|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 16, 2009 22:43:27 GMT -5
The better question is, why ask this on a board that's predominant with so many blind Shawn Michaels fans to begin with? Good luck finding a wrestling-themed MB with hardcore fans who don't like HBK. One might exist somewhere...but I doubt it. Maybe a message board where people can respect Shawn Michaels as an athlete but realize that, although a reformed Christian, he is NOT the Jesus Christ of professional wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 16, 2009 22:44:58 GMT -5
I think its silly to say that an NWA wrestler doesnt deserve something because they never wrested in the WWF. The WWF has always been too cartoony for most nwa wrestlers. They make a big deal about oh if sting would have dont this this and this... If sting would have gone to wwf McMahon would have buried his ass just like he did every other nwa/wcw star. Sting was living animation when he was younger. He would have fit right in the WWF of the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by dakotadave on Jul 16, 2009 22:52:08 GMT -5
I say HBK, only because he's had a steady job with the WWE. Since the buy-out Sting has been off and on with TNA and fewer matches than HBK. HBK has done mid-card and main-events for tv and ppv's.
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Jul 16, 2009 22:58:45 GMT -5
A lot of the Sting fans are getting defensive. We HBK fans are not saying Sting sucks, we respect him as a wrestler and most of us were fans of him when we were younger, we are clearly stating that HBK has had a better career than Sting. True Sting has wrestled all over the world, and main evented long before HBK did, but he did get his start before HBK, once HBK hit the main event he started to show why he deserved to be there. Hands down HBK can put on a 5 star match with anyone, I can even see a HBK vs Khali being a 5 star match.
|
|
|
Post by mitchcourage01 on Jul 16, 2009 23:08:08 GMT -5
Sting. Shawn Michaels is the Has Been Kid. The sooner you paracites learn that the better off. How many times has HBK held the NWA world title? None? Sting has held the most prestigious title of their prime. Why do people keep lingering on HBK's bandwagon like it is thier last hope? He is a man of lies and deciet. He is a hypocrit and his actions are those of a pharacie.
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Jul 16, 2009 23:16:44 GMT -5
Sting. Shawn Michaels is the Has Been Kid. The sooner you paracites learn that the better off. How many times has HBK held the NWA world title? None? Sting has held the most prestigious title of their prime. Why do people keep lingering on HBK's bandwagon like it is thier last hope? He is a man of lies and deciet. He is a hypocrit and his actions are those of a pharacie.That has nothing to do with the success of his career. The WWE title is the most prestigious title right now, sorry to burst your bubble.
|
|
|
Post by WalterF on Jul 16, 2009 23:44:01 GMT -5
Sting. Shawn Michaels is the Has Been Kid. The sooner you paracites learn that the better off. How many times has HBK held the NWA world title? None? Sting has held the most prestigious title of their prime. Why do people keep lingering on HBK's bandwagon like it is thier last hope? He is a man of lies and deciet. He is a hypocrit and his actions are those of a pharacie. goin a little off the deep end, are we? Anyway, the NWA title may have been the most prestigious title in the 80's, but when HBK won the WWF title in 96 it was huge and at the time that belt was def more prestigious than WCW's title. But this nitpicking. To call HBK a has-been is rediculious. A has-been is a guy who is a shell of their former self, who can't keep up with younger talent, going out there and stinking it up. HBK, in his 40's is still outwrestling every 20-something or 30-something year old. He still usually has the match of the year, match of the PPV ... he still outshines everyone in the ring. That is not a has been. If a guy can still go to such a point that he is consistently putting on 5 star matches, he more than deserves to maintain his spot. Again, I am a Sting fan. I am not going to bash Sting and I am truly being objective here, unlike some Sting fans who just absolutely are anti-WWE, anti-HBK and will find any reason to bash HBK and WWE. Sting has been a great wrestler and has had a long, successful career, but he was never the break-out star HBK was and to be honest he doesn't have the mic skills, charisma or work rate that HBK has. This stuff is obvious, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 16, 2009 23:59:18 GMT -5
Sting. Shawn Michaels is the Has Been Kid. The sooner you paracites learn that the better off. How many times has HBK held the NWA world title? None? Sting has held the most prestigious title of their prime. Why do people keep lingering on HBK's bandwagon like it is thier last hope? He is a man of lies and deciet. He is a hypocrit and his actions are those of a pharacie. When a wrestler is involved in the best match at Wrestlemania the last two years, despite being in his 40s, that isn't a "has been". He is still the best wrestler in the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jul 17, 2009 0:05:14 GMT -5
Sting. Shawn Michaels is the Has Been Kid. The sooner you paracites learn that the better off. How many times has HBK held the NWA world title? None? Sting has held the most prestigious title of their prime. Why do people keep lingering on HBK's bandwagon like it is thier last hope? He is a man of lies and deciet. He is a hypocrit and his actions are those of a pharacie. goin a little off the deep end, are we? Anyway, the NWA title may have been the most prestigious title in the 80's, but when HBK won the WWF title in 96 it was huge and at the time that belt was def more prestigious than WCW's title. But this nitpicking. To call HBK a has-been is rediculious. A has-been is a guy who is a shell of their former self, who can't keep up with younger talent, going out there and stinking it up. HBK, in his 40's is still outwrestling every 20-something or 30-something year old. He still usually has the match of the year, match of the PPV ... he still outshines everyone in the ring. That is not a has been. If a guy can still go to such a point that he is consistently putting on 5 star matches, he more than deserves to maintain his spot. Again, I am a Sting fan. I am not going to bash Sting and I am truly being objective here, unlike some Sting fans who just absolutely are anti-WWE, anti-HBK and will find any reason to bash HBK and WWE. Sting has been a great wrestler and has had a long, successful career, but he was never the break-out star HBK was and to be honest he doesn't have the mic skills, charisma or work rate that HBK has. This stuff is obvious, guys. I will agree with you that the WCW title is not as prestigious as the WWF title but also note that when HBK was champion the company wasnt financially great. Both of his main title runs (96 after Mania and 97 after Survivor Series) were pretty much lack luster. Outside of a hell in a cell match and a casket match...Nothing he did was that memorable.
