Is Sting a Hall of Fame Wrestler?

[Ace]

So the key to the only time Sting may have drawn money is when he didn't even wrestle? Hell, by  mid-'98, he wasn't even the top babyface. Goldberg was. And shit-talk Tanahashi all you want, but he's outdrawn Sting.

 

Angle is in because those who were in the business at the time were completely gaga over him to a huge degree.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Sting was the top face in the top feud.. you can try to minimize his impact all you want but it was important... NJPW is not as big as WCW was then.

[Ace]

Tanahashi's drawn 25,000+ at least 5 times in the main event. Sting has never drawn that amount. Hell, WCW only did it once that I know of, and that was Goldberg-v-Hogan. At the peak of Sting being the #1 face, he couldn't even sell out Starrcade.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Yeah and how many viewers was Nitro getting?

[NintendoLogic]

How instrumental was Sting in WCW's late 90s success? He wasn't a house show draw because he didn't work house shows. He wasn't a ratings draw because ratings were just as high for the Nitros he didn't appear on. He popped a big buyrate for Starrcade, but that's it.

[T.Rex-n-effeckx]

The argument for Tanahashi as a draw is kind of closer to the argument for Nash as draw than the argument for Sting as a draw.
in the first decade of 2000's Tanahashi was one of the worst drawing champs in the company history a guy who consistently drew less attendance then Nagata.
The company got new management a new business plan and kept Tanahashi on top as transitional champ to pass title to new management's star Okada. During that period company started to turn around.

 

Nash while also one of the worst draws on top in company history is part of two turn arounds; first with Bret in the WWF and second with Hogan and Bischoff's new business model in WCW.

No comparison is perfect, there is argument to be made that even with the PPV model, New Japan still can't draw the regular dome attendance they did with Nagata (they have given up on trying)...while there is no argument that NWO era WCW drew better than what came before.

Also Tanahashi is a better in ring worker than Nash.
I don't think Sting was ever a company failure on the level of 06-07 Tanahashi, but he was part of some low points as well as being part of a huge turn around.

Dylan makes the Sting/Sasaki comparison and I'll stretch it out....
WON HOF is about perception, at no point during any of Sasaki's actual title reigns  97,2000,2004 would Sasaki be considered a HOF wrestler. He was considered pretty much a disappointment every time out.
There are reasons that looking back in 2014, Sasaki is perceived far better than he ever was at the time.
What Sting does well as an in ring worker are things that tend to make his career look better (be perceived as a better worker) than he was when he was active.

[TheVileOne]

So that means Sting drew for ONE pay-per-view.

 

At least three with Super Brawl II and VIII.  

[Brian Fowler]

Havoc against Jake drew a bigger than normal buyrate for WCW at the time.

[TheVileOne]

How instrumental was Sting in WCW's late 90s success? He wasn't a house show draw because he didn't work house shows. He wasn't a ratings draw because ratings were just as high for the Nitros he didn't appear on. He popped a big buyrate for Starrcade, but that's it.

 

Sting did work house shows, though it was likely when WWF was already overtaking Nitro.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Hard to say he wasn't instrumental when he was the top face in a program that was majorly successful. Of course nWo still would have been hot... but not as long. Sting helped keep the story moving in a compelling direction.

[DylanWaco]

The argument for Tanahashi as a draw is kind of closer to the argument for Nash as draw than the argument for Sting as a draw.

in the first decade of 2000's Tanahashi was one of the worst drawing champs in the company history a guy who consistently drew less attendance then Nagata.

The company got new management a new business plan and kept Tanahashi on top as transitional champ to pass title to new management's star Okada. During that period company started to turn around.

 

Nash while also one of the worst draws on top in company history is part of two turn arounds; first with Bret in the WWF and second with Hogan and Bischoff's new business model in WCW.

No comparison is perfect, there is argument to be made that even with the PPV model, New Japan still can't draw the regular dome attendance they did with Nagata (they have given up on trying)...while there is no argument that NWO era WCW drew better than what came before.

Also Tanahashi is a better in ring worker than Nash.

I don't think Sting was ever a company failure on the level of 06-07 Tanahashi, but he was part of some low points as well as being part of a huge turn around.

Dylan makes the Sting/Sasaki comparison and I'll stretch it out....

WON HOF is about perception, at no point during any of Sasaki's actual title reigns  97,2000,2004 would Sasaki be considered a HOF wrestler. He was considered pretty much a disappointment every time out.

There are reasons that looking back in 2014, Sasaki is perceived far better than he ever was at the time.

What Sting does well as an in ring worker are things that tend to make his career look better (be perceived as a better worker) than he was when he was active.

 

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.  

[TheVileOne]

So...hence Abdullah the Butcher in WWE in 2011 and WON in 1996?  

 

I think it's been pretty well factually proven that Sting was a draw at multiple points in WCW's history.

[Matt D]

 

The argument for Tanahashi as a draw is kind of closer to the argument for Nash as draw than the argument for Sting as a draw.

in the first decade of 2000's Tanahashi was one of the worst drawing champs in the company history a guy who consistently drew less attendance then Nagata.

The company got new management a new business plan and kept Tanahashi on top as transitional champ to pass title to new management's star Okada. During that period company started to turn around.

 

Nash while also one of the worst draws on top in company history is part of two turn arounds; first with Bret in the WWF and second with Hogan and Bischoff's new business model in WCW.

