Wrestlezone Tournament Final: (1) Steve Austin vs. (4) Sting

[a0161613]

Consider this a written vote for Austin based on personal preference. The man changed wrestling in the late 90's and he did it almost single handedly. His presence forced McMahon to listen to the public and the boom that followed was incredible. He dragged talent up to his level.

Sting is great, no doubt. His early stuff was remarkable. His energy, charisma were all off the charts. But he cant match Austin who would grind and pound on him.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Which is totally irrelavant to the topic. Do you disagree with the fact that Rock was a main eventer from 1999 to 2001 when Austin mostly got the better of him? Do you disagree that Angle was a main eventer in 2001 when Austin defeated him? Do you disagree with the fact that HHH was a main eventer when Austin defeated him in 2000? If you do you are nothing but biased.

Who was a main eventer when Austin won his first title is irrelavant. Austin has defeated each guy when they had become bonafide main eventers.

Do you regard Sheamus, Khali or Jack Swagger as main eventers now (and some might also include CM Punk - not me though, I'm waiting patiently for him to be given a strong push)? 10 years from now, we might be looking back and thinking of them as such but what's happened since their world title wins would dictate them overpushed midcarders. Rose coloured "but look at them now" glasses make you biased. I can remember back at this stage in history actually using a WCW versus WWF presentation at a work course and comparing the two rosters (without the gift of foresight) and concluding that WCW had a far stronger roster, in that it had several former WWF champions on top of several WCW champions and a notable number of double hitters (guys like Hogan, Savage, Flair and Nash all held both). WWF was hitting back at dropping interest post steroid scandal by pushing smaller guys who had not previously gotten a look in, or 'mid carders' if you will - like Hart and Micheals. This wasn't working and when he was on the verge of bankruptcy and couldn't even afford to keep his big hitters, he gambled all on a new adult direction with even less established mid carders than ever. The gamble royally paid off and if your arguing real life, all the guys involved in the 'Attitude' era deserve much props.

This still doesn't deflect from the fact that, in kayfabe, the WWF roster on paper at this time did not compare to WCW's. Therefore, in kayfabe, Sting was beating consistently bigger names than Austin.

Oh yeah, and if you ARE arguing kayfabe, this is as relevant as you get.

On a side note would you totally disregard Sting's victories over Goldberg because Goldberg was not a main eventer( not even a wrestler for that matter) when Sting won his first belt?

Goldberg made his name by beating Hulk Hogan - you know, the guy who is actually a bigger name than Austin? But that asides, you still don't seem to get the point, WCW had a stronger kayfabe crew because the main event roster carried so many former world champions who won their titles in a stronger time.

The Icon, the Immortal, the Macho Man, the Nature Boy and Big Sexy versus the Ringmaster, the Connecticut Blue Blood, Dr Isaac Yankem, Cactus Jack and Rocky Maivia. Who would you like your rub from?

If Anderson, Truth and Christian became main eventers within 2-3 years of joining the company only then are they comparable to Austin, Trips and Foley. In fact there have been a number of situations wherein there have been vacancies on the roster and yet these guys have not been pushed. For example the Smackdown roster in 2010 was very weak and WWE could have easily had Christian main event that brand but they did not do so probably because they felt that Christian was not that good.

Again missing the point - Austin, Levesque, Foley etecetera were not world picture worthy in what was then the bigger company but were deemed good enough in the smaller competition. The gamble worked for the WWF but didn't work for TNA. For argument's sake though, imagine it did - would Christian, Truth & Anderson now be greater than Edge, Cena & HBK in kayfabe now?

Also Austin was going to main event regardless of the presence of Shawn or Bret.

That moves us into 'What If...' territory. What happened, happened.

Frankly it was while fighting these guys that Austin became the second biggest name in all wrestling history.

No argument, you are correct. But still, this was a kayfabe poorer roster than WCW's AT THE TIME!

No you have not. You have claimed that most of the guys were jobbers or low level talent when Austin defeated them which is hardly true. They were all main eventing the biggest wrestling company in the business by the time Austin got the better of them. That is what makes them huge stars. How these individual wrestlers like Foley, Trips and Rock became huge stars is totally irrelavant to the topic.

VOTE AUSTIN.

I stated the these guys were jobbers - mid card talent when they joined WWF and in several cases, even after joining the WWF. Whilst many things in this forum are opinion - this is FACT. These guys were pushed at some stage, against each other and brought up by rubbing of each other. This debate has started on a thread by me stating who would win in kayfabe was not a Stone Cold sure in. How Austin, Foley, Trips and Rock became huge stars IS PRETTY MUCH THE ARGUMENT. If they had past histories of beating Flair, Hogan or Diesel then they could claim to have a better kayfabe chance against Sting. But they were beating each other and not legends to elevate their standings, so Sting kayfabe kicks Austin's butt, in an independent tournament.

Put yourself in the positions of KB and Sly, the bookers of this event - both wrestlers are primed, so legit champs therefore equal on that front. So lets delve deeper by comparing their competition (again without the gift of foresight, because kayfabe = reality)... Austin and the majority of his luminaries have spells in their careers they would be less than proud of, Sting and many of his associates never had this burden - they were always pushed as legitimate contenders and world beaters. Therefore Sting has the kayfabe edge.

VOTE STING

He never defeated Hulk Hogan or Austin when they were at their absolute best.

