Ace Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 There is no "may have".. Did people buy Starrcade '97 to watch Goldberg vs. Mongo? I would hope not. Kerry Von Erich drew in Texas. Sting drew a nation. I'd say there's a little difference. For an entirety of 1 show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nature Boy Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 There is no "may have".. Did people buy Starrcade '97 to watch Goldberg vs. Mongo? I would hope not. Kerry Von Erich drew in Texas. Sting drew a nation. I'd say there's a little difference. Sting also drew the largest buyrate in his company's history and one of the largest in wrestling history. I'm not sure what else you guys want when it comes to Sting. Do you guys want us to time travel to the late 90s to ask people why they're attending WCW shows? Watch any WCW PPV and scan the crowd, the guy also moved merch. He IS tremendously over despite being in some of the worst booked promotions in wrestling history (WCW and TNA). Sting is an example of a guy who can overcome bad booking and STILL be massively over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technico Support Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Sting was never really put into a promotion where the booking around him was solid enough to draw. Oh well then. You can't let a guy in the hall of fame based on what you think would have happened if something or other had been different. Somebody in this thread even said that Sting would be in the HOF if he'd gone to the WWF. Wow. Just...wow. That's the argument to make? Why don't we just go ahead and say Barry Darsow should be in because I really feel like he would have been awesome and a huge draw if somebody would have just booked him as a top guy? These arguments are ridiculous and pointless because they're pure speculation and can't be proven either way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technico Support Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 There is no "may have".. Did people buy Starrcade '97 to watch Goldberg vs. Mongo? I would hope not. Kerry Von Erich drew in Texas. Sting drew a nation. I'd say there's a little difference. If one hot PPV is enough, than everybody on Team WCW from the Invasion PPV should be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 That's the rub. You don't get in on hypotheticals. The flip side is that you can break down what Sting actually did qualitatively, and I think it's hard to say he wasn't very effective in his role. What did Sting do poorly between 89 and 98? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I love the goalpost moving in the argument about Sting being a Hall of Famer: He needs to have been a draw. Well he was in 97, he was *the* draw vs. the nWo. Well, uh, he needed to draw longer. Course, in the end, we're arguing about why a dirtsheet writer that leads conversations should allow someone into his personal HoF, so the arguement in its base form is fucking stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nature Boy Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 People are also forgetting the TV ratings from 96-97 and everything else that came before Starrcade 1997. And yes, Sting was a good draw given his circumstances. He was in a company that was largely regional AND run by complete morons. Despite this however, he still made enough people care about him so that the match with Hogan at Starrcade 97 meant something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Mann Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 People point to the one show argument but he was the focal point of television for 15 months leading up to that. Watch the Nitros from September 1996 to December 1997 again (on the WWE Network for just $9.99 per month) and see how many times "WHETHER STING?" is treated like the most important thing in the promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Is there anyone else who's first- or second-biggest angle in their career hinged on them not wrestling, but being on TV numerous weeks? Sting's impact on business for that time is so hard to quantify precisely because it's hard to know how much of it was him and how much of it was just the nWo. Watching that stuff then and now, my only focus was "When is Sting showing up and wrecking up the place?" As someone mentioned, Uncensored '97 is amazing and I think is genuinely one of the best segments in U.S. wrestling history just because of how unglued the place came when Sting finally started beating everyone down. In my mind, it is really hard to say that the nWo angle would have been nearly as good with anyone else in his position. Even Flair, who was also viewed as WCW through and through, just couldn't have possibly filled the role of lurking in the background and intending to put things right in any capacity near Sting, IMO. At the same time, the nWo would have still been pretty hot. Basically, without Sting getting significant credit for 1996/1997, I don't see how you can put him in the HOF based on the criteria because, as many great matches as he had, he doesn't have volume on his side to make up for 1991-1993 WCW being a dysfunctional company that put him in a terrible position to draw, thus killing the argument that he could carry the gate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEN! Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Is there anyone else who's first- or second-biggest angle in their career hinged on them not wrestling, but being on TV numerous weeks? Steve Austin and Vince McMahon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nature Boy Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I do wonder though what would've happened if Sting had jumped to the WWF in 1993. That seems like the best time for him to jump. Imagine Sting debuting by landing on the USS Intrepid and slamming Yokozuna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technico Support Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 That would have been pretty awesome. Better than Luger, that black hole of charisma. This was pre Vince going nuts with trademarks, too, so he probably would have kept his name and look. Has Sting or anyone in his circle ever explained why he never jumped? I sort of think I remember hearing that he was just comfortable with the company that gave him his break but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nature Boy Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 That would have been pretty awesome. Better than Luger, that black hole of charisma. This was pre Vince going nuts with trademarks, too, so he probably would have kept his name and look. Has Sting or anyone in his circle ever explained why he never jumped? I sort of think I remember hearing that he was just comfortable with the company that gave him his break but I could be wrong. I don't know why but Steve Borden seems as dumb as his character when it comes to pledging loyalty. What person in their right mind pledges loyalty to WCW AND TNA? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustronaut Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 People that are independently wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.J. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 "Real Estate Steve" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivpvideos Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 With TNA he was getting a million dollars to work a third of the schedule WWE had. Dude is a genius. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenbat Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think a third is being generous. He literally did about 30 days a year, maybe less than that with all the multiple tapings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technico Support Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 "Real Estate Steve" The best thing about that nickname is you can substitute it into his "man called Sting" theme song. It's Real Estate Steee-eeve! REAL estate Steve! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playa Shunna Ver 3.0 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I could totally see the Sting/TNA negotiations going like this. Dixie: So Steve, what do you want to come on board? Sting: 2 million dollars and 341 vacation days....lol Dixie: Done Sting: Hey Kevin, Scotty, Booker, Ric, Terry.....brothers, you need to talk to this Dixie Carter chick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nature Boy Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 That is a fair point. What was Sting's WCW house show schedule like? I assume he's a lot less broken down than a lot of wrestlers his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Sting has a good case as a draw. Really good, given that he's been a main eventer for almost his entire career. In looking at the Gordy List for the first time in a while, I was surprised that Sting has good answers to a lot of the questions re: status/popularity. But in the other big factors (athleticism, match quality, historical significance, crossover appeal, innovation, influence, all of which I rate higher than main eventing), he's sorely lacking. You could argue that a twenty-five year career is the same thing as “longevity”, but he only had about 4-6 nonconsecutive years as a badass, with a ton of mediocrity before/during/after. So did Sgt. Slaughter. Sting was a bigger draw on a national/global level than Sarge, but in terms of talent, was he in any year of his career even a top 100 worker? At any given moment in his WCW run, there were at least 20 dudes in the company more talented than him. His best matches are with 1988 Ric Flair, 1992 Mick Foley, and 1992/1993 Vader, and of those only the Vader matches are truly great. Look at who he was up against in the US category alone. I'd pick JYD, Lesnar, Koloff, Murdoch, the R&Rs, and Slaughter before I picked Sting. There are people in the HOF who have a worse case than Sting. Ultimo Dragon, Jericho, Chono, Kensuke Sasaki. The guys who we always point to as flaws. They each got in for different reasons: Meltzer loves Jericho and thinks his '07-08 run to be brilliant, credits Ultimo for inventing things he didn't invent, deems Sasaki the last “epic” Japanese worker of the old guard, etc. None of them being in makes Sting's case any stronger. Meltzer has no such talking point for Sting. The talking point for Sting seems to be “Starrcade '97”. Was he was a great wrestler? Did he make an indispensible contribution? I'd say no. At times a great draw, with a lot of charisma. Currently having his biggest moment since '97. But he's just not a good enough worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mco543 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 The WON HOF has always been utterly bizarre to me. Much more so than the WWE HOF. I had no idea that Jericho was in which, even as a huge fan of his work from 1995-2010, seems incredibly strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 The WWE hall of fame has much more credibility. You look at who has been inducted and it really is a "who's who" of professional wrestling. They've gotten around to inducting dudes who performed elsewhere also. Plus, people will complain about Koko being inducted and other "career midcarders" but I'm sorry. The average wrestling fan knows who these guys are. A midcarder in WWF in the 80's is going to be more popular than someone from a hole in the wall territory. It's just the way it is. Ask yourself this. Why did Sting receive a monster ovation in St. Louis the other night? It's been 13 years since anyone has seen him. Yes, his TNA run but we know that the average person doesn't even know what TNA is. If he came out to crickets, it'd make sense to say that he has made no lasting impact on the business. I would have said "wow, I guess people really don't know who Sting is" but that's obviously not the case. Again, he was the biggest star on the babyface side when WCW was at its peak. That's why people still remember him and popped when they saw him in a WWE ring. Questioning his overall popularity or historical significance is nonsense. Questioning his ring work is also insane. He had a ton of great matches up until 1996 with a variety of opponents. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExcellenceofAirPollution Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 On the Sting "not being a draw when he was on top" argument circa 90-92 I posit that NOBODY was going to be a big draw or turn WCW's business around at that point. Wrestling as a whole was on a rapid downswing and WCW was horribly mismanaged at that point with constant management/booking changes that sent their business into the toilet. WCW in 1990 with Ole Anderson booking and the Turner Entertainment spin on it was TERRIBLE and was actively turning away their fanbase, and that didn't have anything to do with Sting. Then there was the Jim Herd era in 91. This is the time period where even the almighty Hulk Hogan is starting to tank as a draw and fans are turning away in droves. I've always found the "Sting flopped on top" argument really disingenuous when looked at in context. A while back I looked at the #'s for PPVs and big house shows he was headlining in that era vs. ones he wasn't and he stood out as the best draw in the company at the time. I also know he was their best merch mover. Lately Meltzer has taken a revisionist standpoint on Michaels as a draw on top in context whereas for years he said he was a flop on top. I'd like to see him really analyze the numbers in context and do the same with Sting, but he probably won't, because in his eyes Michaels was a great worker and Sting wasn't, and he has an inherent bias towards work 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Has mookieghana done any Sting number crunching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts