Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 22:40:17 GMT -5
Tell me how many 5 star matches he has been in? ^ Dude are you serious?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 22:48:29 GMT -5
Yes I am. What has Sting ever done for the business?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 22:54:16 GMT -5
So are you going to answer my questions? Nope, not even gonna bother dude. Sting's legacy speaks for itself. Look it up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 23:01:33 GMT -5
if he didn't have a awesome gimmick would have been a nobody like Warrior. Thats BladeRunner blasphemy! Haha, dude..you have no idea what your talking about. Why don't you go to youtube or buy some dvds of Sting.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jul 18, 2009 0:59:50 GMT -5
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. Exactly!! HBK didnt do anything to revolutionize the sport. nWo was the stable that brought everyone in, not DX. Austin was the guy everyone tuned in to see be cutting edge and fresh, not HBK....Hell outside of HIAC HBK didnt do anything in 96-97 that I found entertaining....and even Foley out shined him a year later in HIAC at KOTR
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Jul 18, 2009 1:27:34 GMT -5
First of all, to the people who said Sting has yet to win the WWE title in order to be one of the best, Shawn Michaels never won the NWA or WCW title. If you remember correctly until 1993, you had WWF, the promotion that had many cartoonish characters, and the alternative, WCW which was more about wrestling. So yeah, if you say Sting needs to win the WWE title, I say, Michaels should have won the NWA title too.
Now, while I agree that Michaels didn't do anything good in 1997 apart from the Hell in a Cell match, to say he has had mediocre matches from 2002 to present is just stupid. Michaels is showing everybody that he still has it. His matches at WM XIX, XX, 21, XXIV and XXV can prove it.
IMO, if we talk about who is a better performer, I gotta tell you Michaels is doing better, though Sting is older, so that may be a big factor. Sting has had good matches in recent years, but Michaels' have been better. Now, if we talk about the late 80's and 90's, Sting was a lot better.
As for the question, who has had a better career? I picked Sting. Why? Think about it:
Michaels was and is still big in the biggest promotion today. He has won numerous titles, but Sting has also won numerous titles and is amazingly well recognized in the wrestling industry without having a singles run on that promotion. That in fact makes me say, "Hey, he made it big without WWE's help... He must be a really big name".
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 18, 2009 2:07:43 GMT -5
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 rarely remember Hall doing "great" work. Razor was OK, better than some other big guys, but not great. As outstanding as their ladder match was at WM10, it was about 90% Michaels. Ric Flair said it best, " That night, Shawn Michaels went out and had a match with a ladder." One of the reasons that I consider their SummerSlam '95 ladder match to be superior is that Razor seemed to be more comfortable with what he was doing and the pair told a better story.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 2:21:21 GMT -5
By the time HBK got into the WWE the NWA title and WCW were second rate promotion titles. Wrong. The WCW title was never worth a damn on it's own. And even during WCW's success during the nWo title most fans still looked at the WWE title as being the main belt. wrong. And by the time Sting did in fact win the title it wasn't the biggest title in the industry at the time. Wrong. What does not having a run in the WWE prove? It certainly doesn't prove that he is better. Yes it does. Would Sting still be popular if it wasn't for his signature face paint??? I think not. Just as the same as Warrior wouldn't have been huge without his gimmick. It was the gimmick that pushed Sting to the top in his promotions and helped him stay in it as long as he has. The difference between Warrior and Sting is Sting can Wrestle.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 3:08:22 GMT -5
I'm RIGHT! NWA was in financial trouble after McMahon came in and made WWE mainstream by coming in and swooping in on all their top players. WCW was considered a second rate promotion as well and neither were top companies by the time Sting came in. Who cares? The guys in suits have nothing to do with the boys in the ring. How can you even deny this?!?! Do you even look at facts!?!? WCW and NWA were getting their asses handed to them by Vince and WWE. This is once again FACT! So you pay attention and are a fan of Vince and his producers, not the wrestlers? So you think by not going to the biggest company in the world makes him better? HAHAHAHAHA That's a good one. Sting chose the easy road because he knew he wasn't at the level needed to be a WWE Superstar. You just admitted that Sting wasn't better then HBK because Sting never wrestled in the top promotion during his tenure during wrestling. WWE is a joke. Do your homework. Sting maybe better then Warrior but he still is a average to below average wretler. His TNA stint has proved it. Flair who is 10 years older then Sting is wrestling circles around him. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Your silly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 3:28:05 GMT -5
