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

[jmt225]

1997 actually, and I've gone back over the years and watched an unfathomable amount of footage from WCW during Sting's prime years from 88 all the way to 2001. I've seen every episode of Nitro, Thunder, and every PPV from 1996 to 2001. I've seen all of the major shows from his prime as well, all the Starrcades, GABs, HHs, and I've seen just about every single match he's ever had with the likes of Ric Flair, Vader, and Cactus Jack, some of his best opponents. I think I'm just as qualified to speak on Sting's career as you or anyone else is on here.

You are in a sense, but I just have to believe man that if you started watching pro wrestling in the late eighties/early nineties, Sting would have been one of your favorite wrestlers and you would not be saying what you're saying now.

Sting vs. Flair, Cactus, Vader, the Steiners, etc... THESE would have been your favorite matches growing up, Xfear. Sting for all of the early nineties consistently put on the best main event matches in mainstream U.S. pro wrestling. That is a fact. You can rewatch it now and compare it to today's standards... some of these might not hold up with someone with your experience watching wrestling. However, I guarantee if you saw these matches at the time... you would still look at them as classics today, just as all of Sting fans do.

Oh man that's such a bad reason to vote for him. "You had to see him live" isn't really an argument JMT my brother, and it's certainly not any kind of evidence to support your case. Just because I never saw Sting live in the mid-90s doesn't mean I don't understand how over and popular he was, or how great of a wrestler he was for the first 10 or so years of his career. Unfortunately when you follow that up with 15 years of dogshit though, I can't call you the GREATEST WRESTLER EVER.

But how is it fair to judge someone's career by what they did in their forties and fifties? That just makes no sense.

Especially when you consider how HORRIBLE the booking has been for Sting throughout these 15 years you keep bringing up. But, I'll get more on that later in this post.

I was a Sting fan as well JMT, I watched WCW from 97 until it folded, one of my best friends growing up was a massive Sting mark and we used to mark out and watch Nitro together. Fuck I even had a Sting action figure that was among my most prized at the time. Yes I was/am a bigger Austin fan, but objectively speaking, Austin's career match quality puts Sting's to shame, and I've seen this over my years of watching shit-tons of wrasslin'. There was NEVER a point in Austin's career where him just getting into the ring was sad to watch, unlike Sting's last decade. Even Sting's very, very best matches can be met with and sometimes topped by the amount of incredible matches Austin has had.

I completely disagree. Austin's greatest matches:

vs. Hart @ 'Mania 13
vs. HHH @ No Way Out
vs. Cactus Jack at Over the Edge
vs. The Rock @ Wresltmania 17
vs. Kurt Angle @ Summerslam 2001.

And he had some great matches with Pillman while in the Hollywood Blonds. But looking at those singles matches... who on that list ISN'T an incredible worker? Did Austin ever get good matches out of shitty opponents? If so, please show me, because I don't think I ever seen it.

Sting, on the other hand, was able to have a great match with Bill fucking Goldberg. Sting was able to have good matches with Lex Luger. What shitty in-ring worker has Austin gotten great matches out of?

Again...watched WCW from 97 until it's downfall. No idea why you think I didn't. I used to love watching the first hour of Nitro before RAW, then catching the replay later on. I loved Sting, DDP, Chris Benoit, Booker T, and Scott Steiner. Not to mention having gone back now that I'm older and watched all of those old years.

While that was WCW's highest point, it wasn't Sting's. Sting's greatest work occurred from 1988 until 1996 as the blond hair surfer Sting. That's what I'm referring to when mentioning that you didn't experience Sting in his absolute prime first hand.

That's not what I'm specifically trying to do. Plus, I went farther back than the beginning of his TNA career, all the way to 1998. He was flat out bad during the end of his WCW run, and he was dogshit in TNA. 15 years of sucking puts quite the damper on the other 10 years of rocking. And again, like you, I had both Austin and Sting action figures, I watched both companies, and I loved both guys. I liked Austin more, hell yes, but it doesn't change the fact that his career puts Sting's to shame. Sting's golden moment in the sun was Starrcade 1997, a mess of a match, and he dropped the title a week later, killing all of the heat of the entire angle, and he never recovered from that. Austin on the other hand had some of the best years in wrestling history in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001. He had countless classic matches, was the most popular wrestler possibly EVER, and he was more over than Sting. Sting as the big babyface in 1998 = ratings and buyrates declining while the WWF's skyrocketed with Austin as the big babyface.

Okay, instead of comparing Sting and Austin here... let's compare the quality of programming between WCW and WWF at the time.

During this period, the WWF put on some of the most entertaining television in pro wrestling, while WCW put on some of its worst. Sure, Austin deserves credit for the quality of the WWF's programming, but in no way does Sting deserve any of the blame for WCW and TNA's bad programming.

I mean, let's face it... while Austin is feuding with guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, HHH, The Rock, Mr. McMahon, Mick Foley, The Undertaker... Sting is feuding with Goldberg, Sid Vicious, Lex Luger, Vampiro, a 50-year-old Hogan and Flair, etc.

How in the World can you fault Sting for his work in late WCW when you look at the quality of his opponents, man?

His matches with Abyss were terrible.

The matches that were "terrible" were only that because of ******ed stipulations. However, re-watch their match at Genesis 2006 (the one with the first Angle/Joe match). That match was fucking great until the dumb ass finish, which again isn't Sting's fault.

Joe, Angle, and even Jarrett all had to totally carry him to good matches, ESPECIALLY Angle and Joe. The only person I can remember to really get a "very good" match out of Sting in TNA was AJ Styles at BFG 09, and that was one of the biggest carry-jobs I've ever seen, with Sting just standing around like a goof while Styles did his thing, bumping his ass off to try and make this match the epic it was supposed to be.

Christian Cage also had good matches with Sting, and I even remember Sting and Scott Steiner having a pretty good television match on Impact. Now, I know you want try to claim Steiner "carried" Sting, will you?

As far as Sting being carried in those other matches... it takes two have a good match in my mind, man. Sure, one wrestler could do more work than the other, but to give COMPLETE credit for only one wrestler for a good match is silly to me. Sting held his own in all those matches. It's not like any joe blow could get in there and have those kinds of matches with those opponents like you're putting it over.

Austin was a brilliant wrestler for a longer period of time than Sting was. He was one of the best in the business from his start in the late 80s in Texas all the way to his retirement in 2003. Sting on the other hand, again, was NEVER the same once he shifted to The Crow gimmick. His match quality plummeted to insane degrees. Even during his prime, his best matches were always with incredible workers like Flair and Vader, you wouldn't often see Sting carry the load in a match and carry some scrub to a good match like guys like Flair, Vader, and Austin could.

I disagree, man. I loved the Hollywood Blonds stuff with Austin, but I thought his Stunning Steve stuff was overrated outside of the Steamboat matches. Also, Austin's match against Whipwreck sucked, too. Just putting that out there.

Also, I don't get this notion that Austin had great matches with bad wrestlers. Hopefully you'll provide me with proof above when I brought it up, otherwise your argument in this case holds no merit.

Again, total bullshit man. I watched WCW for pretty much as long as you did (you started watching in what, the early 90s? Mid 90s for me, not a world of difference), I've gone back and watched countless hours of WCW programming from 1988-2001, Sting's heyday, and I've seen most of his TNA work. What the hell more of his stuff do I need to see man? His one or two WWA matches or something? Fuck I've even seen his work with Warrior when they were the Blade Runners. Why am I not as qualified as you to speak on Sting's career?

I started watching a little bit before Wrestlemania 4, and not too long after that Sting became my favorite wrestler.

Again, you are qualified to speak on Sting's career, but I'm just pointing out that I believe if you started watching at around the same time I did, you'd have a very different opinion on Sting, as most people do who have followed Sting throughout his entire career.

