I've seen people say that you have to see Sting live. You know, "You have to see Sting live." Like that. In the same way you have to see the Grand Canyon, you have to climb the Eiffel Tower, you have to take part in this orgy, you have to try some of this blow. Like it's something you have to do before you die or it's a life half-lived.
Only these people aren't suggesting you hop in the time machine you got from Argos and go and see the Sting that looked like he had a fight with a cosmetics sampler, nor the Sting that behaved as if he'd just escaped a Chaplin film. No, they're talking about the Sting that's currently in TNA. What does this have to do with anything? Surely I'm not suggesting TNA is Sting's prime?
Well, no, but it confirms something for me. I've been there for the entirety of Sting's TNA run. More importantly, I've seen how shit it's been. I've seen him walk out in a t-shirt and get slapped around by Hernandez. I've seen him struggle to stuff Abyss in a broken coffin as the crowd chants "Fire Russo!". I've seen AJ Styles work his arse off to make a Sting match worth watching. I've seen him hold down an angry drug addict to get a belt that he's done nothing to earn. I've been at a house show where TNA Champion Samoa Joe turned up and wrestled a thirty minute match, and I've also been at a house show where TNA Champion Sting didn't turn up, not even to cut one of his mediocre promos. I've seen his hairline recede as if he's spent too long in a wind tunnel. I've seen his tits sag like they're being held down by weights. I've seen him add some pretty sparkles to his coat and a red line to his face paint. I've never once been impressed.
So, when you tell me I have to see Sting, I remember that Sting's in TNA and I remember what a horrible thing Sting in TNA is, it confirms something for me. It confirms that you're all fucking with me. That you're yanking my chain; pulling my leg; honking my tonk. That this has all been a running joke at my expense. You can stop now, guys. I figured it out. It was a good practical joke - I bought into it for the last five years. Funny stuff. You totally had me. You just took it that one step too far by telling me I had to see Sting in TNA. Let's not do something stupid and vote him past Steve Austin though. That wouldn't be funny.
Sam is basically saying here he's only watched Sting in TNA, so his opinion pretty much means jackshit, since the only version of Sting he's watched is the mid-forties/early fifties version of him.
Austin is the better wrestler, and had the better carreer, in every way fathomable. Vote for Austin.
I agree with you that Austin was a great wrestler, but him being the better wrestler or having the better career is debatable, no doubt.
From the late eighties until WCW folded in 2001, Sting was one of the most over wrestlers in the business. That's pretty much 14 years where Sting remained a top 5 babyface in the ENTIRE industry. How many other wrestlers can claim such a feat? 2, maybe 3? Austin sure as hell can't, as his hot run only lasted a couple of years.
And as far as Sting goes as the wrestler... him being so over speaks enough, but he is/was also a good promo cutter (not as good as Austin, but still really good), and in the ring he was as good as Austin ever was at one point in time. Sting's matches with Flair, Muta, the Steiners, Vader, Meng, etc. are just as good as any matches Austin has had.
I'm astounded by the amount of love the Stinger is getting this year. Luckily Sam, Coco, and Norcal have already posted in the finals thread, outlining a few basic reasons for why voting Sting over Austin is just silly. I loved Sam's post especially because much like him I think Sting has been one of the most washed up, shitty professional wrestlers in the world over the last 12 or so years. He's fucking awful and has been ever since WCW folded, even before that. Totally useless post 1998, had to be completely and utterly carried to even decent matches. Watching him in TNA has totally put a black mark on his career.
Austin on the other hand, has never disappointed. He never became so bad in the ring and such a shell of his former self that you grimaced just watching his hobbled ass get in the ring and embarrass himself like Sting has for the last decade. He was a great worker from his early days all the way until his last match, unlike Sting. Not to mention far and away the bigger star, better on the mic, more charisma, better career, more accomplishments...I mean fuck, is there actually ANY legit reason to vote for Sting here other than personal bias? Anything Sting can or has done in this industry, Austin has done much better. He's really not even in Austin's league quite frankly.
Vote for Austin here. It's the right choice, and Sting is overrated as all fuck. I could count on one hand the number of decent (not good mind you, just adequate) matches the man has had over the last 15 years. That's absolutely pathetic.
X, I love ya bro, but this post is flat out ridiculous.
