Who was truly the greatest: Sting or Undertaker

[J.J.]

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.

 

[the_peoples_adam]

Irrevocably The Undertaker..
His legacy and worldwide fans are miles ahead of The Sting..
Sting was the face that ran WCW during the prime times but Taker's Wrestlemania matches and streak throughout his career makes him one true great.
Taker is also going into the WWE Hall of Fame this year i guess..

 

[OYDK]

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.

I didn't say 85% of people don't know about TNA, I said 85% of people don't give a shit about it. That should be clear based on this professional wrestling forum alone. You have 5, maybe 6 posters who actively discuss TNA. 90% of the content on this site is WWE related, as I would imagine is the same with other wrestling discussion forums. You're looking at this from a personal perspective whereas I'm trying to be objective. The truth is, even if they remember it, the majority of wrestling fans will never talk about Sting's TNA run because they don't care about the company now, nor have they ever cared about it. To a vast amount of people, TNA is just sort of...there. While pro-wrestling may expand beyond WWE, it doesn't expand very far. They have relatively monopolized the industry and as a result, they will write its history.

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.

As would many who worked with Taker. Doesn't make it true. Yes Hogan was past his peak in terms of marketability and ring ability upon his arrival in WCW. His work in NJPW was 10 times better than anything he ever did in WWE or WCW, especially in the 90s. Fans were also beginning to heavily turn on him by 1993 for much the same reasons they originally turned on Cena, overexposure, stale gimmick, etc. I vaguely remember him getting "Hogan sucks" chants a few times in 1995. At his peak, Hogan was the most amazing thing in pro wrestling history, he obviously was not that by 94.

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.

Which is why I said Sting was the face of WCW in 97. He was the hottest thing going in wrestling, but again, it didn't last that long. By 98 Goldberg had arrived and took WCW by storm. Also, I never said Hall and Nash were hotter... where did you get that from?

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.

Do people TODAY ever talk about Sting's TNA run? Shit man, even when Sting was in TNA there was literally 0 chatter about him on these forums. The majority of wrestling fans will not acknowledge Sting's TNA run and neither will WWE. It will not be taken into historical account when Sting's legacy is discussed. It's as simple as that.

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.

That's just it, Taker has done it all. He's held WWE titles, main evented Wrestlemanias, and owns the greatest streak in pro wrestling history. Sting's career will end with an asterisk for not accomplishing those things, specifically the first two. Again, while I think Sting is one of the greats, he'll never be ranked up there with guys like Austin, Hogan, Rock, Taker, Michaels, etc. And that's based on myself never seeing Sting ranked on a top 10 list.

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

I didn't say 85% of people don't know about TNA, I said 85% of people don't give a shit about it. That should be clear based on this professional wrestling forum alone. You have 5, maybe 6 posters who actively discuss TNA. 90% of the content on this site is WWE related, as I would imagine is the same with other wrestling discussion forums. You're looking at this from a personal perspective whereas I'm trying to be objective. The truth is, even if they remember it, the majority of wrestling fans will never talk about Sting's TNA run because they don't care about the company now, nor have they ever cared about it. To a vast amount of people, TNA is just sort of...there. While pro-wrestling may expand beyond WWE, it doesn't expand very far. They have relatively monopolized the industry and as a result, they will write its history.

Again supply me some statistical proof of your imaginary 85% of people don t know about TNA or don't give a shit about TNA! More like the statistics are UFC cause they don t give a shit about wwe! 50% of the content is TNA and the other is wwe! Pro wrestling has expanded beyond wwe and it will never be history maybe in your delusional mind! ROH, TNA , NJPW and Lucha Underground are surviving very well and fans want variety! It seems to me you hate buffet places I love them cause i have a variety of options same as wrestling a variety of options to choose and watch! You are one track mind and it is sad that all wwe fans like you are an embarassment to the pro wrestling world! Back then many like you dissed WCW yes they started off like TNA and got bigger hell wwe was in a small auditorium and got bigger afterwards! WCW was always the underdog TNA is and it captivated and surpassed wwe so don t go saying never say never cause TNA Is not dead even though you wish it you never know! You are truly sad !


As would many who worked with Taker. Doesn't make it true. Yes Hogan was past his peak in terms of marketability and ring ability upon his arrival in WCW. His work in NJPW was 10 times better than anything he ever did in WWE or WCW, especially in the 90s. Fans were also beginning to heavily turn on him by 1993 for much the same reasons they originally turned on Cena, overexposure, stale gimmick, etc. I vaguely remember him getting "Hogan sucks" chants a few times in 1995. At his peak, Hogan was the most amazing thing in pro wrestling history, he obviously was not that by 94.



Which is why I said Sting was the face of WCW in 97. He was the hottest thing going in wrestling, but again, it didn't last that long. By 98 Goldberg had arrived and took WCW by storm. Also, I never said Hall and Nash were hotter... where did you get that from?

