Skip to main content

Sporting News: Is Sting a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate?

Comments

  1. I'm interested in seeing how much Styles gets bumped up in the voting, after the NJ run..

    ReplyDelete
  2. And people say Sting wasn't a draw. . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Baseball's HOF requires 75 percent

    ReplyDelete
  4. This guy is a walking joke. It's nice to post the puro for people interested. It's another thing to be a total puro snob. It's a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sting is an automatic first ballot Hall Of Famer period. This is more Meltz being Meltz BS.


    Curtis Iaukea is in the damn HOF but Sting isn't worthy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. He should've went to wwf in 96 when vader did. Can't remember his contract status but I feel like it was talked about sometime around then. He would've been over huge and probably pushed. Although they wasted vader so who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How was Sting's 98 run a flop? Starrcade 97: highest buyrate ever. SuperBrawl 98: highest buyrate ever for that show. Uncensored 98: highest buyrate ever for that show. Spring Stampede 98: highest buyrate ever for that show. Slamboree 98:....you guest it, highest buyrate ever for that show.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I looked at people in the Observer Hall and Vader is in yet no Sting? I guess Vader gets those Japanese bonus points.

    Also, Konnan is Hall of Famer?

    ReplyDelete
  9. And on what planet is Cena considered a slam dunk and not Sting?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm firmly in the "it's Sting" camp. He's the biggest star from one of the biggest promotions in history. That should be enough to get him in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yep. And while I'm not sure if the Observer Hall of Fame values attendance records and buyrates over everything else when considering "drawing power," it's worth noting that Sting vs. the nWo did huge ratings and that Sting moved (and still moves today) a lot of merchandise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who knows what would have happened--but we would have missed out on the big Sting vs. Hogan angle, which is what Sting is most remembered for today.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is he the biggest star? As far as homegrown talents go, I'm pretty sure Goldberg was a bigger star than Sting and the closest thing WCW had to Rock/Austin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. For a year or so. Sting was that star for several years.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can't remember when it's from, but I remember Meltzer doing a comparison of the two and concluding that Goldberg was a much bigger star/draw than Sting. I'll have to see if I can find the specific article.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sting has Cena beat in longevity, but Cena's the better worker and probably the bigger star overall.

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/460488

    ReplyDelete
  18. See, that's where this sort of thing starts to lose me. I lose a lot of interest when wrestling is being broken down by numbers and figures. It's very rare when you can attribute success or failure to one single thing. There are exceptions of course but they're few and far between.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Seriously? In a Hall of Fame with guys who meant NOTHING in America like Carlos Colon and Antonio Inoki we are questioning the induction of motherfucking Sting?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cena is nowhere near the level of Sting as a worker. Especially when it comes to the character aspects of it. Cena is basically a modern version of Sting and he gets booed out of every building he is in because he is so bad at it.


    And Cena is such a big star that they had to abandon the PPV model because buyrates are so bad.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sting was a star for way longer. Goldberg only really had a two year run where he was a draw/relevant. Even he could not save WCW by the road they were going down in 2000. Sting pulled through plenty of dark days with the company and wrestled in the final match.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wrestling happens outside of America. It's quite popular.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's the WWE Hall of Fame. I don't see how Carlos Colon or Antonio Inoki contributed to ANYTHING that should make them Hall of Famers to WWE fans.

    Colon in the WWC hall, sure. Inoki in the NJPW hall? Why not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is about the WON Hall of Fame

    ReplyDelete
  25. That's part of my argument for Sting too: WCW had so many problems with it that no one could solve all of them. You could put 1985 Hulk Hogan out there and they would have found a way to screw it up. Like Scott said, there's only so much you can do when you're out there against the Black Scorpion and he's turning people into tigers. I can't put that blame on Sting.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sting isn't already in the WON Hall of Fame? That's nuts. They have tons of guys in there who didn't do shit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cena smokes Sting. And I'm a big Sting fan. But come on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hence the article!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Match quality-wise, Cena gets the edge. As a babyface worker Sting is better.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I didn't click the link. I just figured those were tags at the end of it, not about the WON Hall of Fame. I mean seriously that Hall is filled with loooong forgotten wrestlers who won titles in the early 1900s - and Sting who was a star for 27 years is not the easiest no brainer ever? They inducted Steve Austin and Kurt Angle during their runs on top. I am surprised Sting didn't go in back in the late 90s.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Using house show numbers for anything WCW related seems like a waste of time since they gave zero fucks about it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eh, business has been on a gradual slide since 2001. The rise of Cena and Batista in '05 gave a slight resurgence, but it wasn't enough. People say that the business is cyclical, but I think that as far as mainstream popularity and relevance go, wrestling's had its day in the States.


    And other than the buildup to Starrcade '97, Sting wasn't that big of a star. He's a guy like Shawn or maybe 'Taker in that he's more respected for (some of) his work and his longevity than for his stardom.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I watched Halloween Havoc 99 this week - and had completely forgot Goldberg won the title a second time on a major PPV.