|
|
|
Post by underthestairs on Jul 17, 2009 0:30:14 GMT -5
This is a no brainer... HBK.
He's held every major title... he's been a top star in every decade he's been around... he's participated (and won) the majority of the innovative matches like the ladder, chamber, cell, etc.
There's just no comparison in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by WalterF on Jul 17, 2009 0:38:03 GMT -5
goin a little off the deep end, are we? Anyway, the NWA title may have been the most prestigious title in the 80's, but when HBK won the WWF title in 96 it was huge and at the time that belt was def more prestigious than WCW's title. But this nitpicking. To call HBK a has-been is rediculious. A has-been is a guy who is a shell of their former self, who can't keep up with younger talent, going out there and stinking it up. HBK, in his 40's is still outwrestling every 20-something or 30-something year old. He still usually has the match of the year, match of the PPV ... he still outshines everyone in the ring. That is not a has been. If a guy can still go to such a point that he is consistently putting on 5 star matches, he more than deserves to maintain his spot. Again, I am a Sting fan. I am not going to bash Sting and I am truly being objective here, unlike some Sting fans who just absolutely are anti-WWE, anti-HBK and will find any reason to bash HBK and WWE. Sting has been a great wrestler and has had a long, successful career, but he was never the break-out star HBK was and to be honest he doesn't have the mic skills, charisma or work rate that HBK has. This stuff is obvious, guys. I will agree with you that the WCW title is not as prestigious as the WWF title but also note that when HBK was champion the company wasnt financially great. Both of his main title runs (96 after Mania and 97 after Survivor Series) were pretty much lack luster. Outside of a hell in a cell match and a casket match...Nothing he did was that memorable. WWE was in dire straights financially, but that was hardly because of HBK. WCW had an edgier product, but I think it's ill-informed to say besides two matches, nothing HBK did in that era was memorable. He won his first reign with a truly classic bout with Bret. Almost every PPV title defense he had in 96 was a great match. And in 1997, he was in-and-out most of the year, but he formed DX which was is one of the biggest stables in pro-wrestling history, broke boundaries and did alot to usher in the era of WWE that eventually beat the crap out of WCW in the ratings. HBK was an innovator, one thing that Sting honestly never was. Sting was always reliable, always a draw, always solid in the ring, but he didn't do the exceptional things HBK did.
|
|
J-Swift
Main Eventer
Formerly known as: WHO DAT!!?!!??!
Joined on: Jun 27, 2009 0:19:04 GMT -5
Posts: 1,749
|
Post by J-Swift on Jul 17, 2009 1:21:14 GMT -5
Sting.
HBK Is WAAAAY Overrated.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 17, 2009 13:49:14 GMT -5
I will agree with you that the WCW title is not as prestigious as the WWF title but also note that when HBK was champion the company wasnt financially great. Both of his main title runs (96 after Mania and 97 after Survivor Series) were pretty much lack luster. Outside of a hell in a cell match and a casket match...Nothing he did was that memorable. WWE was in dire straights financially, but that was hardly because of HBK. WCW had an edgier product, but I think it's ill-informed to say besides two matches, nothing HBK did in that era was memorable. He won his first reign with a truly classic bout with Bret. Almost every PPV title defense he had in 96 was a great match. And in 1997, he was in-and-out most of the year, but he formed DX which was is one of the biggest stables in pro-wrestling history, broke boundaries and did alot to usher in the era of WWE that eventually beat the crap out of WCW in the ratings. HBK was an innovator, one thing that Sting honestly never was. Sting was always reliable, always a draw, always solid in the ring, but he didn't do the exceptional things HBK did. How did the formation of DX 'break boundaries' when the nWo did that a year or two earlier? I would argue that the DX after Shawn Michaels broke more boundaries (i.e; WCW invasion, getting chicks to flash them, the Michael Buffer parody, etc). Oh, and Austin was about 85% of the reason why WCW lost in the ratings. And even he broke more "boundaries" at the time. See? This is what I'm talking about: people giving Shawn Michaels an over-abundance of credit where it isn't due.