STING was the face and went down with the ship as what a true Warrior did ! GOLDBERG faded by late 1999 and 2000 after his streak was broken cause Nash was the booker and that was when WCW was losing ground!


Do people TODAY ever talk about Sting's TNA run? Shit man, even when Sting was in TNA there was literally 0 chatter about him on these forums. The majority of wrestling fans will not acknowledge Sting's TNA run and neither will WWE. It will not be taken into historical account when Sting's legacy is discussed. It's as simple as that.

Where the hell do you get your information ? People talk about STING on twitter and every wrestling forum and there is you tube and TNA is on TV still so what is your point? If you hate TNA good for you but dragging everyone with you cause you are a wwe ****** is shameful!


That's just it, Taker has done it all. He's held WWE titles, main evented Wrestlemanias, and owns the greatest streak in pro wrestling history. Sting's career will end with an asterisk for not accomplishing those things, specifically the first two. Again, while I think Sting is one of the greats, he'll never be ranked up there with guys like Austin, Hogan, Rock, Taker, Michaels, etc. And that's based on myself never seeing Sting ranked on a top 10 list.

Listen OINK! Your statistics are baseless 85% don t give a shit about TNA? Again making yourself look like a fool! You are the only anti TNA bashing TNA and STING cause you are so mad Steve Borden stint in TNA was wasteful and unforgiving in your eyes! STFU! You wwe fans including you are so narrowminded and shallow minded programmed in such a way that you don t see or recognize TRUE WRESTLING AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS that STING did or any other wrestler did! TNA is where many ex wwe wrestlers went when they are underutilized and buried! YOu see your precious wwe when any wrestler from TNA or anywhere else joins wwe they get buried and ruined like STING! Now when wrestlers join TNA dixie gives them the royal treatment with champagne and caviar to say and lets them win and rarely job or lose! UNDERFLAKER HAS DONE NOTHING! What has he done ? Wrestle a match every year or twice a year ? Again who is agile now and still standing? STING!!!! Your underflaker is resting and collecting paychecks lets not forget MARK CALLAWAY was a WCW guy and was made there so wwe gave him an awful gimmick but he didn t fight for wwe he fought for stupidity and supernatural BS storylines that were meaningless! He was not the savior of wwe like STING was for WCW and TNA in some way! Again you are blaming STING for not accomplishing titles and main events and comparing him to a beer bellin , leather claddin , mascara wearin bone tearin cripplin wearin Taker who is wheelchair bound! Why are you blaming Steve Borden for those accomplishments? Why not write a letter to Mc Moron and explain what you just said cause you are really not making sense you are laughable! Mc Moron just jobbed STING and he won t let him win any titles so Steve Borden accompished more than what you have in your entire life and Underflakers life STING Has more titles between the both of you!

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Undertaker hands down. Outside of wrestling circle almost nobody knows about Sting. And everyone knows The Undertaker. I respect Sting but in terms of greatness he cant beat The Undertaker. Because The Taker is the legend on his own who still sells good on PPVs eventhough he doesnt even shows up and lets Lame Wyatt to cut same boring promos for match with him.

 

[filthyanimalz]

The Undertaker:

Pro Wrestling Illustrated Feud of the Year (1991) vs. The Ultimate Warrior
Match of the Year (1998) vs. Mankind in a Hell in a Cell match at King of the Ring
Match of the Year (2009) vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXV[190]
Match of the Year (2010) vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXVI
Match of the Year (2012) vs. Triple H in a Hell in a Cell match at WrestleMania XXVIII
Ranked #2 of the top 500 singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 2002[191]
Ranked #21 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the "PWI Years" in 2003

United States Wrestling Association USWA Unified World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)[2]

World Class Wrestling Association WCWA Texas Heavyweight Championship (1 time)[16]

World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment/WWE WCW Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Kane1[192]
World Heavyweight Championship (3 times)[193]
WWF/E Championship (4 times)2[194]
WWF Hardcore Championship (1 time)[195]
WWF Tag Team Championship (6 times) – with Stone Cold Steve Austin (1), Big Show (2), The Rock (1) and Kane (2)[196]
Royal Rumble (2007)
Slammy Awards (12 times) Best Entrance Music (1997)
Best Tattoo (1997)
Match of the Year (2009, 2010, 2012, 2015) vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXV, vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXVI, vs Triple H in a Hell in a Cell match at WrestleMania XXVIII and vs. Brock Lesnar at Hell in a Cell
Moment of the Year (2010) vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXVI
Most Intimidating (1994)[citation needed]
OMG Moment of the Year (2011) Kicking out of Triple H's Tombstone Piledriver at WrestleMania XXVII
Rivalry of the Year (2015) vs. Brock Lesnar
Star of the Highest Magnitude (1997)
WWF's Greatest Hit (1996) Sucking Diesel into the abyss at WrestleMania XII