    It's almost like...WCW ended that show on the right note - terrible show that it was. They took Hogan out of the title picture and put Goldberg back in...and a month later they were tinkering with it and messing it up again. (Lowlight - of many lowlights on this PPV: Madusa comes out in a bikini heaving her boobs around and spraying Nitro cologne everywhere while Bobby Heenan riffs on it talking about how it smells like cat spray - Madusa goes up to Bobby, starts ranting about something or other, yells, "THIS IS BULLSHIT!" and dumps the cologne all over his head)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sting vs. Undertaker in 2014 - when both guys are very old and way past the prime where they should be wrestling, would draw an amount of PPV buys today far larger than any number Goldberg drew in his career or could draw coming out of retirement. That's prolonged stardom so those numbers mean nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shouldn't Cena get the blame for that?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh yeah it's bad. I'm going on vacation this week so I've had to review a bunch of Nitros in advance. I'm up to the 1999 Great American Bash where the dogs attack Sting. The fact that someone saw this on paper and approved it as the best idea they had makes me very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't know about that. Goldberg's DVD did surprisingly big business and if you matched him with the right opponent....


    I thought Goldberg v. Taker in Atlanta would've been cool

    ReplyDelete
  38. Outside of Hogan, Goldberg was their only mainstream star. He was single handedly keeping them in the fight against Austin.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't really think WCW country exists anymore. Doing a match to appeal to the WCW die-hards in Atlanta wouldn't make sense since that market is really the same as any other now and doesn't have that loyalty anymore.

    I think selling a lot of DVDs doesn't indicate the value of a comeback. I think his rise to the top was interesting and it makes a good video. Especially in the age of 50/50 booking. The only match I think Goldberg would draw serious money in now would be if he and Austin both came out of retirement to face each other. Brock would have been an option but both guys did their damndest to kill the match ten years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  40. That might be a stretch. Goldberg was barely ever on top. That summer was about the celebrities and then Warrior. After the start of 1999, Goldberg was dropped back into the upper midcard. You're right about the mainstream part though.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The only edge Cena has over Sting in terms of ring work is carrying guys.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Maybe, but that's a different discussion and it doesn't have much relevance to a Cena/Sting comparison. Like I said before, other than the pre-Starrcade '97 buildup, Sting wasn't that big of a deal.

    ReplyDelete
  43. That's crazy, they had probably 10x the main event talent the WWF did in 1998. 1998 was all endless pairings of Austin against Undertaker/Kane/Foley done as artfully as they could to hide the lack of depth. Foley and Kane weren't even really considered title threats or contenders but that's what they had.

    I don't remember Goldberg being like a Hogan or Rock type star that transcends wrestling. He was a very popular wrestler but very much a wrestler.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Goldberg wasn't up there with Rock/Austin, but he was the closest thing WCW had to those guys at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Besides a DDP match on Nitro in 1999, what did Sting really do ring-wise after his hiatus in 1996?


    Cena's run in 2007 smokes Sting's entire career in ring wise basically

    ReplyDelete
  46. Goldberg got a TON of hype. He was everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Man is Havoc 99 a weird show. Bret Hart does a clean submission job to a single leg crab from Lex Luger (!)

    Ric Flair spends the whole show talking about trying to fuck DDP's wife, trying to fuck DDP's wife, bragging about fucking DDP's wife and Torrie Wilson - then DDP beats the shit out of him in a strap match and he does a stretcher job - and DDP is the heel for this? Didn't Flair kind of get what he deserved? Though Flair is one of the few people who is actually trying on this show.


    There are more screwjobs than can be counted and nothing makes any sense, Hogan lays down to Sting without even being touched and then they cut right to a video package to promote Sid vs. Goldberg.

    ReplyDelete
  48. No argument from me on Sting sucking post 96. But what Cena match from 2007 can even touch Sting's matches with Flair and Vader?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Umaga. The series with HBK. 4-way at Backlash. He got quality out of Khali and had a really good main event with Lashley.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ECW's DVD was the highest selling DVD of all time and it led to the ONS PPV that drew pretty good numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  51. SummerSlam with Orton was a pretty good match too IMO. I also thought he was the better worker in the RAW match with Shawn.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Goldberg's biggest buyrate was 1.15 he drew for Starrcade 98. No way could a Taker/Sting match in 2014 even sniff that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It did 340k buys which is pretty awesome considering the stacked Vengeance PPV a month later did 420k. However, it was
    A) A hot time for WWE with lots of talent getting pushed past the glass ceiling - buyrates were higher overall, even Judgment Day 05 which was hardly stacked did 260K

    B) They had to give up the much more profitable gate of an arena show
    C) They had to fly in/make deals with talent outside of their normal roster
    D) It's the kind of concept you can only go to the well on once or twice - ECW was already wearing thin by the time they tried it again in '06

    I think if Goldberg came back, he'd be white hot for a return match, cooling by match two, and just another guy by match three.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 1.15 in 1998 was I think like 660k buys. Taker vs. Sting on the biggest show of the year would not have any problem beating that.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Virgil's Gimmick TableOctober 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

    You might wanna read the article before arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The last few links to outside sites I clicked on here made me regret it. This site used to have content besides links and Q&A.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Agreed. That's why you bring him in for one match v. Taker. Show video after video of him killing guys and maybe have him spear/jackhammer a large guy in the buildup.


