Unless you are judging on longevity then it goes to Austin no matter what your criteria is. Better all around talent? Austin. Who would win in a kayfabe prime vs prime match? Austin. Who was the bigger draw? Austin. Bigger star? Austin. Sting is great but he isn't on the top tier level that Austin, Hogan, The Rock, and Flair are on. He comes in at the level just underneath those guys.
Wrestlezone Tournament Final: (1) Steve Austin vs. (4) Sting
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
Best argument I've heard thus far that supports my criteria for decision-making. Head slowly exploding...
You covered all of the points that I try to make when voting. But are these really the true facts? Something just tells me that Sting did more in his longer career than Austin did in his shorter one. Numbers are one thing but having a following like Sting did in an era and a company that didn't draw real money (unless you were wrestling Hulk Hogan) is pretty damn impressive.
I'm just going to pull a little something, something here, and see how everyone feels about this argument.
Right now, Steve Austin, not even wrestling, is pulling a bigger audience for WWE's Tough Enough than Sting has for TNA. TNA has pulled, what, a 1.5 as it's top rating? Give or take, something like that, right? More people are tuning in to the WWE's third most popular show, mostly to see Steve Austin.
Yes, yes, WWE already has a bigger audience, don't sell me that hunk of shit. Most people that are watching Tough Enough right now are watching so because of Stone Cold Steve Austin. Meanwhile, Sting has the backing of an entire promotion's worth of stars in TNA, and can't draw the same rating that Steve Austin does on Tough Enough.
Let me summarize this for you all; Steve Austin, not even wrestling, is a bigger draw, eight years beyond his last match, and on the WWE's third most important show, than Sting is right now. Stone Cold is more important to the wrstling business right now, and is drawing a bigger audience than the guy that is wrestling, and is doing so by himself?
Shouldn't that tell you a little bit about this match? It's simple; Austin is the bigger draw, Austin is more popular, Austin has sold out more areans, Austin has had better matches, Austin is a better promo guy. I'm not sure how this isn't a unanimous vote for Steve Austin.
Right now, Steve Austin, not even wrestling, is pulling a bigger audience for WWE's Tough Enough than Sting has for TNA. TNA has pulled, what, a 1.5 as it's top rating? Give or take, something like that, right? More people are tuning in to the WWE's third most popular show, mostly to see Steve Austin.
Yes, yes, WWE already has a bigger audience, don't sell me that hunk of shit. Most people that are watching Tough Enough right now are watching so because of Stone Cold Steve Austin. Meanwhile, Sting has the backing of an entire promotion's worth of stars in TNA, and can't draw the same rating that Steve Austin does on Tough Enough.
Let me summarize this for you all; Steve Austin, not even wrestling, is a bigger draw, eight years beyond his last match, and on the WWE's third most important show, than Sting is right now. Stone Cold is more important to the wrstling business right now, and is drawing a bigger audience than the guy that is wrestling, and is doing so by himself?
Shouldn't that tell you a little bit about this match? It's simple; Austin is the bigger draw, Austin is more popular, Austin has sold out more areans, Austin has had better matches, Austin is a better promo guy. I'm not sure how this isn't a unanimous vote for Steve Austin.
I would never discredit what Sting did in his career BUT Austin being the most intricate part/leader of a movement in wrestling that not only saved the WWF but possibly the entire industry (who knows where wrestling would be had the mismanaged WCW won the Monday Night War) > anything Sting ever did in his career. Even if you just look to things like titles won, Austin and Sting are nearly equal and Sting's career has lasted far longer. Sting was a WCW/NWA main eventer for well over a decade and won 7 world titles (6 WCW and 1 NWA). Austin was a main eventer in the WWF for maybe 5 years and won the world title 6 times. Like I said before, Sting just isn't part of that elite group that Austin is in.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
Tough Enough is THREE episodes old and it's ratings have dropped very noticeably 2.51 in the premier to 1.81 week two to 1.53 this week, this is a drop of 39% in two weeks.
Okay, time to talk about kayfabe - people remember Austin's prime for what's happened to it's main characters since but let's look at the pedigree of his opponents as their history described them at the time. I'll take his prime as being from winning his first World Title to losing his final one.
HBK - Today, arguably the greatest in ring performer ever. Then, a mid carder who came to prominence after the former top tier left for WCW.
The Rock - Today, rightly regarded as 'The Great One'. Then, a third generation superstar but hardly a spectacular lineage - his father's crowning glory was winning being a WWWF Tag Team Champ. His grandfather garnered some regional reigns. Dwayne himself wasn't long off having one of the worst IC reigns ever, when fans chanted at the face champ to 'Die, Rocky, Die'.
Triple H - Today, aptly 'The Game'. Then, former WCW jobber whose WWF's legacy to that point was Clic bag carrier, being squashed like a jobber by the Ultimate Warrior and having a female bodyguard.
Mick Foley. Today, the 'Hardcore Legend'. Then, WCW mid carder & comedy act repackaged as a legitimate threat to the Undertaker.