Wrestling Observer Newsletter 5 Star Match (1997) vs. Shawn Michaels in a Hell in a Cell match at Badd Blood
Best Gimmick (1990–1994)[197]
Best Heel (1991)[197]
Feud of the Year (2007) vs. Batista[197]
Match of the Year (2009) vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXV[197]
Match of the Year (2010) vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXVI[197]
Most Overrated (2001)[197]
Readers' Least Favorite Wrestler (2001)[197]
Worst Feud of the Year (1993) vs. Giant González[197]
Worst Worked Match of the Year (2001) with Kane vs. KroniK at Unforgiven[197]
Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (Class of 2004)

Sting:

NWA World Television Championship (1 time)[222]
NWA World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)1[223]
WCW International World Heavyweight Championship (2 times)[224]
WCW United States Heavyweight Championship (2 times)[225]
WCW World Heavyweight Championship (6 times)[226]
WCW World Tag Team Championship (3 times)[227] – with Lex Luger (1), The Giant (1), and Kevin Nash (1)
Jim Crockett, Sr. Memorial Cup (1988) – with Lex Luger
Iron Man Tournament (1989)
Battlebowl Battle Royal (1991)[228]
King of Cable Tournament (1992)[229]
European Cup (1994, 2000)[230][231]
Third WCW Triple Crown Champion

Pro Wrestling Illustrated Comeback of the Year (2006, 2011, 2014)[232][233]
Match of the Year (1991) with Lex Luger vs. the Steiner Brothers at SuperBrawl
Most Improved Wrestler of the Year (1988)[234]
Most Inspirational Wrestler of the Year (1990)[235]
Most Popular Wrestler of the Year (1991, 1992, 1994, 1997)[148]
Wrestler of the Year (1990)[236]
Ranked #1 of the top 500 singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 1992[237]
Ranked #15 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the "PWI Years" in 2003
Ranked #52 of the top 100 tag teams of the "PWI Years" with Lex Luger in 2003

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling NWA World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)2[223]
TNA World Heavyweight Championship (4 times)[238]
TNA World Tag Team Championship (1 time)[239] – with Kurt Angle
Inspirational Superstar of the Year (2007)[240]
TNA Match of the Year (2007) vs. Kurt Angle at Bound for Glory, October 14, 2007[240]
TNA Match of the Year (2009) vs. A.J. Styles at Bound for Glory, October 18, 2009[62]
TNA Hall of Fame (Class of 2012)[107]

Universal Wrestling Federation UWF World Tag Team Championship (3 times)[241] – with Eddie Gilbert (2) and Rick Steiner (1)

World Wrestling All-Stars WWA World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)[242]

Wrestling Observer Newsletter Match of the Year (1988) vs. Ric Flair at Clash of the Champions I
Most Charismatic (1988, 1992)
Most Improved (1988)
Most Unimproved (1990)
5 Star Match (1991) with Brian Pillman, Rick Steiner, and Scott Steiner vs. Ric Flair, Larry Zbyszko, Barry Windham, and Sid Vicious (February 24, WarGames match, WrestleWar)
5 Star Match (1992) with Nikita Koloff, Ricky Steamboat, Barry Windham, and Dustin Rhodes vs. Arn Anderson, Rick Rude, Steve Austin, Bobby Eaton, and Larry Zbyszko (May 17, WarGames match, WrestleWar)
Best Babyface (1992)

 

[rge2010]

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 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.

Lesnar is close to Steve Austin (they hunt together), The Rock (Rock went to all his UFC fights) and used to be close to Goldberg although I think Bill said he hasnt seen him in a few years. Shelton Benjamin is another he holds in apparent high regard.

As far as the question goes, The Undertaker has the better of Sting because he is better known, had far more memorable matches, feuds and most of this was done under the WWF/WWE banner. Stings legacy ended in 2001.

 

[J.J.]

I didn't say 85% of people don't know about TNA, I said 85% of people don't give a shit about it. That should be clear based on this professional wrestling forum alone. You have 5, maybe 6 posters who actively discuss TNA. 90% of the content on this site is WWE related, as I would imagine is the same with other wrestling discussion forums. You're looking at this from a personal perspective whereas I'm trying to be objective. The truth is, even if they remember it, the majority of wrestling fans will never talk about Sting's TNA run because they don't care about the company now, nor have they ever cared about it. To a vast amount of people, TNA is just sort of...there. While pro-wrestling may expand beyond WWE, it doesn't expand very far. They have relatively monopolized the industry and as a result, they will write its history.



As would many who worked with Taker. Doesn't make it true. Yes Hogan was past his peak in terms of marketability and ring ability upon his arrival in WCW. His work in NJPW was 10 times better than anything he ever did in WWE or WCW, especially in the 90s. Fans were also beginning to heavily turn on him by 1993 for much the same reasons they originally turned on Cena, overexposure, stale gimmick, etc. I vaguely remember him getting "Hogan sucks" chants a few times in 1995. At his peak, Hogan was the most amazing thing in pro wrestling history, he obviously was not that by 94.