Austin never defeated Hulk Hogan or Sting when they were at their absolute best - in fact he lost to Sting.

I cannot understand why you would say Hogan was at his best. He had been the World Champion in the world's number one federation for 500 out of 505 days when Sting first defeated him, he might not have been the Red & Yellow Hulk but he was proving to be just as dominant a heel as Black & White Hollywood. As such, whether he was at his 'absolute best' is very highly debatable. Especially as it helped him defeat guys by nefarious means that he couldn't defeat fairly to this stage - like the Warrior and Piper, and yet he still could never defeat the Stinger!

 

[Big Sexy]

Austin never defeated Hulk Hogan or Sting when they were at their absolute best - in fact he lost to Sting.

I cannot understand why you would say Hogan was at his best. He had been the World Champion in the world's number one federation for 500 out of 505 days when Sting first defeated him, he might not have been the Red & Yellow Hulk but he was proving to be just as dominant a heel as Black & White Hollywood. As such, whether he was at his 'absolute best' is very highly debatable. Especially as it helped him defeat guys by nefarious means that he couldn't defeat fairly to this stage - like the Warrior and Piper, and yet he still could never defeat the Stinger!

You quoted something I said in a side debate with another poster so it was kind of out of context.

I never said Austin did beat those guys. He did, however, beat The Rock, Mick Foley, Triple H, HBK, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Undertaker, Booker T, Big Show, Chris Benoit, etc..

Sting has tons of impressive victories too, I won't deny that, but beating a heel Hollywood Hogan is not as impressive as beating a face WWF Hogan.

 

[Thom]

I had to vote Austin here. When I saw it was Sting/Austin, I had every intention of voting Sting as I didn't want a repeat winner. However, after a little thought, if anyone deserves to be a repeat winner, I'd give it to Stone Cold. Granted I don't have the memories of Sting that other people have spoke of in this thread, but I've seen matches and storylines online and I don't feel that the "you had to have been there" argument is that valid, I'm still going to say I found Austin more entertaining. For me, it comes down to who entertained me more as I don't feel that my imaginary booking of this scenario is adequate. I have tried to think of arguments for Sting, but none of them really apply to my thoughts about this match, I just feel the rightful winner is SCSA.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

You quoted something I said in a side debate with another poster so it was kind of out of context.

I never said Austin did beat those guys. He did, however, beat The Rock, Mick Foley, Triple H, HBK, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Undertaker, Booker T, Big Show, Chris Benoit, etc..

Sting has tons of impressive victories too, I won't deny that, but beating a heel Hollywood Hogan is not as impressive as beating a face WWF Hogan.

Apologies for jumping in on your fight with Will but I felt I'd to defend the Icon when the statement applied to both guys.

As to Austin's victims list, I've had a long dispute with rattlesnake4eva, (like yourself, a poster I've always enjoyed) on the kayfabe quality of his opponents compared with Sting's so I'll not bore you repeating it. I will say though that for every one you've listed, Sting has also beaten a similar level great.

Sting never faced WWF Hogan (obviously) but his old tag team partner did and won. In fact Hogan only managed to defeat the Warrior after turning heel.

Vince McMahon pulled off the greatest trick ever in wrestling by defeating a main event roster company with a mid card team. However, that does not change the fact that it was a roster full of mid carders - until Big Show and Benoit, they had not one former WCW top liner (and both these guys have been soundly defeated by Sting). Even after the Alliance storyline, the only ex champs to come across were DDP and Booker who were also secondary stars to the Icon. Now as the WWF crew led by Austin was a crew of mid carders, does that not indicate that Stunning Steve Austin, a strong mid carder (US/ TV/ Tag Champion) actually was just as strong a kayfabe performer as Stone Cold, in fact, given that the WWF acknowledged Austin's real life knee and neck problems Stunning might actually be argued as greater than Stone Cold... and guess who beat Stunning Steve Austin?

 

[Big Sexy]

Vince McMahon pulled off the greatest trick ever in wrestling by defeating a main event roster company with a mid card team. However, that does not change the fact that it was a roster full of mid carders - until Big Show and Benoit, they had not one former WCW top liner (and both these guys have been soundly defeated by Sting). Even after the Alliance storyline, the only ex champs to come across were DDP and Booker who were also secondary stars to the Icon. Now as the WWF crew led by Austin was a crew of mid carders, does that not indicate that Stunning Steve Austin, a strong mid carder (US/ TV/ Tag Champion) actually was just as strong a kayfabe performer as Stone Cold, in fact, given that the WWF acknowledged Austin's real life knee and neck problems Stunning might actually be argued as greater than Stone Cold... and guess who beat Stunning Steve Austin?

I fail to see how the WWF was a roster of mid carders. Austin beat the likes of HBK, Undetaker, Triple H, Mick Foley, The Rock, Kurt Angle. While some of those guys may have started as mid carders, Austin defeated them all while they were main eventers. Just because the WWF actually built stars unlike WCW doesn't mean they were a roster full of mid carders, just a roster full of new main event guys.

 

[Tastycles]

Another year, another pair of finalists I'm not particularly bothered about. I'm voting Sting, and I'd be lying if I said that my primary motivation for doing so wasn't that I want a different winner to last year, however I am coming armed with one fact of wrestling history, which I think would swing it in his favour. Austin is undoubtedly the bigger star and impacted the direction of wrestling as a whole more than Sting ever did, but I like to keep it kayfabe, and for all of his major wins, there's one glaring issue with Steve Austin's wins.