The Undertaker. Today, the 'Phenom'. Then, former WCW nothing repackaged as a supernatural super villain/ hero in the WWF.
Kane. Today, the 'Big Red Machine' will be remembered as one of the great big men. Then, like his storyline brother, a former WCW nothing, then a sadistic dentist and then fake Diesel before finally finding a niche as the Dead Man's brother.
Kurt Angle. Today, the 'Olympic Hero' is another on the short list of being the greatest in ring talent. Then, the Olympic Gold medallist used HHH to move from the mid card (losing to Tazz and feuding with Rikishi & Too Cool) into the main event picture.
Y2J. Today, see HBK & Kurt. Then, former WCW cruiserweight (& crybaby).
Chris Benoit. Today, unarguably the saddest combination of talent versus tragedy in wrestling history. Then, career WCW mid carder until his final match when he beat Sid for the title.
The Big Show. Today, controversial character in that many think he should have achieved so much more. Then, from athletic Giant who defeated Hogan for the WCW title to weight ballooning, chain smoking complacent ten year contract waster.
Vince McMahon. Today, most influential individual in wrestling (or Sport's Entertainment, if you will). Then, 50 something non wrestler who would occasionally go over the Rattlesnake.
Now lets look at the Rattlesnake himself. Today, regarded as the second most influential wrestler in WWe history. Then, WCW mid carder, then stone cold reaction to the Ringmaster to Bret Hart's (like Shawn, a WWF mid carder pushed post Hogan) bitch.
Of all of the above named greats only two had held the WWF title prior to Stone Cold winning it (HBK and Taker), with a further two having won the WCW title (Benoit and Big Show). Only one was pushed as a legitimate main eventer from the beginning of his career (Big Show again) and Sting was portrayed as the greater talent to every single one of them who had worked in WCW.
Now, I have given every single one of these guys their due for their legacy today. But, if we're talking kayfabe primes - most of these guys at this stage had, at best, chequered historys and I would be of the opinion that an independent wrestling tournament such as this would actually give Sting the kayfabe victory over all of these guys INCLUDING Austin because if you take HIS prime being from his first to his last WCW title wins and stack up his opponents past histories up to meeting the Icon - you'd have a far more impressive resume.
I'm voting for the man who's entertained me the most. And that man is Stone Cold Steve Austin. Fuck both men in the ring. Fuck them in their primes. I don't give a fuck about that for one reason.
That reason is Tough Enough. Since it started a few weeks ago it has been the single most entertaining show I've come across and a big part of that is due to Steve Austin. Sting sure as hell hasn't entertained me that much so he doesn't get my vote.
That reason is Tough Enough. Since it started a few weeks ago it has been the single most entertaining show I've come across and a big part of that is due to Steve Austin. Sting sure as hell hasn't entertained me that much so he doesn't get my vote.
Uncle Phatso
Mid-Card Championship Winner
And to follow Remix I am about to go the same route, but as you all can guess I am voting sting. When I was younger I was huge on WCW becuase my mom and dad loved Hogan, no matter what from about 97 till it closed. I can remember him fighting the imposter Sting, and beating the shit out of the Nwo. In fact I do believe my first wrestling memoribilia was a giant sting shaped pillow. Sting was my man when I was growing up, so much in fact I remember trying to get my mom to paint my face sting style for halloween in place of going as a clown.
I got denied that, but still Sting has allways been apart of my wrestling history since about day one. Now that I'm older I love looking up old surfer Sting on youtube, and just watching. Being a fan, and that's really to me what this tourniment in the later rounds is about. Who you are a bigger fan for, at least that's what it is for me.
I'm still pushing for Stinger to win this, even though Austin has a rather sizeable lead atm. But still win or loss, I'm proud to say that I backed Cm Punk to win in the beginning. But I was allways voting for Sting.
I got denied that, but still Sting has allways been apart of my wrestling history since about day one. Now that I'm older I love looking up old surfer Sting on youtube, and just watching. Being a fan, and that's really to me what this tourniment in the later rounds is about. Who you are a bigger fan for, at least that's what it is for me.
I'm still pushing for Stinger to win this, even though Austin has a rather sizeable lead atm. But still win or loss, I'm proud to say that I backed Cm Punk to win in the beginning. But I was allways voting for Sting.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
100 votes down and I feel I have to make a plea to our good Mods. Is it be possible to create an option that people have to post a comment to enable their eligibility to vote. For the 100 people who have voted, only 43 have posted... actually 37 because I know that D-man is sitting on the fence and awaiting persuasion and a further five don't appear to have gotten round to polling their votes yet. I realise in the early stages of the tournament, it is probably more sensible not to have an enforcement of this nature as posting 64 times is certainly more than I would have time for but when we get down to the nitty gritty, like the final 16, enforced comments would, I feel, enhance the competitors victories.