Which is why I said Sting was the face of WCW in 97. He was the hottest thing going in wrestling, but again, it didn't last that long. By 98 Goldberg had arrived and took WCW by storm. Also, I never said Hall and Nash were hotter... where did you get that from?



Do people TODAY ever talk about Sting's TNA run? Shit man, even when Sting was in TNA there was literally 0 chatter about him on these forums. The majority of wrestling fans will not acknowledge Sting's TNA run and neither will WWE. It will not be taken into historical account when Sting's legacy is discussed. It's as simple as that.



That's just it, Taker has done it all. He's held WWE titles, main evented Wrestlemanias, and owns the greatest streak in pro wrestling history. Sting's career will end with an asterisk for not accomplishing those things, specifically the first two. Again, while I think Sting is one of the greats, he'll never be ranked up there with guys like Austin, Hogan, Rock, Taker, Michaels, etc. And that's based on myself never seeing Sting ranked on a top 10 list.

This is the issue about discussions like this. WWE bias overshadows it. A lot of people don't remember Sting because many are too young to remember his WCW days at his best. I think Sting's greatness is kind of an elephant in the living room situation for the WWE. They begrudgingly acknowledge he was a good wrestler, but they don't want to give him too much credit, being he was the face of WCW and is the one star to never work for them until the end of his in-ring career. And the fans who didn't watch much WCW, especially in its pre-nWo days, don't. I could use the whole Undertaker never got over in the same company as Sting, but that would be me looking at it strictly through WCW bias.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

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.

I don't see how one match towards the end of his career renders everything he did "meaningless" personally, but hey, that's just me. I'm sure all the other greats who lost big/final matches were meaningless too.

Look mate the Screwjob doesn't diminish Bret. Losing to Michaels doesn't diminish Flair (what did diminish him was basically going "fuck my big Wrestlemania retirement match"). Losing to Lesnar takes nothing away from Taker. Nothing. It's freaking Lesnar.

There is a sense in which I'm fully appreciative and understanding of marks who didn't want the streak to end; I've generally considered things that ruin the Undertaker's badass and mystique to be a bad thing. But Lesnar as a sheer physical specimen is easily on his level and beyond. It was the right choice, and personally I wouldn't have minded Taker retiring then.

Anyway keeping on topic, I think the argument that Sting was great, but Taker worked longer in the top company and built up a great winning streak at a major event, holds water. Sting was freaking awesome I appreciate, but did he go 20 years undefeated at the biggest wrestling event in the world? A lot of booking things tip this in Taker's favour actually. The streak, the fact that Taker frontlined (for a time) a powerful group while Sting only ever fought against one, the WCW weak-ass booking that rendered Sting a "Stupid Good" overly-trusting character in a company dominated by the freaking nWo, there's just a lot in terms of storylines where Taker comparatively comes out on top.

Also their ring work. Undertaker is fast for his size man. Super agile. Lithe, panther-like. And he kept it up too. Sting has been able to keep his skills too, but I think his build and ability level is less unique than Taker.

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

Lesnar is close to Steve Austin (they hunt together), The Rock (Rock went to all his UFC fights) and used to be close to Goldberg although I think Bill said he hasnt seen him in a few years. Shelton Benjamin is another he holds in apparent high regard.

As far as the question goes, The Undertaker has the better of Sting because he is better known, had far more memorable matches, feuds and most of this was done under the WWF/WWE banner. Stings legacy ended in 2001.

LOL when wwe really brainwashes you into buying their crap you will stick with the crap! Who is still standing tall and is fighting ? Who is agile his age and still can put a great performance? Who doesn t move around the ring and is super slow = STING! Underflaker is a beer bellin leather claddin mascara wearin bone tearin cripplin wearin who is younger than Steve Borden but can t put a great match his last match against Bray Wyatt was pointless!

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

Undertaker hands down. Outside of wrestling circle almost nobody knows about Sting. And everyone knows The Undertaker. I respect Sting but in terms of greatness he cant beat The Undertaker. Because The Taker is the legend on his own who still sells good on PPVs eventhough he doesnt even shows up and lets Lame Wyatt to cut same boring promos for match with him.

No offence you are a moron! Have you seen his matches lately? He is moving slowly in the ring I mean all you need to give Underflaker is a walker or supply him a wheelchair for him! You are so delusional and your mind is completely taken over wwe crap lately! wwe does its best to brainwash and divide wrestling fans from real wrestling fans . STING is the answer he had more titles and memorable feuds with RIC FLAIR that everyone will remember and that he was a member of the 4 Horseman and he was the savior of WCW who took alone on his own nWo ! wwe came out with his DVD so what the hell are you talking about ? Another wwe uneducated moron who cannot accept or recognise to see Steve Bordens accomplishment and how wrestling fans know him. In terms of greatness STING can defeat UNDERFLAKER cause STING Is the LEGEND not FLAKER!
You can catch up on some reading ! STING Is still standing tall and can put a great match at his age while your beer bellin, mascara wearin bone tearin and cripplin wearin moves slowly in the ring and his last matches were horrendous if Brock can beat him STING can and wwe owes him that win since they fucked up last year and making him job to HHH !

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

I don't see how one match towards the end of his career renders everything he did "meaningless" personally, but hey, that's just me. I'm sure all the other greats who lost big/final matches were meaningless too.

Look mate the Screwjob doesn't diminish Bret. Losing to Michaels doesn't diminish Flair (what did diminish him was basically going "fuck my big Wrestlemania retirement match"). Losing to Lesnar takes nothing away from Taker. Nothing. It's freaking Lesnar.

There is a sense in which I'm fully appreciative and understanding of marks who didn't want the streak to end; I've generally considered things that ruin the Undertaker's badass and mystique to be a bad thing. But Lesnar as a sheer physical specimen is easily on his level and beyond. It was the right choice, and personally I wouldn't have minded Taker retiring then.

Anyway keeping on topic, I think the argument that Sting was great, but Taker worked longer in the top company and built up a great winning streak at a major event, holds water. Sting was freaking awesome I appreciate, but did he go 20 years undefeated at the biggest wrestling event in the world? A lot of booking things tip this in Taker's favour actually. The streak, the fact that Taker frontlined (for a time) a powerful group while Sting only ever fought against one, the WCW weak-ass booking that rendered Sting a "Stupid Good" overly-trusting character in a company dominated by the freaking nWo, there's just a lot in terms of storylines where Taker comparatively comes out on top.

Also their ring work. Undertaker is fast for his size man. Super agile. Lithe, panther-like. And he kept it up too. Sting has been able to keep his skills too, but I think his build and ability level is less unique than Taker.

Again this lousy streak is meaningless he didn 't lose at WM but lost in other PPVs ! So what is your point? He still lost matches ! GOLDBERG had the greatest streak than your underflaker! Want comparison you got it!
Another one is CRIMSON in TNA he also had a higher streak than faker!
Flaker doesn t even come close to the top STING IS ON TOP NOW he is the winner again he is still wrestling and is not home collecting paychecks sitting on his but and working one match a year not even in WCW did he do that !
Underflaker is not super agile not even panther like ! wwe brainwashed you man got to broaden your horizon there and explore wrestling beyond wwe disneyland!!

 

[Goldie]

Sting was the franchise babyface for NWA/WCW for a decade.

Personally I find Taker overated .... yes he has achieved many great thing, yes he is a legend.... but he was always the #3 or #4 guy on the WWE roster. Never the #1 franchise player.
Longevity is the key to Takers legacy... but if you were to rank him with guys on the roster at any given time he was always behind the likes of Hogan, Warrior, Savage in the early 90s, Bret and Shawn were the biggest stars mid 90s, Late 90s Austin, Rock, Foley.... and Cena, Triple H and Lesnar into the 2000s.
As taker is forever on the WWE payroll- the WWE media put him on a pedestal and showcase him as the companies best ever superstar.... just as they did Bruno. Hogan, Austin before they all left the company. WWE likes to forget about past stars once they can't make money out of them.
Though the aforementioned 3 (and Rock too) ARE the biggest superstars WWE ever had.

Sting was THE guy in WCW for many many years. I don't think that TNA hurts his legacy. Why should it? He was in his late 40s/50s by this point, at a time when Taker was only wrestling once a year at the same age.

 

[ShinChan]

I think both are wrestling legends and in terms of greatness , Sting over Undertaker by 51-49. If i have to chose whose matches to watch in between these two, its always gonna be The Icon! Maybe i am being partial because i love him more than Taker.

 

[Azane]

LOL when wwe really brainwashes you into buying their crap you will stick with the crap! Who is still standing tall and is fighting ? Who is agile his age and still can put a great performance? Who doesn t move around the ring and is super slow = STING! Underflaker is a beer bellin leather claddin mascara wearin bone tearin cripplin wearin who is younger than Steve Borden but can t put a great match his last match against Bray Wyatt was pointless!

Who's still standing tall and fighting? Undertaker, You realize Sting had a potentially career ending injury at NoC, right?

we're also not going to compare 2015 Taker vs 2015 Sting, Nobody gives a crap at this point their matches just have high star power, respect and legacy. You can put on a great methodical and slow match and it can be good.

Take off the beer goggles, and realize that Mainstream appeal is really important, the real legends are the ones that are household names to people who don't even watch wrestling, Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Austin, Rock, John Cena, Undertaker, those are names that people will recognize without even knowing that WWF changed to WWE. Sting has always been a victim of 2nd place, and isn't a mainstream name, most people assumed he wasn't wrestling forever, which is why he loses a ton of legacy points.

Wrestling is all about leaving your Mark, and making a name for yourself, Sting was a tremendous wrestler and did leave his mark, but it's nowhere near as big as Taker's.

But SERIOUSLY, stop using 2015 as an argument for the greatest of all time, It's wrong on multiple dimensions, Taker wrestled more than Sting last year. And by now, it's just a miracle that either man has a match.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Of course I'm going to go with 'Taker, however, it's not as cut and dry as some would have people believe.

Honestly, a case could be made that if Sting's career ended with WCW in 2001, that he'd be the greatest of the two. Unfortunately for 'Taker, he wasn't anywhere near impressive pre-1996. He spent years with god awful feuds and even worse opponents. It's not 'Taker's fault, but it's a fact. On the other hand, Sting spent much of the 90s at the very top of the WCW. He was the face that ran the place. Pre-Hogan, Sting was the man and from late 96 through early 98, Sting was arguably the biggest name in all of wrestling. After that Sting would cool off, but he still remained a huge part of the WCW roster until it closed.

Unfortunately for Sting, though, we have to look at their careers post 2001 because they happened. Sting, whether you TNA fans want to believe it or not, spent most of the last 15 years in obscurity. Sure we knew what Sting was up to, but lil Jimmy didn't and lil Jimmy didn't care either. 'Taker, on the other hand, spent the last 15 years on arguably the best run of his career. Winning major championships and having classic feuds and matches. Not to mention the all mighty Streak. Some believe that because it came to an end that 'Taker squandered his legacy but I disagree. 'Taker is still the man who went undefeated at WM for 21 years and that is still amazing in and of itself.

So yes, it does come down to Sting staying in the minors for the last 15 years and because of that, 'Taker is the greatest of the two. I know that sounds too simple and like a cop out, but it's true. Sorry folks.

 

[shalliin]

For me it has to be Taker. He had better matches against a variety of people with different styles as well as being central to creating several match types that had never existed. HIAC, Buried Alive, Body Bag matches, Casket Matches, Last Ride Matches, Inferno Matches.
Sting was a good in ring performer (I always saw him as a second rate Bret Hart knockoff for in ring work but with more personality and charisma- Bret was about doing the work, Sting was about showing flash and style). Sting however was never able to have great matches with just about anyone that was put against him. To have a great match, he needed an opponent of his level or better in order for both to shine.
Taker on the other hand could go frmo fighting massive monsters like Yoko and Mabel and then put on solid workhorse matches against Bret and Shawn while then moving on to power vs power and get good matches out of Nash and Sid. He was more adaptable due to the fact that he was a good worker with a solid move base restricted in early part of career due to gimmick, but around 95/96 started to show what he could do. sting struggled in matches where there was a noticeable size difference between him and opponent. He had trouble with guys like Vader, and needed Flair to match against as he couldn't keep up with the true athletes ala benoit or guerrero.
The final issue though is that Sting was put in a position due to the NWO and his Crow-copycat that hit at a time when the biz was changing. Yet Since then, he's remained essentially identical to the first time he dropped down from the rafters and hit NWO with his bat.
Taker however has adapted. He changed with the time, staying even with the biz. Like or hate, he went mroe realistic with American badass, and then when fans demanded he went back to Deadman, but keeping elements in personality of AB, and showing that he could actually wrestle with the best technical guys on the roster.
Sting needed either the bright shiny colors of his original blond surfer style or the dark brooding silent antihero in order to forge a connection with the fans. Taker gets the same reaction out of the crowd simply by rolling his eyes back, sitting up and glaring or gesturing for the end with the throat slash.
Same pop, less flash and buffoonery, therefore Taker wins.

 

[shalliin]

Of course I'm going to go with 'Taker, however, it's not as cut and dry as some would have people believe.

Honestly, a case could be made that if Sting's career ended with WCW in 2001, that he'd be the greatest of the two. Unfortunately for 'Taker, he wasn't anywhere near impressive pre-1996. He spent years with god awful feuds and even worse opponents. It's not 'Taker's fault, but it's a fact. On the other hand, Sting spent much of the 90s at the very top of the WCW. He was the face that ran the place. Pre-Hogan, Sting was the man and from late 96 through early 98, Sting was arguably the biggest name in all of wrestling. After that Sting would cool off, but he still remained a huge part of the WCW roster until it closed.

Unfortunately for Sting, though, we have to look at their careers post 2001 because they happened. Sting, whether you TNA fans want to believe it or not, spent most of the last 15 years in obscurity. Sure we knew what Sting was up to, but lil Jimmy didn't and lil Jimmy didn't care either. 'Taker, on the other hand, spent the last 15 years on arguably the best run of his career. Winning major championships and having classic feuds and matches. Not to mention the all mighty Streak. Some believe that because it came to an end that 'Taker squandered his legacy but I disagree. 'Taker is still the man who went undefeated at WM for 21 years and that is still amazing in and of itself.