All of this confirms what I was saying about people voting for Sting because of personal preference and the fact that you guys are huge fans of his. That's not exactly objective, is it?

Well, the only other argument from Austin fans other than them being an Austin fan, is that Sting "sucked" in dying WCW and in TNA. We're supposed to be looking at wrestlers in their prime... not when they're fifty fucking years old.

...What?! That's flat out absurd dude, Austin has beaten practically EVERYONE in the industry, which quite frankly is far more impressive than Sting's career of wins in WCW and TNA. Austin wrestled most of the WCW and TNA stars, while Sting has never faced a LARGE portion of WWE stars, some of which make up the biggest stars of all time. HBK, Austin, Rock, Triple H, etc. Austin has clean wins over them all, Sting has never even faced them. To suggest that Austin, a guy who pretty much went without being cleanly pinned once for a near 3 year span in the Attitude Era (WHILE wrestling all through-out that time, unlike Sting's 18 month break in 96-97) could not defeat Sting, is absurd. The stunner has put away a lot more people than the Scorpion Death Drop has, that's for sure.

It's really not that absurd when you think about it.

For one, Austin WAS in WCW and he wasn't very successful, and Sting whooped his ass while he was there. And like I said earlier... Sting at 50 beat Angle cleanly, when Austin never could.

That's really that all needs to be said, man, lol. But I'll throw out there that Sting in his prime was bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and just as tough as Austin has ever been in his career. Sting wins a kayfabe match, no doubt about it.

You miss my point entirely. My point was that I was trying to understand the idolatry that people treat Sting to. I noticed people, i.e. Sting fans, discussing how you just had to see Sting in TNA, as if to see him wrestle was to listen to Jesus Christ's heartbreat.

I've never seen anyone say that, ever, except for TNA themselves, who of course have to put their stars over as the biggest thing ever.

But really, I'm Sting's biggest fan, and I would have NEVER made such a ******ed claim. And I just can't imagine anyone else being stupid enough to do the same.

My point still stands though at the end of the day... when Sting's TNA work is the ONLY work from him you have seen, it makes your opinion on this matter suffer heavily.

I'll have you know that I dabbled in WCW from '96 onward. That said, your point still makes no sense to me. I wasn't alive when Jesus Christ was in his prime but I've formed what I consider to be a pretty reasonable opinion of him. The same applies to my views on Napoleon, The Beatles, Henry VIII, and Santa Claus. Okay, you caught me. Henry VIII is actually fictional character from the television series The Tudors and not a real person. But the point I'm making about the rest stands. I don't have to have lived through something to be able to offer a perfectly valid opinion of it. Historians play this game all the time and there are definitely people on here who spend enough time watching old wrestling to meet some standards for expertise. X would be one of those people regardless of when he started watching wrestling. Does Gelgarin's opinion of Thesz mean nothing because he (probably) wasn't alive in Thesz's prime?

This is an insane standard you've established that doesn't really hold any water with me. The fact that you saw Sting wrestle Vader in 1992 in 1992 doesn't mean your opinion is worth more than X's the same way Pontius Pilate's view on Jesus aren't worth more than those of historians.

Try harder, yo.

Just as I told Xfear, if you started watching Sting at his absolute peak, when you were a kid, he would have been one of your favorite wrestlers and you'd have a different view of him right now.

Is it not odd to you that the people ragging on Sting are ones who started watching around the time his Crow gimmick started and after, while people who watched him in the late eighties/early nineties defend him to death? To me, that says a lot.

The same thing applies to The Ultimate Warrior. Sure, you can look back today and say he was shit, but if you were watching in the late eighties/early nineties, he was undoubtedly one of your favorite wrestlers and you fucking loved him. Today, you can look back and say he wasn't that good in the ring, but you still hold a major affection for the guy because he was a hero to you when you were young.

With Sting, it's no different, except unlike The Ultimate Warrior, you can look back at Sting in his prime and still enjoy his work because he was indeed very, very good at what he did. And that's why Sting fans are so quick to defend up for him here, because not only is there a huge nostalgia factor with him, but he really was a great wrestler.

 

[Big Sexy]

Sting

Austin has gone through several big names to get to this point. Considering this tournament takes place in one night there is no possible way that he has any stamina left. Lesnar would have surely taken a lot out of him.

Sting on the other hand as had an easier route against less big opponents, and opponents who I feel he could beat with easy.

Also Stone Cold is probaly drunk now due to having two victories in one night. I think Sting would capitalize on this. If not than Stone Cold is clearly bloated and won't have full capacity.

Anyway vote Sting.

If anything I'd say Sting had the tougher route to the finals. Austin had a fairly easy first match with Edge. Edge in his prime was great in gimmick matches but this was a normal one on one match and of the 4 combined opponents for Austin and Sting, Edge was the easiest. Brock Lesnar was obviously an extremely tough opponent that would take a lot out of Austin because of Lesnar's strength and size but let's look at Sting's opponents. His first opponent was Kurt Angle. A prime Angle is almost every bit as tough as Lesnar. He may not have the size but his technical prowess and ability to target certain parts of his opponents body and weaken them definitely would take a lot out of Sting. Sting's second opponent happens to be arguably the 3rd biggest name in wrestling history in The Rock. The Rock in his prime was always a tough guy to keep down and would no doubt give Sting a lot of trouble. facing the Rock and Angle is easily tougher then facing Edge and Lesnar.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

If anything I'd say Sting had the tougher route to the finals. Austin had a fairly easy first match with Edge. Edge in his prime was great in gimmick matches but this was a normal one on one match and of the 4 combined opponents for Austin and Sting, Edge was the easiest. Brock Lesnar was obviously an extremely tough opponent that would take a lot out of Austin because of Lesnar's strength and size but let's look at Sting's opponents. His first opponent was Kurt Angle. A prime Angle is almost every bit as tough as Lesnar. He may not have the size but his technical prowess and ability to target certain parts of his opponents body and weaken them definitely would take a lot out of Sting. Sting's second opponent happens to be arguably the 3rd biggest name in wrestling history in The Rock. The Rock in his prime was always a tough guy to keep down and would no doubt give Sting a lot of trouble. facing the Rock and Angle is easily tougher then facing Edge and Lesnar.

I know any criteria can be used and I realise this is a response to someone claiming the same for Sting (who I'm backing) but I'm applying this to both sides of the fence. Given the prestige of this tournament and the many organisations who have allowed their guys to participate, I'd imagine guarantees would be in place to make their guys look the best they can kayfabe. As such, I'd imagine all of the Atlanta matches to be very tight affairs (these are meant to be the top 8 wrestlers in the world after all) keeping the fans on the edges of their seats and, most likely, implying that the 4 guys who came through the quarter finals were in similar shapes and the 2 guys coming into the final being, likewise, in similar physical conditions. It would be too cheap to consider either Sting or Austin to be in Jake Roberts' KotR '96 shape.

 

[Bdubbs]

This match goes to Steve Austin. The guy is just behind Hogan in terms of most important wrestler of all-time. His matches were more entertaining to me, and he barely lost in his prime.

I started watching wrestling in the late 80's, and I admit I was always more of a WWF guy instead of WCW. Sting's surfer gimmick was great, but when he started the crow gimmick, it went downhill. Plus, he took an immediate backseat to Hogan when Hollywood came to WCW in 1994. As X has said, many of Sting's matches are overrated.

Vote Austin in this one. Austin blew away Sting on the mic, had better quality matches, and is more important to wrestling overall. I can't see any legitimate reason besides personal preference as to why Sting would go over here.

 

[The Best]

Wow this is completely dead even, coming into here I was thinking Sting, but now, seeing some of the Austin arguments being put on here, I'm completely torn. Convince me more, I like it.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Austin deserves two WZ Tourny wins, back-to-back. This is why I'm voting for him. Hell, I might even push him again next year as I think he deserves a three-peat.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

When Sting was in his prime...when the spotlight was brightest upon him...when he was supposed to beat the nWo...he didn't even win cleanly. In fact...he LOST to Hollywood Hogan.

