arguably had a bigger impact in WWE than Undertaker.

Sting chose not to come to WWE in 01 and every single year the question or rumor of him signing came up, even when it was clear he was under contract with TNA. Obviously his status in TNA for those years didn't greatly effect his presence in pro wrestling because he received a huge pop when the commercial showed that he would appear on the WWE game that year, wish his DVD release. Go back and watch his debut at Survivor Series.

Sting stayed working full time while Undertaker has idled since 2011 and going against the best workers WWE has given him. Sting was still competing and putting others over and working decent matches at 53. He faced a variety of workers throughout his career, regardless if he didn't come to WWE until the twilight of his career.

Saying that his TNA run diminishes parts of his legacy because he didn't jump to WWE sooner is a rather ignorant stance. Working quality matches, winning feuds, championships and putting over younger talent is what he did. He was never a guy to gripe and complain about doing it either. Somewhere along the way professionalism plays a part as well.

I totally agree with you that TNA counted for STING but you are dealing with ignorant , idiotic and oblivious wwe universal fans who are programmed and their mindset reads more WWE ! WWE ONLY! They will never accept or recognize TNA, ROH and NJPW is their other option for pure wresting action and less bedtime storytelling ! I was against STING coming to wwe cause they would ruin and tarnish his image and I became a winner as I envision this and he jobbed awful to HHH! At least give STING a WIN at this WM32 against Bray Wyatt or Undertaker before he takes his award and heads back to TNA cause wwe really ruined ICON STING in my eyes and I will always hate them for that!

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

The question the OP asked was, which of the two will be remembered for having a bigger impact in the wrestling industry and the fact is, in the grand scheme of things nobody will remember TNA. TNA lifers, as good as they may be, will never go on to become "legends" in the wrestling industry. 50-60 years from now, not many people will remember the names James Storm, Bobby Roode, or Abyss. When people talk about Sting, they certainly won't be talking about his 12 year stint in TNA, they'll remember him for his 11 year WCW career and his WWE debut. I'm not one of those people who just blindly bashes TNA, but it really is inconsequential when determining somebodies "legacy" in the wrestling industry.

As for him being booked like garbage had he signed in 01? Eh maybe, but I highly doubt he would have gotten lost in the shuffle. Sting was on a whole different level from the names you mentioned and even if WWE tried to "bury" him, so to speak, the fans would have never let that fly. Either way, he would have gone on to do some great things.

And your point on AJ. Again, no offence to AJ Styles, but without WWE he won't be remembered by the majority of wrestling fans. People on this board may be losing their minds over AJ Styles, but the casual audience will have no clue who he is.

You see this is an example of an ignorant , idiotic, clueless and oblivious wwe fanboy fool you really are not to bash you completely! Try saying that to Steve Borden himself to his face! So you are saying his 12 year stint in TNA doesn t count for you and all wrestling fans ? LOL Everyone knows who STING is whether he signed in 2001 with wwe or now he would have jobbed! Vince Mcmoron is anti WCW so his motive was to get the last ex WCW warrior and ruin his legacy and he did just that! Real wrestling fans unlike you can easily surf the internet and educate themelves of certain wrestlers or read wresting news cause in the distant future they ll be more updates on their cellphones of wrestling stars Wrestling fans know who AJ Styles is cause he was in TNA and NJPW! DOn t forget wwe dropped the ball on AJ Styles they jobbed him he was a nobody in wwe! TNA picked him up and repackaged him he was the TNA posterboy for over 12 years he became SOMETHING PHENOMENOL ! If you don t know anything just STFU and don t say anything! Majority of wrestling fans are not narrowminded like you wwe fans with your wwe universe! STING is the clear winner on this subject here even though he lost and he is getting an award for his accomplishments but I would like to and hopefully see wwe repair their mistake and let STING win WM32 match with whomever he is facing ! AJ Styles will be remembered as a jobber in wwe in 2002!

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

Well, ultimately the history books will show it as Undertaker because WWE bought history.

I also think the time in TNA (until WWE buys their tape library, and probably even still then) hurt Sting's legacy.

That said, if we factor truth into the equation, Undertaker was largely rewarded for his loyalty during the mid '90s when virtually every star but Shawn, Bret, and him jumped shipped. His contributions though are often overstated. While he was certainly a present figure in the attitude era, I could easily argue that he was often shoehorned into angles and was a much more insignificant part of the reason for the success of that era than his contemporaries. He did go on to have some classic matches at WM certainly, but a lot of the magic of those matches was propelled by the streak, which we much remember was entirely the result of booking, and nothing to do with him as a performer. So while all those near falls made the hair on your neck stand up as the years went on, that was a product of favorable booking. If it had been anyone else in that role it may have helped to create similar drama for their matches. I will never discredit Taker's longevity, ability to stay relevant, and put on quality matches well past most people's retirement age.

