Who was truly the greatest: Sting or Undertaker

[relentless1]

In 97 he faced Sid which was a snoozefest. He did have great matches with Bret and shawn ill give you that but lets move forward; his match with Austin weren't ever really that good tbh, he and Austin never really clicked style wise, his matches with Kane were pretty good as well as with Mick. 1999 he faced Bossman at WM which was a joke. Fast forward to the American Badass version who was lacklustre match wise, he was overweight and it showed. Yeah once he started to become a "special attraction" he had great matches with several different people...being a special attraction isn't the same thing as the main event btw...

 

[Dmbfantomas]

In 97 he faced Sid which was a snoozefest. He did have great matches with Bret and shawn ill give you that but lets move forward; his match with Austin weren't ever really that good tbh, he and Austin never really clicked style wise, his matches with Kane were pretty good as well as with Mick. 1999 he faced Bossman at WM which was a joke. Fast forward to the American Badass version who was lacklustre match wise, he was overweight and it showed. Yeah once he started to become a "special attraction" he had great matches with several different people...being a special attraction isn't the same thing as the main event btw...

The American Badass period (and by extension, the much better Big Evil period) gave us some of the best matches that Undertaker or his opponents ever had. Smackdown match with Angle before Vengeance, the Triple Threat at Vengeance with Rock, WM X-7 with Hunter is a highlight for both, his feuds with Brock were great, he even got good matches out of Big Show when Big Show was at his working worst. The Flair match at 18 is a forgotten gem as well. I used to crap on Underbiker, but the more tape I go back and watch again, the more I realize he was awesome.

 

[SHAGAMANIA 3:16]

Undertaker is better in my opinion he has a big ora about him that he's always maintained. Sting just doesn't have the feeling.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Sting's "workrate" legacy is hurt by three factors:
1) When his main event opponents were good (early 90s WCW) the promotion wasn't big so the matches aren't held in the same regard. Vader, Luger, Rude, Flair, Muta, etc.

2) When the promotion was big (late 90s WCW) the main eventers he got were a pretty mixed bag. Hogan, drunk Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Goldberg, old Flair, old Luger, etc. His one "big" match from a work rate perspective would have been Bret Hart, but Sting was checked out because of personal problems and ready to go home and Bret Hart was pretty much checked out as well. Wasn't a bad match, but wasn't impressive.

3) Nothing he did in TNA really counts and he was old anyway.

It is not Sting's fault that WCW didn't move good workers into the main QUOTE]

First, you cant say "TNA doesn't count" since they are watched by somewhere around 2 million people every week at the height when Sting was there. And Sting had some terrific matches with Kurt Angle, Abyss, Samao Joe while there. He was EXTREMELY OVER during that time too.

Second, if you criticize "early 90s" WCW then you have to discount most of Taker's career pre 1999 as well. In the early 90s both companies were way down, by 1993 WCW was actually very close to WWE domestically and by 1995 WCW was routinely matching or beating WWE ratings, very close in PPV buys, and arena attendance, and a year later WWE was clearly the #2 company in the US. Just as Sting was a major player in that time, Taker was a major player in WWE at that time, a time of lost viewers, decreased revenues, and their losing position as the #1 US Company.


Most of Taker's career pre 1998 he was usually a second tier guy, who occasionally worked in the main events. In the early 90s he was very new on the scene so I wont knock him for taking a back seat to Hogan, Flair, Savage, and Brett Hart in WWE at that time, but he was bypassed into the top tier by Scott Hall, Razor Ramoan, and Shawn Michaels 93-96, mostly staying in mid card fueds save for an occasional run vs Brett or Sid. Sting was the # 1 face in WCW this entire time, and almost exclusively wrestled in the top 2 matches on the card the entire time. Even the arrival of Flair, Hogan, & Savage didn't bump Sting into the mid card, it simply gave him new people to work with in the top tier.

Taker very slowly built a nice career, mostly as a gimmick player and mid carder, but when given a chance to shine during the latter half of the Attitude Era he connected with fans and did well. Still, for most of the 90s Sting was more prominently featured and a bigger star.

I do think Taker was better in the ring, one of the best for his size all time. That doesn't change the fact that he was mostly a second tier player while Sting was main eventing. Arn Anderson is a HOF worthy talent but he was mostly a second tier guy, over enough to get top teir runs or have credibility teamed with top tier talent on occasion but he wasn't a consistent main event level star. He was over though, he was good. So was Taker.

The difference between them is not so cut & dry.

 

[nwocongo]

I was a huge mark for both growing up but I have to say Undertaker personally. I'm a little disappointed in how they've managed to shit on both these guy's legacies while simultaneously not getting any new talent over in doing so. You could argue Rollins got a rub from beating Sting but he didn't need it, his talent got him over. It's just too bad WWE got Sting so late in his career.

The streak should have been left alone but that's not to say Bray Wyatt could not have benefitted tremendously from beating his team at Survivor Series or in a singles match at Summerslam.