Austin...in his absolute prime...beat Taker in Taker's match, somehow overcame not winning the Rumble to get his title shot, beat Vince McMahon and the Big Show in a steel cage, and then beat The Rock to win the title. Cleanly, too.


Vote Austin.

 

[jmt225]

When Sting was in his prime...when the spotlight was brightest upon him...when he was supposed to beat the nWo...he didn't even win cleanly. In fact...he LOST to Hollywood Hogan.

False. Technically, it was a fast count by Nick Patrick, which is why the match was restarted. And when it was restarted, Sting beat the hell out of Hogan like it was nothing.

Moreover, the next night Sting beat Hogan's ass before Nitro ended abruptly, and then at the next pay-per-view, SuperBrawl, Sting would go on to beat Hogan cleanly.

So, not only is that statement you presented completely false, but that's not even Sting in his prime, so right off the bat your claim here was incorrect.

Just an all around terrible argument, man.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

As great as Sting is, and he IS great, I am going to have to vote for Steve Austin in this match, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Sting has done it all in the business, and has far more World Title reigns than Austin. He completely reinvented himself as the crow character and this led to one of the most memorable feuds in WCW's history against the nWo. He is an icon of the business and more than deserves a spot in the final.

However, Sting never made wrestling "cool". He did not kickstart a whole new era in the business, while the Stone Cold character began the WWE Attitude era, which is the most profitable in the history of wrestling. He became an icon through his iconic feud with Vince McMahon, which was the 1st time a promoter had had that kind of rivalry with one of his employees. The Stunner is more iconic than anything in Sting's arsenal, the Austin 3:16 movement far outdoes anything Stinger has ever done and even today, nearly a decade after his last matches as an in-ring competitor, Austin is still one of, if not THE most over guy ever time he appears on a WWE show.

Sting never made the crossover into pop-culture icon the way Austin did, non-wrestling fans all know who The Rattlesnake is, and Austin was part of so many memorable feuds, matches and promos over the years. He was the ultimate tweener, acting like a heel but getting HUGE face pops, then he showed how funny he could be, and was also a great heel as the leader of The Alliance. His feuds with McMahon and The Rock will live in the memory for years, and Austin will deservedly go down as one of most important wrestlers ever to get into the ring.

He was the Hulk Hogan of his generation. Sting never quite got to that level.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

False. Technically, it was a fast count by Nick Patrick, which is why the match was restarted. And when it was restarted, Sting beat the hell out of Hogan like it was nothing.

Moreover, the next night Sting beat Hogan's ass before Nitro ended abruptly, and then at the next pay-per-view, SuperBrawl, Sting would go on to beat Hogan cleanly.

So, not only is that statement you presented completely false, but that's not even Sting in his prime, so right off the bat your claim here was incorrect.

Just an all around terrible argument, man.

Ah, but it wasn't a fast count by Patrick. Hart "said" it was...but if you look at it...it's a normal paced count. Regardless, it made Sting look like Bret Hart just gave him the title.

NO NO NO NO NO! Sting did NOT beat Hogan cleanly at SuperBrawl. Remember when Savage knocked Hogan out? And then Sting pinned him...not clean.

"Prime" is so subjective too. More people were watching Sting than ever before and he was the top babyface against the biggest heel the industry had seen in some time. Not sure what else you would call a "prime." Perhaps fighting Jake Roberts in front of 7,000 people?

So, who had the terrible argument, bub?

 

[jmt225]

Ah, but it wasn't a fast count by Patrick. Hart "said" it was...but if you look at it...it's a normal paced count. Regardless, it made Sting look like Bret Hart just gave him the title.

It went down as a fast count, so that's what it was.

NO NO NO NO NO! Sting did NOT beat Hogan cleanly at SuperBrawl. Remember when Savage knocked Hogan out? And then Sting pinned him...not clean.

Did you not watch the match? Sting had it won before Savage interfered. Here's the proof:

[YOUTUBE]kcOjBRktDCU[/YOUTUBE]

Sting has Hogan beat with the Scorpion Death Drop at the 5:40 mark, and then the ref went down and the nWo members came to the ring.

Technically, Sting's victory wasn't completely clean, but he still had the match won CLEANLY before Hogan hit the ref. Therefore, to me, Sting's victory over Hogan at Superbrawl is legit.

"Prime" is so subjective too. More people were watching Sting than ever before and he was the top babyface against the biggest heel the industry had seen in some time. Not sure what else you would call a "prime." Perhaps fighting Jake Roberts in front of 7,000 people?

So you consider someone coming off an 18 month lay off to be in his prime, in-ring wise? Yeah, that makes sense.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how many people were watching. Prime is to be judged on a person's athletic stature and their age when it comes to a sport (which, kayfabe wise, professional wrestling IS a sport), not how many people are watching the programming.

So, who had the terrible argument, bub?

Uh.. you did, considering your entire argument is based around one match, where Sting was coming off an 18 month lay-off and looked to be in the worst shape he had ever been in to that point in his career. Not to mention the fact that Sting would redeem that match the very next month anyway.

Like I said... just a terrible all around argument you're making here, man.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

It went down as a fast count, so that's what it was.

Ok. Hogan annihilated Nash with a poke of his finger for a 3 count. That's what it went down as...so that's what it was.

Did you not watch the match? Sting had it won before Savage interfered. Here's the proof:

[YOUTUBE]kcOjBRktDCU[/YOUTUBE]

Sting has Hogan beat with the Scorpion Death Drop at the 5:40 mark, and then the ref went down and the nWo members came to the ring.

1) That was the WORST Scorpion Death Drop I've ever seen.

2) People kick out of finishers.

3) The combination of the 2 would suggest that Hogan had a pretty good chance of kicking out, even if he didn't kick Patrick.

Technically, Sting's victory wasn't completely clean, but he still had the match won CLEANLY before Hogan hit the ref. Therefore, to me, Sting's victory over Hogan at Superbrawl is legit.

No, he didn't. The bottom line is that Sting didn't "go over." He was never booked as being superior to Hogan in a match situation.

So you consider someone coming off an 18 month lay off to be in his prime, in-ring wise? Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes. I do.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how many people were watching. Prime is to be judged on a person's athletic stature and their age when it comes to a sport (which, kayfabe wise, professional wrestling IS a sport), not how many people are watching the programming.

And the fact is that wrestling ISN'T a sport. If Sting and Hogan were fighting in the UFC in 1997, then ok...the person's athletic stature is of utmost importance. But clearly, Hogan's most athletic days were behind him, and Sting was beginning to age. But since wrestling isn't a sport, it's a form of storytelling with your body and with crowd psychology, then the most important thing isn't how athletic you are...it's how much the crowd believes that you are freaking awesome. Otherwise, Evan Bourne would be a 7x WWE champ right now.

Uh.. you did, considering your entire argument is based around one match, where Sting was coming off an 18 month lay-off and looked to be in the worst shape he had ever been in to that point in his career. Not to mention the fact that Sting would redeem that match the very next month anyway.

Primes. They are often used in these one on one situations. Austin's prime was much better than Sting's. Or wait...are you going to argue that Austin's stint as Stunning Steve Austin was his prime since he was more athletically sound at that point?

Sting did NOT redeem himself from the debacle of Starrcade 97, and it was not even close. To say that was a clean victory is ignorance of the highest degree, as Sting in no way came off as being superior to Hogan.

Like I said... just a terrible all around argument you're making here, man.

You keep saying that, and I keep proving how horrible YOUR argument is. It's a nice little dance.

 

[jmt225]

Ok. Hogan annihilated Nash with a poke of his finger for a 3 count. That's what it went down as...so that's what it was.

Uh... no, that was a PLOY by those wrestlers, just as it was a ploy for Patrick to count fast. Stupid comparison, man, though I'm not surprised by it with the lack of intelligence you've shown in this thread so far.