Bret Hart, Kane, The Undertaker and even Mr. McMahon beat Steve Austin in their first encounters. Now, that is by no means the complete list, you could have had wrestlers like Rob Van Dam and Vader, but I used them because they have something in common. They are all wrestlers that rely a great deal on psychology, much like the brooding, rafter sitting Sting of the mid 90s.

Austin won the payoff with all of these men in the end, but he lost the first time, and often because he was outsmarted or put in a ridiculous situation that was completely unwinnable. The reason this used to happen is obvious - Austin as an every man character needed to be put down before he could rise up and win, otherwise he wouldn't be related to by his audience. With this in mind, I think that though Austin would ultimately win the war with Sting, he would lose this battle, so I'm voting Sting.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I fail to see how the WWF was a roster of mid carders. Austin beat the likes of HBK, Undetaker, Triple H, Mick Foley, The Rock, Kurt Angle. While some of those guys may have started as mid carders, Austin defeated them all while they were main eventers. Just because the WWF actually built stars unlike WCW doesn't mean they were a roster full of mid carders, just a roster full of new main event guys.

A brief history of North American Wrestling immediately prior to and since the rise to power of the most influential character in it's history Vincent Kennedy McMahon.

Vincent McMahon Snr started the WWWF and it was a regional organisation operating in the North East of the United States and it operated in conjunction with other regions and all was harmonious in the world.

When Vince Jnr he didn't want to be and went on a quest to make the now WWF a nationwide organisation and he didn't care who he walked over to do it. Vince signed all the top names from his regional counterparts and when they had to rely on the mid card talent they had left, they floundered, struggled and went bust. Now doing this was a huge gamble that might have seen the WWF go burst but Vince had a new vision - Sports Entertainment. The product moved from athletic competition and long drawn out matches to superhero based, larger than life, not as technical popcorn matches. This gamble worked out perfectly for McMahon, competition weakened or went burst and the nation embraced the larger than life guys life Hulk Hogan, 'Macho Man' Randy Savage and the Ultimate Warrior.

Vince's first roadblock hit in the early 90s in the form of a steroid scandal and he moved away from the pumped look to smaller more technically sound performers like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels and from superheros/villains to real life based heros/ villains like farmers, trashmen, dentists and clowns. Audiences were not impressed and viewer figures dropped off.

McMahon had become a very wealthy man but trouble was looming in the form of a far more wealthy man and the ambitions of a young promoter in his employ. The wealthy man was Ted Turner and his young promoter was Eric Bischoff , who went to Ted with the idea of taking down the WWF by out Vincing Vince. WCW went head to head with WWF's number one TV programme and bought all of their established stars like Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart and many more leaving the WWF with one remaining proven main eventer in the Undertaker, and a cast of guys who had varying degrees of success to this stage. Once again Vince was on the verge of ruin and needed to take a massive gamble... but what?

He couldn't compete financially, he couldn't even afford his then highest paid star and had to let him go to WCW, further weakening his roster! The night after the Montreal Screwjob which signalled Bret Hart's move to WCW, Eric Bishoff's Monday Nitro had only lost out in the war against McMahon's Monday Night RAW 13 weeks in a period of over 26months (and would not win again for a further 4months). Times were tight, but Vince had already started the gamble that would ultimately save his and his company's asses.

What did he do? He plagerised, or if you prefer he stole every fresh idea that was out there and adapted it.
-WCW had created a faction that actually operated as a taking over force called the nWo, Vince created his own on the back of the buddies of the nWo buddies HBK and Hunter Hearst Helmsley called DegenerationX.
-WCW had a tyrannical CEO who fought against the good guys, Vince went from being a face commentator who never acknowledged his true position to the ego maniacal owner Mr McMahon.
-ECW owner Paul Heyman, in an effort to distinguish his product and get a following created a grown up product with bad language and sexiness, Vince created his own watered down version with lots of innuendo and prettier females.
-ECW also had a more violent style and blood, so the cartoon stylings of the 80s vanished and the blading edict was lifted.
-Paul Heyman displayed a great gift for getting mid card and lower wrestlers over by essentially allowing them to be inflated versions of themselves or if they didn't have a gift for self promotion he let them get over in the ring, creating a diverse roster of over the top characters and great wrestling. Vince copied and pasted. A standout character was a beer swilling everyman who got the biggest reaction everynight and was rarely seen without a can... sound familiar?
-ECW blurred the lines between real life and kayfabe. Vince followed suit.

In the meantime, bad creative, backstage politics, the inmates running the asylum, Russo/Ferrera running the asylum (Oklahoma) and a lack of interest from Time Warner and latterly AOL officials left WCW in rack and ruin.

Why the history lesson? Vince did great things with his gambles but WCW was probably more to blame for it's own downfall. The WWF stars of the 80s and 90s are regarded as the prominent performers because the former territories and two other national organisations (NWA & AWA) were left star shy. WCW did this to the WWF and ECW but because of how history went, instead of the WCW stars being fondly remembered, the WWFs cast of midcarders are remembered more fondly. Rose coloured glasses does not detract from the fact that WCW had a kayfabe better roster - just add up the titles or the length of reigns in the two promotions. For the majority of the Monday Night Wars, you'd see far more former WWF Champions on Nitro than RAW.

And Vince didn't build these stars, if midcarder A beats midcarder B is then beaten by midcarder C who is then beaten by midcarder B - how is A, B or C elevated? Because of the 'Attitude' and the influx of new interest in wrestling, the bouquet of the roster was overlooked by the fans and legends were built. Or if you will, we looked past the Ringmaster, Conneticut Blue Blood, Cactus Jack, Rocky Maivia and accepted Stone Cold, Triple H, Mick Foley and the Rock as new top line entities. In real life a Rocky Balboa story is described as 'one in a million' - the WWF had about a dozen!

 

[Big Sexy]

Thanks for the ridiculously long history about things that I already knew. Pretty much every main event star gets built up. Back in the day it was through the territories and once those were gone guys got built up within the organization they were in. WCW after raiding the WWF was filled with already established main event talent. This is the same talent that carried them almost until their demise because they didn't like building up new talent.

The WWF built all of their talent. Bret Hart was made to look good and built up by beating Flair. Yokozuna was built up by beating Hogan before he left. Hart was then built more due to beating Yoko who had basically "retired" Hogan in kayfabe. Hart as a main event guy helped build up HBK to the main event and then a slew of guys from Hart to Taker to HBK helped build up Austin. Foley was close to the main event from early on in his career due to his early feud with Taker. Guys like Austin and Foley helped build up The Rock and all of those guys in turn helped build up Triple H. Nobody just came in an randomly started main eventing after beating mid carders like you are claiming. All of these guys were built from the mid card to the main event with help from other main event guys. It obviously took a little longer for the WWF to rebuild their main event because of how WCW decimated it but it did get built up and Austin defeated all of those main event names.

 

[Long Island Iced D]

I voted for Austin because im a mark but I always loved Sting since WCW NWO Revenge came out lol. Sorry Sting but I just love Austin to much.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Thanks for the ridiculously long history about things that I already knew. Pretty much every main event star gets built up. Back in the day it was through the territories and once those were gone guys got built up within the organization they were in. WCW after raiding the WWF was filled with already established main event talent. This is the same talent that carried them almost until their demise because they didn't like building up new talent.

And there was me thinking it quite concise. Good stuff you know your history, I was not aware of this and I'm quite sure we have members not quite up to your level of knowledge and while addressing your comments, I do have to acknowledge anyone else interested in the thread.

The WWF built all of their talent. Bret Hart was made to look good and built up by beating Flair.

Agreed.

Yokozuna was built up by beating Hogan before he left. Hart was then built more due to beating Yoko who had basically "retired" Hogan in kayfabe.

Disagree, the 'monster' heel had to use a fireball in the face to go over Hogan - a weak way to defeat the departing immortal way, implying that Hogan was the better man. As for the kayfabe retirement, that was blown out of the water the first second the red and yellow was seen in WCW.

Hart's rub from Yoko is also disputable; Yokozuna had been defeated by Lex Luger via countout and saved by Curt Hennig's biased officiating the same night he lost to Bret. Where did Luger go from this? Into the midcard. When Hart got the win over the, now, not so impressive monster - this victory looked very likely and Yoko quickly followed Luger into the midcard. The implication was that Bret went over a weakening character.

Hart as a main event guy helped build up HBK to the main event and then a slew of guys from Hart to Taker to HBK helped build up Austin.

Hart did build HBK up but the one of the abiding feelings from the Montreal Screwjob was that Shawn was actually Bret's kayfabe lesser because the big bad boss had to screw him out of the title.

Bret always came out ahead of Austin.

Whilst Stone Cold beat HBK clean, Shawn's subsequent departure and Trip's promo burial of his dX brother again gave the impression of a tainted victory.

Foley was close to the main event from early on in his career due to his early feud with Taker. Guys like Austin and Foley helped build up The Rock and all of those guys in turn helped build up Triple H. Nobody just came in an randomly started main eventing after beating mid carders like you are claiming. All of these guys were built from the mid card to the main event with help from other main event guys. It obviously took a little longer for the WWF to rebuild their main event because of how WCW decimated it but it did get built up and Austin defeated all of those main event names.

But both Mankind and Kane were both put over the biggest star the WWF had at this point very early, so two kayfabe non-wrestlers to that point went over the phenom - meaning that we were either to believe them automatically as main eventers or, alternatively, regard the Undertaker to not be the force he once was.

My problem with the Attitude guys is that it still feels that they moved to legendary status without beating legends with the exception of Taker and that leads to the question as to whether they ALL raised their games or Taker's game dropped back to their level.

Kayfabe reinforcement of the theory of WCW's roster superiority would be when two of their biggest stars walked into WWF, one dominated Attitude guys like Trips, the Rock and Y2J (Goldberg) and the other still managed to win the big belt despite being over the hill several years previous, by their OWN promos (Hogan). In effect, their own creative indicated that the WCW roster > WWF roster.

[YOUTUBE]3EgVqurGPfI[/YOUTUBE]​

 

[Big Sexy]

Disagree, the 'monster' heel had to use a fireball in the face to go over Hogan - a weak way to defeat the departing immortal way, implying that Hogan was the better man. As for the kayfabe retirement, that was blown out of the water the first second the red and yellow was seen in WCW.

