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

[D-Man]

I'm not going to sit here and put on a 10-page rant, defending the guy I think is going to win or should win. I don't see how anyone can look at this matchup and see a clearcut winner. This is tougher than I thought by a LANDSLIDE. Every second I find a direction to lean and it's tearing me apart. But I will make a few points.

If Austin wins two years in a row, who gives a fuck. Doesn't he deserve it??

I really hate when people compare the tenacity of finsihers, as if they were something real to judge a wrestler on. Come on, now. I guess that pretty soon you're all going to convince me that Santa's real, right? Pfffft...

My vote will be based on the criteria in which I feel this match should be judged. But I still haven't decided what criteria is truly suitable for a match of this magnitude.

- If based on the hypothetical matchup between the two, is there even a clear winner? Both of these guys could beat each other at any time in any point in their careers.

- If based on who had the most effective prime in the business, Austin has to win. He drew more money and revolutionized the business more.

- If based on popularity, I'd judge it on how long both of these men stayed at the top of the business in which case, Sting would win.

- If based on brutality of finishing maneuvers, I'd laugh in the face of whoever suggested that.

So I'm still not convinced. This is so fucking hard.

 

[Coco]

If based on popularity, I'd judge it on how long both of these men stayed at the top of the business in which case, Sting would win.

Absurd. So because Austin went down to a neck injury, he's less popular than Sting? I'd have no problem being convinced of Sting's popularity, but this standard is nonsense. Plain and simple. Judging by how Austin popped bigger numbers and got larger crowds to go wild during his prime, wouldn't it serve to reason that Austin is the more popular? Just a thought. And one which makes far more sense than your standard for popularity.

Hey, Shawn Michaels was at the top of the business for almost fifteen years. Does that mean he's more popular than John Cena?

 

[D-Man]

Absurd. So because Austin went down to a neck injury, he's less popular than Sting?

No, because Austin put in many years in WCW and didn't reach the top. Then he entered the WWE and didn't get to the top until the Stone Cold gimmick surfaced. His neck injury is irrelevant.

On the other hand, Sting was on top in WCW from day one. He maintained that spot in not only WCW but also in TNA and for many more years than Stone Cold.

Hey, Shawn Michaels was at the top of the business for almost fifteen years. Does that mean he's more popular than John Cena?

I thought I explained myself by saying that I'd personally judge popularity based on longevity in said wrestler's time of popularity. I could care less if you don't like my way of doing things. But then again, I never chose a personal method of voting yet, so why do you give a shit? Better yet, why do I give a shit if you're all up in arms about it?

 

[X]

Austin being the most popular wrestler on EARTH popping crowds of 20,000 weekly > Sting being the 3rd or 4th most popular wrestler in the US popping crowds of 6,000 weekly.

Austin trumps Sting in popularity in any way you look at it, under any standard. To even pretend otherwise is absurd. Do you people even remember how bad WCW attendance, ratings, and buyrates were at Sting's peak?

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Austin being the most popular wrestler on EARTH popping crowds of 20,000 weekly > Sting being the 3rd or 4th most popular wrestler in the US popping crowds of 6,000 weekly.

Austin trumps Sting in popularity in any way you look at it, under any standard. To even pretend otherwise is absurd. Do you people even remember how bad WCW attendance, ratings, and buyrates were at Sting's peak?

Then again, when creative was bad for Austin - he and the WWF didn't draw dick, and when WCW was regarded as legitimate competition and Sting was given a decent storyline - he drew WCW's biggest ever PPV buyrate and Nitro kicked RAW butt.

Austin was part of a large ensemble in RAW which had strong creative plus the new fangled edgy product that hadn't been seen previous.

In the 10 years after his WCW debut, Sting was top3 in ProWrestling Illustrated's Most Popular Wrestler 9 out of the 10 years with 4 top spots (still a record). Even with all the criticism TNA receives and the total dominance of WWe, he has still garnered 3 top4 spots in the last five years and I'd say he's a sure in this year too.

There is no reason for me to vote for Sting here. Sting has been interesting all of two times in my entire time watching wrestling. When he first debuted the black-and-white facepaint in early WCW, and when I thought he was coming to the WWE a couple of months ago.

Steve Austin worked in every major wrestling company in the United States, while Sting refuses to work in the WWE, whining about how he thinks Vince will use him (then proceeded to head to TNfuckingA, no less).

Personally, this is an easy choice for me. Austin it is.