1) That was the WORST Scorpion Death Drop I've ever seen.

Well then you've must not have seen many Scorpion Death Drops. And it doesn't matter how it looked, anyway; Hogan was down for the 3 count.

2) People kick out of finishers.

If you watch the video you'll clearly see that Hogan would not have kicked out if Patrick was still up.

3) The combination of the 2 would suggest that Hogan had a pretty good chance of kicking out, even if he didn't kick Patrick.

No, not really, because Sting lays on top of him while Hogan lays there lifeless.

Besides, when does Hogan ever have the match in hand to win it? Never, is when, yet Sting has him beat down once he hit the Scorpion Death Drop. Sting would have UNDOUBTEDLY won the match clean if Hogan didn't fuck with the referees, and if the nWo hadn't interfered in the first place.

No, he didn't. The bottom line is that Sting didn't "go over." He was never booked as being superior to Hogan in a match situation.

He was in that match considering he had Hogan beat.

And the fact is that wrestling ISN'T a sport. If Sting and Hogan were fighting in the UFC in 1997, then ok...the person's athletic stature is of utmost importance. But clearly, Hogan's most athletic days were behind him, and Sting was beginning to age. But since wrestling isn't a sport, it's a form of storytelling with your body and with crowd psychology, then the most important thing isn't how athletic you are...it's how much the crowd believes that you are freaking awesome. Otherwise, Evan Bourne would be a 7x WWE champ right now.

KAYFABE WISE, which is what we're talking about here, professional wrestling IS a sport. I know that it's not really a sport in real life, but you're arguing from a kayfabe point of view, which makes professional wrestling a competition, which makes it a sport. Duh.

Primes. They are often used in these one on one situations. Austin's prime was much better than Sting's. Or wait...are you going to argue that Austin's stint as Stunning Steve Austin was his prime since he was more athletically sound at that point?

Stone Cold was far superior to Stunning Steve in every aspect. Stone Cold had the bigger & stronger body, was tougher, more ruthless, had the harder competition, etc.

I'm not on your level of dumb to make such a silly statement, so don't throw out an assumption like that, please.

Sting did NOT redeem himself from the debacle of Starrcade 97, and it was not even close. To say that was a clean victory is ignorance of the highest degree, as Sting in no way came off as being superior to Hogan.

It's clear as day Sting had the match won before the ref went down. Stevie fucking Wonder could see it.

You keep saying that, and I keep proving how horrible YOUR argument is. It's a nice little dance.

Nah man, I'm pretty confident that even Austin voters here would agree with me that you're argument is fucking ******ed and that they're ashamed you're on their side, making their case that much more damaging to indecisive voters reading our little spat.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Uh... no, that was a PLOY by those wrestlers, just as it was a ploy for Patrick to count fast. Stupid comparison, man, though I'm not surprised by it with the lack of intelligence you've shown in this thread so far.

You clearly missed the point.

Well then you've must not have seen many Scorpion Death Drops. And it doesn't matter how it looked, anyway; Hogan was down for the 3 count.

Just like it didn't matter how Patrick's "fast count" looked? You did a really good job of making a case there, JMT.

Uh, Hogan was down for teh 3 countz because Sting hit teh finisherz!!! No one kickz out of dem!

"Hogan was down for the 3" is not an acceptable rebuttal to my initial contesting of your original statement that "Hogan was down for the 3." Do you even know how to have a debate?

If you watch the video you'll clearly see that Hogan would not have kicked out if Patrick was still up.

Which is totally beside the point. Patrick WAS down and it was BOOKED that way. Austin was BOOKED to go over heels in his heyday cleanly and without controversy (though you could make an argument that his victory or 2 over Dude Love were not squeaky clean). Thus, the crowd is left with the impression that Austin is THE MAN because he brought down McMahon and the Corporation. People were left wondering how truly awesome Sting was because he couldn't overcome the nWo and/or Hogan.

No, not really, because Sting lays on top of him while Hogan lays there lifeless.

Again, not important.

Besides, when does Hogan ever have the match in hand to win it? Never, is when, yet Sting has him beat down once he hit the Scorpion Death Drop. Sting would have UNDOUBTEDLY won the match clean if Hogan didn't fuck with the referees, and if the nWo hadn't interfered in the first place.

Get your Jim Ross hat out and whine to the viewers. Wrestling isn't real competition, unless you are this guy:

[YOUTUBE]BvTNyKIGXiI[/YOUTUBE]

And even he is acknowledging that the wrestlers are choosing to treat their bodies in such a fashion. Hogan didn't fuck with the refs because he's a bad guy...he fucked with the refs because that was what the plan was.

He was in that match considering he had Hogan beat.

No idea what the hell this has to do with anything.

KAYFABE WISE, which is what we're talking about here, professional wrestling IS a sport. I know that it's not really a sport in real life, but you're arguing from a kayfabe point of view, which makes professional wrestling a competition, which makes it a sport. Duh.

Woah woah woah. What's this "we" stuff? As a Global Moderator, I would hope that you at least know the damn rules of the tournament....there are none. You could vote for Sting simply because you prefer individuals with black hair. This is NOT based on Kayfabe, otherwise Hogan would win every year. Kayfabe died when Sheik drove around with Hacksaw and Triple H said goodbye to his roody poo friends in Madison Square Garden. Nowhere have I argued from a kayfabe point of view except maybe to undermine one of your worthless arguments.

Stone Cold was far superior to Stunning Steve in every aspect. Stone Cold had the bigger & stronger body, was tougher, more ruthless, had the harder competition, etc.

Damn right...but Sting in 97 was far superior to any other construction of Sting throughout his career.

I'm not on your level of dumb to make such a silly statement, so don't throw out an assumption like that, please.

Assumption? Inferior brain activity has been evident throughout your attempts to criticize me. I could cite specific instances if you'd like.

It's clear as day Sting had the match won before the ref went down. Stevie fucking Wonder could see it.

No, he couldn't...because Stevie Wonder can't see anything. But good attempt to be funny.

Nah man, I'm pretty confident that even Austin voters here would agree with me that you're argument is fucking ******ed and that they're ashamed you're on their side, making their case that much more damaging to indecisive voters reading our little spat.

You must be a follower of the "power of positive thinking," thinking that you have actually made any kind of legitimate argument thus far. If you think that it's legitimate enough...maybe it actually will be legit! When Sting was bringing in the most money of his career for a company, he could not hold a candle to Stone Cold Steve Austin when he was making the most money of his career for a company. And that's what wrestling is about, right? Making money...because they plan everything backstage.

 

[wrestlingfan]

I have to give it to Sting,I like Stone Cold more but Sting's accomplished mor ein this business as a Multi-Time World Champion, Sting has evolved over the years and is sitll running as a big star to this day while Stone Cold is now being the referee of Jerry Lawler and Michael Cole. Sting during WCW was a main eventer the whole time and has feuded with the likes of NWO, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair and paved the way for guys like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Mr. Anderson etc. He's the biggest name never to sign with WWE and is a high canidate for someone to end Undertaker's streak. It's a shame he never won the WZ Tournament because he truly is one of the greatest.

VOTE STING!

 

[jmt225]

Just like it didn't matter how Patrick's "fast count" looked? You did a really good job of making a case there, JMT.

Nick Patrick was a heel referee, working for the nWo, and it was determined it was a fast count. Therefore, it goes down as a fast count.

Besides, like I said, it doesn't matter since Sting would beat Hogan's ass the next night, and then beat Hogan at Superbrawl.

"Hogan was down for the 3" is not an acceptable rebuttal to my initial contesting of your original statement that "Hogan was down for the 3." Do you even know how to have a debate?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Your only stance was that people kick out of finishers... watch the match again. Hogan clearly wouldn't have been able to kick out. That's purely a fact.