No comparison is perfect, there is argument to be made that even with the PPV model, New Japan still can't draw the regular dome attendance they did with Nagata (they have given up on trying)...while there is no argument that NWO era WCW drew better than what came before.

Also Tanahashi is a better in ring worker than Nash.

I don't think Sting was ever a company failure on the level of 06-07 Tanahashi, but he was part of some low points as well as being part of a huge turn around.

Dylan makes the Sting/Sasaki comparison and I'll stretch it out....

WON HOF is about perception, at no point during any of Sasaki's actual title reigns  97,2000,2004 would Sasaki be considered a HOF wrestler. He was considered pretty much a disappointment every time out.

There are reasons that looking back in 2014, Sasaki is perceived far better than he ever was at the time.

What Sting does well as an in ring worker are things that tend to make his career look better (be perceived as a better worker) than he was when he was active.

 

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.  

 

 

I think we should use # of magazine covers as a key point of criteria. 

[Ace]

I think it's been pretty well factually proven that Sting was a draw at multiple points in WCW's history.

 

Where?

[TheVileOne]

5.6 rating for the first Clash of the Champions competing against WrestleMania.

[Brian Fowler]

There are several individual big shows that drew very well in ratings or buyrates, but less of him being a consistent draw.

[TheVileOne]

Is that part of the criteria though?  

 

Maybe he wasn't a consistent top draw, but he was consistently one of the top faces in the company for over 10 years.  

 

Based off the numbers, his PPV main events when he was world champion in 1990 and 1992 drew considerably better than what came after for the next several years.

[Ace]

5.6 rating for the first Clash of the Champions competing against WrestleMania.

 

And an arena filled to 1/3 of capacity.

[TheVileOne]

 

5.6 rating for the first Clash of the Champions competing against WrestleMania.

 

And an arena filled to 1/3 of capacity.

 

 

Seems about in line with most other shows of that type in WCW at the time.

[DylanWaco]

Is that part of the criteria though?  

 

Maybe he wasn't a consistent top draw, but he was consistently one of the top faces in the company for over 10 years.  

 

Based off the numbers, his PPV main events when he was world champion in 1990 and 1992 drew considerably better than what came after for the next several years.

 

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.

[BurningBeard]

Basically it's like this - y'know when WCW were crushing WWF in the ratings? A lot of those numbers were tuning in to see Sting for 60 secs jump the nWo. As a kid, not a bitter fuckedhead IWC clown, Sting was pretty much the sole reason I watched WCW in the early 90s. Sting was also the reason I watched WCW during its peak. He makes people tune in, if that's not a draw I don't know what is

 

If you take Sting out of WCW at any point in his career there is no one you can replace him with that has the same amount of fan connection, match quality or IT factor.

[DylanWaco]

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).  

[Matt D]

The Sheepherders were draws in Portland and Southwest at least too, right? Where else did they have that feud with the Fantastics and did it draw everywhere? Florida?

[Niners Fan in CT]

If the Bushwackers were draws in certain territories that's fine but what we're discussing with Sting is a guy who was on top of WCW in the #1 face position when they were the #1 wrestling organization in the United States....probably the world... through '96-'98. Where the argument comes to a standstill is whether you believe Sting was one of the primary reasons for WCW's ongoing success and if that period of time is enough to offset his inability to draw at a consistent rate throughout his early 90's run.

 

There are a lot of factors..booking, management, etc...  Some will say Sting deserves the benefit of the doubt because behind the scenes it was a shit show.

 

Also, even though I dislike the comparisons, it is difficult to ignore others who have been inducted whom Sting is probably equal or more deserving than. 

 

That's where we are...  I'll say this, I don't necessarily think Sting is a slam dunk but that's because if I was voting, I'd only want the Hulk Hogans of the world to be inducted...in a perfect world..

 

I feel the same about all hall of fames. Baseball: Give me Ruth, Williams, Mays, etc...    I can live without Blyleven and Rice.

[DylanWaco]

How many huge houses and buyrates did Sting draw when he was the number babyface in the number one promotion?  To me that is a huge aspect that is being overlooked.  I will grant that Sting is an unusual case because his peak as a star was spent in the rafters building toward a big match specifically by not wrestling.  But it is notable that of people who are in on relatively short peaks, I can't think of anyone in on a shorter peak than Sting, and no one with so few big numbers to his name.  To me the question then becomes is his peak so unique that it should offset both his negatives as a draw, while also offsetting the relatively narrow range of concrete positives that we can directly attribute to his Crow Sting run.  Again the answer too many may be, and probably is "yes," but even then I don't see why Sting should go in over the vast majority of the guys on the ballot, to say nothing of a lot of people off the ballot.  

 

I think the benefit of the doubt argument is often just a way for people to shield their favorites from criticism.  You don't see people arguing that Luger should get the benefit of the doubt in these discussions - in fact he's generally laughed off as a candidate despite the fact that WCW booking and management fucked him at least as badly as it fucked Sting.  To me there is nothing wrong with acknowledging how shitty certain situations were for guys, but it should be applied universally, and I consider it a compelling reason to ignore a whole slew of negatives.  

 

I also don't think an HoF should only be Hulk Hogan's, because if it was there would be maybe ten people in the HoF total (honestly not even sure it would be that many).  We all have a different idea of where the "cut off" should be, but the Hogan standard is way too high.