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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please don't support your argument with asinine percentages like "85% of people don't know Stings TNA run". Pro wrestling expands beyond WWE, you know that. It's not 1990 anymore - there's material accessible for people to see Sting's TNA run, Impact Wrestling was/is aired on TV. It was big enough at one point to draw WWE Legends even if most were past their prime. I was never a huge fan of TNA - but I'm not going to overlook quality matches he was still putting on in the latter stages of his career. That all falls in as part of his impact in pro wrestling.
Along with that many including people that worked with Sting would argue he was the face of WCW. Hogan was past his peak? Hulk Hogan was never a great worker, with the moveset he had he was able to still go until the surgeries started to limit his mobility. I look at WCW as the second half of his career. His heel turn is arguably one of the biggest game changers in professional wrestling history.
Sting was the hottest babyface and NWO's main nemesis. He was booked strong against them. In kayfabe did you not see how he would literally lay out 6-7 members of NWO at a time by himself? He put fear into them. Them including Hogan, Nash and Hall. Saying Nash and Hall were hotter - laughable. Not even close.
This is coming from a person that saw many Nitros that Sting closed or the crowd cheer him to come out. One of the biggest pops I heard was being in attendance at Club LaVela and Sting came down in a helicopter to avenge the NWO. These are some of the more memorable moments of WCW. Sting has been face of WCW since Flair left for WWE during his first run. Hogan may have eclipsed him in popularity for a period of time(94-96) but he was never the face of the company. As for Goldberg, no. His streak ended and he lost steam - yes he was very much over but for a year and a half span.
Undertaker has been serviceable to WWE for 26 years, that's good. Overall he has just about as much time invested in professional wrestling as Sting. If you want to believe in Undertaker being a bigger impact, that's fine. But arguing his TNA run won't be remembered and trying to support it with asinine statistics isn't going to convince me his impact was significantly less than Taker's.
I'm actually a fan of both workers. I followed the WCW product from when it was still Crockett's territory in '83 all the way up until 2001. Magnum TA, Ric Flair, Steamboat, Rhodes, ect and I'll argue Sting was bigger than them in WCW in the long run. Sting was Dusty's boy from the start, pushed in feuds with Flair from the jump.
Again, Undertaker has made his impact - just not beyond WWE and he hasn't done anything worth me getting excited over since his last WM match with Triple H. The streak was the only thing holding him relevant and with that broken what else can he do that is impactful? A 50 year old worker going over on guys 20+ years isn't saying much to me.