DylanWaco

You shouldn't fiddle with yourself in public. At least that's what I was told by an older lady last time the mood hit and I was on the subway.

Rockstar Spud might beat SUWAMA

When I was a kid and not a "bitter fuckedhead IWC clown," I liked the Bushwackers a ton. They were one of the main reasons I tuned in to Primetime every week and made my uncle tape it. I knew a bunch of kids growing up who would do the Bushwackers stomp on the playground, and I had several friends who had their little wrestling buddies dolls. I'd say they were as imitated as any wrestlers i knew as a kid other than maybe Flair and Hogan. Now I'll grant they aren't a good comparison to Sting for a variety of reasons. Sting was a top guy, on t.v. in stronger spot more, on more magazine covers, et. Also they were actually live attendance draws in multiple territories, and huge draws in Puerto Rico in particular as heels, but I digress. The real point is that anecdotal evidence can be cited to argue on behalf of just about anything. There is nothing wrong with that, and people's personal experiences matter, but in a discussion like this ideally you want something more than that. If you think this sort of thing is over analysis, from those lowly internet smarks, there probably is no reason to be in the thread in the first place. (if you think the Bushwackers are an unfair "troll" pick to make this point, note that much the same arguments could be applied to Luger or Sid for example).

Are you measuring by buyrates or total buys? Being a top face for a long time is something that applies to a litany of people (Sid,Luger, Nash, Kane, Big Show, et). I'm not arguing Sting at that level necessarily, but a guy on top that long should ideally have more than random positives here and there. More later as I'm working on something that will hopefully shed some light on the impact of certain figures had on drawing fans in pre-Nitro WCW.

I like Bully Ray, but even he couldn't make me give a fuck about TNA this year. Henry had one of the best promos in recent memory, and a great match with Cena, and took some insane bumps for roided guys. Yep

Yeah I like Mochi more than most everyone in DG, but he wasn't the star of that match. Bray has been in a top three singles match so far this year, and the best trios match so far this year. This wasn't hard

I like Allmark, though he is the sort of guy that is so formulaic that if you watch a bunch of his matches over the course of the year you know exactly when and how every spot in the match is going to go. I still think he's one of the best guys in Europe, and he was in a bunch of matches I really liked this year, but he's facing a guy who is the master of working formula, but mixing it up so much that you don't even realize you are watching a formula. Goldust wins easy.

Funny how Matt's "everyone should watch the matches and learn" gimmick has been Exposed as a lie and a fraud already.

Ishii is the only guy in NJPW who I consistently value and want to watch. Well, Honma I guess, but he's an undercarder.

This is a great post. One of the things that is going to come up this year is Akiyama and his place in the Japanese wrestling scene. The argument with Akiyama - who you also see compared to Sting by lots of people - is that he was a very good/great worker, who has been around near the top for forever, but was ultimately a major disappointment as a drawing card. What is interesting about that is that the "disappointing" top guy Akiyama had a lot of positives on his record when I was looking things up last year - far more positives than Tanahashi as a draw, despite how Tanahashi has been portrayed for the last two years. But the perception was that Akiyama was a failure, whereas Tanahashi has been given credit for saving NJPW from....himself? When I brought this up last year it was shunted aside, but it's not an irrelevant point, even if you think Tanahashi should be in based on work alone (Tanahashi is exhibit A in why I think NO ONE should get in on work alone). To the person who asked if it matters that Muta v. Sting was a draw, the answer is that it depends on what you are talking about. If someone argues that the match up was a draw they should defend it. If someone argues that it doesn't matter, then that's fine too, but what you see in this thread and every time the Sting issue comes up is a complete lack of facts and figures on the pro-Sting side. To the credit of the people in this thread arguing for Sting, most of them acknowledge that the numbers look bad for Sting, but believe that his peak out weighs the negatives. But I would still note that this sort of candidacy by perception way of looking at the Hall of Fame is the exact reason why so many borderline/middling candidates got in in the first place.

Gordy is in as part of a tag team. I'm not convinced Sting is a better candidate than Gordy, and Sting over Gordy as a worker is almost certainly a minority position, but it should really be Sting v. Freebirds as a comparison. Where is the evidence that Sting/Muta was a draw? I certainly loved Muta as a kid, but even if I grant that that feud was a money maker as part of a "package" that package didn't do anything near what the package Steamboat/Savage was a part of did so it's an odd comparison to make regardless. The Bret comparison as a draw is something I have considered exploring in the past. I suspect the evidence would show Bret to have more positives than Sting over the long haul. Maybe that will be one of my next projects. To Tom's point I think Tanahashi and Sting are actually similar in a lot of ways, the big difference (as with Bret really) is that Tanahashi is considered a great worker. I don't like Tanahashi at all but I have to acknowledge that. Having said that I do think Sting and Tanahashi's drawing records are fairly similar, with the caveat that New Japan has definitely started to turn things around in the last two years with Tanahashi and Okada as co-aces. As I said when Tanahashi was up last year, I think he's a guy with HoF potential, and not really an HoFer yet. I used to make the Sting/Sasaki comparison all the time, but Sasaki seems to have been a bigger part of far more meaningful shows than Sting was.

Luger's "failure" in the WWF was more successful than Sting's run on top of WCW. Think about that. Luger's run as an opponent for Flair produced far more high end matches than Sting's run against Flair and was better at the box office. I agree that Luger has nothing like the Vader series, but I don't think Sting has an in ring run as good as Luger in 89. As for post-97 Lex, I recently watched some dying days WCW stuff and I thought it was shocking how good of a heel he was. I also liked his feud with Bret Hart and thought they had good matches. Again I'm not arguing for Lex - I wouldn't vote for him - I just don't see how he's a worse candidate than Sting. I would ask people to think about who Sting would be comparable to. Someone mentioned Randy Orton earlier and though I hate to say that I don't think it's far off. But I would also like to see who these HoFers are that people feel Sting is strong than. In particular I'd be interested to see if there is anyone from the first class people would rate Sting over.

On Luger I would note that his matches with Flair were better than Sting's, and that as a babyface during that period he was much hotter than Sting ever was. I actually think Luger was a better overall performer than Sting, though I will grant it's arguable.

WCW was generally terrible with merchandising. It's been said that even via their dismal standards Sting was not near the merchandise mover you would expect a top guy to be, though I don't think there is data available to back up that assertion.

I would be interested to hear the guys you think Sting would be comparable to or better than as a candidate. My general view is that if you are going to play the comparison game in the case of the WON, the best way to do it is to look at the original class and ask "is wrestler X equal to or better than any of these candidates?" I'm not saying that's the ONLY way to do it, but I think it's the best use of that sort of tool in this case. Offhand I can't of anyone in that original case I would rate Sting as equal to or better than, though I think you can debate a couple of names.

Also would note that house show numbers did go up some when Hogan came in, though the real turnaround is generally cited as Flair v. Savage feud

This is often mentioned, but I don't see how it is terribly relevant. The best that could be said is that we should just throw out everything pro and con from Sting for the period in question because no one was doing anything. The problem there is it puts a huge dent in his longevity argument, and basically leaves him with the one year run and not much else in terms of him being a "top guy." More importantly than that, it's not really an argument in his favor to say "no one drew during this period." If no one drew during the period, it means no one was a draw during the period, including Sting. The other problem I have with this is it ignores things like Luger drawing better v. Flair than Sting, or Hogan spiking business (especially on ppv) almost immediately when he came in. Sting was not a uniquely bad draw in WCW from 90-94, but he was the top face generally speaking during that period and it was the low point of the company. Whether or not that was entirely his fault, or not his fault at all, doesn't concern me as much as the fact that it happened.

I don't really disagree that Sting's run was hurt by WCW management (only a crazy person would disagree with that), but the problem is that argument could easily be framed in another way. For example given that we know business was better before and after Sting, couldn't someone argue that an example of the consistent incompetence of WCW was that they kept him a top face slot for so long? I'm not necessarily arguing that position as my own, but my point is that I think that sort of talking point is one that has limited value in an HoF discussion, because there is almost always a counterpoint that is just as reasonable. On TNA, I struggle to see how it's a real plus for Sting, though I don't really see it as a massive negative either. No one has really made a significant dent for TNA over the long haul. Sting had some initial value, but it didn't last. Same with Hogan. Same with Angle (moreso than Sting really) and same with Hardy. None of it was sustained, and more than that none of it was even close to HoF level drawing power. What does hurt Sting some in my eyes is that even now when he is played up as a legend, and put in markets and places where you would think that could make a difference it really doesn't. For example WWC built their anniversary show in large part around Sting's first appearance in Puerto Rico, and while the number for the show was good (I think about 4500 paid), it was considered disappointing all things considered, and wasn't even WWC's top drawing show of the year (which was considered a major shock). As far as Sting being better than some guys who are in, I agree, but I also think The Big Show is better than some guys who are in. Luger is better than some guys who are in. Kerry Von Erich is better than some guys who are in. Et, et, et. Now it may be that you think all of those guys belong in, or that you think Sting is better than those particular guys, but the point is that I think looking at the bottom rung as a point of comparison is the weakest way to argue these sort of things. I also think it's sort of hypocritical (not necessarily in your case Niners, but more generally), that people will bitch about the WON HoF because wrestler X who they think clearly doesn't belong got in, but then turn around and use it as an argument for why wrestler Y should get in without even discussing the candidacy of wrestler Y.