    Imagine he spears Taker and Taker sits back up? I'd shit my pants

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sting should just get in for 1997 alone. His popularity was at hogan/rock/Austin/Goldberg levels. If wcw had him fight Nash/hall/hogan from January to June 1998. That would have made huge business. Instead they did the numerous title switches.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Putting it on the biggest show of the year and the only show that still gets decent buyrates is cheating. It's 600k by default every year.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Other than the HBK matches, no way. Give me 1992 Sting over 2007 Cena any day. Vader, Cactus, MOTHER FUCKING WARGAMES!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Cena v. Umaga is one of my favourite matches ever. War Games is amazing, no argument, but Sting is one of 10 there.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I'm not sure if this should be a factor, but Sting is in my action figure wrestling league hall of fame with He-Man, Snake-Eyes and Mumm-Ra.

    ReplyDelete
  63. In addition to being a fantastic match in general, Cena/Umaga is one of the best examples of Cena's awesome selling ability against "monsters" (his match against Khali is another great showcase). Guys like HBK and Ziggler fly around the ring for their bumps, drawing attention to themselves. Cena's selling and bumping sold his opponents' moves as death.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sting was a pretty central figure in that match. If you can bust out Cena multi-man matches, then I can bust out Sting multi-man matches.

    ReplyDelete
  65. So, essentially, the WON hall of fame is like the Rock and Roll hall of fame, a little elitist and snobbish. But, KISS got in the Rock and Roll hall of fame this year, maybe Sting will get in the WON hall of fame. After all, Sting is basically the KISS of pro wrestling. He's not the greatest technical wrestler by any means, just like KISS were never the greatest musicians ever, the critics never really had them or him on their favorites list, but the masses were behind him, and them, and they carved a pretty big spot out for themselves in history. Plus, they both wear makeup.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Has Cena had a great match since his match with Bryan?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Like Scott mentioned in his article, I assume that folks are by-and-large ignoring his TNA work. Or perhaps they are even holding it against him. I'm going to try and take a tougher position - that his TNA work actually adds to his Hall of Fame resume. Here we go:
    1. Sting's returns to the ring at Final Resolution and Lockdown in 2006, followed by his title win against Jarrett at that year's Bound for Glory drew the highest buy rates in the company's history at the time (soon topped by Angle vs. Joe at Genesis).

    2. Sting's presence in the company was said to have positively influenced Spike TV's support of the organization, in addition to the success of many international TV deals. Overall, his presence gave the company a feeling of legitimacy. Of course, this is harder to prove or measure than a look at ratings, buyrates, and attendance numbers. Still worth noting.
    3. Although much of Stings in-ring work was subpar in TNA (and, indeed, the t-shirt wrestling days were flat-out embarrassing), we forget that he took part in some good matches too. Mostly tag team and Lethal Lockdown style matches, yes, but when he was paired with folks like Jarrett, Angle, Christian, and Styles the matches were always acceptable and sometimes very good. Sting certainly held up better with age than many other wrestlers who wrestled into their 50's.
    4. While Sting was sometimes pushed aside in WCW in favor of Hogan or other stars, Sting was consistently a main event player in TNA. He headlined Bound for Glory for four years in a row (winning the title on three of those occasions and putting over AJ Styles on the last).


    I am not arguing that Sting's TNA tenure alone makes him worthy of any HOF. But I do believe that it adds to, rather than detracts from, his resume as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  68. No it's not, it's an apples to apples comparison. Starrcade 98 was the biggest WCW show of that year and the blowoff for all their major feuds.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I guess it depends. Do you consider a 4-star match a "great" one? Or just good?

    ReplyDelete
  70. The only four star match he has had since then were his pair with Cesaro on Raw. The second one was probably a shade under.

    If you count a multi-man match the Elimination Chamber this year was about **** and pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Not really. I consider four stars to be very good,

    ReplyDelete
  72. Threadjack: I saw a news story today stating that Noelle Foley, daughter of Mick Foley, is training to become a pro wrestler. WWE is crazy if they don't sign her up quickly. Not only is she truly gorgeous, but I watched some YouTube videos of her interviewing people and she has a lot of charm and savvy that seems really natural, and a friendly disposition that reminds me of her dad. Did I mention she's super hot?

    ReplyDelete
  73. The Sting debate exemplifies some of the disconnect between the Observer/Torch and the average/casual wrestling fan. It's like the Academy Awards, where the actors/directors/movie execs (or whoever decides them) would have a (very) different slate of "Best Picture" candidates than, say, top box office or Twitter ratings.