Which is totally beside the point. Patrick WAS down and it was BOOKED that way. Austin was BOOKED to go over heels in his heyday cleanly and without controversy (though you could make an argument that his victory or 2 over Dude Love were not squeaky clean). Thus, the crowd is left with the impression that Austin is THE MAN because he brought down McMahon and the Corporation. People were left wondering how truly awesome Sting was because he couldn't overcome the nWo and/or Hogan.

Oh, so now you want to bring up booking? WCW's booking was fucking ******ed, and Sting still remained the most over face in the company, despite WCW's ******ation. What does that exactly say about Sting?

And what exactly did the nWo accomplish after Sting beat Hogan? The only reason they remained somewhat relevant was because of the creation of the Wolf Pack, whose most popular member would end up being Sting, by the way.

Also, since you want to bring up BOOKING, well it was BOOKED for Nick Patrick to count fast, yet he fucked it up on purpose due to Hogan telling him to. So, there's some "booking" for you. I don't see how you can sit there and fault Sting over Hogan's selfishness.

Get your Jim Ross hat out and whine to the viewers. Wrestling isn't real competition, unless you are this guy:

Then why did you start talking like it's legit in your first post, hypocrite? That's what lead us to this stupid discussion... your stupid first post.

And even he is acknowledging that the wrestlers are choosing to treat their bodies in such a fashion. Hogan didn't fuck with the refs because he's a bad guy...he fucked with the refs because that was what the plan was.

...and now you're talking as if you think wrestling is real, again. Dude, make up your mind... do you want to have a discussion about a kayfabe match, or who was better between Sting and Austin? If you want to argue both ways, then fine... do so. But don't jump on my case when I'm arguing from the kayfabe point of view, since you're the one who first brought it up and who keeps bringing it up.

No idea what the hell this has to do with anything.

He had Hogan beat clean. It completely diminishes your entire argument, period. Make all the excuses you want, but nobody will agree with you that Hogan would have kicked out in that match.

Woah woah woah. What's this "we" stuff? As a Global Moderator, I would hope that you at least know the damn rules of the tournament....there are none. You could vote for Sting simply because you prefer individuals with black hair. This is NOT based on Kayfabe, otherwise Hogan would win every year. Kayfabe died when Sheik drove around with Hacksaw and Triple H said goodbye to his roody poo friends in Madison Square Garden. Nowhere have I argued from a kayfabe point of view except maybe to undermine one of your worthless arguments.

Where did I say votes must be based on kayfabe? My first post in this thread, which was long as shit, dedicated one tiny paragraph to the kayfabe argument... so obviously I'm not a person who solely votes on who would win a kayfabe match between the two, nor do I expect others to be like that..

You're right... anybody can vote for WHATEVER criteria they want to. In the same token, however, I can call somebody out for voting based on a ******ed reason, such as you did in your stupid ass first post in this thread.

And you based YOUR vote on kayfabe, which is why we're arguing kayfabe stuff here.

Damn right...but Sting in 97 was far superior to any other construction of Sting throughout his career.

How so? Because more people watched him? That's simply ridiculous logic.

No, he couldn't...because Stevie Wonder can't see anything. But good attempt to be funny.

Yet, you could, but refuse to like a little baby because it completely debunks your entire ******ed argument.

You must be a follower of the "power of positive thinking," thinking that you have actually made any kind of legitimate argument thus far. If you think that it's legitimate enough...maybe it actually will be legit! When Sting was bringing in the most money of his career for a company, he could not hold a candle to Stone Cold Steve Austin when he was making the most money of his career for a company. And that's what wrestling is about, right? Making money...because they plan everything backstage.

And what does this have to do with anything we were arguing about before?

You see, I pointed out why your entire argument was stupid, so now you want to steer into the whole "drawing" game. Just admit you've been defeated and now you want to give other reasons why you're voting for Austin so you can try and save face.

And since you want to bring up making money... I guarantee you Sting has made more money than Austin throughout his entire career. And while Austin's hot streak beats any hot streak Sting has had... regardless, if you combine it all up... who has really drew more money throughout his career? The answer is Sting. The dude drew for WCW for well over 15 years, and he has been drawing for TNA now for many more years. Austin drew for the WWF for, what, 5 years at most? Do 5 hot years really beat the revenue Sting has been able to bring into the business as a headliner for 20 years? I don't think so.

And in the long run, let's not forget Austin's run hurt the business more so than it helped, as it has been argued to death on this very forum.

So, once again... you provide reasoning here that can easily be debunked. Got anything else?

 

[Nate DaMac]

If anyone deserves to win this thing multiple times, it's Austin. However, Repeats are fucking boring. Sting is more than deserving of winning this tournament so I'm going to vote for him. My criteria in this one is more of a "Who do I want to win?" as opposed to the "Who should win?" I usually use. Remember at WM25 when CM Punk won MiTB for the 2nd time in a row and everyone was so disappointed? That's how I would feel, having invested so much time in this tournament, if Austin won again.

 

[Smartie]

I really don't see any reason to vote for Sting because Austin has won it before and we want a new winner.

I'm just sorry for the guys who think that way. I'm not saying that everyone must vote Austin, I say that if you want vote him find another reason. It doesn't have to be relevant. I could get over with a guy who votes Sting because he like his hairstyle, but not with a guy who votes for Sting just because he will be a new winner.

According to that philosophy, This whole tournament would be a big silly joke. Why bother with all the voting and stuff? This year Sting, next year Rock, Next year Cena ,... .

Or Why don't we eliminate the past winners from tournament? It would be a way better and legitimate tournament than this If people are gonna vote someone because they have not won in past and others have.

It's the stupidest reason for voting Sting. If you are gonna vote him because of that, Do yourself a favor please don't tell that to anyone and don't make a fool out of yourself.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

When Sting was in his prime...when the spotlight was brightest upon him...when he was supposed to beat the nWo...he didn't even win cleanly. In fact...he LOST to Hollywood Hogan.

Austin...in his absolute prime...beat Taker in Taker's match, somehow overcame not winning the Rumble to get his title shot, beat Vince McMahon and the Big Show in a steel cage, and then beat The Rock to win the title. Cleanly, too.

Vote Austin.

Sting is unbeaten against Hulk Hogan, the biggest name in wrestling. Botched interference, dodgy counts, heel turns, whatever... the record books state Sting has always come out on top. Even Austin couldn't get a clean win over Hogan... or maybe Hogan couldn't get a clean win over Austin

Sting has never had the opportunity to beat Taker in his own match... or the other things, well apart from the fact he beat a better Paul Wight - not the fat, slow complacent 'I've got a ten year big money guaranteed contract' Big Show.

Sting? Hes had a career people would kill for without question. 11 time(debatable) World champion to never work for the machine that created his opponents in this tournament(sans Goldberg a much bigger star in the company he worked for). Tasked with honor of ending Hollywood Hogans NWO run of the WCW World Championship at Starrcade his popularity was at its peak and the Stinger ....still couldn't stray eyes away from the machine that Austin was becoming.

Starcade '97 was WCW's biggest drawing PPV ever and Nitro beat RAW by a full point the night after. Comparing Austin and Sting popularity seems to be a running argument, I hate to burst balloons but WWF creative going to a more adult theme and doing a better job than WCW is why Austin is regarded the better draw - this example proves that when a storyline was done properly, Sting was more than capable of drawing.

What if these two ever met in their primes? To me its a no brainer, Austin would stomp a mudhole in a scorpion and walk it off.

Based on what criteria, what prime time Sting doppelgänger has Austin faced to base this on? Austin was a brawler in his prime, he didn't have anything unique and Sting has beaten plenty of brawlers in his career - including the Immortal one. 'But Austin will do anything to win'... Sting came out as Ric Flair's better and he was the dirtiest player in the game.

Before their primes? Sting by a longshot.