FACT WWE was destorying their competition and WCW/NWA were second rate promotions til nWo popped up. Again, who cares. Sting was over and the top guy years and years before nWo showed up. Vince had the #1 promotion during Stings main stream tenure besides when the nWo came in. Again, who cares!!!? We are talkin bout Sting's work ethic, not Vince's ratings.. Sure WWE was a joke. HAHAHAHA And WCW/NWA wasn't!?!? WWE = Cartoon gimmicks, NWA = True puro wrestling, you do the math. look at Sting who at 50 can't do the stuff Flair is doing at 60. Um, no. And look at when Sting was in his 40's compared to HBK. HBK is SUPERIOR to Sting! In 1999 Sting was a god compared to HBK, always has been.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 3:42:37 GMT -5
Are you one of those 13 year old noobs? I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 18, 2009 12:06:56 GMT -5
Again, who cares. Sting was over and the top guy years and years before nWo showed up. Again you must care as you are telling me I am wrong when I am right! Sting was the top guy to a SECOND RATE promotion prior to nWo. If WCW was 'second-rate', why did it beat out the WWE in ratings? The WCW was far from second rate, I bet you were too young to see it in its prime. Don't forget, the WCW had a long lineage from the NWA too, back when that company meant something. WCW's only considered second rate NOW because Vince won the war, and he likes to re-write history. But if you watched WCW during the height of the Monday Night Wars, you'll know they were an alternative product to what WWE was offering, and not a second rate choice. HAHA "No one was more over then Sting"?!?! Yeah sure buddy, no one was more over then Sting. That's why WCW beat the WWE in ratings for over 82 weeks. lol Nobody was more over than Sting in the months leading up to Starrcade '97. And I'm not your "buddy". Maybe you weren't watching wrestling at the time, but Sting was the most over man in wrestling at that point. EVERYBODY watched Nitro for him, waiting for him to come out. He was on fire, and yes, he moved merchandise. He most definitely was a HUGE part of why WCW was kicking the WWE's ass in the ratings. The nWo wouldn't nearly be as over without a strong opposition against them-- Sting. You always need an antagonist and a protagonist for compelling drama. Tell me how many 5 star matches he has been in? Dave Meltzer has Sting placed in TWO five star matches: - Ric Flair, Larry Zbyszko, Barry Windham, & Sid Vicious vs. Sting, Brian Pillman, Rick Steiner, & Scott Steiner (WarGames match) - WrestleWar, February 24, 1991 - Sting, Nikita Koloff, Ricky Steamboat, Barry Windham, & Dustin Rhodes vs. Rick Rude, Steve Austin, Arn Anderson, Bobby Eaton, & Larry Zbyszko (WarGames match)- WrestleWar, May 17, 1992 Thats 2 and 2 with Shawn Michaels, they have an even amount of five star matches. Now, will you be quiet? No, but I am still waiting on what Sting's legacy is from you, since you don't even know what it is. And what he did for pro wrestling besides being a second rate world champion in NWA, WCW, and TNA. lol Second-rate World Champion? Dude, he's a THIRTEEN time World Heavyweight Champion, and has held onto the title longer than Michaels did. Sting will be known as a world class CHAMPION, Michaels is known as a world class WRESTLER. Because he's always been a mediocre World Champion who throws his titles away (or gives them to his friends) when he doesn't want to do the job. I rarely remember Hall doing "great" work. Razor was OK, better than some other big guys, but not great. As outstanding as their ladder match was at WM10, it was about 90% Michaels. Ric Flair said it best, " That night, Shawn Michaels went out and had a match with a ladder." One of the reasons that I consider their SummerSlam '95 ladder match to be superior is that Razor seemed to be more comfortable with what he was doing and the pair told a better story. Of course you don't remember it, Shawn Michaels' balls must have been covering your eyes for a decade now. How was Razor just "okay"? He was a big man who could work bigger builds and smaller builds, he could wrestle either style, no matter the size. Shawn Michaels couldn't do that, he was restricted. At that point in time, '94'-'95, Scott Hall, Shane Douglas (he was working 60 minute matches before Michaels did later) and Bret Hart were working just as good as Shawn Michaels. To say the opposite is to fall into complete HBK nut huggery.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 18, 2009 13:04:46 GMT -5
Again you must care as you are telling me I am wrong when I am right! Sting was the top guy to a SECOND RATE promotion prior to nWo. If WCW was 'second-rate', why did it beat out the WWE in ratings? The WCW was far from second rate, I bet you were too young to see it in its prime. Don't forget, the WCW had a long lineage from the NWA too, back when that company meant something. WCW's only considered second rate NOW because Vince won the war, and he likes to re-write history. But if you watched WCW during the height of the Monday Night Wars, you'll know they were an alternative product to what WWE was offering, and not a second rate choice. of why WCW was kicking the WWE's ass in the ratings. The nWo wouldn't nearly be as over without a strong opposition against them-- Sting. You always need an antagonist and a protagonist for compelling drama. Dave Meltzer has Sting placed in TWO five star matches: - Ric Flair, Larry Zbyszko, Barry Windham, & Sid Vicious vs. Sting, Brian Pillman, Rick Steiner, & Scott Steiner (WarGames match) - WrestleWar, February 24, 1991 - Sting, Nikita Koloff, Ricky Steamboat, Barry Windham, & Dustin Rhodes vs. Rick Rude, Steve Austin, Arn Anderson, Bobby Eaton, & Larry Zbyszko (WarGames match)- WrestleWar, May 17, 1992 Thats 2 and 2 with Shawn Michaels, they have an even amount I rarely remember Hall doing "great" work. Razor was OK, better than some other big guys, but not great. with what he was doing and the pair told a better story. Of course you don't remember it, Shawn Michaels' balls must have been covering your eyes for a decade now. How was Razor just "okay"? He was a big man who could work bigger builds and smaller builds, he could wrestle either style, no matter the size. Shawn Michaels couldn't do that, he was restricted. At that point in time, '94'-'95, Scott Hall, Shane Douglas (he was working 60 minute matches before Michaels did later) and Bret Hart were working just as good as Shawn Michaels. To say the opposite is to fall into complete HBK nut huggery. Shawn Michaels isn't resticted in any possible fashion. He's one of the very few wrestlers who can excel in any kind of match. He could do the HIAC slugfests, Lucha matches like the one with Mysterio on RAW after Eddie's death, or mat classics with Flair. He has and still does it all. Razor had similar matches each time out. He often fell into the big guy "punch, punch, kick" syndrome though he bumped harder and more often that slouches like Hogan and Warrior. Bret was very good, one of the best, but he had very little in the way of aerial moves and that's what sets Shawn above him. And the Dynamic Dud was a glorified jobber. He doesn't belong in any catergory except for the "most undeserving" wrestlers of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 18, 2009 13:36:09 GMT -5
If WCW was 'second-rate', why did it beat out the WWE in ratings? The WCW was far from second rate, I bet you were too young to see it in its prime. Don't forget, the WCW had a long lineage from the NWA too, back when that company meant something. WCW's only considered second rate NOW because Vince won the war, and he likes to re-write history. But if you watched WCW during the height of the Monday Night Wars, you'll know they were an alternative product to what WWE was offering, and not a second rate choice. of why WCW was kicking the WWE's ass in the ratings. The nWo wouldn't nearly be as over without a strong opposition against them-- Sting. You always need an antagonist and a protagonist for compelling drama. Dave Meltzer has Sting placed in TWO five star matches: - Ric Flair, Larry Zbyszko, Barry Windham, & Sid Vicious vs. Sting, Brian Pillman, Rick Steiner, & Scott Steiner (WarGames match) - WrestleWar, February 24, 1991 - Sting, Nikita Koloff, Ricky Steamboat, Barry Windham, & Dustin Rhodes vs. Rick Rude, Steve Austin, Arn Anderson, Bobby Eaton, & Larry Zbyszko (WarGames match)- WrestleWar, May 17, 1992 Thats 2 and 2 with Shawn Michaels, they have an even amount Of course you don't remember it, Shawn Michaels' balls must have been covering your eyes for a decade now. How was Razor just "okay"? He was a big man who could work bigger builds and smaller builds, he could wrestle either style, no matter the size. Shawn Michaels couldn't do that, he was restricted. At that point in time, '94'-'95, Scott Hall, Shane Douglas (he was working 60 minute matches before Michaels did later) and Bret Hart were working just as good as Shawn Michaels. To say the opposite is to fall into complete HBK nut huggery. Shawn Michaels isn't resticted in any possible fashion. He's one of the very few wrestlers who can excel in any kind of match. He could do the HIAC slugfests, Lucha matches like the one with Mysterio on RAW after Eddie's death, or match classics with Flair. He has and still does it all. Razor had similar matches each time out. He often fell into the big guy "punch, punch, kick" syndrome though he bumped harder and more often that slouches like Hogan and Warrior. Bret was very good, one of the best, but he had very little in the way of aerial moves and that's what sets Shawn above him. And the Dynamic Dud was a glorified jobber. He doesn't belong in any catergory except for the "most undeserving" wrestlers of all-time. Ricky Steamboat and Randy Savage were doing the high-flying, lucha deal before Shawn Michaels, I keep telling you. And Shawn Michaels had a restriction in that he can't wrestle like a big man, that's what set Scott Hall apart-- he could work small and big styles. "Punch-kick-punch"? C'mon. Watch Razor/1-2-3 Kid, see how well he can channel his energy in that match and work a classic with a high flyer. He also had Ted DiBiase's last match, and gave him a decent enough send-off. Again, Shawn Michaels is not God. He was just in a tag team with him.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 18, 2009 22:27:29 GMT -5
Ricky Steamboat and Randy Savage were doing the high-flying, lucha deal before Shawn Michaels, I keep telling you. And Shawn Michaels had a restriction in that he can't wrestle like a big man, that's what set Scott Hall apart-- he could work small and big styles. "Punch-kick-punch"? C'mon. Watch Razor/1-2-3 Kid, see how well he can channel his energy in that match and work a classic with a high flyer. He also had Ted DiBiase's last match, and gave him a decent enough send-off. Again, Shawn Michaels is not God. He was just in a tag team with him. With all due respect to two great performers, not even Steamboat or Savage performed the jaw-dropping, innovative moves on a regular basis that marked Shawn's ascension to main event status. The only guys that could come close were often too small to be main eventers and often lacked personality. HBK is one of the few to have every single piece of the wrestling equation to set him apart as the best. Even if the match called for a big man brawl ( ala IYH vs Diesel '96) he was just big enough and more than tenacious enough to pull that off. As far as Razor goes, he was decent but that's all. There are plenty of bigger guys ( 'Taker and Mike Awesome come to mind) who did far greater things in the ring than he. His career highlights are his I-C title runs and the NWO Invasion. He was never a company centerpiece so that automatically excludes him from being in the conversation with HBK. Shawn could go to any company in the world right now, even at nearly 44, and have the promoter push him to the main event. He's just that good and we'll never again see the likes of his greatness.
|
|
McKelly
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 14, 2008 16:01:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,162
|
Post by McKelly on Jul 18, 2009 22:33:53 GMT -5
"The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 14, 2024 22:58:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2009 20:07:55 GMT -5
rfap, I hope you know that you sound completely clueless.
|
|
|
Post by WalterF on Jul 19, 2009 20:22:44 GMT -5
No matter how you look at it HBK has been a better in-ring worker than Sting and has excelled more and done more significant things in the pro-wrestling world, and this is without the argument of WWE being the only significant promotion, which is what many people say.
Sting has always been a solid worker, but he can't make a great match out of any situation, HBK can. Regarding mic skills, Sting can't touch HBK either. Overall, Sting has done a lot and has had alot of longevity, but he never excelled the way HBK has. HBK is a bigger deal, period. I like Sting, but I really only enjoy his matches with certain opponents alot while I have seen HBK put on incredible bouts with opponents I never particularly cared for (IE Cena).
|
|
|
Post by doogle on Jul 19, 2009 22:56:09 GMT -5
gotta tell you...Sting and HBK are like apples and oranges...and the fact that the HBK fans still dig Sting but the Sting fans hate HBK shows alot of elitism and why the Sting fans are making love to their fists on a nightly basis...if you dont think he has put on some excellent matches in his career you're nuts...throw away all the petty backstage bullcrap...this guy was and still is(even after a career ending injury) putting butts in seats and wrestling circles around 85% percent of the roster...
|
|
KRAYZIE BONE
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Visual.Avenues
Joined on: Jul 20, 2003 22:29:25 GMT -5
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by KRAYZIE BONE on Jul 19, 2009 22:56:52 GMT -5
sting.
case in point - during his whole initial crow run, he didnt wrestle one match for over a year and was still more over then HBK was at the time, and HBK was the wwf's world champion. that is a fact. wwf damn near went under while HBK was champ, and while its not entirely his fault, he was their "top dawg".
I will forever remember HBK for his homo-esque character and not really his wrestling.
|
|