There are a ton of problems with the way Sting was booked and presented in WCW (though I do find it funny that Luger was severely damaged long term as a result of Sting's injury in 90, and STILL drew better than Sting if we look at the wide scope of their careers). Fuck there are just tons of problems with WCW period. As fans there was so much wrestling from the promotion that we liked that I think we often forget that WCW was horribly mismanaged from the very beginning, and even during it's brief profitable period, it was still a shit show in a myriad of ways. Having said that I don't think any of that is really helps Sting in an HoF argument. It might help him in a though experiment where we debate alternative histories that may have come about if X or Y happened, but in terms of HoF discussions I see no reason to focus on things that might have happened. Though even if we did that I'm sure we could come up with arguments that would hurt Sting.

Define "TNA crowds." It is very easy to forget how bad WCW was drawing in the early 90's until you actually look at the numbers. More important than that, I have a question for everyone whether they or pro or con on this, how does Sting compare favorably to Luger as a candidate or does he at all?

I have said this before, but in my eyes Sting is a guy that looks like a solid, maybe even good candidate from a distance. If you drop his name into a list of other guys who have gotten in from the rough era when he was a star he wouldn't look out of place, and there are certainly guys in the HoF who he is a better candidate than (Ultimo Dragon to take one obvious example). But the closer you look at his career the worse and worse he gets. Here I would note that I am not saying this because I dislike Sting. I have written tons about this in the last year, and I think the general takeaway a lot of people have is that I must hate Sting, but that's not true. I grew up in NWA/WCW country. I recently did the math and realized I saw over 100 NWA/WCW shows live (possibly as many as 150), and I would guess that Sting was a featured attraction on more than half of those shows. I was a fan of his growing up, and I tend to like him as a worker MORE than many of the people who advocate for him as a Hall of Famer. I was also in the building for Uncensored 97 when he came down from the rafters. I have talked about that here before, but it was the loudest pop I ever experienced live, with the building literally shaking and my nominal fan brother leaping up and down and hugging strangers in the aisle. To that end I would not dispute that he was a huge star in 1997, and a key part of WCW tv from late 96 through early 98. The problem is that when you step outside of the "crow" time frame, the case for Sting weakens dramatically. In fact it weakens so much that you really are forced to argue that Sting's 97 run was other worldly (more on that later) in order to build any case for him at all. When this issue came up at Classics last year I actually ended up comparing 1993 WCW when Sting was the top face for the bulk of the year to 1986 AWA. Here is what I found: Using Clawmaster and Graham Cawthon's results I was able to confirm my off the cuff statement. Using the shows we have available attendance figures for the AWA in 86 drew 3303 people per show. WCW in 93 drew 1911 people per show. Now this is EXTREMELY flawed. The AWA ran fewer shows and we are missing a lot of figures from them. For WCW I used the paid attendance figures where available and left off any show listed as all freebies (mostly shows from Center Stage). WCW also ran some small towns/venues that dragged down their average. WCW had a couple more cards with 5k or more in attendance. For the AWA I left off a couple of joint shows where Crockett talent took up a third of the card. If I had included them the number would have been even and that's without figures from some shows that presumably could have been 5k or higher (for instance we are missing some Salt Lake City figures and that was the AWA's last "hot" town in many ways). WCW was also helped dramatically in this area by international touring, where the bulk of their 5k shows occurred. AWA actually had more 10k plus shows (3-2). It's possible that if we adjusted for the much larger number of WCW cards run/with figures and the fact that they were running a couple of very small venues/towns with consistency they could close the gap on average attendance. It's also possible if we had all of the AWA attendance figures there average would go down. Would it be enough to make up the nearly 1400 per show gap? Maybe, maybe not. The point in all of this? How much does "stardom" or "being on top" really matter, when you are AT BEST drawing numbers roughly identical to dying days AWA? Edit: AWA Results via Claw http://sportsandwrestling.mywowbb.com/f ... 