Okay, true, but I will say this is not really Austin's fault though, Sting's 'It' factor was spotted early on. It needed a new 'Attitude' to find Stone Cold's.

After? Austin takes the V here. While Sting has maintained a steady career and continues to out-perform many young stars of this era, Without question he has slowed down. Austin? Look at him, Hes in the best shape of his life. Austin could go toe to toe with anybody these days and it wouldn't even be close.

Aww man, to quote Booker T "Tell me you didn't just say that!". Austin retired because he is not physically capable to wrestle again - losing weight and hitting a couple of stunners has not changed that. Otherwise, with the absence of big name competitors at WM, he would have faced someone (Sheamus would have made a good choice). Also, the Rock came out of WM with a match and Steve didn't - QED.

Austin is this business's biggest draw. He survived the millions and millions of the Rocks people to retain the top spot in 2001. He survived the clash of the titans in 2004 that were Brock Lesnar and Bill Goldberg. In 2011? He still draws better then anyone. Given a joke of a match and being put up as a 3rd party in it, he still stole the show.

The chemistry between Rock & Austin made both bigger stars, creative always kept Austin to the fore, particularly when Dwayne became more of an actor than a wrestler. Like Earl Hebner or Charles Robinson survive bouts? Considering Lawler/ Cole was of a Hart/ McMahon standard, I seriously doubt Stone Cold will want this on his resume in years to come - giving Josh Matthews a stunner just isn't that iconic. Plus the Rock was pushed as being a far bigger star at the same event.

Do you think Tough Enough would be putting up the ratings it is if Austin wasn't the host? Of course not, it would be another NXT bomb. How does he do it? He goes out there and just bes himself. He didn't need to adopt a gothic image or anything of the like. The Austin now is the Austin of 1998.

Even Austin couldn't save NXT in the format it's always had. It's bad when the lead announcer is trashing the show he's commentating on as being pathetic. Austin '11 is a nostalgia act, there to drop punchlines and the occasional stunner - nothing more. Tough Enough is only two weeks old and it has already dropped 0.7 in the ratings (from 2.51 to 1.81).

Austin keeps coming. In a big tournament like this, He'll do just that. Bring an Army to stop him, you'll need it. Sting rightfully deserves to be in the finals but the Austin now and the Sting as of now, Austin can still endure whatever this tournament throws at him, Sting rightfully can to but his run ends here.

Sting is one of the most prominent faces ever, he doesn't require backup. Stone Cold has never faced his like, I don't think he has it in him to beat Sting.

THAT is impressive. That is popularity. Sting may of helped make people wrestling fans through the 90's, but the fans made Austin. The Fans still pour their money and time to see Austin just be Austin. To me its as clear as who the winners of the 97,98 and 01 Rumbles needed to be. Austin cleans house every time.

Popularity? Sting is the only wrestler to win ProWrestling Illustrated's most popular wrestler 4 times and was a main stay of the Top 4 most popular from 1988-1997 (missing out only once). Fans made Austin? Just have a look everytime some creative idiot has tried to turn Sting - the fans just will not have it. (& Sting has never been in a Royal Rumble to win or lose)

This match goes to Steve Austin. The guy is just behind Hogan in terms of most important wrestler of all-time. His matches were more entertaining to me, and he barely lost in his prime.

I started watching wrestling in the late 80's, and I admit I was always more of a WWF guy instead of WCW. Sting's surfer gimmick was great, but when he started the crow gimmick, it went downhill. Plus, he took an immediate backseat to Hogan when Hollywood came to WCW in 1994. As X has said, many of Sting's matches are overrated.

Again, Sting has never lost to Hogan - so if Austin is behind Hogan, better luck next year Steve. I loved Austin but if everyone is going to continually piss on Sting's in ring work, please take another look at Austin (but take the rose coloured glasses off). He had occasional wrestling appearances but more often than not, it was a brawl, which he did well but not exactly ground breaking stuff. I don't criticise him for this, he couldn't help either the knee injuries or what happened with Owen.

Vote Austin in this one. Austin blew away Sting on the mic, had better quality matches, and is more important to wrestling overall. I can't see any legitimate reason besides personal preference as to why Sting would go over here.

Vote Sting in this one. This ain't debate class, match performances are very much debatable, and Sting was the franchise of WCW not WWF's second biggest name (or possibly third after this years WM). This tournament is at least 70% personal preference, these debates are for the folks who would sway those without a personal preference or who are waiting for someone to give them a reason to vote for their personal preference on the off chance they don't think their favourite can actually win in their own heads.

One final thing, Natural mi familia - I've to pull you on one thing. Austin was only a part of wrestling becoming cool. Legitimate competition from WCW, an incredible rub from Bret & HBK, the nWo, Paul Heyman and his Extreme crew, Mr McMahon, DX, the Rock, cynicism over the terrible dentist/ bin man/ hog farmer/ clown period all contributed to what followed - Steve just happened to be the lucky guy on the platform when the train came through. If WCW had had strong creative, it could just have easily been the man called Sting.

Love or loath TNA, WWe would be the sole sports entertainment company on television in the States and therefore the majority of the World, if it wasn't for Sting. That's a pretty good iMPACT on the business to me - kinda cool, when you think of it.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

To start off, I should admit that i'm not particularly familiar with Sting, or WCW for that matter, as i'm a WWE guy. Anyway, the way i've been looking at this tournament is as a pro-wrestling tournament, meaning that one guy would be booked to go over the other. I forget about in ring skills and all that jazz and just look at the match and think "who would go over here?"

It's actually quite hard to say here as both guys were in different companies when they were at the top of their respective ladders. I guess if this were in WCW, Sting would go over, and Stone Cold would go over in WWF/E. But this is on neutral ground, and that causes me a great deal of confusion. So, quite frankly, I'm just going to vote for my personal favourite, which is Stone Cold. I know that's not fair to Sting considering i've only seen maybe three or four of his matches, but I blame Sting for that. I mean, he could have shown his face in WWF/E for a while to show me what i'm missing, but he didn't, so i'm voting for Stone Cold.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

To start off, I should admit that i'm not particularly familiar with Sting, or WCW for that matter, as i'm a WWE guy. Anyway, the way i've been looking at this tournament is as a pro-wrestling tournament, meaning that one guy would be booked to go over the other. I forget about in ring skills and all that jazz and just look at the match and think "who would go over here?"

It's actually quite hard to say here as both guys were in different companies when they were at the top of their respective ladders. I guess if this were in WCW, Sting would go over, and Stone Cold would go over in WWF/E. But this is on neutral ground, and that causes me a great deal of confusion. So, quite frankly, I'm just going to vote for my personal favourite, which is Stone Cold. I know that's not fair to Sting considering i've only seen maybe three or four of his matches, but I blame Sting for that. I mean, he could have shown his face in WWF/E for a while to show me what i'm missing, but he didn't, so i'm voting for Stone Cold.

I've seen some excuses but this takes the cake. So you blame Sting because he never worked for WWE? I'm going to ask you a serious question. How many channels did your TV have? I'm guessing you had TBS where you could have watched Sting. There's also this invention called Youtube. I blame your cable provider more than you blame Sting.

 

[X]

Sorry it took me awhile to respond JMT, but I see you're already hard at work debating Ricky as well.

You are in a sense, but I just have to believe man that if you started watching pro wrestling in the late eighties/early nineties, Sting would have been one of your favorite wrestlers and you would not be saying what you're saying now.

This is my main issue with your argument dude, it's not objective. You openly admit right here that I would be voting for Sting if he was one of my "favorite wrestlers" like he is yours. That's not an argument, that's just your personal preference and you're entitled to it. You know who was one of my favorite wrestlers growing up and who I'd still mark out for if he showed up on TV? Billy flippin' Gunn. Seriously, yes, I loved Billy Gunn. Part of that was me and my buddy always wrestling in the backyard as the New Age Outlaws with him being Road Dogg and me being Gunn, but I still loved him even when I got older. But I SURE as fuck am not going to argue that Billy Gunn is one of the best wrestlers ever. Because I would be laughed out of the building.