Sting on the other hand, I actually think was the better overall performer in both match quality and mic skills, but he also had a lot of quality opponents to work with, namely Flair. If we were only comparing them up until 2001, then without a doubt I'd give the nod to Sting. However, in the post WCW era, their careers went on very different trajectories simply due to logistics and booking, so it's hard to make a fair comparison after that.

I personally like Sting better as a person. I think Undertaker has overstayed his welcome and his "a little too convenient" excuses of not wanting to break character to get out of doing things has started to rub me the wrong way, as he can break it to be in a motorcycle video, or ya know for the whole American Badass gimmick, but not to induct Paul Bearer in the HOF for example. I think Sting is much more down to earth, normal, humble guy, who does right for the business, and Taker strikes me as the kind of guy that will only allow his legacy to be touched for a friend like Lesnar, but otherwise has no problem chumping out someone like Bray Wyatt.

TNA has been in business for 14 years now they will never sell their library to wwe! More like wwe will sell their library to UFC once wrestling dies! wwe has been an excremental product since the intro of john cena that fans hate!
I am really surprised you are dissing a 50 yo old man who still wrestles and has more energy to give than your UNDERFLAKER! He needs a wheelchair to be on since Mark has been injured constantly every year WM comes around!
The fact he sits on his ass and collects money is laziness! STING is still busting his butt There s a difference who is more agile in his age!

 

[filthyanimalz]

Anybody that tries to make out that Sting's 12 years in TNA either won't be recognised/remembered is a fan of WWE but not a fan of Wrestling. Some of the matches TNA has had will be talked about for decades to come as will some of the talents.

 

[World Class Mark]

Sting by a landslide, but b/c WWE owns history, "they" will say it's Undertaker by a landslide. And that's a damn pity.

Sting was the face of WCW. UT was never "the guy" in WWE. Sting feuded with all the top talent in his prime. UT never "feuded" with the top talent, he simply had one match at WM with SOME of the top talent and WWE built that as an "attraction match." Sting was the far superior worker. UT had a gimmick that allowed him to wrestle slow (and boring) and that gimmick in-turn gave him longevity to "wrestle" into his 50s as he didn't have to move fast, and on top of that he never had to wrestle more than a few times per year. Sting had to carry his company MANY times. UT never did that.

There are a few things UT did better than Sting, but in the end this ain't even close. It's Sting. By a landslide. Too bad WWE will never recognize that.

 

[whoopin' ass]

I don't think you can say one is greater as they both held the same position in their respective companies. Each is associated so much with their company, you can't think of the company without thinking of them. In 50 years, neither will be talked about because that is the nature of the business.

 

[Loganity]

I'm a mark for both of them, but without a doubt it's The Undertaker. To stay on top for so long especially in WWE. 25 years. It'll be 26 this year. The Streak is something that will be talked about for years to come. All the classic matches and moments. The Undertaker's entrance alone is something that will be talked about for decades. 2015 is another example of how great Taker is. WWE needed him to work more, despite how ravaged his body is at 50, he delvers great matches with Lesnar. Even now he almost always refuses to break character.

Sting had so many classic matches and moments as well. Some in TNA even. But overall it's his run in TNA that settles it for me. Despite the fact he is what got me interested in TNA, there's no denying that they're not on that level. You can't say Sting was on top throughout his 30 years. Unfortunately Sting was a big fish in a small pond during most of his time in TNA. Of course Sting was the victim of bad booking in WWE, especially jobbing to Triple H.

So yeah, no question The Undertaker.

 

[hacksawrowdyhogan]

Why does longevity matter at all? Nobody says Robert Parrish had a better career than Isiah Thomas because it lasted 10 more years. Stone Cold really was a meteor passing by in the terms of wrestling careers on top, once you've made it. My pick is Sting . His greatness from '89 till about '99 is more than enough for me.

 

[OYDK]

Depends on how you want to use the word impact. Undertaker's impact? Undertaker's impact in Pro wrestling does not stretch beyond WWE.

Your point being? Let's not get into semantics here, Taker remained at the top level of the top wrestling company in the world ever since his debut nearly 26 years ago. When discussing pro-wrestling years down the line, people will be talking about the impact wrestlers had in WWE and WCW. WE may remember TNA and Sting's time there, but 85% of the WWE audience WILL NOT. Thus when he's dead and gone, very few people will ever remember Sting in TNA or the "impact" he had there. That's the whole point I was trying to make which I knew would be taken as me bashing TNA.

Undertaker has been a very serviceable worker in WWE and I won't deny his accomplishments but one thing that greatly sepatates Sting from him.
Sting was the face of WCW for a decade.

I won't deny this... well I guess I kind of will. You can't tell me that Sting's role was all that different from Taker's. When it comes to Sting being WCW's top guy I'll give you 91-94 and maybe 97, but upon the arrival of Hogan, I'd say he lost that spot and never truly regained it. Once Hogan got there, the whole show basically revolved around him until Goldberg showed up and took the reigns.