387-4.html WCW results via Graham's site http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/wcw93.htm" As I noted, there are real flaws with those results, but not to the point that they tell us nothing and what they tell us isn't good for Sting. It is notable here that 91 and 92 WCW would not yield results dissimilar from what I found there. 1990 might to a degree, but some of that is offset by the initial value of Sting's win over Flair and the Luger v. Flair feud at the beginning of the year which inflated the overall attendance for the year (some of this is going off of memory I admit). In fact the low point of WCW in terms of paid attendance at show's coincides with Sting's run as the top face of the company. Some say this was because of the departure of Flair, and that Flair was Sting's natural rival and best opponent (I don't buy that but you hear this from Sting defenders) but here it is notable that Funk, Luger, Savage, and Hogan were all better drawing opponents against Flair from he period between 89-95 (basically Sting's rise up the cards through the beginning of the Nitro Era), and random opponents like Michael Hayes actually did better numbers v. Flair than Sting as well. While there is no shame in not drawing at the level of those names (though Luger is an interesting case), you would think a guy who was the top face of a company for the bulk of this time would rate higher as an opponent for the top heel who's name he is often linked to. Whatever the case may be, the reality is that business went down shortly after Sting won the title, and started to go back up right around the time Hogan came in in 94. Sting's run as the "guy" was the low point of WCW when it comes to drawing power. Now one way of explaining this is that all of wrestling was in the shitter during the early 90's in the States. And that is generally true. But again this is a case where when you look at Sting more closely things look less and less favorable. Again if you compare him to the WWF during the same period, business was in certainly down up there, but not to the degree it was in WCW. Here are the results for 93 WWF http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/93.htm I picked 93 only because I had used that as a baseline before, but you could just easily look at 91 or 92 (or 90). I think we can all agree that 93 wasn't a particularly strong year for the WWF, but it was a much, much stronger year for the WWF than it was for WCW at least in terms of paid attendance at shows. Again if you take a bigger picture look at the general period in question (90-mid-94) that isn't going to change things at all in favor of Sting. Here the common argument is that you can't compare the two because WWF was a much better run company, and was often running in bigger areas. Setting aside how silly I think that argument can be if taken too far, you can easily turn around and compare Sting's run to the few regional promotions left, namely the Memphis, Smoky Mountain and WWC in Puerto Rico (I would argue that ECW was still in its infancy during all of this and had entirely different goals as a promotion). Looking at MSC results from the early 90's is not pretty given what we know Memphis wrestling used to be, but what is amazing is that the average attendance (and there are a lot of gaps in attendance here to be fair) is not much lower than the average attendance of WCW shows at least in 1993. In the case of PR the attendance figures are murky at best, but what we do have indicates that WWC was generally speaking drawing as much or more during the period in question, and there big shows were doing considerably better than WCW's even with a much weaker talent pool to draw from. Perhaps the most interesting comparison though is SMW because they ran many of the same markets WCW did during the period, but with a much smaller promotional budget, and a much thinner roster. What you often see here is SMW drawing comparable or BETTER numbers to WCW. Here are some examples: Volunteer Slam - Knoxville, TN - Civic Coliseum - May 22, 1992 (1,000) Moved from 5/11/92 Joey Maggs & Hector Guerrero defeated Rip Rogers & Barry Horowitz at the 11-minute mark when Guerrero pinned Horowitz SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Quarter-Finals: The Dirty White Boy (w/ Ron Wright) pinned Dixie Dynamite at the 7-minute mark with the Bucksnort Blaster SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Quarter-Finals: Brian Lee pinned Buddy Landell at the 7-minute mark with an inside cradle as Landell attempted the figure-4 SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Quarter-Finals: Paul Orndorff pinned Tim Horner at the 18-minute mark after Horner's leg became trapped between the bottom two ropes SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Quarter-Finals: Robert Gibson pinned Jimmy Golden at the 18-minute mark with a bulldog SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Semi-Finals: Brian Lee pinned the Dirty White Boy (w/ Ron Wright) at the 11-minute mark after DWB missed a headbutt off the middle turnbuckle; Lee bled profusely from the head during the match; after the bout, DWB assaulted Lee with a steel chair SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Semi-Finals: Paul Orndorff pinned Robert Gibson at the 11-minute mark by grabbing the tights for leverage after clipping Gibson in his injured left knee SMW Tag Team Champions Stan Lane & Tom Prichard defeated Davey & Johnny Rich at the 13-minute mark when Lane pinned Johnny after Prichard used a loaded boot to hit an enzugiri behind the referee's back SMW Heavyweight Championship Tournament Finals: Brian Lee defeated Paul Orndorff via disqualification at the 10-minute mark to win the title when SMW Commissioner Bob Armstrong, who replaced the knocked out referee, caught Orndorff using a foreign object; Lee began the match with his head heavily bandaged and eventually bled from the head; late in the bout, the Dirty White Boy attempted to interfere but was taken out by Lee WCW @ Knoxville, TN - April 9, 1992 (700) The Junkyard Dog pinned Richard Morton WCW US Tag Team Champion Greg Valentine & Mike Graham defeated Marcus Alexander Bagwell & Tom Zenk Ron Simmons pinned Cactus Jack Nikita Koloff pinned Diamond Dallas Page Dustin Rhodes & Barry Windham defeated WCW TV Champion Steve Austin & Larry Zbyszko in a bunkhouse match Rick & Scott Steiner defeated WCW Tag Team Champions Arn Anderson & Bobby Eaton via disqualification WCW World Champion Sting pinned Big Van Vader WCW US Champion Rick Rude defeated Ricky Steamboat via disqualification after Steamboat used Rude's title belt SMW @ Knoxville, TN - Civic Coliseum - November 29, 1992 (1,050) The Nightstalker pinned Robbie Eagle at 4:31 Tracy Smothers pinned Dutch Mantell at the 11-second mark Tracy Smothers pinned Dutch Mantell at the 8-second mark Tracy Smothers defeated Dutch Mantell at the 32-second mark via disqualification Robert Fuller & Jimmy Golden defeated Bobby Fulton & Dixie Dynamite at 8:22 when Golden pinned Fulton Ron Garvin & Danny Davis defeated Paul Orndorff at 12:45 in a handicap match when Garvin pinned Orndorff SMW Heavyweight Champion the Dirty White Boy defeated Tim Horner at 15:37 in a lumberjack match The Mongolian Stomper defeated Kevin Sullivan via disqualification at 5:59 Ron Garvin won a battle royal at 5:20 Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson defeated SMW Tag Team Champions Stan Lane & Tom Prichard in a barbed wire steel cage match to win the titles when Morton pinned Lane at 6:48 WCW @ Knoxville, TN - Civic Coliseum - November 1, 1992 (matinee) (400) Shane Douglas & Marcus Alexander Bagwell defeated Vinnie Vegas & Diamond Dallas Page Kensuke Sasaki defeated Steve Austin WCW/NWA Tag Team Champions Dustin Rhodes & Barry Windham defeated Cactus Jack & Tony Atlas Big Van Vader defeated Nikita Koloff Sting defeated Jake Roberts WCW World Champion Ron Simmons defeated the Barbarian SMW @ Johnson City, TN - Freedom Hall - November 28, 1992 (975) Tracy Smothers pinned Robbie Eagle at 7:49 Robert Fuller & Jimmy Golden defeated Bobby Fulton & Dixie Dynamite at 20:16 when Golden pinned Fulton Danny Davis & Ron Garvin defeated Paul Orndorff in a handicap match at 24:01 when Garvin pinned Orndorff SMW Heavyweight Champion the Dirty White Boy defeated Tim Horner in a lumberjack match at 15:02 The Mongolian Stomper defeated Kevin Sullivan via disqualification Tracy Smothers won a battle royal at 8:23; other participants included SMW Heavyweight Champion the Dirty White Boy, Dixie Dynamite, Robbie Eagle, Robert Fuller, Ron Garvin, Jimmy Golden, Tim Horner, The Nightstalker, and Paul Orndorff Stan Lane & Tom Prichard defeated SMW Tag Team Champions Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson in a streetfight to win the titles when Prichard pinned Gibson WCW @ Bristol, TN - Viking Hall - October 4, 1992 (1,450) Erik Watts defeated Diamond Dallas Page Shane Douglas & Marcus Alexander Bagwell defeated Greg Valentine & Dick Slater Brian Pillman defeated Brad Armstrong WCW TV Champion Scott Steiner defeated Arn Anderson Sting & WCW/NWA Tag Team Champion Dustin Rhodes defeated Jake Roberts & Cactus Jack WCW US Champion Rick Rude defeated Ricky Steamboat WCW World Champion Ron Simmons defeated Steve Austin SMW @ Knoxville, TN - Civic Coliseum - October 8, 1993 at 1,100) Tony Anthony defeated Tim Horner Bobby Blaze defeated Chris Candido The Bullet defeated Killer Kyle SMW Tag Team Champions Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson fought Scott & Steve Armstrong to a no contest SMW Heavyweight Championion Brian Lee defeated Tracy Smothers at w/ Sensational Sherri) Tom Prichard & Jimmy Del Ray at w/ Jim Cornette) defeated Rick & Scott Steiner via disqualification when, after Rick was hit with Cornette's tennis racquet and double teamed, Scott untied the Steiners' dog, tied to the ringpost, and chased Prichard & Del Ray from the ring at Wrestling Gold: Blood, Brawls and Grudges) WCW @ Knoxville, TN - October 1, 1993 (800) Ice Train defeated Dick Slater Arn Anderson defeated Bobby Eaton WCW Tag Team Champions the Nasty Boys defeated Marcus Alexander Bagwell & 2 Cold Scorpio Ricky Steamboat defeated Paul Orndorff WCW US Champion Dustin Rhodes & the Shockmaster defeated Harlem Heat Sting defeated Sid Vicious via disqualification World Champion Rick Rude defeated Ric Flair Here I only used dates that were reasonably close together and which included Sting on the cards in some capacity. The results are basically the same if you extend it out to include all dates in shared markets and include shows where Sting did not appear (if anything SMW would gain some ground on both Sting and WCW as a whole using that more expansive metric). It is also worth noting that the highest drawing Sting headlined show in the States in 1993 was Superbrawl from Asheville, NC. This area got SMW tv, and one of the matches on the undercard (which had been built to on both SMW and WCW tv) was the Heavenly Bodies v. the RnR Express. While Sting v. Vader was the top match, attendance in that media market was nowhere near the level it was here (about 6200 paid) at any other point that year, which makes you wonder if Sting didn't get a bit of help here from SMW. Either way the point is that a much more modest SMW was drawing comparable numbers in shared markets, which suggest that some of the excuses used to justify Sting's failure to draw are inflated. So when you consider the fact that Sting as a top babyface drew less than his peers in a similar role, drew comparably to small regional promotions with nowhere near the budget or exposure, drew numbers that were worse than 1986 AWA (a promotion and era which no one points to as a plus on anyone's HoF resume), and that his run coincided almost exactly with the worst years of WCW in terms of drawing to house shows, with higher numbers both before and after his runs, it is really hard to view the period where Sting became known as the "face" of WCW as a positive at all. In fact if you are looking at it objectively it's hard to imagine it being anything other than obvious negative, especially since I have not been able to find any similar wrestler in history with comparable run that did so poorly at either a national or territorial level. So what are potential positives for Sting? Well no one I know considers him an all time great worker. In fact as noted above I tend to lie him more than many of his biggest HoF advocates, and he's not someone that would make my top 100 of all time. While I would consider his work a net positive in an HoF calculus, it's hardly an overwhelming positive and he's not an "HoF level worker." Was he an influence? I've never seen someone piece together any real argument for him on these grounds either. In fact even though I was and am a huge WCW fan, I really struggle to see any case for Sting being much of an influence at all, let alone an "HoF level influence." So then we are left with the two things often used to tout him, he was on top for a long time, and his Crow Sting run. Taking the "he was on top for a long time" point is always tricky because it means different things to different people. Are we talking the absolute top guy, a guy in the mix, a person who could reasonably be plugged into main events? It's open to interpretation to a degree, which is why I generally don't like it at all in HoF discussions unless there are specifics involved. I recently looked at the specifics of Sting's run on the Figure Four Board, so I will copy and paste those here: In 88 and 89 he was not the top star or top face. He was in the mix in the upper mid-card and started to ascend up the cards toward the back end of 89. He was being groomed and got hurt and came back in the middle of the 90 at which point you could say he was the top face for more or less the entire period between then and when Hogan came back. You could argue that Flair took that spot from him in late 93, but that's debatable. In any case this period was a terrible, terrible business period. When Hogan came in he clearly slipped out of the top face role, though he still had value. For a lot of 95 he was doing stuff like working against Meng in what were effectively upper mid-card feuds to buttress Hogan dominated ppvs. When Nitro started he was clearly not the top face, and you could