    If you watched American wrestling from the late 80s to 2001, I think it is very hard to say Sting wouldn't fit the "fame" part of a Hall of Fame for being a top level, recognizable figure for more than a decade, including the hottest period of wrestling since (at least) the Hulkamania halcyon days (he was a major figure just hanging around in the rafters for goodness sake!). But the voters for the Observer (according to Wikipedia) are wrestlers,
    journalists, and historians, and this group seems to focus (reasonably)
    on Sting's flaws, from not drawing to forgetting promos and spots in
    matches; given the Observer's stated criteria, I can see why Sting isn't in, even though it seems odd to not thing of Sting as a Hall of Famer for any "wrestling" context, even disregarding other entrants and Meltzer's comparisons to Sting.

    It would be nice if at least some of the voters could represent the (casual) fan perspective, but that's not apparently what Dave wants.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Uhhh wow..is her favorite word still "nipple?"

    < /creepy>

    ReplyDelete
  75. Summerslam match against Lesnar was a beauty to watch

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cesaro on RAW and Lesnar at Summerslam although people's opinions vary widely on that match.

    ReplyDelete
  77. WWE's never had a problem finding attractive Divas; if she has the charm you're suggesting, then it might be worthwhile. Would the Foley connection actually hurt her given Mick's relationship with the company in the past decade?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I would largely say the Cesaro matches were carry jobs by Cesaro. They were all built around his offense and he led the matches; but Cena was game enough. He has unquestionably slipped in the ring since his last injury. Even the Jericho/Wyatt matches were better than the Cena/Wyatt matches.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's really more of a segment than a match, just a prolonged beatdown. It's not really like Sting vs. Vader as Vader had far more offense.

    Also the follow up match at Night of Champions was a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  80. His upcoming match with Ambrose, and, probably, Rollins, at HIAC have the potential to be great, but I can't really think of a great one that's happened already since the match with Bryan.

    ReplyDelete
  81. They cut Eddie Guerrrero's daughter who is very attractive as well and from all accounts was picking up the business very fast.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hey, Iaukea was the biggest wrestling star in New Zealand. What has Sting done to compare to that?

    ReplyDelete
  83. It's a fun bit of Cena hate porn but it's not really a match.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I'd be shocked if some bullshit on a pole match that will be probably have a bullshit finish is great.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Yeah, I've wondered about that one. Was she cut, or did she leave?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Goldberg was overrated. And I firmly disagree with Goldberg being a "bigger star than Sting and the closest thing WCW had to Rock/Austin". He was the flavor-of-the-month in WCW.

    ReplyDelete
  87. There is no discussion here. He is one of the franchise faces of the second biggest American wrestling company in history. He has tons of longevity, strong body of work, and was a central figure during WCW's hottest period. The idea that he might not have been the classic "draw" is difficult because it's WCW. Anyone other than Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan probably don't qualify as "draws" in any real sense.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I don't think even the "No" people dispute Sting's longevity, even if limited to WCW; with TNA buyrates not (to my knowledge) public and his ring work (understandably) declining, it's hard for TNA to really convince them. Also, was Sting that popular with the execs, or was he just beloved by Dixie?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Crap, I forgot it was a pole match. Never mind then.....

    ReplyDelete
  90. Starrcade 98 is an awful card and a total one match show. That was all Goldberg. You can't really say that about modern Manias.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Colon and Inoki weren't voted in for their American work.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Goldberg was incredibly hot for his brief run pre cattle-prod and seemed to get more media coverage during that time. So, brighter star but flared out quickly compared to Sting burning pretty bright for over a decade.

    ReplyDelete
  93. You know, I write the Sporting News articles and just link to them here, right?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sure it was a match. It had an opening bell, a closing bell, a pin fall, an official result, and a title changed hands! A completely one-sided pounding of a match, sure.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I'm guessing it probably would hurt her, especially if she doesn't mind voicing her opinions like her dad. But, it's always kind of hard to guess what the relationship is like between Mick and the WWE at any given moment.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Most of that was not focused on Sting, though. Uncensored in particular had him in a very secondary role under Hogan, and ditto Spring Stampede. Yeah, Superbrawl did good numbers for that show, but it was a HUGE drop from Starrcade for someone who was supposed to be really hot at the time. I think it's a wash -- you can't credit him with those shows or particularly fault him either as far as drawing power goes, but if he WAS a giant star coming out of Starrcade like it's being argued, then it wouldn't have been a question.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I don't know about single-handily. The DDP/Hogan/Celebrity was drawing in audiences, even if we're not fans of it today. But I agree with you that Goldberg was THE big star at the time. A Goldberg vs. Austin match during the Monday Night Wars era would have been the biggest wrestling match of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Short answer: no. He only has one instance of being a legitimate draw, and his other runs on top were unmitigated disasters. You can argue that there were circumstances conspiring against him and you wouldn't be wrong, but...facts is facts. We have to evaluate Sting based on what he actually did, not what he could have done in a better environment.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Uh, last I checked Puerto Rico was part of America. Also, New Japan was oftentimes the biggest promotion in the world and Inoki more or less made that company.