Even if it's just, 'Steve Austin because he endorses drinking and I love a beer' or 'Sting because I love facepaint', at least it shows interest. I can't speak for any of the other 43 and dozen or so multiposters but I find it disheatening to be fighting the good fight for my man (Sting) just for people to fire in a vote and leave. This isn't just aimed at Stone Cold fans, it's also aimed at the little Stingers too because:
1) It's nice to have everyones thoughts,
2) From a poster POV, it's fun to have someone tell you that your spot on OR that your full of it.
To all WrestleZoners reading this plea, PLEASE let me know why you voted for your choice. I really dig this tourney and I really enjoy the discussions as this is what makes it great NOT that x votes for wrestler a beats y votes for wrestler b, because thats just boring and at the heels of the hunt, it's just lazy.
Now I have that off my chest back to why Sting should win.
I have put for arguments for why I feel Sting should not lose to Austin on the grounds of popularity (Remixie, TE rating are dropping at a rate that will already have TV executives panicking) and why he should actually be ahead of Austin in kayfabe. I have already stated outright why I feel Steve Borden is a better human being than Steve Williams and, as such, more likeable in real life. Nobody has disputed what I've opined as yet.
As such, I don't feel that Austin is favourite in any category and should actually get votes out of personal preference for his character and the WWF. Having read all the comments, I think this is the definite case and all other arguments that the pro Austin camp has put forward is smoke and mirrors to hide that it is simple personal preference - in many cases because the voter is simply too young to really know Sting, because as I've already described, there is something lost emotionally lost when your watching someone's back history compared to living the moments.
So c'mon D-man and everyone else who is currently on the fence, give your support to the man who got himself over despite many hurdles NOT the one who needed the help of good luck, the boss and a whole change in wrestling philosophy.
Even if it's just, 'Steve Austin because he endorses drinking and I love a beer' or 'Sting because I love facepaint', at least it shows interest. I can't speak for any of the other 43 and dozen or so multiposters but I find it disheatening to be fighting the good fight for my man (Sting) just for people to fire in a vote and leave. This isn't just aimed at Stone Cold fans, it's also aimed at the little Stingers too because:
1) It's nice to have everyones thoughts,
2) From a poster POV, it's fun to have someone tell you that your spot on OR that your full of it.
To all WrestleZoners reading this plea, PLEASE let me know why you voted for your choice. I really dig this tourney and I really enjoy the discussions as this is what makes it great NOT that x votes for wrestler a beats y votes for wrestler b, because thats just boring and at the heels of the hunt, it's just lazy.
Now I have that off my chest back to why Sting should win.
I have put for arguments for why I feel Sting should not lose to Austin on the grounds of popularity (Remixie, TE rating are dropping at a rate that will already have TV executives panicking) and why he should actually be ahead of Austin in kayfabe. I have already stated outright why I feel Steve Borden is a better human being than Steve Williams and, as such, more likeable in real life. Nobody has disputed what I've opined as yet.
As such, I don't feel that Austin is favourite in any category and should actually get votes out of personal preference for his character and the WWF. Having read all the comments, I think this is the definite case and all other arguments that the pro Austin camp has put forward is smoke and mirrors to hide that it is simple personal preference - in many cases because the voter is simply too young to really know Sting, because as I've already described, there is something lost emotionally lost when your watching someone's back history compared to living the moments.
So c'mon D-man and everyone else who is currently on the fence, give your support to the man who got himself over despite many hurdles NOT the one who needed the help of good luck, the boss and a whole change in wrestling philosophy.
VOTE FOR THE MAN CALLED STING, YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!
[YOUTUBE]q3pbbz4B--4[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]q3pbbz4B--4[/YOUTUBE]
Ok, I've decided.
I'm voting for Steve Austin. Big Sexy made some excellent points and put on incredible arguments but in the end I'm just voting for the name that I think deserves the win more. Let's be honest here... besides Hulk Hogan, if you walked up to any person on the street and asked them to name one professional wrestler, who would it be? Sting? I don't think so.
People know Steve Austin even if they don't know pro-wrestling because Steve Austin IS pro-wrestling. That's why he's winning this tournament two years in a row. Steve Austin embodies everything that makes up one of (if not THE) greatest pro-wrestler of all time.
I love the shit out of Sting but I just can't put him over Austin. Not in this lifetime or any other.
I'm voting for Steve Austin. Big Sexy made some excellent points and put on incredible arguments but in the end I'm just voting for the name that I think deserves the win more. Let's be honest here... besides Hulk Hogan, if you walked up to any person on the street and asked them to name one professional wrestler, who would it be? Sting? I don't think so.
People know Steve Austin even if they don't know pro-wrestling because Steve Austin IS pro-wrestling. That's why he's winning this tournament two years in a row. Steve Austin embodies everything that makes up one of (if not THE) greatest pro-wrestler of all time.