When Sting tied his cord to TNA it was a new company and he helped it get a national TV deal and then *gasp* he stuck by his convictions and stayed loyal AND he's put over guys like Samoa Joe and AJ Styles. Sting only 'whined' about how Vince would use him in the early days because Vince didn't exactly have a sparkling record with WCW alumni. Besides if your disqualifying Sting because he 'refuses to work in the WWE' then you'll have to disqualify Austin too (and Michaels in future years) because he's refused to work in WWe in the past too.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

When Sting tied his cord to TNA it was a new company and he helped it get a national TV deal and then *gasp* he stuck by his convictions and stayed loyal AND he's put over guys like Samoa Joe and AJ Styles. Sting only 'whined' about how Vince would use him in the early days because Vince didn't exactly have a sparkling record with WCW alumni. Besides if your disqualifying Sting because he 'refuses to work in the WWE' then you'll have to disqualify Austin too (and Michaels in future years) because he's refused to work in WWe in the past too.

They did work in the WWE, were huge stars, and they're both currently affiliated with the WWE. I'm not counting out Sting simply for never having worked with the WWE, but it was his reason behind it, on top of coming into the WWE for a huge Wrestlemania feud with the Undertaker, and instead choosing to... go back to TNA during Wrestlemania build up expecting to shine, or something.

Don't spin what I'm saying to make it sound as if I'm being silly. My argument is shitty; I'm sure you can come up with an argument that absolutely slams mine without having to twist it.

 

[PsychoBlack]

My vote goes to sting here. He just seems like he would go over Austin, he was just as bad ass, he had a longer prime, arguably tougher, and way more athletic. Yes Austin drew more money but like i have said in previous matches thats not what this tournament is about.

Sting wins in about 22

 

[X]

Did this motherfucker just bring out PWI RANKINGS? Seriously?

Well shit, let's just vote Dean Malenko to win this whole thing then.

 

[gd]

Sting because Austin won last year. And that facepaint, good stuff, dontchya know.

 

[nightmare]

Austin would most definately put up a fight & whip Sting around the ring. Unfortunately for Austin- Sting would take the beating, come back & make Steve pass out with the deathlock.


Austin has had a huge amount of success in the ring & out. Definately one of my favorites. However- Sting has gone thru decades & carried WCW\TNA on his back. He has made a huge name for himself despite never needing the WWE machine. His matches with Flair & others in WCW are historic and should be watched by anyone stepping into the business. He might not have sold as many t-shirts, but that wont get you a win.


Austin barely got past Lesnar & he would be less effective against the Stinger if he went into this match. He will come back & tire Austin out. Steve wont tap, but he will pass out & that counts as a win for the Icon.


Vote Sting as the winner of the 2011 WZ Tournament

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Did this motherfucker just bring out PWI RANKINGS? Seriously?

Well shit, let's just vote Dean Malenko to win this whole thing then.

Nope, never mentioned rankings - as you brought up popularity, I mentioned the PWI Awards, were fans voted on categories like Best Wrestler, Most Popular, Most Hated, Match Of The Year et cetera. Fans voting... kinda like this tournament really. In the first period I mentioned 88-97 the internet was pretty much non-existent and for a good period of it kayfabe was still in effect. People had to purchase ProWrestling Illustrated to make their vote. It is every bit as relevant as viewing figures and PPV rates as it illustrated that while WWF had a stronger product, Sting rivalled (and beat) their biggest faces despite being in the smaller federation. This implies that Sting was every bit as big of a draw as his Federation counterparts but didn't have the supporting cast or product that they had. Stone Cold was a part of a very similar period to the Rock 'N' Wrestling period - he was supported by good talent, better creative and controversy. AND if you take into account the death of kayfabe, the influence of the internet, and the general cynicism of today - 3 appearances in the past 5 years is sort of a strong statement supporting the Icon too.

Oh and for the record, Dean Malenko has never figured in most popular.

They did work in the WWE, were huge stars, and they're both currently affiliated with the WWE. I'm not counting out Sting simply for never having worked with the WWE, but it was his reason behind it, on top of coming into the WWE for a huge Wrestlemania feud with the Undertaker, and instead choosing to... go back to TNA during Wrestlemania build up expecting to shine, or something.

Don't spin what I'm saying to make it sound as if I'm being silly. My argument is shitty; I'm sure you can come up with an argument that absolutely slams mine without having to twist it.

Apologies, mi amigo, I was being slightly facetious in that I was referring to the two guys going home rather than adhere to a storyline - so they 'refused to work for the WWF/e', if you get my drift.