    ReplyDelete
  100. From everything I've read, Spike TV was very high on having Sting as part of the roster. They provided part of his salary for years because they believed he provided value to the product. Again, this kind of thing is harder to prove and quantify though.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Who, specifically? Name some names. Just because you don't know what they did doesn't mean they didn't do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Flair is pretty clearly the bigger star from that promotion.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Yep Mode" ABeyAnce1©October 12, 2014 at 11:30 PM

    And what a beauty it was.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The anti-Japanese circle jerk around here is getting really fucking old. Just saying.


    Konnan was the biggest star in Mexico at his peak, and you could argue he was the biggest draw in the UNITED STATES at his peak, as both EMLL and AAA drew huge houses in the US that beat out almost everything from the Big Two aside from things like WrestleMania.

    ReplyDelete
  105. The Cena/Wyatt LMS match was far better than any of the Jericho/Wyatt matches and a MOTYC in my opinion. Also disagree with Cena/Cesaro being a carry-job, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Honest question: what great matches did Sting have that weren't against Vader? I think the Clash I match is okay, but only okay. I think if one actually watches the matches with an open mind, that I don't think it's even arguable that Luger was a better opponent for Flair than Sting. Sting and Vader were magic together, and Sting had lots of *good* matches against other guys. But since Sting's drawing record isn't HOF-worthy, he's going to have to make it up big-time in other areas and "pretty good" isn't good enough for a HOF.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Last Man Standing v. Wyatt

    ReplyDelete
  108. Not answering your question here--but I would argue that Luger is deserving of a spot in the WWE HOF. I think people don't have the connection to Luger that they have with folks like Savage and Sting, which is why you don't hear his name mentioned nearly as often. I have no clue if Luger deserves to be in the Observer's Hall or not.

    ReplyDelete
  109. At the time, it was the 2nd biggest buyrate in WCW history

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anyone willing to show up for the ceremony is deserving of a spot in the WWE HOF. There's literally no criteria for induction at all other than having a pulse at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Second criteria - not having murdered your family.

    ReplyDelete
  112. We're not talking about the WWE HOF though.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I did say "any" HOF, but yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Yes, this is why I mentioned it.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I figured you meant a HOF that has merits to getting in

    ReplyDelete
  116. When talking about a HOF and I hear words like "one of," and "a" central figure, rather than "THE"...well, I'm not saying it sinks their case, but it raises red flags.


    And yes, "it's WCW." it's entirely possible that there are in fact no HOF-worthy draws to come out of that promotion besides Flair and Hogan. There's no quota that says a certain number of guys per promotion deserve to be inducted.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Why should the Observer have to cater to casual fans?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Angle was a joke of an induction that I can never, ever defend. I don't see him as an Observer HOFer period but to induct him at the time he was was absolutely nuts. He and Ultimo Dragon, and to a lesser extent Hase, are guys that I see listed and just cringe every time.

    ReplyDelete
  119. For title wins yeah. I wouldn't think so much as far as star power. WWE has made him out to be way more important than he is.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Doc's iffy, but he was the true Wrestler of the Year in 1994. That alone isn't grounds for induction any more than winning one MVP is grounds for a sports HOF, but it's something that Sting doesn't have.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Lou Albano? Or did he get in only because he died?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Bullshit. Flair pretty much singlehandedly carried the promotion on his back through lean times, and his record as a draw for Crockett (while also drawing elsewhere, namely Texas) speaks for itself.


    Should be noted that business spiked every time in the '90s when Flair found himself back in the main event mix. The GAB '95 PPV, GAB '97, and Souled Out '98. Flair's DVD set is responsible for the proliferation of subsequent historical DVD sets much the same way that Have a Nice Day was a benchmark and impetus for future wrestling books. Sting isn't in Flair's stratosphere as a star and a draw.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Albano was a crossover mainstream star and a huge name for the U.S.'s biggest company (even in the territory days) for literal decades. Albano has a strong case for being more important than any one heel wrestler for the WWF from 1963-84.

    ReplyDelete
  124. But if you just off your girlfriend, the WWE can work with you.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Meltzer never seemed to be a big fan of his, or at least that's what I gathered from his obit

    ReplyDelete
  126. Holy shit. Flair is so much bigger than Sting it's not even funny.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Meltzer and the hardcore fanbase were pretty anti-WWF, for a LONG time. Actually it goes back way pre-Meltzer: I have newsletters from the mid-1960's lamenting the slow, plodding, fat guys that were all over WWWF main events. That said, Albano's case is hard to ignore. I didn't even mention the fact that without him, the Cyndi Lauper thing probably doesn't happen. And before all that, the WWF could literally slap together any two mid-carders on the face of the planet, stick 'em with Albano as their manager, and they'd instantly be seen as contenders for the tag titles. It was formulaic as hell but its effectiveness can't be argued with.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Abdullah the Butcher but no Sting? Come on, name me one big Abdullah the Butcher match. Explain to me how Abdullah the Butcher was a bigger draw than Sting.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Agreed. Even still, Sting is a HOF'er in his own right.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Abby was a huge, huge, mainstream star in Japan. As in crossover-celebrity mainstream on the level of his rival Giant Baba. Has other bonuses like being a major name in Puerto Rico (it was a territory, just like any other). The Abby/Sheik-Funks tag matches were pivotal in how [i]gaijin[/i] were presented in Japan. Another HOF factor is influence, and as an originator of hardcore Abby certainly has that in droves.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I see a lot of argument from incredulity fallacies, and a lot of "[Wrestler X]? Really?" posts. I'm not seeing a lot in the way of an actual case for Sting. And the actual cases I'm reading all deal with vagaries like being "the franchise" or "one of the faces of the company."