I love the shit out of Sting but I just can't put him over Austin. Not in this lifetime or any other.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
Aw man - really sorry to hear this, I was really hoping you'd join the cause. But on the grounds of public awareness? As much as I hate it, the majority of the general public are, at best, dismissive of wrestling and as such I don't care whether they only know Hulk, Andre, Rock and SCSA; that doesn't mean dick in who the greatest wrestling star is. Paris Hilton is better known than Steve & Sting combined and people pay to read about the talentless, unlikeable media ****e, is this really what we want as a criteria. Also, Steve garnered public awareness through Vince paying big money to 'Iron' Mike Tyson and then putting him in, again at best, so-so movies. Stinger's biggest outside rub? Getting rescued by Robocop (it really is amazing he is as popular as he is, when you really think about some of the things he's endured).
So does Sting but he has more, he rose to his position in weaker surroundings and WITHOUT having to be a prick.
I love the shit out of Austin (whether he be Stunning or Stone Cold) but I just can't put him over Sting. Not in this lifetime or any other.
Fit, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it. Just as I'm entitled to mine.
A lot of people say that pro-wrestling purists should be the only people that can judge who is a bigger star than another. But pro-wrestling is a numbers game; plain and simple. If more NON-wrestling fans know of one wrestler over another, it's safe to say that said more-known wrestler is a bigger star than the other. One is a household name... one drew more buyouts and butts in seats at events... one has revolutionized the sport... that one is Steve Austin.
Stinger fucking rocks, man... but he's no Stone Cold.
I've gotten to the point where I'm no longer looking for a reason to vote for a winner... I'm looking for a reason to vote for Sting and against Steve Austin. That's the point where I decided how to vote. My love for Sting is endless but I can't deny plain truth.
A lot of people say that pro-wrestling purists should be the only people that can judge who is a bigger star than another. But pro-wrestling is a numbers game; plain and simple. If more NON-wrestling fans know of one wrestler over another, it's safe to say that said more-known wrestler is a bigger star than the other. One is a household name... one drew more buyouts and butts in seats at events... one has revolutionized the sport... that one is Steve Austin.
Stinger fucking rocks, man... but he's no Stone Cold.
I've gotten to the point where I'm no longer looking for a reason to vote for a winner... I'm looking for a reason to vote for Sting and against Steve Austin. That's the point where I decided how to vote. My love for Sting is endless but I can't deny plain truth.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
So 'Little Boy', you decide to Red Rep me for this being a 'stupid post' rather than respond then. What, pray tell, have I stated that isn't correct or at the very least debatable - how about instead of taking the cowardly way, you do what us big boys do and argue your case about why I'm wrong...
Then again given that this is your post in this thread -
... maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe you never read the rules but you can vote on whatever criteria you like, not wanting one wrestler to dominate the tournament every year is every bit as relevant as your reasoning that... oh, that's right you didn't give a reason to vote SCSA. Personally, I couldn't care less about previous history in the tournament, but I have the respect to allow my fellow posters the right here. Out of curiosity, did you Red Rep all the guys who used this reasoning or did you shy away because they are big hitters? I'll not bother returning the favour, kid, because it's not how I roll - I'll speak to your face rather than rep you in the back!
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
Thanks for waiting it out man. Of course you can pick your poison, that's your prerogative. I'm not of the mind that purists rule these things, but at the same time I do think that people who sneer at the sport for being fake, full of druggies etcetera knowing SC over Sting is not high on my criteria list but you are 100% correct that it is the case (although I give more credit to WWE PR than SC himself).
You've the rep for being a great debater man, so I'm more than certain that if you'd been given or decided yourself that Sting beating Austin was your position, you could have kicked ass and swayed many minds. At the end of the day, reputation is a great persuader and even though I still think Sting would win, I believe that your stance has driven the last nail in his coffin... in fact, if I was a strategist, getting you or another highly respected member to feign certainty up until a certain point and then come out on my guy's side would be a winning tactic in my eyes as it gives the impression that the decision is factually and not personally motivated.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
Sting has never hosted a TV Show like Tough Enough so direct comparison is out of question.
OK.
.
By the time Austin defeated him, HBK was top tier talent. In fact he was undoubtedly the biggest star of the WWF. This should not even be up for discussion as by the time Austin defeated him HBK was a 3 time WWF champion.
.
By the time Austin defeated Rocky at WrestleMania 15, he had become a full time main eventer. By WM 17 Rocky was almost on Austin's level of popularity. He had long shaken off his dreadful run as Rocky Miavia by the time Austin defeated him.
No, No and once again NO. Triple H was a multi time champion by the time Austin defeated HHH in 2000.
And in the WWF regardless of his actual win/loss record, Mick Foley has always been projected as a threat due to his performance in hardcore matches. This guy had the best record against Undertaker by the time Austin defeated him. I consider that as a legitimate win over a great wrestler.
Former two time World Champion who had perhaps set his FAMILY on fire. He had also victories over Hulk Hogan and had come back after being burnt alive by his brother Kane. Great performer back then and great performer now too.
That's silly. Kane was in the hottest phase of his career back in 1998 when he was projected as a legit threat to The Undertaker.