That was with Ric, Flair, Bret Hart, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall around during their peak years.

Eh, Hogan's peak years were long behind him when he came to WCW as were Bret Hart's, and I'd argue Flair's were as well once the 90s started moving along. Sting was the only young gun they really had.

Undertaker, while great and a solid main eventer was often times overshadowed by Austin and The Rock. At WM 30 that moment in the ring was Hogan, The Rock and Austin. Those guys arguably had a bigger impact in WWE than Undertaker.

Well of course, those 3 arguably had the biggest impact in the history of wrestling. Sting doesn't belong in the ring with those 3 either to be honest. Not very many people do.

Sting chose not to come to WWE in 01 and every single year the question or rumor of him signing came up, even when it was clear he was under contract with TNA. Obviously his status in TNA for those years didn't greatly effect his presence in pro wrestling because he received a huge pop when the commercial showed that he would appear on the WWE game that year, wish his DVD release. Go back and watch his debut at Survivor Series.

People remembered Sting because he was one of the best. But they remembered him for his time in WCW. For all intents and purposes, Sting really could have disappeared for 15 years and I doubt it would have changed his reception one iota.

Sting stayed working full time while Undertaker has idled since 2011 and going against the best workers WWE has given him. Sting was still competing and putting others over and working decent matches at 53. He faced a variety of workers throughout his career, regardless if he didn't come to WWE until the twilight of his career.

Again, I agree with what you're saying here, but when referring to Taker, people will discuss his 25 years in the business while they'll only discuss Sting's 11 in WCW. Like I keep saying, 85% of wrestling fans in the world are strictly WWE fans, thus his time in TNA, no matter how frequently he wrestled or how good his matches were or who they were against, will not be noticed in the grand scheme of things by the majority of wrestling fans. That's the point.

Saying that his TNA run diminishes parts of his legacy because he didn't jump to WWE sooner is a rather ignorant stance. Working quality matches, winning feuds, championships and putting over younger talent is what he did. He was never a guy to gripe and complain about doing it either. Somewhere along the way professionalism plays a part as well.

You call it ignorant, I call it the truth. I've already admitted to being a Sting mark but his legacy in the wrestling business will suffer for his 12 year obscurity. A guy that should have gone down as top 5-10 all time, will likely never make a top 10 list, and his time in TNA is the reason for that.

 

[dsotm5150]

Its a unbelievably tough question to answer, its like asking chocolate or vanilla. Both men have had an incredibly amazing career and built legacies that will live on long after they hang it up. The Undertaker...truly phenomenol character and a legend that will never be touched. When the WWE is talked about a hundred years from now the Undertaker will be talked about. Then there is Sting, the man who never needed Vince McMahon to become the icon that he is. Did TNA diminish his status as an icon? Its debatable, but I would say no, not from the pops he gets when he hits the curtain in WWE. The man who was the face of WCW from the time it officially became WCW, right up to the end. You don't stay relevant between 2001 and 2015 hanging out in the "minor leagues" unless you got something special and Sting does.

The face of WWE and the face of WCW. Yeah you've got your Hulk Hogans, Ric Flairs, HHHs etc, but when it really comes down to it, for me anyway, when I hear WWE I think Undertaker, he was the workhorse for McMahon and while he wasn't always the main event, he always plays his part like he is.

Same goes for Sting, we all know the history of WCW and how chaotic it was and despite all the turmoil Sting triumphed and thrived, even in a time when big names were coming in left and right. At a time when the roster boasted Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash, Goldberg etc Sting remained the guy the fans wanted. Some may say Sting couldn't carry the company. Was it true? Who's to say whether he couldn't or just wasn't given the chance long enough to do so. Either way, despite all this the fans wanted Sting. WCW will always be Sting.

The fact that the WWE has been extremely complimentary and shown Sting's career in a mostly positive light is a testament to the man.

As far as who is the bigger legend, its tough to say. The WWE phenom vs the man who didn't need Vince McMahon. Both men will be remember for years to come.

 

[Azane]

I don't think Sting was the top of WCW that much,

Hogan or Nash or Goldberg held that title for most of their tenures, until the company was pretty much gone.

Even within the Wolf-Pac, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall were bigger than Sting in a Kayfabe sense.

This is not to say, that Undertaker was ever fully the face of WWE, in the WWF era he had a couple years where he battled HBK for it, and Around the American Badass Era, I felt he had the top spot for a while.

I still think The Undertaker is the bigger icon, people who didn't/don't watch wrestling know who The Undertaker is, people who didn't/don't watch wrestling barely know who Sting is.

It wasn't uncommon for even Wrestling fans who only watched WWE to wonder if Sting just retired a decade ago.