Sting vs. Flair, Cactus, Vader, the Steiners, etc... THESE would have been your favorite matches growing up, Xfear.

I love all of those matches. His match against Cactus Jack at Beach Blash 92 IS one of my all-time favorite matches.

Sting for all of the early nineties consistently put on the best main event matches in mainstream U.S. pro wrestling.

Highly, highly debatable. I'd strongly disagree. I'd take Ric Flair and Bret Hart over him during that time period. And if we're stretching out to 92-95, Shawn Michaels.

That is a fact.

...That is not fact. That is in fact the exact opposite of a fact, that is opinion. That's your take on historical events. Many people would disagree with that take on history, myself included.

You can rewatch it now and compare it to today's standards... some of these might not hold up with someone with your experience watching wrestling. However, I guarantee if you saw these matches at the time... you would still look at them as classics today, just as all of Sting fans do.

I DO look at those matches as classics. But just because he had some of the best matches in the world in the late 80s to early 90s doesn't make him the best ever, especially when he's competing with a guy who had some of the best matches in the world from 95-01. For every classic Sting match I could name a classic Austin match. So let's just agree that these two negate each other in this area of debate, okay? Match quality has become irrelevant because we already know that both were known for their match quality at one time.

But how is it fair to judge someone's career by what they did in their forties and fifties? That just makes no sense.

Because I'm not judging his career only by that era of his career. I'm judging his ENTIRE career against Austin's ENTIRE career. So to me, his last decade of sucking horribly is relevant to the argument.

Especially when you consider how HORRIBLE the booking has been for Sting throughout these 15 years you keep bringing up. But, I'll get more on that later in this post.

Horrible booking, sure thing. Doesn't mean he wasn't given time to work matches with other good workers, and more often than not they sucked over the last 15 years. He had maybe four or five good matches in WCW once he became the Crow character, against the likes of DDP and others. In TNA he's been matched up with great workers all the time, and the only time it winds up being good is if someone basically carries Sting through-out the affair (like AJ Styles did at BFG 09). He's had some truly awful matches with the likes of Kurt Angle, Samoa Joe, and others, who are among the best workers in the world.

I completely disagree. Austin's greatest matches:

vs. Hart @ 'Mania 13
vs. HHH @ No Way Out
vs. Cactus Jack at Over the Edge
vs. The Rock @ Wresltmania 17
vs. Kurt Angle @ Summerslam 2001.

There are so many classics missing from that list. vs. Hart at SS 96, vs The Rock at WM 15 and Backlash 99, and if you want to count in tag matches we can't forget the incredible Austin/Triple H vs. Benoit/Jericho tag match from RAW, but he also faced Benoit in a singles match on Smackdown I believe a week later, and it was fucking phenomenal as well.

And he had some great matches with Pillman while in the Hollywood Blonds. But looking at those singles matches... who on that list ISN'T an incredible worker? Did Austin ever get good matches out of shitty opponents? If so, please show me, because I don't think I ever seen it.

Austin absolutely has gotten great matches out of shitty opponents, I'll show you right now:





I could post his matches with Marc Mero too if you'd like. If the guy can drag a good match out of Savio freaking Vega, I'd say that speaks volumes about his ability as a worker. All Vega had to do was babyface comeback 101 while Austin did his thing and dragged his ass (literally) to a **** match.

Sting, on the other hand, was able to have a great match with Bill fucking Goldberg. Sting was able to have good matches with Lex Luger. What shitty in-ring worker has Austin gotten great matches out of?

What good matches did Sting ever have with Lex Luger? And which Luger are we talking about? Because early WCW Luger before he went to the WWF was not a terrible worker by any means, just a bit green, but he could hold his own and had some classics with the Horsemen. If we're talking Luger who returned to WCW in 1995, then that I have to see to believe, because Luger was motherfucking cancer in the ring through out his entire second WCW run.

As for Goldberg, not nearly as bad of a worker as people claim he was. He was a great power wrestler, green as well, but he rarely botched moves and when his matches actually went past 5-10 minutes and he wasn't squashing his opponents, the results were usually pretty good.

While that was WCW's highest point, it wasn't Sting's. Sting's greatest work occurred from 1988 until 1996 as the blond hair surfer Sting. That's what I'm referring to when mentioning that you didn't experience Sting in his absolute prime first hand.

Again with this first hand experience stuff? Dude I've watched an unfathomable amount of old school NWA and early 90s WCW, it's one of my favorite time periods in wrestling history. I've seen all of the Sting classics, the big angles, the whole shebang. I'm sorry I can't travel back in time to see the sweat glisten on his forearms live and in person, but I don't think that somehow makes my opinion mean less than yours.

Okay, instead of comparing Sting and Austin here... let's compare the quality of programming between WCW and WWF at the time.

During this period, the WWF put on some of the most entertaining television in pro wrestling, while WCW put on some of its worst. Sure, Austin deserves credit for the quality of the WWF's programming, but in no way does Sting deserve any of the blame for WCW and TNA's bad programming.

Not in the beginning, no. But he was NOT the same guy once 2000 rolled around and he started feuding with the likes of Vampiro. He was no longer the captivating character he used to be, and whether that's booking's fault or not, that never happened to Austin.

I mean, let's face it... while Austin is feuding with guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, HHH, The Rock, Mr. McMahon, Mick Foley, The Undertaker... Sting is feuding with Goldberg, Sid Vicious, Lex Luger, Vampiro, a 50-year-old Hogan and Flair, etc.

How in the World can you fault Sting for his work in late WCW when you look at the quality of his opponents, man?

I'm not faulting him particularly, but he certainly faced some good workers during his late WCW run with guys like Bret Hart, it's not like he wrestled the worst scrubs in the business every week or something.

The matches that were "terrible" were only that because of ******ed stipulations. However, re-watch their match at Genesis 2006 (the one with the first Angle/Joe match). That match was fucking great until the dumb ass finish, which again isn't Sting's fault.

I'll go back and watch it again for you man, but I've seen it before, and I remember it being really bad.

Christian Cage also had good matches with Sting, and I even remember Sting and Scott Steiner having a pretty good television match on Impact. Now, I know you want try to claim Steiner "carried" Sting, will you?

I can't imagine Scott Steiner having a good singles match for the last...many, many years. So I'd have to see that to believe it. As for the Cage matches, yeah they were pretty good because Cage was so on fire at that time as the big main event heel finally getting to do his thing. Sting wasn't carried or anything, but it's not like they were **** matches or anything.

As far as Sting being carried in those other matches... it takes two have a good match in my mind, man. Sure, one wrestler could do more work than the other, but to give COMPLETE credit for only one wrestler for a good match is silly to me. Sting held his own in all those matches. It's not like any joe blow could get in there and have those kinds of matches with those opponents like you're putting it over.

The term "carried" doesn't give COMPLETE credit to just one wrestler, it's just a shorter way to say "carried the workload". Meaning one guy clearly worked harder and did more in the match than the other. That doesn't totally discount what the other person did, it just indicates who did the most WORK in the match.

I disagree, man. I loved the Hollywood Blonds stuff with Austin, but I thought his Stunning Steve stuff was overrated outside of the Steamboat matches. Also, Austin's match against Whipwreck sucked, too. Just putting that out there.[/quoute]

No shit his match against Whipwreck sucked, it was Mikey fucking Whipwreck in 1995. I'm pretty sure my 12 year old self would have been a better worker than Mikey Whipwreck at that time.

Stunning Steve was great though, he was great on the mic and had some great matches with Steamboat, Douglas, Pillman, and others.

Also, I don't get this notion that Austin had great matches with bad wrestlers. Hopefully you'll provide me with proof above when I brought it up, otherwise your argument in this case holds no merit.