Hart's rub from Yoko is also disputable; Yokozuna had been defeated by Lex Luger via countout and saved by Curt Hennig's biased officiating the same night he lost to Bret. Where did Luger go from this? Into the midcard. When Hart got the win over the, now, not so impressive monster - this victory looked very likely and Yoko quickly followed Luger into the midcard. The implication was that Bret went over a weakening character.

Yoko was a heel. Heels cheat to win. Guys cheated against Hogan all the time and still rarely did he lose. Yokozuna kayfabe wise ended Hulkamania in the WWF. He then held the title for nearly a year and Hart was the one to beat him. Bret Hart, if he wasn't already, was a 100% main event guy at this point.

Hart did build HBK up but the one of the abiding feelings from the Montreal Screwjob was that Shawn was actually Bret's kayfabe lesser because the big bad boss had to screw him out of the title.

HBK had already beaten Bret one on one at Mania 12 so he wasn't the lesser of anything.

Bret always came out ahead of Austin.

They had a bunch of draws and Hart had the Mania 13 victory but at that point Austin wasn't at his peak and it was that match that really started the rise towards his peak.

Whilst Stone Cold beat HBK clean, Shawn's subsequent departure and Trip's promo burial of his dX brother again gave the impression of a tainted victory.

Austin beat the number one guy in the company for the title at Mania. Nothing was tainted.

My problem with the Attitude guys is that it still feels that they moved to legendary status without beating legends with the exception of Taker and that leads to the question as to whether they ALL raised their games or Taker's game dropped back to their level.

The WWF didn't have handfuls of legends to put guys over at their leisure but they still had top main event guys put over every mid carder to make those guys main eventers.

Kayfabe reinforcement of the theory of WCW's roster superiority would be when two of their biggest stars walked into WWF, one dominated Attitude guys like Trips, the Rock and Y2J (Goldberg) and the other still managed to win the big belt despite being over the hill several years previous, by their OWN promos (Hogan). In effect, their own creative indicated that the WCW roster > WWF roster.

WCW's roster was superior at one time but eventually those superior guys turned into has beens who weren't allowing the younger generation to take their spots. Meanwhile the WWF had been making superstars for a few years and their roster suddenly became the better of the two.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

The WWF didn't have handfuls of legends to put guys over at their leisure but they still had top main event guys put over every mid carder to make those guys main eventers.

WCW's roster was superior at one time but eventually those superior guys turned into has beens who weren't allowing the younger generation to take their spots. Meanwhile the WWF had been making superstars for a few years and their roster suddenly became the better of the two.

This is kind of what I've been arguing though, a big argument by Austin supporters is that there is no way Sting could go over kayfabe. Sting was beating the legends before they were regarded as has beens. Austin's gang created a legacy that still hasn't been replaced to this day as the most recent WrestleMania has proven but the fact that he didn't go over the legends severely taints that argument.

I am arguing that Sting has a strong case for going over kayfabe. What Austin and his band of guys who couldn't draw achieved over money and names was fantastic and post kayfabe really opened the eyes of fans like ourselves on how destructive backstage politics and egos can destroy products we love. As a side note, it also probably cultivated the negative image of the IWC as smarks who hate that which they pretend to love. Good natured debate in this tournament and other threads hearten me to believe that the majority of IWCers are fans defending the sport they love.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Basically, you put these two in a match and I feel the same outcome as Sting vs Goldberg on Nitro. It will be a helluva fight with two dogs in their prime, but the bigger draw always goes over.

Now if you wanna shit with me about Jericho at Vengeance, well and truly piss off, because the carpet load of interference I hear makes it crass. The bigger draw in their prime are fed popular superstars like Sting to get them more over, ala HBK at WM 14 (yes backache, way out) but here's another example: Summerslam 98 CLEAN WIN over the Undertaker. And for fuck's sake if anyone brings up Khali here I'll kill'em.
Guys Like Brock and Austin who represent WWE as the face of the company during a timeline get to go over established guys like Sting, HBK, Undertaker, Angle.
Sure there have been one off odd superstars getting clean wins over these established stars of the business, but make no mistake, Sting is nothing but put-over fodder to someone of Austin's juggernaut of a WWE STONE COLD CAREER in his prime. Same as he was for Goldberg.

Bottom line, Austin in his prime was unbeatable. I mean Kane won the title from him only to lose it in the next 24 hours!! Way to kill a monster's rep but that's how big a draw Austin and his popularity were/are. Not to mention the fact that in his peak Austin's clean losses were perceived as a shock to the audience. You know what someone point it out to me actually: After WM 14 till WM 2001 when has Austin lost cleanly as a babyface? How many matches?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

the bigger draw always goes over.

I'm sorry, PG, I'm replying to you specifically but I'm saying this to EVERYONE who believes in this exact quote - which, from near as I can tell is every single person talking in this thread, backing Steve Austin.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same useless chatter. "Austin will win because he's more over", "Austin can't lose because he's the bigger draw". Please stop, it's one of the worst arguments - up there with the likes of "Hogan can't win a ladder match, because he can't climb properly".

Steve Austin did not go undefeated in the WWF, as their top draw. And need I remind everyone, this Tournament isn't even produced under the WWF umbrella. Now then, just right quick to end the naive-ness of "the bigger draw gets the win" - if this were the case, none of the matches would mean crap, because Hulk Hogan would win every year, every match, regardless of against who, or regarding what. End. of. Discussion.

