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 20, 2009 1:36:10 GMT -5
Again you tell me I'm 13 and yet you are using the 13 year old mentality of posting pics instead of using words to defend yourself in a debate. How is it you can tell me to get a life when in your life you spend how much time looking up pictures to post??? PWI was (at that time, i dont follow wrestling now) an APTER magazine. and those awards were voted by the FANS (i thought they didnt know who sting was?) what does meltzer have to do with anything? and his opinion of a 5 star match doesnt mean a damn thing either. he can lick my left nut for all I care. HBK's run was one of the worst in terms of revenue the wwf ever had and your reason is because of the nwo (aka because of hogan). well, the reason why wcw wasnt as big as wwf in the early 90s was because of hogan (gee, what a coincidence). fact - HBK lost wwf alot of money fact - sting made wcw alot of money fact - sting won multiple world titles before HBK even won an intercontinental title fact - you lose. =) Again if you are going to use in your argument about how great Sting is because of PWI then I can use PWI and Meltzer to disprove your arguments which I did. FACT OVER HBK'S ENTRIE CAREER HE HAS BROUGHT IN MORE MONEY FOR THE WWE THEN LOST! STING HAS LOST MORE MONEY FOR HIS COMPANIES THEN MADE AND WASN'T A PROFITABLE CHAMPION! FACT IF STING MADE WCW A LOT OF MONEY HOW COME THEY WERE LOSING MILLIONS DURING HIS TENURE IN WCW. HE LOST MORE FOR THE COMPANY THEN HE MADE. FACT STING WON MULTIPLE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR SECOND RATE COMPANIES THAT WERE LOSING MONEY OUT OF THE BUTT! WHILE HBK BROUGHT IN RATINGS AND MONEY FOR THE COMPANY PRIOR AND AFTER THE NWO DAYS. FACT YOU LOSE I WIN. AS YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VOID WITH FACTS. I have never encountered such an ignorant person. lol. you say more fans knew who HBK was then they did sting, since, according to you, more people watched WWF then they did WCW... so sting was so great that the fans voted him wrestler of the year more then once even though no one watched him? riiiiight. its a FACT that sting won those awards thus showing he was one of the most over wrestlers in the world (because the fans vote genius), meltzer's 5 star matches are OPINIONS. do you know the difference between a fact and opinion, or would you like me to draw you a picture? heres a breakdown for you, since you are apparently a little slow in the head. .... HBK was never the #1 man in the wwf before the nwo, so he never made the company money like youre claiming. hogan and bret hart did. during the times of the nwo, hbk was champ, and the wwf almost went out of business. after the nwo, HBK never did anything of signifigance. so basically, the ONLY time HBK was EVER the true #1 man was from mid 96- mid 98 and the company would have gone under if steve austin didnt save it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 1:42:51 GMT -5
KRAYZIE don't bother with rfap. NOTHING he's said in this thread has made any kind of sense.
|
|
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 20, 2009 1:43:29 GMT -5
to say sid wasnt over is rediculous. he was over everywhere, and was given the title everywhere (except ecw, even though he was over there too) multiple times. NONE of those matches were as big as starrcade 97. they may have been better matches, but none of them (and NOTHING HBK EVER did) was as hyped up or as big an event as starrcade 97 was. you keep saying it wasnt a good match. who cares? thats not what im saying. I cant think of ANY match since it that had such a big build up and hype and gathered such a major buzz in the industry. what im saying is, nothing HBK ever did was as big as what hogan and sting did. HBK was doing dx and the "boyhood dream" bit, wrestling full time, and was pretty much floundering as champ - while alls sting had to was come down from the rafters and be on TV for 10 minutes every week to be the hottest thing in wrestling. No storyline or no form of HBK's character was, nor ever will be, comparable to sting's character from mid 96 - the end of 97. Sid was given short, transitional reigns. He was never booked as the #1 guy in any company so that excludes him from HBK's class. As for Hogan and Sting, yes it was heavily hyped, and it failed to deliver just as most of WCW's product in the final years. It hasn't held up as an important match in a historical sense. Goldberg-Hogan, about 6 months later, was a more memorable match. And Starrcade '97 will never, ever, ever compare to the innovation of the WM 10 Ladder match, or HIAC 1 at Taker-HBK from WM 25. Those are true landmark matches because they hold up as amazing even without the preceding storyline. im not saying that hes in HBK's class, im saying he was more over as a heel while HBK was the champ. that doesnt reflect well on HBK's run. and regardless of single matches, nothing HBK ever did was as big or hot as what sting was doing while they were both "in their prime". you say those HBK matches stand the test of time, well the sting vs. hogan storyline stands the test of time just as strong. and there has never been anything as big as it since then.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 20, 2009 1:51:40 GMT -5
I left this thread for a bit, nice to see it's still going to hell, haha.
The moral of the story is, yes, Shawn Michaels had the better career, and he is the better wrestler, but Sting shouldn't be cut short as he's done a lot for the business and has managed to keep himself just as relevant to today's wrestling product as HBK has.
And I stand by the belief that Sting was the most over star in 1997. Doubters obviously have a pre-assigned prejudice towards Sting, or WCW as a whole.
Listen to the pop Sting gets. You're telling me the fans cared more about the nWo, about guys like Dennis Rodman? Give me a break.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 2:03:31 GMT -5
HBK was never as over as Sting.
HBK will NEVER be as over as Sting.
HBK will NEVER be recognized as the ICON that Sting is.
HBK will NEVER have the wrestling skills Sting has.