First, let me point out to everybody that Xfear started watching wrestling in 1998, so he missed out on Sting's prime.
Now, of course, X is still a bit of a historian of the business and the guy has watched as much wrestling as anyone here, past and present. The dude is a fan to the highest degree. I'm not trying to claim he isn't.
However, the reason I bring that up is because Sting was the sort of person you had to witness live to fully grasp just how awesome he was, much like The Ultimate Warrior, Hogan, etc. It's hard to now go watch his early stuff and fully appreciate it if you weren't a fan at the time.
X, if you weren't such a huge Austin fan when you first became a fan of pro wrestling, I would bet anything that you would find his shit overrated just as you do guys like Sting and Hogan. But, you have the blinders on because you've been an Austin fan since the beginning of your pro wrestling fandom.
Now, you can say I'm guilty of that for Sting as well, fine... I won't argue it. But to sit there and call Sting overrated when you didn't get to experience first hand just how fucking awesome he was deeply hurts your argument.
Everyone voting for Sting all watched him back in the day, and you, Sam, Norcal, and Coco were not WCW fans during its heyday (well... I'm not positive to include Norcal on that list, but I know for sure he was a WWF guy more so than a WCW one). And I don't mean to come off as insulting to you guys, but that makes your opinion pretty much worthless to me on this topic.
I experienced both Sting and Austin. I had both Austin and Sting t-shirts and action figures as a kid. And I'm telling you right now, Sting > Austin. Sure, if you want to compare Sting's TNA career to Austin's WWF career... then Austin wins by a fucking mile. But that's absolutely ******ed, and that's what X and Sam specifically are trying to do.
First of all, Sting has had some decent matches in TNA. His matches with Kurt Angle, Abyss, Jeff Jarrett, and Samoa Joe were usually always pretty good, some were even very good.
Now, in the same token, imagine Austin close to 50 years old, in a company like TNA and put in the exact same feuds Sting was put in.... do you really think his work would be any better than Sting's? I mean, really? No, it wouldn't. In fact, I would say watching Mr. Punch Punch Kick Kick Lou Thesz Press Stunner would be much worse to sit through than what Sting has done in the company at his late age.
To close this... yes, I am a Sting fan. But, I too, like pretty much everyone watching during the Attitude Era, was also an Austin fan. I grew up in both eras, and I continue to watch pro wrestling today. And when I look at my fondest memories as a wrestling fan, Sting comes to mind way more so than Austin.
I know X, Sam, Coco, and Norcal are awesome, intelligent posters... but don't listen to them here. They really don't know what they're talking about, because they didn't witness Sting in his prime first hand. They witnessed the dying WCW version of him, and the TNA version of him. Why should their arguments be taken seriously when they're arguing against the version of Sting who was well into his fucking forties and fifties? It makes no sense.
The people who have witnessed Sting first hand, however, will vote for him, because they felt the presence Sting carried with him every time he walked down that aisle, and they were apart of his greatest matches and feuds as a fan, and the fact of the matter is... if you witnessed both guys career first hand, 90% of wrestling fans will pick Sting over Austin any day of the week, because Sting was, in fact, superior to him no matter how you cut it.
Oh, and as far as kayfabe goes... you don't see anyone voting for Austin trying to bring that up, because they already know they don't have an argument to be made. Any version of Sting from the late eighties all the way to 2000 would kick the ever living shit out of Austin, and every wrestling fan knows that. Shit, you could even make an argument for 50-year-old Sting to beat any version of Austin since 50-year-old Sting has clean wins over Kurt Angle, while Austin always had trouble with Angle. So, yeah... good luck to anyone dumb enough to bring the kayfabe argument up in favor of Austin.
. If TNA could bolster their viewing figures, then maybe Vince would buck his lazy assed ideas up. What has that got to do with Sting? Sting was the deal setter (or breaker) in TNA getting the deal with Spike - no Sting = no deal. 
). Nor have I ever heard of him refusing to do a job or taking his ball home. Like Sam, I've watched TNA from the moment it had coverage but unlike Sam - I'll not criticise him for making the best he can with bad creative, I'll commend him for loyalty to an employer and the fact that he pulled Jeff Hardy through a decent match when he won the TNA belt (something only Kurt Angle had managed in the months previous).