So yes, it does come down to Sting staying in the minors for the last 15 years and because of that, 'Taker is the greatest of the two. I know that sounds too simple and like a cop out, but it's true. Sorry folks.

Actually Taker had some great moments prior to 96. He had feuds with Legends like Snuka, Jake the Snake, Ted Dibiasse, Macho man, Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart. Not to mention his times in the territories where he faced the likes of Jerry Lawyer, Steve Williams(austin), Bill Dundee and others.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

I haven't seen any of Sting's stuff from before TNA, so I'm going to be incredibly one-sided and go with Undertaker.

Undertaker has a legitimate case for the greatest wrestler of all time.

There are countless great and memorable feuds and matches - with Foley, HHH, HBK, Orton, Batista, Punk, Lesnar, Austin, Kane, Edge, Angle, Hogan, Show, Cena, Rock, Wyatt, Mysterio, JBL, Hardy, Flair, Diesel, DDP, the Dudleyz, and more. Okay I got carried away, but you get the picture.

His WrestleMania Streak is the greatest in wrestling history. Nothing will ever rival it. It was the main focus for years and produced great matches and feuds.

He's also still wrestling on a high level after 25 years. Very few wrestlers can still go after that long.

I'm sure Sting's stuff in WCW is great and that he's a great wrestler and all, but for me he's nowhere close to Undertaker.

 

[justtxyank]

For me it has to be Taker. He had better matches against a variety of people with different styles as well as being central to creating several match types that had never existed. HIAC, Buried Alive, Body Bag matches, Casket Matches, Last Ride Matches, Inferno Matches.
Sting was a good in ring performer (I always saw him as a second rate Bret Hart knockoff for in ring work but with more personality and charisma- Bret was about doing the work, Sting was about showing flash and style). Sting however was never able to have great matches with just about anyone that was put against him. To have a great match, he needed an opponent of his level or better in order for both to shine.
Taker on the other hand could go frmo fighting massive monsters like Yoko and Mabel and then put on solid workhorse matches against Bret and Shawn while then moving on to power vs power and get good matches out of Nash and Sid. He was more adaptable due to the fact that he was a good worker with a solid move base restricted in early part of career due to gimmick, but around 95/96 started to show what he could do. sting struggled in matches where there was a noticeable size difference between him and opponent. He had trouble with guys like Vader, and needed Flair to match against as he couldn't keep up with the true athletes ala benoit or guerrero.
The final issue though is that Sting was put in a position due to the NWO and his Crow-copycat that hit at a time when the biz was changing. Yet Since then, he's remained essentially identical to the first time he dropped down from the rafters and hit NWO with his bat.
Taker however has adapted. He changed with the time, staying even with the biz. Like or hate, he went mroe realistic with American badass, and then when fans demanded he went back to Deadman, but keeping elements in personality of AB, and showing that he could actually wrestle with the best technical guys on the roster.
Sting needed either the bright shiny colors of his original blond surfer style or the dark brooding silent antihero in order to forge a connection with the fans. Taker gets the same reaction out of the crowd simply by rolling his eyes back, sitting up and glaring or gesturing for the end with the throat slash.
Same pop, less flash and buffoonery, therefore Taker wins.

First of all, Sting is my favorite wrestler of all time so let's get that out of the way.

Undertaker has the greater legacy by far, by virtue of spending the last 15 years active in the only promotion with any real name recognition and working against carefully selected opponents. Sting has done good work, but it's been int he minor leagues (by choice of course) and so it barely registers. For many who rate Sting, his career ended in 2001 and then had a brief resurgence here lately with the WWE. The 15 years in between didn't even happen. So the argument isn't really worth having to be honest.

Now, to address some of your points specifically:
A second rate Bret Hart? They had the same finisher, but beyond that they were nothing alike. Bret was a deliberate, methodical worker who was smaller than most "stars." Sting was a jacked up, hyper energy worker who was built on athleticism. He could do some technical stuff, but really he and Bret didn't wrestle anything alike.

As for him struggling against guys bigger than him, and specifically mentioning him struggling with Vader, that is just crazy. Sting worked great with Vader. When people talk about some of Sting's best matches they'll mention Vader, and true Sting fans will tell you that he worked great with Meng, The Giant and even Sid Vicious.

Yes, he thrived with Ric Flair. Who didn't? He also worked great matches with Cactus Jack, Muta, Luger, Rick Rude, DDP, etc. While I didn't watch much of his TNA work, I'm told his stuff with Abyss was good, Samoa Joe, etc.