Now then, hoping that we've by-passed playing naive on this issue, I'd like to move into the second part of this; which is Steve Austin barely accomplished ANYTHING in any other Company than the WWF.

If the guy is so great, then how is it that he couldn't take command of his career and GET noticed anywhere other than the WWF - only after, mind you, he was handed a different gimmick than the first one he started out with? (heh - to think the "Ringmaster" is winning right now is utterly embarrassing)

He held the US title an impressive 240 days, but turned that to shit by being squashed by Jim Duggan in 35 seconds. Now, so people don't assume I'm just trying to bury him without giving him credit - he also had a pair of TV title reigns that went (combined) over a year. (431 days, to be exact) Austin was also the last guy to hold the belt beyond a 225 day mark. However, so we aren't giving him too much credit - it deserves to be said that title was held, on average, by anyone around this time - between 100-300 days. So, while it's impressive regardless, he wasn't exactly the ONLY person doing this type of thing, either.

Do I even need to bother with his ECW stint? I'm sure someone will care, so I might as well.. oh, wait, that's right - he didn't win shit in ECW. A Company that is considered "3rd largest out of the big 3" during that time, and all he did was play the guy chasing the victory, but never actually achieved it.

Finally, you have his incredible legendary career with the WWF - which, because that is all people are looking at I won't bother running down. The fact remains, however, simply because he was the best draw in one Company - does not make him the best thing in every Company he's ever been with.

Sting, on the other hand, can safely and firmly say he has been a top draw everywhere he's ever gone that's been a big enough promotion. NWA, WCW, TNA. He's been the World Champion in all of those places. He's been one of, if not THE, guy on top - everywhere.

Sting is nothing but put-over fodder to someone of Austin's juggernaut of a WWE STONE COLD CAREER in his prime. Same as he was for Goldberg.

What. The. Hell. Does any of this mean? Are you trying to tell me that someone like Sting would be nothing more than "fed", as some random jobber; to a guy of WWF-Steve Austin's caliber? Please tell me you aren't serious.

Look, BS can switch crap up all he wants and I'm fine with him thinking it's smart on his part; but let's get real for a moment. Heel Hogan, Face Hogan - Sting pinned HOGAN, regardless of which character he was - multiple times, most cleanly.

If someone is put over Hogan, cleanly, I highly doubt they're "fodder" to Steve Austin. And once again - this IS NOT a WWF produced tournament. So simply because the guy was amazing there, does not mean shit HERE.

Bottom line, Austin in his prime was unbeatable.

I'm begging you to research his ppv record. Believe me, he's anything but "unbeatable". Overrated is the word I'd use most, but most of his fans are so far up his backside I doubt they could see anything but the massive amount of crap surrounding their hero.

Oh, and to re-touch base on the whole "he only lost unfairly to bad guys because of interference".. seriously? What, would you rather the "bad guys" won fairly over the "good guy", making the "good guy" look completely worthless? OF COURSE NOT..

It's the entire purpose of Wrestling for a "heel" to win unfairly. That doesn't mean they don't still win though. Sting can "win" this match, fairly or unfairly. Austin has lost both ways, to both good and bad guys. It really does not make that much of a difference.

To say Austin is unbeatable is more than naive, and I'm trying hard to refrain from calling anyone stupid because that does no good, but the statement "Austin is unbeatable" is really pushing the envelope regardless how much - or less - you have full mental capabilities.

So, to end everything - PG, it wasn't meant against you personally, but I just finally got too sick of seeing people post stuff like this; and trust me, you haven't been the only one.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I'm sorry, PG, I'm replying to you specifically but I'm saying this to EVERYONE who believes in this exact quote - which, from near as I can tell is every single person talking in this thread, backing Steve Austin.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same useless chatter. "Austin will win because he's more over", "Austin can't lose because he's the bigger draw". Please stop, it's one of the worst arguments - up there with the likes of "Hogan can't win a ladder match, because he can't climb properly".

Steve Austin did not go undefeated in the WWF, as their top draw. And need I remind everyone, this Tournament isn't even produced under the WWF umbrella. Now then, just right quick to end the naive-ness of "the bigger draw gets the win" - if this were the case, none of the matches would mean crap, because Hulk Hogan would win every year, every match, regardless of against who, or regarding what. End. of. Discussion.

Now then, hoping that we've by-passed playing naive on this issue, I'd like to move into the second part of this; which is Steve Austin barely accomplished ANYTHING in any other Company than the WWF.

If the guy is so great, then how is it that he couldn't take command of his career and GET noticed anywhere other than the WWF - only after, mind you, he was handed a different gimmick than the first one he started out with? (heh - to think the "Ringmaster" is winning right now is utterly embarrassing)

He held the US title an impressive 240 days, but turned that to shit by being squashed by Jim Duggan in 35 seconds. Now, so people don't assume I'm just trying to bury him without giving him credit - he also had a pair of TV title reigns that went (combined) over a year. (431 days, to be exact) Austin was also the last guy to hold the belt beyond a 225 day mark. However, so we aren't giving him too much credit - it deserves to be said that title was held, on average, by anyone around this time - between 100-300 days. So, while it's impressive regardless, he wasn't exactly the ONLY person doing this type of thing, either.