    ReplyDelete
  132. Nah, that still doesn't fly with me. I mean all that stuff's great, but that still doesn't mean he was a bigger draw than Sting, or had more memorable matches, or was even more influential than Sting.

    ReplyDelete
  133. In what specific way was Sting influential? What major houses did Sting draw outside of Starrcade '97? Sting didn't draw as well against Flair as Luger did, and Sting's first title reign was an unmitigated flop.


    You can draw a line directly from Abdullah (and the Sheik) to ECW and FMW. You can point to huge houses and TV ratings for Abby's matches against the Funk Brothers, that made the annual All-Japan tag tournament such a huge drawing card in its own right. You can even point to more successful title runs in All-Japan than Sting ever had for WCW. Just because you have trouble believing it doesn't mean it isn't so. The hard facts aren't subject to any person's "belief."

    ReplyDelete
  134. That doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Halls of Fame in a fake sport are tricky. I put Sting as a yes because he exemplified the NWA babyface. He got great reaction from crowds and was able to at least be carried. If Dusty is in, I think Sting goes for similar reasons while 100% conceding that Dusty was a far better pro wrestler.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Flair main evented two of those shows (he was in a Tag Title match at Bash 97) when Hogan was gone. That doesn't sound like one of the top guys to me. It sounds like a replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  137. In the 80s yeah I'd agree, but far less so once WCW went national.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Dusty drew far more than Sting ever could hope to. Dusty blows Sting away

    ReplyDelete
  139. No but it takes away a big mark against him.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Dusty had a decade of being a huge drawing card (in multiple areas) before even arriving in Crockett-land. Dusty is probably the best interview in the history of wrestling. For or better and for worse, Dusty was a gigantic influence in terms of booking. He has a hell of a lot of strengths that Sting doesn't have.

    ReplyDelete
  141. No. Flair is WCW. As Pete said, they often seemed to go to Flair when they were desperate and he usually delivered. I think during the MNW, Flair always did impressive quarter hours.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Then what are his checkpoints if he always had issues drawing and wasn't that great in the ring? He was a big name in a shit promotion?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Absolutely. Dusty was incredible and I think unfairly maligned. Sting is like Gary Carter while Dusty was Carlton Fisk.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Sting is more like Jack Morris.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Weren't the ratings huge for WCW when Sting was the top face against the NWO? Wasn't he basically at the top of the company most of the time he was there?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Starrcade 97= Game 7 1991 WS?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Well for one I don't see him as as big of a problem drawing as WCW in general. Also I'd hardly call a horrible promotion. Horribly run yes but not horrible itself. He was the top star of the second biggest promotion in the country. That's not bad.

    ReplyDelete
  148. He was sitting in the rafters for a lot of that. Does Sting deserve the lion's share of the credit or do we give credit to Hogan, Nash, Luger, Rodman, Giant, DDP, and Flair? I'm inclined to spread the wealth a little bit, and I'm also inclined to give the bulk of that credit to Hogan.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Gunther the Nasty LoserOctober 13, 2014 at 12:33 AM

    Sting is the reason I started watching WCW.

    And this was in '99.

    So clearly he's a draw. PROOF!

    ReplyDelete
  150. Noelle is a highly entertaining Twitter-er. So she's got that going for her, which is nice. Seriously, if this is what she wants to do then good luck to her. I hope HHH's petty bullshit feud with Mick Foley doesn't hold her back.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I'm not sure what quarters prove. The Knockouts had the highest ratings for TNA for awhile and I'd hardly think that means they're the best thing TNA had going for them.


    As for going to Flair when you're desperate, that doesn't make him the best option. You could say the same thing about WWE today going with Chris Jericho. He's a big name, he's going to have a good match, and people are going to care. That doesn't make him the top star or the top choice. It does however make him reliable, which is one of the most valuable things you can have.

    ReplyDelete
  152. He wasn't the top star though. And it seems like when he was on top, things went poorly

    ReplyDelete
  153. 1997 would beg to differ. He may not have been the top star then, but he was the top face.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Yes. And even though it's a little backwards, timeline-wise, Sting's 1990 title run = Blue Jay Morris getting the shit knocked out of him in the postseason and having to be bailed out by his offense/Flair.


    In fairness to Sting, he never put his ranch ahead of the team like Morris did in '94, leading the Indians to release a 10-6 pitcher in the middle of their first pennant race in 35 years.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Yea, he had one good run. That doesn't make him a HOFer. That makes him someone who had one good year.