See: Savio Vega, Marc Mero. Shit I'll even throw Kane out there.

Again, you are qualified to speak on Sting's career, but I'm just pointing out that I believe if you started watching at around the same time I did, you'd have a very different opinion on Sting, as most people do who have followed Sting throughout his entire career.

Again, back to the personal preference argument. That's not objective. I'm voting for the better wrestler in this industry, the one who accomplished more, meant more to the business, and has a greater legacy. And that is without a doubt Steve Austin in this case. If he were facing someone I believed to be better like a Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair, I'd be voting for them.

Well, the only other argument from Austin fans other than them being an Austin fan, is that Sting "sucked" in dying WCW and in TNA. We're supposed to be looking at wrestlers in their prime... not when they're fifty fucking years old.

That is not the only argument I've presented. I brought up his prime, and how he exploded arenas and had incredible matches...only problem being it was in front of crowds usually 1/4th the size of the crowds Austin did it in front of. Now I'm usually the last person to use the popularity argument, but Austin being the hottest wrestler on the planet possibly ever certainly helps him here when Sting "in his prime" like you keep saying to judge him on was wrestling in front of mediocre, heavily papered crowds.

It's really not that absurd when you think about it.

For one, Austin WAS in WCW and he wasn't very successful, and Sting whooped his ass while he was there. And like I said earlier... Sting at 50 beat Angle cleanly, when Austin never could.

Okay first off, using Austin's time in WCW in this argument, which clearly was not his prime, while disagreeing with me using Sting's TNA time (clearly not his prime either) is pretty ironic, don't you think?

Secondly, you're flat out wrong about Austin not ever cleaning beating Kurt Angle. He beat him perfectly clean at Vengeance 2001, within 15 minutes.

That's really that all needs to be said, man, lol. But I'll throw out there that Sting in his prime was bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, and just as tough as Austin has ever been in his career. Sting wins a kayfabe match, no doubt about it.

Except Austin in his prime beat people just as big, strong, fast, and athletic as Sting, with ease, cleanly, constantly. He connected with far more people (the real point of professional wrestling, no?), he accomplished more, he meant much more to the wrestling industry, and he by far is the bigger legacy. In kayfabe terms, that pretty clearly makes him the superior wrestler. Think of it like this, if there was a kayfabe Hall of Fame, who would be going in first? Austin or Sting? You know damn well the answer is Austin for all of the reasons I just gave you.


PHEW, that took a bit. I think that's probably my best post in this tournament yet though.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

I've seen some excuses but this takes the cake. So you blame Sting because he never worked for WWE? I'm going to ask you a serious question. How many channels did your TV have? I'm guessing you had TBS where you could have watched Sting. There's also this invention called Youtube. I blame your cable provider more than you blame Sting.

Dude, relax. It was meant to be a light-hearted post simply explaining that i'm a bigger Stone Cold fan than a Sting fan, and this was my basis for voting Stone Cold. By the way, i'm from the UK, so I have no idea what TBS is. I only know it as an abreviation for The Big Show. Oh, and I have heard of YouTube, it may surprise you to hear, but I find you can't truly appreciate a match or moment when your watching it ten years after it happened compared to watching it in the moment with all the live emotion. I really doubt anything I watch on YouTube will suddenly make me a bigger Sting fan than a Stone Cold fan. However, do feel free to prove me wrong if you wish to try.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Nick Patrick was a heel referee, working for the nWo, and it was determined it was a fast count. Therefore, it goes down as a fast count.

Besides, like I said, it doesn't matter since Sting would beat Hogan's ass the next night, and then beat Hogan at Superbrawl.

Agree to disagree.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Your only stance was that people kick out of finishers... watch the match again. Hogan clearly wouldn't have been able to kick out. That's purely a fact

.

I watched it a few times, and I will concede this point to you. Hogan did seem pretty lifeless. I remember him moving around, but it was more of a "oh shit i'm screwed" moving around. And after I watched the SDD again, it was more solid than I previously saw it.

Oh, so now you want to bring up booking? WCW's booking was fucking ******ed, and Sting still remained the most over face in the company, despite WCW's ******ation. What does that exactly say about Sting?

Goldberg might disagree with you. Well, eventually.

And what exactly did the nWo accomplish after Sting beat Hogan? The only reason they remained somewhat relevant was because of the creation of the Wolf Pack, whose most popular member would end up being Sting, by the way.

The nWo was relevant for another year after this match. The thing that made the nWo ultimately irrelevant was Hogan's decision to go babyface.

Also, since you want to bring up BOOKING, well it was BOOKED for Nick Patrick to count fast, yet he fucked it up on purpose due to Hogan telling him to. So, there's some "booking" for you. I don't see how you can sit there and fault Sting over Hogan's selfishness.

I'm just saying that they didn't book Sting to win cleanly. I guess I'm saying that if Sting was THAT over, Hogan wouldn't have been able to pull that kind of shit. And WCW would have booked him stronger.

Then why did you start talking like it's legit in your first post, hypocrite? That's what lead us to this stupid discussion... your stupid first post.

There was nothing in my first post that suggests I was looking at it from a kayfabe point of view. I left it kind of open-ended for interpretation, but I elaborated later. It could have been taken either way.

...and now you're talking as if you think wrestling is real, again. Dude, make up your mind... do you want to have a discussion about a kayfabe match, or who was better between Sting and Austin? If you want to argue both ways, then fine... do so. But don't jump on my case when I'm arguing from the kayfabe point of view, since you're the one who first brought it up and who keeps bringing it up.

Didn't bring up kayfabe. You read and assumed.

He had Hogan beat clean. It completely diminishes your entire argument, period. Make all the excuses you want, but nobody will agree with you that Hogan would have kicked out in that match.

Controversy. Not clean. Not sure how else to break that down.

Where did I say votes must be based on kayfabe? My first post in this thread, which was long as shit, dedicated one tiny paragraph to the kayfabe argument... so obviously I'm not a person who solely votes on who would win a kayfabe match between the two, nor do I expect others to be like that..

Wasn't talking about kayfabe. You assumed.

You're right... anybody can vote for WHATEVER criteria they want to. In the same token, however, I can call somebody out for voting based on a ******ed reason, such as you did in your stupid ass first post in this thread.

I never really said why I voted for Austin. But that definitely is a good reason to vote for Austin over Sting.

And you based YOUR vote on kayfabe, which is why we're arguing kayfabe stuff here.

[YOUTUBE]PA43ETEU1Vg[/YOUTUBE]

How so? Because more people watched him? That's simply ridiculous logic.

No, just one form of logic. Since I'm looking at this from a business point of view, Austin would destroy Sting.

Yet, you could, but refuse to like a little baby because it completely debunks your entire ******ed argument.

And what does this have to do with anything we were arguing about before?

You see, I pointed out why your entire argument was stupid, so now you want to steer into the whole "drawing" game. Just admit you've been defeated and now you want to give other reasons why you're voting for Austin so you can try and save face.

Nah...was talking about drawing the whole time. Should I have been more specific in post one? I suppose so.

And since you want to bring up making money... I guarantee you Sting has made more money than Austin throughout his entire career. And while Austin's hot streak beats any hot streak Sting has had... regardless, if you combine it all up... who has really drew more money throughout his career? The answer is Sting. The dude drew for WCW for well over 15 years, and he has been drawing for TNA now for many more years. Austin drew for the WWF for, what, 5 years at most? Do 5 hot years really beat the revenue Sting has been able to bring into the business as a headliner for 20 years? I don't think so.

That's a good point. But in a single, solitary matchup...Austin in his prime is going to be booked over Sting in his prime because Austin was more over.

And in the long run, let's not forget Austin's run hurt the business more so than it helped, as it has been argued to death on this very forum.

How so?

So, once again... you provide reasoning here that can easily be debunked. Got anything else?

Just what I said up there.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

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.