Now, some of he knock on Sting is going to be that he wrestled a lot of good workers, but that isn't his fault. Sting hit the big time early and most of the main eventers in WCW until Hogan got there were good workers. It isn't his fault that WCW didn't put slob wrestlers like Mabel in the main event, or relegate Sting to feuds with mid-carders and their dentists. But he did get good matches out of and tagging with Lex Luger throughout the 90s, worked Meng's best matches, had good big man matches with Vader and Avalanche and The Giant, etc.

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 event in the late 90s early 2000s. He worked a fun feud with Vampiro, but for the most part WCW separated career long main eventers like Sting from the mid-carders. That was a promotional mistake, not Sting's. Unlike most people in the business, Sting has never refused to work with anyone.

 

[relentless1]

Undertaker has a legitimate case for the greatest wrestler of all time.

heres where you lost me bud, I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. taker is nowhere NEAR greatest of all time status...in any category.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

heres where you lost me bud, I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. taker is nowhere NEAR greatest of all time status...in any category.

Look at his longetivity. He's been wrestling at an extremely high level since 1990.

Look at his ridiculous number of great feuds and matches.

Look at the Streak and his character, which is one of the best ever.

It really comes down to opinion, but in my mind Taker is one of the best ever.

 

[relentless1]

hes not been wrestling a "high level" for 26 years...wether you mean high quality or high on the card this statement is hilariously untrue...he wrestled a high level for 5 years AT BEST: 2 HBK matched, 2 HHH matches and his CM Punk match.

His star on top of the card since 1990 is even more dubious; he had a blip of a program with Hogan, then plummeted back to the mid card until 1997. He went back to the upper mid card/ lower main event slot for the remainder of his career.

great feuds/matches are a handful: HBK, Foley, Brock, HHH, Kane

hes had just as many bunk ones: Bundy, Jake, Gonzales, Bossman

the streak is a joke, Goldbergs was better and while is gimmick was great in the sense that he adapted it to fit the times thats down to his personality shining through, not really the gimmick itself.

How can you sit there with a straight face and say that Taker is in the same league as guys like Austin, Hogan, Rock and Flair??

 

[SSJPhenom]

hes not been wrestling a "high level" for 26 years...wether you mean high quality or high on the card this statement is hilariously untrue...he wrestled a high level for 5 years AT BEST: 2 HBK matched, 2 HHH matches and his CM Punk match.

Umm, you're forgetting a few matches aren't you? Whether you're talking high in quality or high on the card you're forgetting a lot of matches. 5 years at best? That statement is hilariously untrue. 'Taker has been wrestling high quality high card matches consistently since '97 and that can't be argued.

His star on top of the card since 1990 is even more dubious; he had a blip of a program with Hogan, then plummeted back to the mid card until 1997. He went back to the upper mid card/ lower main event slot for the remainder of his career.

Fair enough, but he wasn't lower main event for the remainder of his career. He's been consistently at the top of the card since '06.

great feuds/matches are a handful: HBK, Foley, Brock, HHH, Kane

Angle, Batista, Orton, Edge, Hart, etc. Honestly, all big names in wrestling only have a handful of great matches and feuds. Flair, Austin, Rock, Cena, and Hogan haven't had great feuds and matches with everyone they went against. 'Taker has had just as many as them.

hes had just as many bunk ones: Bundy, Jake, Gonzales, Bossman

As has been established that 'Taker spent many years at the beginning with God awful feuds and even worse opponents. That's not his fault though. Nobody could've made Mable or Gonzalez look good. When 'Taker got the opportunity to show what he could really do against good workers and opponents he didn't disappoint.

the streak is a joke, Goldbergs was better and while is gimmick was great in the sense that he adapted it to fit the times thats down to his personality shining through, not really the gimmick itself.

You're entitled to your opinion about the Streak but you're in the minority of fans when it comes to that. Most loved the Streak and whether you like it or not, it was a huge draw for Wrestlemania each and every year. Now 'Taker is a huge draw for Wrestlemania even without the Streak.

As far as trying to knock his gimmick/character, you're right, it was his personality and such that made the 'Taker gimmick work. That's why he deserves so much credit for it still being over today because nobody else would've been able to make it that popular. Let alone keep it going all these years later.

How can you sit there with a straight face and say that Taker is in the same league as guys like Austin, Hogan, Rock and Flair??

Because he is. His career may not have had the same impact that theirs did, but when it comes to longevity, respect, professionalism, and revolutionizing what it meant to be a big man in the wrestling business; he's in a class all by himself. Was he the absolute number one guy? No, but has he consistently been 2 or 3 throughout the majority of his 26 year career? Yes and I don't think anyone else can say that.

 

[justtxyank]

As has been established that 'Taker spent many years at the beginning with God awful feuds and even worse opponents. That's not his fault though. Nobody could've made Mable or Gonzalez look good. When 'Taker got the opportunity to show what he could really do against good workers and opponents he didn't disappoint.

I'd say it was a mixture of both.

He didn't get put in great matchups all that often but also wasn't a great worker. He became a better worker in the late 90s, there's no shame in that.