    ReplyDelete
  156. How about the huge ratings that Clash of the Champions 1 with Sting in the main event pulled in?

    ReplyDelete
  157. 1- What Dusty match was bigger than Hogan/Sting in '97?


    2 - I would think it would be a lot easier for any wrestler to get over when they are booking themselves so strong for a large chunk of their career

    ReplyDelete
  158. One big match - Abby v Brody. Take your pick of any of their 500 matches together.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Sting made more money with the NWO from 96-98 then alot of the wrestlers included drew during their whole careers. One of the 2 defining wrestlers from WCW along with Rick Flair. Yet he is a borderline hall of famer? Only liked by casual/average fans you know the majority of the fan base the whole time wrestling has been in existence. Can't take it seriously

    ReplyDelete
  160. It's Dave's Hall of Fame: he could just decide by himself, so he doesn't "have to cater" to casual fans (or hardcore fans or fans of US wrestling or any group).

    At the same time, if we're fairly raising criticisms of Sting, it's fair to suggest that the Observer Hall of Fame is too insular; it represents the (narrow) viewpoint of a small group of people based on criteria that is not necessarily shared by many wrestling fans, but (as illustrated by Jared Bellow's post elsewhere in this thread) is assumed to be more significant than it really is.

    I'm not losing sleep because Sting isn't in (and, as stated before, understand why he isn't in based on the Observer's criteria), even if future generations accept the Observer Hall of Fame as gospel of who were important/significant/famous wrestlers. It's kind of like McGwire/Sosa not being in the Hall of Fame because of steroids, even if their 1998 chase helped MLB recover from the drop in popularity during the strike and was one of the most "famous" summers in baseball history.

    ReplyDelete
  161. I honestly turn my nose up at the very notion of a "legitimate" Hall of Fame for professional wrestling. Certainly it takes men and women of great talent, athleticism and charisma to have an exceptional career... but what of the bookers , matchmakers and promotion owners who recognized that talent and allowed it to flourish, to draw money, to receive exposure? What about the quality of their opponents? No one counts wins or losses in determining a wrestling Hall of Famer, but you count fans drawn, house gates, PPV buyrates, TV ratings? Why even have a vote--why note just formulate a computer algorithm and punch a wrestlers numbers into it? The fact that there's a vote--that one can overlook the mere numbers and make a judgment call--says to me that any such Hall of Fame is really just a popularity contest hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy in emulating that HoF balloting of "real" sports.

    ReplyDelete
  162. kbwrestlingreviewsOctober 13, 2014 at 1:07 AM

    Yep. Pretty much this.

    ReplyDelete
  163. kbwrestlingreviewsOctober 13, 2014 at 1:09 AM

    I'd call his 1992 run pretty fair as well. The Dangerous Alliance, Cactus Jack, Vader and Luger feuds certainly aren't bad. Couple that with the long running feud with Flair and his solid stuff just before Hogan showed up and it's a bit more than just one run.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Oh please.. Is this really a topic?? The guy won more world heavyweight titles than last year's entire Hall Of Fame class COMBINED!! Case fucking closed!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  165. He was the biggest face star NWA/WCW ever had. So I think yes. Even if he wasn't a big draw, but others weren't too like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels.

    ReplyDelete
  166. I love Sting, but this is a North American bias for sure. Worldwide I think you would find both wrestlers + fans would say Abdullah is waaaaay more influential. There are others I might find debatable but Abby isn't one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Completely agree. This is just silly. When you say "name 5 wcw wrestlers", Sting is on the list. How could you not have one of the most popular stars in? This is just attempting to stir up controversy when there should be none.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Yes he is a Hall of Famer but Starrcade 97' was a gigantic miss.

    ReplyDelete
  169. He's a given for the WWE Hall Of Fame, if he wants it. Koko B Ware and Drew Carey are in. Anyone can go in. Whether he would deserve to go into the Observer Hall Of Fame, with it's tighter criteria of actual drawing power and other factors would be more of a debate. The only time Sting was really pushed as the real sustained focal point of WCW in terms of matches and main events was in 1990, and it didn't do good business.

    ReplyDelete
  170. That was non-title, wasn't it? Total dusty finish, as Sting was champion again the next night but they stripped him of it and put it in a tournament.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Thank u. The hall of fame is just a show like wrestlemania. Maybe it shouldn't be but it us in wwe's eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Having been here in the South for all of Sting's NWA/WCW career? No question yes. He was THE GUY the marks all wanted to see, including a much younger me. It was pretty much Sting/Luger/Flair/Sid and then everybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Extant1979 - Ghetto SuperstarOctober 13, 2014 at 6:19 AM

    CM Punk and Brock Lesnar will get in to the WON HoF before Sting? That's a load of donkey crap, if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I can't believe this even an issue.

    Yes. A hundred times yes.

    ReplyDelete
  175. 1. This is my point. The Foley comparison is good. One does not have to be THE guy to get in and you dont have to be a huge box office draw, or else the HoF would be Hogan, Austin, Flair, and done. Its hard to determine "draws" during boom periods. How much of WCWs peak was nWo and how much was Sting? How much did Foley, Rock, DX factor in alongside Austin/McMahon?