Do I even need to bother with his ECW stint? I'm sure someone will care, so I might as well.. oh, wait, that's right - he didn't win shit in ECW. A Company that is considered "3rd largest out of the big 3" during that time, and all he did was play the guy chasing the victory, but never actually achieved it.

Finally, you have his incredible legendary career with the WWF - which, because that is all people are looking at I won't bother running down. The fact remains, however, simply because he was the best draw in one Company - does not make him the best thing in every Company he's ever been with.

Sting, on the other hand, can safely and firmly say he has been a top draw everywhere he's ever gone that's been a big enough promotion. NWA, WCW, TNA. He's been the World Champion in all of those places. He's been one of, if not THE, guy on top - everywhere.



What. The. Hell. Does any of this mean? Are you trying to tell me that someone like Sting would be nothing more than "fed", as some random jobber; to a guy of WWF-Steve Austin's caliber? Please tell me you aren't serious.

Look, BS can switch crap up all he wants and I'm fine with him thinking it's smart on his part; but let's get real for a moment. Heel Hogan, Face Hogan - Sting pinned HOGAN, regardless of which character he was - multiple times, most cleanly.

If someone is put over Hogan, cleanly, I highly doubt they're "fodder" to Steve Austin. And once again - this IS NOT a WWF produced tournament. So simply because the guy was amazing there, does not mean shit HERE.



I'm begging you to research his ppv record. Believe me, he's anything but "unbeatable". Overrated is the word I'd use most, but most of his fans are so far up his backside I doubt they could see anything but the massive amount of crap surrounding their hero.

Oh, and to re-touch base on the whole "he only lost unfairly to bad guys because of interference".. seriously? What, would you rather the "bad guys" won fairly over the "good guy", making the "good guy" look completely worthless? OF COURSE NOT..

It's the entire purpose of Wrestling for a "heel" to win unfairly. That doesn't mean they don't still win though. Sting can "win" this match, fairly or unfairly. Austin has lost both ways, to both good and bad guys. It really does not make that much of a difference.

To say Austin is unbeatable is more than naive, and I'm trying hard to refrain from calling anyone stupid because that does no good, but the statement "Austin is unbeatable" is really pushing the envelope regardless how much - or less - you have full mental capabilities.

So, to end everything - PG, it wasn't meant against you personally, but I just finally got too sick of seeing people post stuff like this; and trust me, you haven't been the only one.

I'll just summarize Will; I never said he was Undefeated, I said everytime he actually lost was a very big deal because he didn't so very often.

As far as I remember Austin was put against odds like VKM as ref and still won. The two times I remember him losing on PPV was when the briefcase was pulled up against his match with the McMahons and the time when he was double pinned by both Kane and Taker: CLEAN LOSSES. Sure there have to be more times than that but when I think about it on PPV only these two come in mind. And I am talking about his baby face prime which I take as 1998 to 2001.

Sure this is not a WWF product tournament but I have given you the example of Goldberg vs Sting. Goldberg was to WCW what Austin was to WWF. IF Sting couldn't beat Goldberg in his prime, how would he Austin?

I am only adhering to what I believe are obligatory rules of contentions when I write Prime over and over again, so I dunno if bringing Austin's US Champ run is relevant. Duggan beat Austin...OK, RVD beat Sting in 15 seconds; sounds stupid don't it that example, now you get how I felt when I read your Duggan/Austin rebuttal.

I have never found Austin unentertaining, I have found the WHAT chants irritating but the man has always brought it for me. He was a brawler, he brought rabid crowds to the WWF and whenever he stepped in the ring even monsters like Kane and Show were beaten.
Never found him overrated, so it's a difference of opinion there.

In summation, I do feel Sting is a helluva competitor have always liked him, but Austin is just too much of a force to be beaten in the final.

Austin in 35:16.

 

[The Champ]

I don't see how Stone Cold can possibly lose this one. He's one of the biggest names in the history of the business, and he had a unique impact that no one has ever matched in quite the same way. If we're talking about impact on the business, Sting doesn't compare; Goldberg was a bigger deal, and even he's not remembered in the way Austin is. Remember that Austin was essentially the reason that WWE stole WCW's audience, which eventually led to them being put out of business (I know about the whole shit with Time Warner, but somehow I don't think the ship would have sunk as quickly if WCW was winning the war). Now, let's talk about his talent. He could have a good match with anybody, and he could beat just about anybody. He got huge reactions. A chant that he created is still being used today. That's called charisma. He main evented three WrestleManias and won all three. His career might have gone another five or more years if it hadn't gotten cut short by a neck injury. Sting's still wrestling, of course, but for a second rate company, and his achievements in that second rate company pale in comparison. Sting never wrestled for the big boys, he never showed what he could do in the biggest and most successful wrestling company to ever exist. Austin did and became arguably the biggest superstar of all time there. He won a million championships and gets huge pops today for simply coming out, stunning a few people, and drinking a few beers. Once again, charisma. The guy had it all. He had almost no flaws, and his character related better to the audience than any other, especially Sting's. Now, if this match were The Undertaker vs. Sting, it might be a competition. But Austin is in a completely separate league.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

First off, congrats to Stone Cold. I think the younger preference was the difference, but comme ci, comme ça. For old times sake I'll respond for the Lil Stingers against a couple of indiscretions though.

And I am talking about his baby face prime which I take as 1998 to 2001.