And obviously you forget about him being a World Champion by the time Austin defeated Kurt. A great wrestler who had defeated all the big names in the WWF by then including Steve Austin.
He was also someone who was the first ever undisputed champion. He had victories over Rock, Triple H and even Austin by this point, who are the three biggest superstars of the Attitude Era.
Benoit has always been a career midcarder but that does not mean that he has not been a phenomenal wrestler.
Defeating Big Show at any point in his career means a lot for the guy defeating him because of Big Show's size. Austin also defeated Show in a handicap match making the feat more impressive.
Mcmahon has never defeated Austin one on one or in any other scenario.
And how did he become the second biggest name in the industry from being a WCW midcarder? By defeating the same names you have mentioned above.
Like you have forgotten thus far in this conversation Austin also defeated Rock, Kurt Angle, Kane and Triple H after they won World Titles. All the aforementioned guys are legit main eventers and they had an enviable legacy by the time Austin defeated them.
No. What you have done is arguably run down the legacy of some of the greatest performers in the history of the business to make your man look better.
Vote Austin.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
I certainly cannot criticise your preference, Austin was regarded as extremely entertaining (although maybe not as prominent as "The Most Electrifying Man in All of Entertainment" who Sting moved past in the semis
)The reason Sting arguments may come across as 'bitchy' is because he is the underdog in this match, not kayfabe but for 2 very simple reasons.
(1) From my time on WZ, I'm reasonably certain that the average of the membership wasn't born when Sting came to prominence but were hitting an excellent 'getting into' wrestling age during Stone Cold's prime.
(2) Austin's company put Sting's out of business and people are, mistakenly if not surprisingly, taking this to mean that Austin is therefore greater than Sting.
This pans out as Austin supporters stating opinions as facts and Sting supporters having to debate otherwise. My fellow supporters and I are trying to put across our cases rather than, say stating 'Austin would beat Sting kayfabe' full stop, as though this is fact.
I actually love this idea, somewhat - how about when we reach the final 8 next year, instead of quarter finals, we have MITB (strictly speaking, a multi person ladder match but I'm sure you see what I mean) to win OR have a series of MITB matches as opposed to the opening round. It might give WZ 2012 an interesting tweak and some upsets.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
I've forgotten nothing, I stated what each guy's history was prior to each one winning the WWF Title because only then do you become a Main Eventer. Only HBK, 'Taker and Wight could therefore be regarded as Main Eventers in their own right when Austin won his first title.
If you want a comparison think about Ron (R-Truth, K-Kwik) Killings, Ken Anderson, Rhino and Christian Cage all WWe mid carders at best pushed to the TNA World Title. Or (and probably the best example) Jeff Jarrett pushed to the WCW World Title from WWF's Mid Card. Are any of these guys regarded as potential WWF Champions on a level with Austin, Trips, Taker or Foley? Nope, but if all but two former champs left WWe (and one of those went on sabbatical immediately after dropping the belt), then there'd be the same position that the guys listed above were left in, a roster of mid carders.
I have run nobody down. Every single one of these guys is legendary. But if you where an independent booker during Austin's time, without the gift of foresight, every single thing I have said is true. Therefore DURING Austin's prime, his opponents where not as good as Sting's. In HINDSIGHT, knowing what these guys went onto we can argue Austin to a stronger position. Doing so would be cheating though because kayfabe is the pretence of reality, and arguing the WWF Austin roster over WCW Sting would involve you having future time travel knowledge - not exactly realistic.
On TE, who's comparing? This was brought it up as an example of Austin's great popularity. Post Mania, ratings are dropping like a stone - it would seem his popularity can't sustain this product according to the TV ratings.
I have fought for every guy fairly in this tournament, including Stone Cold Steve Austin. Please do not allege any lack of fairness on my part, I am meant to fight for my pick in each match but I don't do it by lying. If you cannae handle the truth, it's hardly my fault.
VOTE STING
I was watching some old school Sting matches last night (the only Sting matches worth watching), and something struck me. Occasionally, Stinger would employ the old "I'm impervious to pain when making my comeback" bit. I personally have no problem with that. Plenty of intelligent people don't. But it strikes me that I hear all the time how much people hate it when Hogan does this but nobody every bitches about it when it comes to Sting. Why? It's a double standard. I submit that if you're going to hold being a Superman against Hogan, then it's your duty to vote against Sting here.
Just another way you could look at this bout. Food for thought.
Just another way you could look at this bout. Food for thought.
FitFinlay4Life
What's the craic?
I don't think any true Sting fan would hold it against Hogan, as he was doing it first - besides Sting has never lost to the Immortal one, so he has out Hulked Hogan. Given that wrestling's moved on in these non kayfabe times only the types of Sting and Taker (and on occasion, possibly Kane) are allowed the good ole Hulk up, I personally miss them. I think the reason Sting doesn't catch the same flack as Hogan (tbh, I wasn't aware, it was an issue) is that he doesn't/ didn't use it as much or as scripted as Hogan - Sting no-sells didn't occur every match and there certainly wasn't the drawn out finish of a long period in Hogan's career; Hulk up, block, punches, Irish whip, big boot & leg drop of doom(TM).
TheOneBigWill
[This Space for Rent]
Alright, I get the massive post-fest to win D-Man's vote is long since over, but I just noticed this big pile and couldn't let it stand. Reply to what I say, or not, the fact is I just can't let this go untouched.
Longevity, how?
Sting's career went longer than Austin, and is still going on to this day - as a current World Champion. The only thing Austin is still managing to do is -script scare a bunch of wannabe's into thinking his cripple ass is still intimidating.
Now, while injuries are apart of the game and D-Man even said "you can't blame Austin for injuries." The fact of the matter is, I think I can - and I think I will. You see, people wanted to shit on me for Edge having a glass body and being injury prone to the max. Well, Austin falls into that same exact catagory. Infact, while I tied Edge into this whole situation - they have the same exact neck injury, and Edge managed to get more out of his career after the injury than Austin did, including working tougher (more dangerous gimmick) matches.
So, if by longevity you mean length of a career - Sting won roughly 10 years ago, and is continuing to dominate this field by competing in actual in-ring work every week.
If it's in-ring longevity, then once again I fail to see where you're getting your facts from, or what year's worth of time you're collecting your info from. Has Sting ever lost in under a minute - at ANY point in time in his career? Austin has..
Define "talent".
In-ring talent, no. Not even remotely close. Austin was a wrestler in WCW when he was losing left and right. It wasn't until he ditched the majority of in-ring ability and turned to pure brawling that he actually took off anywhere.
That isn't talent, that's making up for the lack there of.
The hell? How can this even be proven?
The Rock isn't as big as Steve Austin - yet The Rock went over him at Mania XIX. Chris Jericho isn't as big as Steve Austin - yet Chris Jericho went over him to make history and become the First-Ever Undisputed Champion. Kurt Angle isn't as big as Steve Austin - yet forced multiple tap-outs and pinfalls out of him in 2001. I could go on and on, but I'm hoping you get the point.
Austin creates "pop", but solely based off an entrance theme, t-shirts, foul language and a single finishing move. Sting has done the exact same thing, (entrance, moves, and merch.) and then managed to keep a crowd on the edge of their seat, or standing for entire matches.
Furthermore, for well over a year during the hottest period Wrestling has been quoted as "ever seeing", when WCW was winning the ratings war - Sting would create ovations the likes of which has never been heard or seen - all from merely "showing up in the rafters". He wouldn't have to say a single word, and he'd create more buzz, hype and pop than Austin ever dreamed of.
Of course, I'm not indicating Austin is a slouch at creating pop - the guy gets it, but not in the same quality of Sting from the hottest period in Wrestling history.
Did those ratings shift? Absolutely - because the n.W.o. ran its course, and the 2-year long "dark/depressive" Sting gimmick got old to people. In the same understanding that once the WWE won the ratings (w/ Austin v. McMahon) that in time, that too, got old and stale.
Point is - Austin was still the same attitude filled character in 1997, when WCW was atop the scoreboard; lead by Sting v. the n.W.o., and they were in control of those ratings.
I assume you mean "bigger merch. seller"; at which point, I'll agree. Austin likely has more crap on shelves than any other wrestler out there. Mainly because it's incredibly easy to sell foul language and attitude enticed t-shirts to hormonal tweens and adolescents.
And yet he's managed to hold multiple victories over everyone on that list, with the except of The Rock.
Look at the bright side, it's still your Birthday. Happy Birthday, man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CoCo: I'm not quoting it, but you asked something about why people get upset at Hogan for being "Superman" but not at Sting for doing the "same thing". That's simple, because it is NOT the same thing.
Sting would "no sell" in some matches. Not all of them. And it wouldn't result in him instantly winning directly afterwards. Nor would he "no sell" finishing moves. It'd normally be signature moves that aren't used to putting people away often. An example would be Flair suplexing him, or chopping him - only for him to bounce right back up or just not feel the pain of a chop and fight back.
Hogan would get the fuck right back up from a finishing move as if it didn't even hurt at all - EVERY. SINGLE. MATCH. Sting would still sell finishers, and has lost his share of matches without "no selling". That's why he doesn't have to get shit on in the same way. Because he didn't do it every damn match.
Longevity, how?
Sting's career went longer than Austin, and is still going on to this day - as a current World Champion. The only thing Austin is still managing to do is -script scare a bunch of wannabe's into thinking his cripple ass is still intimidating.
Now, while injuries are apart of the game and D-Man even said "you can't blame Austin for injuries." The fact of the matter is, I think I can - and I think I will. You see, people wanted to shit on me for Edge having a glass body and being injury prone to the max. Well, Austin falls into that same exact catagory. Infact, while I tied Edge into this whole situation - they have the same exact neck injury, and Edge managed to get more out of his career after the injury than Austin did, including working tougher (more dangerous gimmick) matches.
So, if by longevity you mean length of a career - Sting won roughly 10 years ago, and is continuing to dominate this field by competing in actual in-ring work every week.
If it's in-ring longevity, then once again I fail to see where you're getting your facts from, or what year's worth of time you're collecting your info from. Has Sting ever lost in under a minute - at ANY point in time in his career? Austin has..
Define "talent".
In-ring talent, no. Not even remotely close. Austin was a wrestler in WCW when he was losing left and right. It wasn't until he ditched the majority of in-ring ability and turned to pure brawling that he actually took off anywhere.
That isn't talent, that's making up for the lack there of.
The hell? How can this even be proven?
The Rock isn't as big as Steve Austin - yet The Rock went over him at Mania XIX. Chris Jericho isn't as big as Steve Austin - yet Chris Jericho went over him to make history and become the First-Ever Undisputed Champion. Kurt Angle isn't as big as Steve Austin - yet forced multiple tap-outs and pinfalls out of him in 2001. I could go on and on, but I'm hoping you get the point.
Austin creates "pop", but solely based off an entrance theme, t-shirts, foul language and a single finishing move. Sting has done the exact same thing, (entrance, moves, and merch.) and then managed to keep a crowd on the edge of their seat, or standing for entire matches.
Furthermore, for well over a year during the hottest period Wrestling has been quoted as "ever seeing", when WCW was winning the ratings war - Sting would create ovations the likes of which has never been heard or seen - all from merely "showing up in the rafters". He wouldn't have to say a single word, and he'd create more buzz, hype and pop than Austin ever dreamed of.
Of course, I'm not indicating Austin is a slouch at creating pop - the guy gets it, but not in the same quality of Sting from the hottest period in Wrestling history.
Did those ratings shift? Absolutely - because the n.W.o. ran its course, and the 2-year long "dark/depressive" Sting gimmick got old to people. In the same understanding that once the WWE won the ratings (w/ Austin v. McMahon) that in time, that too, got old and stale.
Point is - Austin was still the same attitude filled character in 1997, when WCW was atop the scoreboard; lead by Sting v. the n.W.o., and they were in control of those ratings.
I assume you mean "bigger merch. seller"; at which point, I'll agree. Austin likely has more crap on shelves than any other wrestler out there. Mainly because it's incredibly easy to sell foul language and attitude enticed t-shirts to hormonal tweens and adolescents.
And yet he's managed to hold multiple victories over everyone on that list, with the except of The Rock.
Look at the bright side, it's still your Birthday.
Happy Birthday, man.----------------------------------------------------------------------
CoCo: I'm not quoting it, but you asked something about why people get upset at Hogan for being "Superman" but not at Sting for doing the "same thing". That's simple, because it is NOT the same thing.
Sting would "no sell" in some matches. Not all of them. And it wouldn't result in him instantly winning directly afterwards. Nor would he "no sell" finishing moves. It'd normally be signature moves that aren't used to putting people away often. An example would be Flair suplexing him, or chopping him - only for him to bounce right back up or just not feel the pain of a chop and fight back.
Hogan would get the fuck right back up from a finishing move as if it didn't even hurt at all - EVERY. SINGLE. MATCH. Sting would still sell finishers, and has lost his share of matches without "no selling". That's why he doesn't have to get shit on in the same way. Because he didn't do it every damn match.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
Which is totally irrelavant to the topic. Do you disagree with the fact that Rock was a main eventer from 1999 to 2001 when Austin mostly got the better of him? Do you disagree that Angle was a main eventer in 2001 when Austin defeated him? Do you disagree with the fact that HHH was a main eventer when Austin defeated him in 2000? If you do you are nothing but biased.
Who was a main eventer when Austin won his first title is irrelavant. Austin has defeated each guy when they had become bonafide main eventers.
On a side note would you totally disregard Sting's victories over Goldberg because Goldberg was not a main eventer( not even a wrestler for that matter) when Sting won his first belt?
If Anderson, Truth and Christian became main eventers within 2-3 years of joining the company only then are they comparable to Austin, Trips and Foley. In fact there have been a number of situations wherein there have been vacancies on the roster and yet these guys have not been pushed. For example the Smackdown roster in 2010 was very weak and WWE could have easily had Christian main event that brand but they did not do so probably because they felt that Christian was not that good.
Also Austin was going to main event regardless of the presence of Shawn or Bret.
Frankly it was while fighting these guys that Austin became the second biggest name in all wrestling history.
No you have not. You have claimed that most of the guys were jobbers or low level talent when Austin defeated them which is hardly true. They were all main eventing the biggest wrestling company in the business by the time Austin got the better of them. That is what makes them huge stars. How these individual wrestlers like Foley, Trips and Rock became huge stars is totally irrelavant to the topic.
VOTE AUSTIN.