|
|
June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on Jul 17, 2009 15:36:18 GMT -5
Sting was awesome during the late 80's and early 90's. I never liked his crowe days, and I'm not a fan of his TNA stuff, but IMO he is an Icon in the sport. I just wish he would have signed with WWE after WCW closed it's doors. The fact that he has never appeared at Wrestlemania makes HBK the winner by default.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 17, 2009 16:33:57 GMT -5
Relax, I'm not saying he did. I'm saying people are more than likely to just say "Shawn Michaels" without bothering to check up on what Sting did. See? This is what I'm talking about: people giving Shawn Michaels an over-abundance of credit where it isn't due. How can you not give HBK a over abundance of credit for what he did? And how isn't it due? The man is one of the greatest wrestlers to ever live and atleast helped change the WWE from a big guys only as main eventers to allowing lucha libres and smaller builds to become looked at as main eventers. What has Sting ever done? He was the face for WCW that's it. He didn't do anything for the wrestling business, nor do many people remember him for matches. They remember him because of his gimmick. Bret Hart did just as much, as far as getting smaller builds looked at as main eventers. Remember, he was the original golden boy who was supposed to take the title from Hogan, not Michaels. People are too in love with the idea of Michaels as "the greatest", especially when Scott Hall was doing great work in the WWF around the same time. Remember, Michaels didn't wrestle himself in those legendary ladder matches, someone else helped him get over. I'd even say Ricky Steamboat got smaller builds over, too, at least in the NWA. And people remember Sting just for his gimmick? I'm not a huge Sting fan but I grew up through '96-'97 WCW and NO ONE on Earth was as hot and as over as Sting was during that period of time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 6:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 21:41:03 GMT -5
This thread shows just how un-informed many WF members are. The only high point Shawn had was at WM12. Any matches he had after 2002 were'nt "classic" or "epic"..they were mediocre at best, and Shawn did nothing in 97-99 except act like an immature moron with DX (an ovbious nWo rip off). Sting has ALWAYS had Matches that were on the scale of HBK/Hart at WM12, he's always been involved in that classic/epic aura we all crave in pro wrestling.
At the age of 50 Sting was recently TNA champion for nearly 6 months straight, not to mention World Champ in 06, 07, and 08. Facing the likes of Rhino, Kurt Angle, Christian, Matt Morgan, Mick Foley, AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels. The list goes on and on. Sting just pwns you all. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Jul 17, 2009 21:45:06 GMT -5
This thread shows just how un-informed many WF members are. The only high point Shawn had was at WM12. Any matches he had after 2002 were'nt "classic" or "epic"..they were mediocre at best, and Shawn did nothing in 97-99 except act like an immature moron with DX (an ovbious nWo rip off). Sting has ALWAYS had Matches that were on the scale of HBK/Hart at WM12, he's always been involved in that classic/epic aura we all crave in pro wrestling. At the age of 50 Sting was recently TNA champion for nearly 6 months straight, not to mention World Champ in 06, 07, and 08. Facing the likes of Rhino, Kurt Angle, Christian, Matt Morgan, Mick Foley, AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels. The list goes on and on. Sting just pwns you all. Plain and simple. So your saying matches with Jericho, Undertaker, Flair, and on and on are just 'mediocre'. Okay, I see your point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 6:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 22:06:38 GMT -5
So your saying matches with Jericho, Undertaker, Flair, and on and on are just 'mediocre'. Okay, I see your point. His matches with Jericho were'nt anything spectacular, He fought Flair WAYYYYYYYY over the hill, and UnderTaker? DONT get me started on him. I have never, and mark my words..EVER watched an impressive UnderTaker match. He is the quenticential "WWE" style wrestler, no technical or puro skills whatsoever, and quite possibly the most over rated wrestler in WWE history. Its all about his gimmick. He also was a pathetic jobber in WCW when Sting was the top guy.
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Jul 17, 2009 22:10:10 GMT -5
So your saying matches with Jericho, Undertaker, Flair, and on and on are just 'mediocre'. Okay, I see your point. His matches with Jericho were'nt anything spectacular, He fought Flair WAYYYYYYYY over the hill, and UnderTaker? DONT get me started on him. I have never, and mark my words..EVER watched an impressive UnderTaker match. He is the quenticential "WWE" style wrestler, no technical or puro skills whatsoever, and quite possibly the most over rated wrestler in WWE history. Its all about his gimmick. He also was a pathetic jobber in WCW when Sting was the top guy. You sir are completely bias. No other way around it. I'm not even going to continue because I know it wont end well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 6:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 22:30:28 GMT -5
who will be known for his gimmick over his below average wrestling skills
|
|