Sure this is not a WWF product tournament but I have given you the example of Goldberg vs Sting. Goldberg was to WCW what Austin was to WWF. IF Sting couldn't beat Goldberg in his prime, how would he Austin?

I am only adhering to what I believe are obligatory rules of contentions when I write Prime over and over again, so I dunno if bringing Austin's US Champ run is relevant.

You write prime over and over again and yet your example is Sting versus Goldberg? You do realise that Sting was a heel during this period - if you are regarding this as his prime, I'll raise you Austin's heel periods as Sting went unbeaten against Austin's trump player Hogan when he was a heel.

Duggan beat Austin...OK, RVD beat Sting in 15 seconds; sounds stupid don't it that example, now you get how I felt when I read your Duggan/Austin rebuttal.

Career lower midcarder Duggan (40) beat Austin (30, but kayfabe not in his prime yet) with Austin seeing him coming, after a quick sneak attack and cover, former WWe champion RVD (39) pinned Sting (51, with his best years behind him) and Sting walked out of the ring, whilst RVD had to be helped out. Despite the win, many felt TNA creative had buried RVD right of the bat (so to speak). A babyface has to blindside a heel to garner a victory and still comes out looking the worst.

I have never found Austin unentertaining, I have found the WHAT chants irritating but the man has always brought it for me. He was a brawler, he brought rabid crowds to the WWF and whenever he stepped in the ring even monsters like Kane and Show were beaten.
Never found him overrated, so it's a difference of opinion there.

In summation, I do feel Sting is a helluva competitor have always liked him, but Austin is just too much of a force to be beaten in the final.

Austin in 35:16.

Personal preference is a very good reason.

I don't see how Stone Cold can possibly lose this one. He's one of the biggest names in the history of the business, and he had a unique impact that no one has ever matched in quite the same way. If we're talking about impact on the business, Sting doesn't compare; Goldberg was a bigger deal, and even he's not remembered in the way Austin is.

The impact was more due to ECW and the WWF creative crew than Austin himself - he was just fortunate enough to be handed the character, plus going by WrestleMania - it would seem the other beneficiary of that period, the Rock, is regarded as a bigger deal these days. Goldberg was not a bigger deal, he had a great push - the same way as Sheamus, the Great Khali and Vladimir Kozlov have had pushes. Sting carried WCW when they had NO headliners in the early 90s, I'd call that impact. Plus, TNA getting a TV deal was completely on Sting's involvement.

Remember that Austin was essentially the reason that WWE stole WCW's audience, which eventually led to them being put out of business (I know about the whole shit with Time Warner, but somehow I don't think the ship would have sunk as quickly if WCW was winning the war).

Crappy writing, backstage politics, network apathy, not being able to create their own version of Attitude, missing in action legends, Austin, McMahon, Rock, Trips, Angle, young talent jumping ship - Austin may have been the WWF's poster boy but you are giving him WAY to much credit by implying he put them out of business.

Now, let's talk about his talent. He could have a good match with anybody, and he could beat just about anybody. He got huge reactions. A chant that he created is still being used today. That's called charisma. He main evented three WrestleManias and won all three. His career might have gone another five or more years if it hadn't gotten cut short by a neck injury. Sting's still wrestling, of course, but for a second rate company, and his achievements in that second rate company pale in comparison. Sting never wrestled for the big boys, he never showed what he could do in the biggest and most successful wrestling company to ever exist. Austin did and became arguably the biggest superstar of all time there. He won a million championships and gets huge pops today for simply coming out, stunning a few people, and drinking a few beers. Once again, charisma. The guy had it all. He had almost no flaws, and his character related better to the audience than any other, especially Sting's. Now, if this match were The Undertaker vs. Sting, it might be a competition. But Austin is in a completely separate league.

WCW was beating WWF consistently for over three years - that made them the big boys during that period. Hogan is the WWFs biggest star ever - probably also the reason that you have overlooked WCW being the bigger company. Fan boys might love the 2011 shtick but what benefit is there to a guy who can't go coming out and burying talent, it really is no wonder he and Hogan couldn't work together.

If your going to say Sting never showed his worth in WWF (another guy putting Borden down for having the courage of his convictions), at least Sting can say he never worked in the WWF. Austin never showed his worth in WCW where he did perform, not really an indication of being in a separate league. What about the Ringmaster, he couldn't get that gimmick over either. Once again WWF creative deserve just as much credit for finding the gimmick that worked... or rather, for cultivating the character Paul Heyman encouraged. Even as Stone Cold, if Austin was such a great character, with no flaws, why was he ever turned heel? Look at Nash, Booker, Undertaker and Trips or even good ole JR since the Royal Rumble - all returning stars get huge ovations.

Bury TNA all you want, but he has beaten Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy here and both these guys have held World belts in Austin company since Steve's retirement.

 

[D-Man]

What a close match. The fact that these two were separated by two votes says a few things that I'd like to point out:

#1 - These two were a GREAT choice for a final match.
#2 - Kudos to KB for, once again, running a fair, just, entertaining, and fun tournament.
#3 - There is no doubt in my mind that, although some of the rounds didn't go as I planned, these two definitely deserved to make it this far.

Granted, Austin now has back-to-back wins in this tournament. But it just goes to show that true legends always make it until the end of the WZ Tournament and thus making it the best tournament that we have each year.

Congrats to the Rattlesnake!!