    2. Lets recall that WCW was once the #1 company. WWE revisionsm makes it out like WCW was a flash in the pan that challenged them briefly but WCW was kicking their ass. Sting was its biggest babyface star for years and second only to Flair in popularity/fame for most WCW fans. By the standard of "its WCW" as if thats a disqualifier, then basically no one outside of WWF/E gets in.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Then put him in the WCW Hall of Fame.

    ReplyDelete
  177. The Love-Matic Grampa!October 13, 2014 at 6:52 AM

    The whole WON-HOF thing has always been an annoyance to me, because it still seems as random and haphazard as WWE's despite the "legitimate vote". If nothing else Sting SHOULD be a shoo-in as a historical vote, but for whatever reason Meltzer seems determined to keep him out (given his passionate arguments against the induction whenever the issue comes up). And Dave does have influence over this thing, whether he owns up to it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Michaels and Hart were not Hogan level draws either. No one was until Austin. The "business was down, he didnt draw" thing applies to a lot of people. Sting was a huge star for a company that was above WWE for a decent stretch. Sting was a star when they were down, up, and back down again

    ReplyDelete
  179. MikeyMike, WitnessOctober 13, 2014 at 7:05 AM

    Konnan is in the HoF. Was he really a bigger draw than Sting in Mexico?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Sting only held the WCW world title for a few days in 1993 Scott, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  181. People forget the fans began to boo Goldberg before Starrcade '98.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Don't they not have RnR Express in either? Are the Steiners in it?

    Sting is an automatic in for me, but for those marks probably not

    ReplyDelete
  183. More voters from the Carolinas is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Sting/Hogan drew WCW's biggest buyrate. And this was months before Austin caught on fire. I1997 Sting was a box office attraction, and if they'd had him beat Hogan (clean) and then kept him at his twice a month appearances (and wrestling on big shows only) he'd have remained truly iconic. I mean between Hogan, Nash and Savage Sting had a years worth of title defences (Superbrawl, Bash At The Beach, Halloween Havoc/Starrcade)

    ReplyDelete
  185. Dusty in Florida for YEARS? Dusty vs Flair, chapters 1-35235?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Well their 'match' at NOC was panned, so I think Summerslam was better. Whatever it was.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Also more bee voters.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Just keep saying stupid things.

    ReplyDelete
  189. They did the same thing with Michaels for years. Making silly arguments against him and having enough people buy those arguments. Having a guy everyone argues about helps him sell subscriptions.

    ReplyDelete
  190. I don't understand how this is even in question. I'm literally flabbergasted.

    ReplyDelete
  191. The Love-Matic Grampa!October 13, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    Why even have a vote--why note just formulate a computer algorithm and punch a wrestlers numbers into it

    Because then there would only be about twenty or so legitimate members in it.

    The fact that there's a vote--that one can overlook the mere numbers and
    make a judgment call--says to me that any such Hall of Fame is really
    just a popularity contest hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy in
    emulating the HoF balloting of "real" sports.


    Pretty much. I actually take the WON HOF less seriously than the WWE's, because at least we hold WWE accountable when certain guys are clearly being kept out for seemingly petty reasons (Savage, for example). With Meltzer, he rants and raves against the likes of Sting and Big Daddy before the voting takes place and then pretends his opinion has no influence over the process when these guys fail to make it in year after year. Sure, ultimately people have to make their own decisions, but he has to acknowledge that he poisons the well with his bias.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I agree. They could have easily followed up after a dominant Starrcade win. Maybe do a WCW vs. nWo multi-man sort of deal at Souled Out, with Sting leading WCW to get the nWo on its heels. Then at SuperBrawl actually do the Sting-Hall title match they were advertising since WW3, with Hogan vs. Hart, Nash vs. Luger as a triple main event. Sting vs. Nash at Uncensored. Sting vs. Savage at Spring Stampede. Maybe do Sting vs. Hart after the big nWo players are beaten

    ReplyDelete
  193. No. It's embarrassing he is in and Sting isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  194. The standard for tag teams is incredibly, incredibly high. The only "pure" two-person teams in are the original Fabulous Kangaroos and the Road Warriors. (The Midnights and Freebirds were multi-man groups.)


    What's so "amazing" about Sting's 89-93? He had literally no drawing power to speak of, in fact his drawing power was a net negative. The people talking about Sting being a "no-brainer" clearly haven't actually looked at the facts. His case is weaker than Luger's.

    ReplyDelete
  195. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Konnan sold out 40,000-seat stadiums and was a major figure in the formation of AAA which was the best-drawing promotion in North America for the first half of the '90s.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Do you have an actual rebuttal for Dave's argument, or are you just chalking it up to an "agenda" or a "conspiracy"? Because the only arguments I'm hearing in Sting's favor are "It's obvious!" and "It's a joke without him!" Which pretty much sound like the same thing in reverse from people who "seem determined to get him in."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment