|
Post by Lita's Lover on Jul 26, 2009 2:20:57 GMT -5
It's tough to pick for me really. I think Shawn has more memorable matches with a wide variety of opponents of all shapes and sizes while being a smaller guy. And Sting has had great matches with only a handful of guys. But Shawn also has a lot of career strikes against him (losing his smile, MTL screwjob) while Sting seems to have a pretty clean record. Both guys have longevity and championship accomplishments. Sting has more world titles but Shawn hasn't needed it since his return in 02 (even though he did have a title reign). Both made successful comebacks after long absenses....I honestly can't choose
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:15:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2009 20:07:43 GMT -5
HBK for me......it just seems like a better career to me
also I love Sting but enjoy watching HBK way more.
|
|
madness1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 31, 2007 10:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by madness1 on Jul 27, 2009 17:46:46 GMT -5
not even close HBK Sting will always have an * cause he didn't wrestle in the wwe
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Jul 27, 2009 20:02:49 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels wasnt even significally relevant in the 80s. Wake up people.. Weren't the Rockers over in AWA? And that's why WWE noticed them and brought them to WWE? Were they not also considered the greatest tag team of the 80's to never hold the tag titles? Plus let's not forget than the late 80's was the beginning of HBK's career and he rose to fame pretty quickly. Just because Sting was wining world titles in the 80's when HBK was young and in a tag team does not make for an argument of Sting being better. HBK went on to be one of the greatest stars of the 90's far surpassing Sting. In the 90's Sting had become somewhat stale and needed the appearance of the Crow to become fresh again while HBK continued to just be HBK and still be better than Sting. Both are now out of their semi retirement and HBK has showcase that he can still hang like he did in the 90's. Sting is stuck in TNA, aka WCW part 2. Sting should have signed with WWE after they bought WCW. He probably could have had a few good feuds, but I still think HBK would have had the better career.
|
|
|
Post by Thick Justice on Aug 3, 2009 23:20:19 GMT -5
Better wrestler HBK. However for f sake obviously sting. He was world champion in nwa/wcw 9 times. Ranging from 1990 too 1999. HBK didn't main event until 1995. Where as Sting Main evented the whole decade. Where as Shawn was treated as the underdog getting wooped. Shawn's world title runs were treated like Mysterio's. Although Shawn had great matches every night that has nothing too do with careers.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 4, 2009 7:48:30 GMT -5
HBKs put butts in the seats from 95 to 96. You can say he was over in 93 and 94 and 97 but he wasnt "the draw" or the champion. Bret Hart and Steve Austin were.
Sting put butts in the seats by not even wrestling. Just dropping down and fighting off the nWo. He was hugely over for a year and didnt even freaking wrestle. He kept the company afloat when Flair left. No he might not have done crazy business in 92 when he was the top face but that was 92. You cant compare dollar figures in such a huge time gap. HBK wasnt exactly a big draw in 95/96 either.....WWF has admitted they were close to going under then themselves
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 4, 2009 13:15:11 GMT -5
HBKs put butts in the seats from 95 to 96. You can say he was over in 93 and 94 and 97 but he wasnt "the draw" or the champion. Bret Hart and Steve Austin were. Actually if you remember correctly Bret Hart wasn't even around for HBK's first run as champion. IF Sting COULD ACTUALLY PUT BUTT's INTO SEATS then WHY couldn't WCW TOUR AND MAKE MONEY UNDER HIM??? WCW WAS IN THE RED THE ENTIRE TIME UNTIL THE NWO CAME AROUND. It was the NWO that put the butt's into the seats as fans were intersted in seeing WCW being taken over as they couldn't stand the WCW product. And Bischoff admitted that without Turner funeling money into WCW to keep them afloat they would have never stayed in business. And you also have to remember that during HBK's first title reign he was having to compete as Champion against the BIGGEST thing WCW could ever come up with which was the nWo. Sting never could get the ratings up as a champion on his own prior to the nWo. Not to mention that ratings were still good for the WWE with HBK as champion until the nWo started showing up on Nitro. 93 94 and 97 Bret and Austin were the draws...not HBKs....Also WWF did some of their lowest business when Shawn was champion. I wont take away his athletic ability but when you compare careers....Sting has had a better career. I will take 9 NWA/WCW/TNA World title, numerous US and TV titles and a handful of Tag titles over 3 WWF titles, Handful of IC titles and a couple of tag titles And your touring thing isnt Stings fault. Its notoriously known that if WCW would have stayed in the south east...Even as far back as Jim Crockett days, they would have been better of. Going to places like California and Boston and Canada wasnt good for business for WCW. WCW could have and would have survived it if would have stayed "territorial"
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 4, 2009 14:11:51 GMT -5
I dont think you're payin attention. Bret Hart was the draw in 93 and 94...Shawn in 95(maybe) and 96, Austin in 97......Shawn really only had 1 good year and yes he did go up against the nWo...whats the point? WCW was putting out better programing and Shawn really wasnt cutting it fighting Vader and Mankind every month.
Contrary to what many kids believe, the NWA title isnt a second tier or second rate belt...At least it wasnt back then. The title was a legit title until '91. Ill give you the WCW title was looked below the WWF title but lets be honest, in 92-93 then Sting was champ in WCW...WWF really wasnt that great either. Talent pool wise there were still pretty even. Ill also take the NWA US title over the WWF IC title as well. Tag title I feel were both pretty even though
Sting personally could have drawn in California. Thats one reason everyone says if he worked in WWF there wouldnt be a Warrior, Hart or HBK (the latter two I dont believe is true). It was more undercard work. On paper Barry Windham vs Arn Anderson would be a great match...but it would be a great WRESTLING match...."Wrestling" was more directed towards the southern audience. WWF would have an undercard of Razor Ramon vs Dean Douglas....a teacher vs a whatever Razor was.....WWF was cartoony and gimmicky. Sting as an individual would have exploded there.....but WCW as a company wouldnt and didnt make it
Flair could draw nationally, Sting could as well...they had the charisma to do it, but WCW undercard just wasnt gimmicky enought to pull in big cities that were use to seeing Doinks, Duke The Dumpser and Red Rooster
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:15:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2009 18:22:21 GMT -5
rfap your a freaking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 4, 2009 19:09:14 GMT -5
rfap your a freaking idiot. Some people dont actually think. They just want to argue......Im not gonna waste my time anymore with someone that would probably argue that the sky isnt blue
|
|
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 Aug 4, 2009 19:16:31 GMT -5
dude is an idiot.
lol.
sting's career > HBKs
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Aug 4, 2009 20:31:28 GMT -5
Sting's also a better Christian than Shawn Michaels.
....I went there.
|
|
robl7up
Main Eventer
139 refs
Joined on: Feb 16, 2006 12:34:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by robl7up on Aug 4, 2009 20:50:31 GMT -5
HBK head lined WRESTLEMANIA's, nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 4, 2009 22:14:13 GMT -5
wrestlemania isnt really all its cracked up to be. Besides i think he's only headlined 3 of them and the first 2 were deathly boring
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:15:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2009 23:32:21 GMT -5
rfap wins the award for most uninformed and annoying member of WrestlingFigs. Congrats kid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:15:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2009 23:43:03 GMT -5
What has Sting done for the business? Asking that question is what makes you an idiot. All you do is harass without backing any of your view points up kid. Please dont call me what I just called u, its just sad.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:15:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2009 23:51:03 GMT -5
CAN'T DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS because what you say is simply not true. I dont have to, his career speaks for itself Can you atleast debate what Sting has done instead of being a mark for him? Why don't you go and find out yourself, or do you even know of Sting and his legacy? If you don't then why are you even debating? It seems like you dont cause you keep asking me to 'show you'. You sir are a class act, indeed: get a life.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:15:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2009 0:03:13 GMT -5
hahaha moron. hows that for a debate?
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 5, 2009 0:18:45 GMT -5
You cant debate with someone that is always going to think they are right....Simply put this is why Im not arguing this point with you any more. HBK did no more or no less for the business then Sting. Both were Hall of Famers but second tier behind greater performers then entire lifes. The thread title is who had the better career.....While HBK is more athletic then Sting, his career doesnt measure up to Stings accomplishments. The argument of "Ohz noz, WCW/NWA iz a 2nd rate redneck Hillzbilly fed" just isnt an argument thats a good excuse. Its like saying Hogan was better then Flair cause Flair wrestled in Greensboro and Hogan in Silverdome......No, Hogan was a better ENTERTAINER....Hogan had someone putting ass loads of money into wrestling while Turner didnt (until 95)
Comparing WCW to WWF is like comparing apples to oranges, they're in the same group but it comes down to personal preferences. If I wanted to watch silly stuff like Kings and Queens, Trashmen, Clowns etc...then I would turn on WWF superstars on sat mornings (which I did) but if I wanted to watch something that when I was little convinced me wrestling with real (even though it wasnt thats how good the action and storys were) I turned on NWA Saturday Night wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Aug 5, 2009 4:04:38 GMT -5
dude is an idiot. lol. sting's career > HBKs It's not even close anymore. HBK's career has eclipsed Sting's. Every year, HBK puts forth at least one (usually more) match that is a MOTY candidate, like the last 2 Wrestlemanias. Sting hasn't had a landmark match since the 90s.
|
|