I do despair at this line of thinking though. It's a positive to me that he is loyal, it was a faux pas by WWe in the marketing of the Dead Man's return to think nobody would think Sting. As I've posted already, TNA would not have their Spike deal if it had not been for Sting and as such, I take it that they have been very good to him. This must be the reason that he has maintained his loyalty, because there is no way that TNA is paying him more than signing with WWe would have produced (salary + WM appearance fee + any WM bonuses + money earned from the products they'd produce with his name attached). Sting/ Undertaker is something I would have loved to have seen myself, but I think Steve Borden is to be commended for having the integrity to resign and the courage to withstand the backlash - despite the hype being nothing to do with him.

Your not being silly in having wanted a Sting WWe run, but I just wouldn't have felt right if I hadn't made my feelings on the circumstances of him not joining clear. Once again, apologies if you felt there was any malicious intent - we're all here for a good time, not a long time, "fella"! (©[email protected])

 

[Big Sexy]

Sting would NEVER be put over Austin in his prime when both were faces. Sting was very popular and a huge star but he wasn't on Austin's level. The only guys on Austin's level in terms of popularity are Hogan and The Rock. You wanna no what happened when Hogan came to WCW? Sting went from main eventing a lot of pay per views to pretty much never main eventing unless Hogan wasn't on the card or they were in a match together. He went from feuding with guys like Vader for the title to feuding with Meng and Big Bubba Rogers. He is not on Austin's level in terms of star power and would not have gone over him.

 

[ABMorales787]

Vote Sting. Why? Easy.

*For one, his career started before Steve Austin and still continues after Steve Austin.

*He's beaten a young Steve Austin.

*It's the Georgia Dome.

*Shitty TNA run? At least he's still going. Can't say the same for Austin. Or the Undertaker.

*Draws full crowds in his 50's.

*Did I mention it's the freakin' Georgia Dome?!

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

*For one, his career started before Steve Austin and still continues after Steve Austin.

And he still isn't nearly as popular, or important, to professional wrestling as Steve Austin is/was. Sting is important, no doubt, but not on Austin's level.

*He's beaten a young Steve Austin.

Young being the keyword. Sting in his prime beating a young Austin means nothing.

*It's the Georgia Dome.

Probably the only advantage Sting holds, and it's minimal, given Austin's widespread popularity.

*Shitty TNA run? At least he's still going. Can't say the same for Austin. Or the Undertaker.

Undertaker just went on second to last at WrestleMania. About a month ago, Sting was involved in one of the worst main events in the history of professional wrestling. Not his fault, but he was there.

*Draws full crowds in his 50's.

The Impact! Zone? Joking, yeah?

*Did I mention it's the freakin' Georgia Dome?!

Yes, you did.

 

[SavageTaker]

Vote Sting. Why? Easy.

*For one, his career started before Steve Austin and still continues after Steve Austin.

So longetivity = better pro wrestler? K, gotcha. So I guess we can put Jim Duggan up there in the list of greatest wrestlers since he's been wrestling since his debut in 1979 and still wrestles occasionally just like Sting.

*He's beaten a young Steve Austin.

A not in his prime Steve Austin.

*It's the Georgia Dome.

So what?

*Shitty TNA run? At least he's still going. Can't say the same for Austin. Or the Undertaker.

It's pretty pathetic you're trying to use his TNA run as a reason why he should go over. Why not try being smarter and use his run during his prime, just like JMT is doing to debate his points.

Also, there's a reason why Austin doesn't wrestle. And it's because of not only the injuries that he's had over the many years but also because he knows he probably wouldn't be able to perform at the same level he did in the 90's. That alone should tell you a lot about him. He doesn't want to go out there and embarass himself and put on shit matches for the fans just like Sting has been doing for the most part since his TNA run began. And what does The Undertaker even have to do with this? This is Austin vs. Sting, not Sting vs. the man that can put on way better matches than him at an advanced age even though he's pretty banged up.

*Draws full crowds in his 50's.

Yeah, because 1,300 non-paying "fans" coming to watch a show is really drawing money even though they make absolutely no money from the fans at the iMPACT zone. And I'm also guessing that next you're going to tell me that Kurt Angle, AJ Styles and the other much superior wrestlers have nothing to do with the fans coming and watching the shows.

It's been mentioned before but I'll make sure to mention it again so you can understand it. If you're going to judge this based on drawing ability then you should vote Austin since during his peak he was able to to sell out 20,000+ seats in an arena while Sting couldn't even sale out an arena with half the amount of seats during his prime.