Its as simple as that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 2:15:50 GMT -5
what has Sting done for the industry? More then HBK will ever do or dream of doing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 2:19:35 GMT -5
See you can't even name one thing BFG! I'll tell you one more thing HBK has done for the industry then Sting has. Opened the doors for guys like Jericho, Eddie, and Rey for World Title runs in the NUMBER 1 WRESTLING ORGANIZTION IN NORTH AMERICA!!! Thats the point, you keep saying stuff HBK has done and to me it makes no difference. I already told you Sting's legacy speaks for itself, look it and stop being lazy kid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 2:28:50 GMT -5
First of off I'm not a kid. You sure sound and act like one, "HAHAHAHa..I'm right and your wrong, state your facts! I win!"
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 20, 2009 4:22:17 GMT -5
Sid was given short, transitional reigns. He was never booked as the #1 guy in any company so that excludes him from HBK's class. As for Hogan and Sting, yes it was heavily hyped, and it failed to deliver just as most of WCW's product in the final years. It hasn't held up as an important match in a historical sense. Goldberg-Hogan, about 6 months later, was a more memorable match. And Starrcade '97 will never, ever, ever compare to the innovation of the WM 10 Ladder match, or HIAC 1 at Taker-HBK from WM 25. Those are true landmark matches because they hold up as amazing even without the preceding storyline. im not saying that hes in HBK's class, im saying he was more over as a heel while HBK was the champ. that doesnt reflect well on HBK's run. and regardless of single matches, nothing HBK ever did was as big or hot as what sting was doing while they were both "in their prime". you say those HBK matches stand the test of time, well the sting vs. hogan storyline stands the test of time just as strong. and there has never been anything as big as it since then. LMBO!!! Are you serious??! That feud was the product of a tired, overdone storyline that should have ended 6 months before. Goldberg vs. the NWO was bigger, Austin vs. HBK was bigger, so was Austin vs. McMahon (maybe the biggest feud ever in US history) Austin vs. Rock blew Hogan/Sting away, HBK vs. Bret Hart was bigger, so was The Alliance vs. WWF, even Lesnar vs. Angle. The Hogan/Sting feud was the best that the crumbling WCW could do at the time but it was book-ended by bigger feuds (Hogan vs. Flair, NWO vs. Goldberg) so it doesn't even stand out anymore. Compare it to the WWF, which had the good sense to feature guys in their prime like Austin & Rock, and it's easy to see why Hulk/Sting is so forgettable.
|
|
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 20, 2009 9:33:43 GMT -5
none of those fueds were as big as the hohan/sting fued.
your're delusional.
the alliance vs. wwf?
im done with this thread, you guys are a riot.
|
|
Dwight
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 10, 2007 11:02:46 GMT -5
Posts: 2,686
|
Post by Dwight on Jul 20, 2009 12:24:17 GMT -5
Wow I'm not getting into this "debate" at all. Just leaving my thoughts.
The fact is I love them both. Both are great talents...the likes of which will never be matched. Both had great, memorable feuds and moments in their careers.
But for this thread I'm going with Michaels. Which doesn't take anything away from Sting because I have just as much respect for him. But if you ask me who had the better career and who had more memorable feuds/moments/matches that people will always remember then I would say that would be Michaels. Which may simply be because of who he works for.
But for those of us that watched WCW as well back in the day, we know that Sting was equally (or better whatever you like) as good as Michaels.
|
|
latinoheat578
Mid-Carder
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 280
|
Post by latinoheat578 on Jul 20, 2009 12:55:36 GMT -5
HBK is the obvious choice.
|
|
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 20, 2009 13:28:55 GMT -5
There's no way Sting was equally as good as HBK ever was except for gimmick wise. No one ever talks about his matches from WCW and couldn't do two styles. Why should the ability to do different styles make any difference? Still I agree that HBK has had the better career, but it has nothing to do with versatility.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 20, 2009 14:17:20 GMT -5
Because when a person states that someone is a equal when one guy can only do one style they ARE NOT EQUAL. VERSATILITY HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHO IS A BETTER WRESTLER. Sting had a better gimmick then HBK because it was Cartoony, but take away the gimmick and HBK far surposes Sting. Sting's gimmick was cartoony in the '80s. It's as out-dated as the Rockers were in the '80s. I don't know what the fixation is with calling Sting 'cartoony' is, because he hasn't been cartoony since the late 1980s. 'Cartoony' is someone like Hulk Hogan, not Sting. You can see louder pop's that the nWo got which were louder. This is why I'm in no rush to debate you. That makes no sense, literally and figuratively.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2009 2:32:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by destinydive on Jul 22, 2009 15:26:02 GMT -5
Even though Sting was massly popular in the 90's, which was the peak of wrestling...so was HBK. But HBK has the advantage by being over in the 80's and he's still over now.
|
|
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 22, 2009 16:52:24 GMT -5
^^ sting was WAY more over in the 80s.....
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 22, 2009 17:13:18 GMT -5
Even though Sting was massly popular in the 90's, which was the peak of wrestling...so was HBK. But HBK has the advantage by being over in the 80's and he's still over now. Shawn Michaels was over among girls in a tag team in the '80s, let's not get confused here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 15, 2024 21:21:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2009 20:59:43 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels wasnt even significally relevant in the 80s. Wake up people..
|
|
|
Post by WalterF on Jul 22, 2009 22:39:07 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels wasnt even significally relevant in the 80s. Wake up people.. He wasn't huge in the 80's, but Sting didn't get big til the way end of the 80's anyway. And, HBK is alot more revelevant today and still a bigger star putting on much better matches. Sting hasn't really been a big deal since his feud with Hogan. HBK has done some of his most significant feuds and matches in the last few years.
|
|