|
Post by BCizzle on Feb 21, 2014 15:09:11 GMT -5
The Undertaker got a lot better over time. Sting got worse. Sting is still very cool and had a lot of great moments, but Undertaker has definitely had more great matches.
Neither of the is a great talker, though. Taker had Paul Bearer for a long time and Sting was at his most popular when he never spoke.
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Feb 21, 2014 15:34:50 GMT -5
No doubt its Sting. Better wrestler. Better promo cutter. He carried WCW for years. I think UT is more hype than substance. His ability to perform has been lost for a decade plus.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazyness on Feb 21, 2014 15:41:14 GMT -5
Undertaker. I never was a huge fan of Sting's wrestling ability, only his gimmicks.
If they do ever fight, Undertaker deserves to win it. Sting winning at Mania over him would make absolutely no sense.
Don't even try to argue with me about it because I'm just stating an opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 24, 2024 13:45:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 16:00:22 GMT -5
This is a somewhat hard one to answer, but I think it boils down to this:
In their prime: Sting As a whole career: Undertaker
'Taker has evolved more and been able to put on great matches for a longer time than Sting, but in his prime, Sting is the only guy who could rival Bret Hart as far as wrestling goes. (That being said, I'll always be an HBK guy.)
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Feb 21, 2014 16:37:47 GMT -5
For me, Undertaker by leaps and bounds. He is better in the ring and his promo work is better. Also, Sting seems to be a lot sloppier in the ring these days and as others have said, Sting has gotten worse over his career while it is the reverse for Taker.
|
|