argue that Hogan, Savage and Flair were all above him in the pecking order, with Luger as a co-equal until the Outsiders came in. The build to Fall Brawl was great and you got the big angle there but it's worth noting that Hogan did great business v. Piper and you had stuff with Savage during this period too. Sting was a star for sure, but it's not like he was the dominate face during this period even if they were clearly building to that. Obviously there is Starcade in 97, but by the time you get into 98 Sting is starting to cool off again and by 99 he's one of many guys in a dense "main event" scene that are all sort of rotated around. Goldberg passed him along the way for sure in 98, and there were periods where DDP was pushed just as hard and was more over. 00 and 01 he's doing what? Feuding with Vampiro (I don't even remember what year that was to be honest) and against one of many guys occupying space on a heavy roster. None of that should be taken as a wholesale dismissal of Sting's career, but rather an illustration that the length and significance as a "top guy" is often overstated. It was a good run, but it's not like he was in a Hogan or Flair position for the bulk of his career. He wasn't necessarily Kane or The Big Show either, but he falls somewhere in that murky middle. And then there is Crow Sting. I am not interested in dismissing the significance of that run, but I do think it is important to note (as I did above) that Hogan did very strong ratings, numbers and buyrates against Piper, Savage and Luger among others during the period where Sting was in the rafters. While you could argue that Sting played a role in the success of some of those numbers, it seems like a massive stretch to me to suggest that he was largely responsible for them, and was certainly no more responsible for them than Hogan was. And really with that year Hogan is the elephant in the room because no matter how you look at it Hogan was the top star in wrestling at that point, Hogan had saved WCW from the dark business years (i.e. the Sting as top face years), Hogan was drawing huge against others, and most importantly the one time Sting was paired off against Hogan, is the one time we can point to him being an HoF level draw. That last point is not irrelevant in a world where Paul Orndorff isn't in the Hall of Fame, and people would laugh out loud at the notion that the Big Bossman or Kamala are HoF level guys. While all of those guys were the absolute right guys for their roles, and you could argue that Sting was even more perfect and successful in his role than any of them (I actually think Orndorff can be debated), it is very hard to overlook the fact that Sting as the top guy almost never even did GOOD numbers, let alone outstanding numbers, without Hogan. Having said all of that Sting's run in 97 was great, and if someone looked at a record setting buyrate, very strong ratings, huge enthusiasm for the character, et. and said "this year is so outstanding that it offsets all the other problems with his candidacy" I would listen to the argument. The problem then is that there are a whole slew of guys with one great year and/or run of record setting business, but with decidedly better surrounding years than Sting who aren't in. Many of them aren't even on the ballot (JYD just got on this year, Bearcat Wright isn't on the ballot, Baron Leone has never been on the ballot, et). So even if I was going to concede that one great year can offset the damage of others bad years (and for the record I don't), I don't see what compelling reason there is to jump Sting to the front of the line over a bunch of candidates with a similar "great year," but much stronger supporting arguments. Finally I would just note that even with his own category of the ballot I would regard Sting as a middle of the pack candidate at absolute best. If people want to debate the particulars of that assertion I am open to it.

This result pisses me off, because it tells me that Virus, Rush, Panther and Park would have had a real chance to move along even if they weren't up against each other in the first round. Virus v. Rush is particularly brutal because I would vote both of them over everyone in this tourney other than Cesaro, Casas and maybe Goldust and Bryan. Maybe.

I wish Bo was sponsored by the Surge soft drink

I'm largely indifferent. I think there are positives and negatives, the biggest negative being that if you post one really great match from one guy v. a guy like Del Rio (or Dolph or Sheamus or someone of that ilk) who may have had a year full of "good stuff" but with various disappointments related to booking, character, push, et. you might get a skewed result.

Guys this is important - do Bryan and Cena's Total Divas work count for the purposes of March Madness?