Lulz, it's obvious that Will didn't read. Big Sexy sure as hell didn't say Austin would win with longevity. He said unless longevity is your criteria. So take out longevity and all goes to Austin, that was his point. Are words going over your head, Will?
Oh my God, Will, did you really just pull the fact that Rock beat Austin in a meaningless match at WrestleMania XIX? Let me catch my breath for a moment.
Okay, that's better. Now let me just rebut this by saying that Austin went over Rock, for the title, at WrestleManias XV and X7. I'd say that holds more significance than the last match between the two at XIX. Thank you for the laugh though. Truly hilarious.
Thanks to interference by Booker T to cost him the match in the end. That's really the only point I have for this.
But Austin wasn't at the top guy in '97. I believe that was still Bret Hart until he left, HBK, and maybe Taker. Austin was on his way though, just not completely there.
I hadn't planned on posting in the final round, but some of Will's points were just too hilarious. I'm voting Austin. I came into wrestling after both Austin and Sting had hit their primes. I'm looking in hindsight (Perfect 20/20 hindsight) at both.
Sting was huuuuuuuge and just completely amazing in the late '80s and early '90s. Had great matches (screw the point of the workers he had, it takes two to tango) was insanely over, and his charisma and athleticism were incredible. I made a point to show him jumping from ring to ring against The Great Muta. Insane. That's how I view Stinger at his absolute best.
Austin had the ability to go in the ring until the Owen incident. Then he was relegated to being a "brawler". That was just his style then, and shouldn't be held against him. He had the charisma, he had the abilities, just like Sting. He was also insanely over.
In the end however, Austin wins this. I love Sting and his early stuff always entertained me. BUT! Just about all of Austin's stuff has entertained me, from WCW to ECW to the WWF. Austin is considered one of the greatest because he is. Call him overrated if you'd like, but he got there because he had that special something in him that few people have/had.
Do you have a reading problem? Wa there a point to any of what you just said there? I gave longevity to Sting. That was the one factor that favors Sting which is why I pointed it out.
He put on better matches on a more consistent basis and was easily a better talker. Better in the ring and on the mic = better talent.
Wrestlemania 19 was Austin's last match ever and The Rock had never defeated him clean. On his way out Austin put Rock over like guys are supposed to do on their way out. Austin always had The Rock's number. Jericho received huge interference in his victory. Austin had Jericho tapping but the ref was down. Booker T then came in and cost Austin the match. Kurt Angle beat Austin when Angle was the face and Austin was the heel. Austin in his absolute prime as the top face never lost to Angle. In summation, your examples suck.
You're lying to yourself if you're saying that Austin didn't always keep the crowd captivated throughout entire matches. He also cut much more compelling promos then Sting ever did.
No he didn't. If he did then WCW would have won the ratings war. Austin led the WWF's charge to victory. Sting drew buzz from being in rafters because he was seen as the guy to stop the NWO. Once he actually returned his buzz dropped after a short time.
Yet Austin always remained over and when things got stale it was switched up.
And once Austin got some help he and the WWF took over the ratings war. Sting always had tons of help around him during WCW's reign at the top and Sting was never really the top guy except for a brief few month period.
He never defeated Hulk Hogan or Austin when they were at their absolute best.
Mr. Artistic guy
Better Off This Way
It's only just struck me how similar these guys were at a point. Sting - 1996 really is Austin -1998/99 just with a different character. Just one man against everybody, fighting off all the odds by themselves and doing the impossible. In fact Sting was the guy who made the ratings switch in favor for WCW and Austin was the man who made them switch back again. They are quite possibly, therefore, the two most important figureheads in terms of ratings in the entire latter part of the 90s which was the MOST significant period in wrestling for some time.
I still give my backing to Sting, and have noticed how the gap has closed a little once again, but I only just really made the connection and thought it crazy it hadn't been brought up sooner. For a certain perspective this is probably the most significant match-up you could conceive of, it's Germany v. Britain, whoever wins it changes the landscape forever.
I'm just excited to crown a winner now, and I think we should have some sort of themed event for the winner perhaps but that's not for me to decide. I'll always respect what Austin did, the way he practically manufactured his own push by his determination and willingness that his character could make him huge, but I still think Sting natural likability and wrestling ability carry him through for me and I just once want to see him get the recognition that so often passes him by just because he decided to let his career span on a bit too long in a place few like.
I still give my backing to Sting, and have noticed how the gap has closed a little once again, but I only just really made the connection and thought it crazy it hadn't been brought up sooner. For a certain perspective this is probably the most significant match-up you could conceive of, it's Germany v. Britain, whoever wins it changes the landscape forever.
I'm just excited to crown a winner now, and I think we should have some sort of themed event for the winner perhaps but that's not for me to decide. I'll always respect what Austin did, the way he practically manufactured his own push by his determination and willingness that his character could make him huge, but I still think Sting natural likability and wrestling ability carry him through for me and I just once want to see him get the recognition that so often passes him by just because he decided to let his career span on a bit too long in a place few like.
Similar threads
- Poll