 

[shalliin]

Sting's "workrate" legacy is hurt by three factors:
1) When his main event opponents were good (early 90s WCW) the promotion wasn't big so the matches aren't held in the same regard. Vader, Luger, Rude, Flair, Muta, etc.

2) When the promotion was big (late 90s WCW) the main eventers he got were a pretty mixed bag. Hogan, drunk Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Goldberg, old Flair, old Luger, etc. His one "big" match from a work rate perspective would have been Bret Hart, but Sting was checked out because of personal problems and ready to go home and Bret Hart was pretty much checked out as well. Wasn't a bad match, but wasn't impressive.

3) Nothing he did in TNA really counts and he was old anyway.

It is not Sting's fault that WCW didn't move good workers into the main QUOTE]

First, you cant say "TNA doesn't count" since they are watched by somewhere around 2 million people every week at the height when Sting was there. And Sting had some terrific matches with Kurt Angle, Abyss, Samao Joe while there. He was EXTREMELY OVER during that time too.

Second, if you criticize "early 90s" WCW then you have to discount most of Taker's career pre 1999 as well. In the early 90s both companies were way down, by 1993 WCW was actually very close to WWE domestically and by 1995 WCW was routinely matching or beating WWE ratings, very close in PPV buys, and arena attendance, and a year later WWE was clearly the #2 company in the US. Just as Sting was a major player in that time, Taker was a major player in WWE at that time, a time of lost viewers, decreased revenues, and their losing position as the #1 US Company.


Most of Taker's career pre 1998 he was usually a second tier guy, who occasionally worked in the main events. In the early 90s he was very new on the scene so I wont knock him for taking a back seat to Hogan, Flair, Savage, and Brett Hart in WWE at that time, but he was bypassed into the top tier by Scott Hall, Razor Ramoan, and Shawn Michaels 93-96, mostly staying in mid card fueds save for an occasional run vs Brett or Sid. Sting was the # 1 face in WCW this entire time, and almost exclusively wrestled in the top 2 matches on the card the entire time. Even the arrival of Flair, Hogan, & Savage didn't bump Sting into the mid card, it simply gave him new people to work with in the top tier.

Taker very slowly built a nice career, mostly as a gimmick player and mid carder, but when given a chance to shine during the latter half of the Attitude Era he connected with fans and did well. Still, for most of the 90s Sting was more prominently featured and a bigger star.

I do think Taker was better in the ring, one of the best for his size all time. That doesn't change the fact that he was mostly a second tier player while Sting was main eventing. Arn Anderson is a HOF worthy talent but he was mostly a second tier guy, over enough to get top teir runs or have credibility teamed with top tier talent on occasion but he wasn't a consistent main event level star. He was over though, he was good. So was Taker.

The difference between them is not so cut & dry.

Taker was in no way a 2nd tier guy or midcarder. he was upper card and was the cornerstone of the company during the rough period in the 90s. every at that point was not considered a serious player in the company until they had a series with Taker. You had to go through him to get to the upper level. he was the yard stick all the incomers were put against ot judge if they were worthy of being top level players.
some of them worked and others didn't but that wasn't because of taker. going against him you had to be up to his level and if you weren't then you clearly weren't up to being a top tier player. remember mable was getting pushed huge before his series with taker and crushing taker's face. if he'd been able to match up he likely would have gotten some looks at the heavyweight title. same with bossman. they thought there was enough baking for bossman to get a chance or a main event run so they paired him with taker and it didn't work out. Taker might not have been the #1 guy for most of his run, but no one could become the #1 guy unless they proved they could match up and out do Taker in the ring.

To put it into another sport, no once would call Alex Rodriguez the #1 guy in the yankees, as it was clear that that was always Jeter. But the yankees would never have been what they were in the late 90s to say 2010 without having both those guys on the team. sure they had other great talent come and go, but it was Jeter and Arod that were the center of that team and take away either one and the team might not totally fall apart, but they would have been significantly weaker. Taker was in the same position as Arod. A threat to take over and be the man at any time, but since there was already someone there, well placed to be the one that everyone had to look at first before getting to the top guy.

 

[The Warlord]

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.

Crap post. Absolute garbage.

You worry too much about booking.

Undertaker had arguably the greatest gimmick of all time. That in itself makes him a legend. Add to the fact that he was involved in some of the greatest feuds and matches and that he did it for 26 years with one company. He remained the same character but evolved with the times. There will never be another Undertaker. Thats my opinion...but its more like FACT.

 

[sikkbones]

Who had the better gimmick? Undertaker or brandon lee? that's without question.

Now who Had a more hall of fame Career?

if we are discussing the 80's-early 90's, the Answer there is Clearly Sting...

Crow Sting had one marquee HOF match and that was Starcade 97 and that was a cluster of a bad booking and questionable decisions and hogan going into buisness for Himself...

however undertaker has been Revelant since Winning the title at Wrestlemania !3 and has given us Much better HOF matches since...

before the Monday Night wars, and on a classic level Sting get's the Nod...

During, and After the Attitude Era undertaker has had the Better HOF career.

and I'm aware of the dumpster fire promotion that Sting wasted the rest of his career in post WCW, I don't acknowledge any of those matches,