*Did I mention it's the freakin' Georgia Dome?!

Did I mention you're doing more harm than good with your arguments against Austin?

 

[D-Man]

First off, I've not determined which way I'm going to vote yet. However, I have to wreck these arguments...

Vote Sting. Why? Easy.

*For one, his career started before Steve Austin and still continues after Steve Austin.

Due to Austin's injuries, which he can't be blamed for.

*He's beaten a young Steve Austin.

And I'm sure many wrestlers in this tournament beat a young Shawn Michaels, but we never let that sway our votes. Crappy point here.

*It's the Georgia Dome.

Austin is from the South and was decently big in WCW. This really shouldn't make a difference.

*Shitty TNA run? At least he's still going. Can't say the same for Austin. Or the Undertaker.

Austin is still going... he's just not wrestling. And he still gets bigger pops than Sting, even without having wrestling tights on.

*Draws full crowds in his 50's.

Yeah, because it's Austin's fault that he's only 46 years old. But yet he still draws monster numbers for people that watch Tough Enough and who see him advertised to appear on Raw.

*Did I mention it's the freakin' Georgia Dome?!

Yes and I already made a point against it.



Once again, this doesn't mean I'm voting for Austin yet. It just means that Killjoy's arguments were shit.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Sting would NEVER be put over Austin in his prime when both were faces. Sting was very popular and a huge star but he wasn't on Austin's level. The only guys on Austin's level in terms of popularity are Hogan and The Rock. You wanna no what happened when Hogan came to WCW? Sting went from main eventing a lot of pay per views to pretty much never main eventing unless Hogan wasn't on the card or they were in a match together. He went from feuding with guys like Vader for the title to feuding with Meng and Big Bubba Rogers. He is not on Austin's level in terms of star power and would not have gone over him.

Do you want to know what really happened when Hogan came to WCW? He had creative control to, then, unheard of levels. Hulk has said himself that he had it written in his contract that he could have faced every top name in the company in a handicap match and won. Despite this Hogan wasn't getting over to the extent that Sting was, so the nWo was created and Hollywood was born. Who was his nemesis? Sting. Now despite Hogan's backstage power, Sting is unbeaten in the record books against the Hulkster.

To get Sting into the WWF, you can bet your ass Vince would have scripted wins over Austin - especially as Mr McMahon seems to have a soft spot for the Stinger (his image was in the background on Classic for a long time despite the fact he was in TNA). Also, McMahon didn't appear to have any objection about jobbing him out to Lesnar or jobbing Hogan to the green Lesnar either. Or jobbing another poster boy in the Rock out to (Sting's fellow WCW alumni) Goldberg AND to Lesnar.

People are going on about Austin's star quality and citing Tough Enough as proof, fact is Tough Enough ratings have dropped ever since the premier (2.51 to 1.81 to 1.53 last week). Initial ratings were probably on Austin's name but obviously quality has caused this not to be sufficient. You want to know someone else who has suffered from this particular ailment? Sting. When given a decent storyline, Sting didn't even have to speak to draw big.

Please stop the 'Austin is more popular than Sting' argument because you're comparing apples and pears - they didn't perform in the same company at the same time, they didn't have the same backstage politics, they didn't have the same creative teams and they didn't have the same rosters.

 

[Ronin]

I think Austin would win in a kayfabe sense. He has just been through the harder opponent creating the bigger payoff when he wins because he is in the worse condition of the too. That is my reasoning.

Plus I like him more =]

 

[dude_d_dude]

I voted Sting simply because I don't want to see Austin win 2 tournaments in a row, and because I think it'd be a nice thing for the Stinger (yes I'm well aware he's probably never going to know about any of this but I'm a big fan so leave me alone)
Austin is awesome, I'm glad he's won this once, but I think it'd be nice to give other people a chance.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Make no mistake, to me Steve Austin is the biggest overrated piece of crap walking today. The guy is synonymous with Pro Wrestling, but the guy is not immortal and he is in no way unbeatable.

Firstly, I'm not going to let someone who's went on record for watching wrestling since the same time as me (in the mid/early 90's) try and tell me, or anyone else, that if they don't vote for Austin or think he wouldn't win that they don't know wrestling. The hell? If I don't vote a specific way - that means I "don't know wrestling?" Well shit, what exactly IS wrestling? Because I was pretty sure it was a staged sport for entertainment purposes in which one guy is booked to win a staged match over another. /end reality.

Now then, for anyone running off the head about Austin not being booked over Sting if both were in their primes.. I call bullshit. The WWE may not have ever booked Sting over Austin, but WCW would've never booked Austin over Sting. So back to stalemate we go.

*enter the cries of people claiming Austin wasn't "Austin" in WCW* And yet Sting has never, and apparently from various reports - will never - be in the WWF/E, once again - enter stalemate.

Now, going back to those claiming Sting wouldn't be booked over Austin - I bring up Wrestlemania XIX as a prime example of how this match would look. Steve Austin defeated the Rock at Wrestlemania XV - when Rock was just entering the Main Event scene. He defeated him again at X-7, although it was by clear-cut cheating and obvious help from Mr. McMahon. He finally lost and put over the Rock at Mania XIX.

Now, how does this translate? Well, Austin is above and beyond the Rock - yet the Rock won clean over Austin, finally. Thereby bringing up the logical thought that Austin obviously put him over, since Austin no longer had anything to claim.

Well - Austin won this very tournament last year, so with exception of "becoming the first 2-time winner", Austin has nothing to achieve; and because Sting hasn't won at all - that record could still be on the line next year, when Austin will continue to have every open chance to make another huge run. Therefore, in the same understanding that Austin was bigger than Rock - yet Rock was put over, I'm saying Sting would be booked to go over and get the nod, only for Austin to still be every bit capable of capturing the "2-time winner" award in a year from now, or somewhere down the line. (forbid)

Also let it be known that I think anyone who believes Austin would always be booked to go over Sting because the guy sold more t-shirts and made one Company a ton of money, apparently "doesn't know wrestling". Since if that were the case - he'd obviously NEVER LOSE TO ANYONE, EVER. Do I really need to go find his awful ppv-Main Event record again? Didn't think so.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Wasn't too sure before, but I think I'll go with Austin. Steve Austin was the second biggest (or arguably the first biggest) name in wrestling history. His fame knows no bounds really. His impact is HUGE. He also knew how to get it done in the ring though. As a young guy in WCW he fought an in prime Sting and held his own, so imagine what he could do as the Texas Rattlesnake, and someone who dominated the world of wrestling in the late 90's and early 00's. Sting's pretty damn excellent overall and I give him credit for a number of things, but if he and Austin went toe-to-toe in their primes, Sting would lose. Of this I have no doubt.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I have explained in a previous post why I am voting for Steve Austin, and I say again, there is nothing Sting can do that Austin can't.

Great matches? Check

Great feud? For Sting v Hogan & the nWo read Austin v McMahon, or Austin v The Rock

Crowd interest instantly?- For Sting's "howl", read Austin's "What?" or the glass shattering

Character reinvention- Sting came back as the crow while Austin came back as the cowardly heel alligned with Vince McMahon

Great catchphrases? For Sting's "It's Showtime!" read "That's the bottom line, cos Stone Cold Said So!", "Gimme a Hell Yeah" and many more

Rating/PPV successes? Sting did it, and did it well, but Austin was the man who brought the WWE back to the top, and did more than anyone to keep them there

Iconic finisher? The Scorpian Death Drop & Death Lock are classics, but they do not beat The Stunner

Sting was awesome, but Austin could do everything Stinger could and then some. Do the right thing and vote for Stone Cold Steve Austin

 

[Dagger Dias]

Epic match. Both are legendary and this would be a dream match. However, I gotta give my vote to Stone Cold. Sting would put up a fight and get a few two counts of his own, before falling victim to the Stunner in the end. Stone Cold wins because he is in the top tier of all time, only the very best could stand a chance at defeating him in a match of such epic standings as this one. As great as Sting is, he goes home here.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Simply put, Sting's career is a gallery of bad decisions on his part, regardless of the fact that he personally thinks they were good decisions. Sure, Steve Austin could have been a bit of a prick during his run at the top of the company, but he knew his place at the top, and kept himself in a place where he could give everything he has to the fans and vice versa. Sting remains safe in his comfort zone, and his caution has kept him from main eventing Wrestlemania, rather than main eventing the worst PPV main event in, arguably, the history of the industry.

That's why Austin goes over here. Austin doesn't take the safe road.

 

[D-Man]

I still can't make a decision.

I understand where all of their strong points are but no one has convinced me on which criteria I should be judging on. Some judge this based on who would win in a match. Some judge on who is the better pro-wrestling total package, overall. Some judge on personal preference.

How should I judge it?