Post by Steveweiser on Dec 14, 2012 16:27:38 GMT -5
Dave Meltzer posted this on the Wrestling Classics forum about Sting and people's bids for him to go into the Observer Hall of Fame.
Cena is a Hall of Fame level draw by objective standards.
If you go through in 2012, 2011, 2010, etc. compare cards Cena on and average attendance,and those he's not on, you'll find a substantial difference. There is nobody who drew as much as he did for as long as he did who is not in. In fact, there is not even one person you can put in his league as a guy who drew on top year after year as top guy in the business who isn't in. The closest I could find was Vincent Lopez, and he's a long way from Cena.
Now, are his numbers in the ballpark of Hogan, Austin, Rock, Londos, Rocca, Rogers, the really great draws. No. He's below that pack and ahead of the Bret/Michaels pack, who were big stars but not fantastic drawing cards. And they are ahead of the Sting pack.
Sting is a guy who is a strong candidate to be talked about. As far as getting in, when the best argument is he was a better draw then Benoit, or John Cena was pushed and TV ratings have fallen (which they have, but he also brought attendances up from a bottoming out period seven years ago to a higher level today), you need to do research and come up with something better.
There are several voters in this thread and they are very open minded, as years go by, we all get more open minded about people. If you make a valid case for Sting, he'll get in. It's happened with a lot of people in the past. The valid case isn't anything to do with John Cena, who was a no brainer pick. Sting is a brainer, like dozens of marginal guys, you need to show why he belongs in.
Saying Benoit or Jericho is a bad argument because Benoit and Jericho were both considered by their peers to be very close to the best performers in the business during their peaks. Benoit obviously more than Jericho, but both are held in very high regard. If Sting was considered at their level as a performer, he'd have been in a long time ago. He's not.
They are both bad comparison points unless you want to argue inside the ring Sting is better than they were. And if you do, you're not looking at it as a wrestler for sure because it would mean you don't know the difference between leader and follower and guy who doesn't want to do anything more than get by and guy who wants to be the best.
Sting had one home run PPV, with a year long build against one of the bigger stars in history. Batista did almost 500,000 more buys for his best PPV against a guy who was no Hogan on a strong four month build and you don't see a lot of people saying Batista should be in. Batista's PPV numbers generally are far better than Sting's. His house show numbers on top blow Sting away.
It's not a "could have" Hall of Fame. "Could have" is a nice thing to do, but you can't use it for a Hall of Fame.
Also, regarding people getting in, unless you understand it, don't comment on it.
I never voted for Steve Williams, but to those in Japan, where he was voted in on, Steve Williams is a Hall of Famer. I know who voted for him and he had universal respect, particularly among those who worked with him. The only thing that kept him out was Americans who voted for Japanese candidates, but within Japan, the respect he had was huge.
I see him as borderline, but I don't live in Japan, only visited and watched TV. Still, at his peak he was a better wrestler than Sting for sure, a bigger star (partially because All Japan in the 90s trumps WCW within their respective cultures) except for maybe 1997 and a few months of early 1998. Sting beats him for longevity at the top. Sting was a far bigger U.S. star, but this isn't a U.S. wrestling Hall of Fame.
Even Iaukea, who I also never voted for, Iaukea was closer to the biggest star in Australian history than Sting is in U.S. history, was the single biggest star ever in Hawaii during a boom period drawing tons of sellouts, is either the biggest or second biggest star ever in New Zealand. That's where he got voted in from. In those parts of the world he trumps Sting to the point you can't even make an argument. Iaukea in New Zealand at his peak was a genuine mainstream sports star, on covers of sports magazines that Sting could never get his name in the U.S., let alone a cover. In Hawaii, he's a huge cultural figure. There is probably nobody over the age of 45 in Hawaii who doesn't know Curtis Da Bull Iaukea. In mainland U.S., I'd guess 80% or so of the population that was around in the 90s when asked about Sting, would think you're talking about a rock star and have no idea who the wrestler is. Yeah, he was big in wrestling magazines, but to the public, he was never like Cena, Savage, Piper, Hogan, Flair, Andre, etc. You don't see states wanting to make him the face of their Lottery even after tons of bad pub. He doesn't have national endorsements. He's not in movies. All the things the larger than life stars had, Sting never got a whiff of, because he was only a star to wrestling fans, while the biggest wrestling stars were names people like my mom and dad would know and Sting's not even close there. Goldberg is even ahead of Sting in that regard.
Regarding WCW, the fact is WCW's business was strongest in 1998 with Goldberg as the top face. Goldberg and Sting got monster pushes and Goldberg's year was better than Sting's year if you look at the attendance figures. I spoke to Zane Bresloff 3-5 times daily, and that was his department. He's the guy selling the tickets and he never thought Sting was a guy who sold tickets. It was Hulk and it was Goldberg the next year. At Sting's peak in 1997 they brought him to L.A. and spent six figures marketing a show around Hulk and Sting, they announced Hulk first, sold tickets and when Sting was announced for the late push (they were feuding with WWF which had a show the same day or same weekend, I don't remember) and the addition of Sting sold no extra tickets and they ended up actually losing money on the show. That was when Sting never did house shows and was at his so-called peak, so it had to be 97. Even then, he was not a draw past the match with Hogan, which did great, but also fell off huge after the first meeting.
If wrestlers considered Sting a great worker, he'd be in. While that's not entirely what got Benoit in or Jericho in, their peers did vote for them in strong numbers. Angle even more. I can't tell you how many guys, I mean guys who have worked on top with everyone, including if I name names, Austin, Rock, Benoit, Guerrero, Jarrett and even Flair who have told me that in their opinion, Kurt is either the best (three of the above said absolute best) or one of the best they were ever in the ring with. That's why he got in. You could argue they are wrong, but it is their opinion and those names have been in with an awful lot of great wrestlers.
Sting's drawing numbers are not Hall of Fame. His in-ring ranges from very good at times to really ****** at times, but a Hall of Fame worker without the drawing power, not a chance. His best argument is that he had a bunch of world titles at a time they were devalued, and main evented a lot of shows that didn't do very well and a few that did. He had a very long career where he was considered a top star, and still is today, which is a plus and is his best credential.
I did drawing comps in the 50s for Sting, and his comps were Roy Shire (who is in, but would not be in as a wrestler), Angelo Poffo (not in), Sheik (who is in but more for the 70s and Sting never had a 70s Sheik run anywhere) Crusher (also in, but for the 60s and 70s and if Crusher never did anything after the 50s nobody would consider him), Mexico's Tony Borne (not in), Bull Curry in Texas (not in), Prince Neff Maiava (not in). Dick Hutton had a few years as a non-drawing world champion and is also not in.
For the 60s, his drawing comps are Bob Ellis (who I think would actually be ahead of Sting or at least equal, but isn't in), Johnny Barend (not in), Hans Moriter (not in), and Toru Tanaka (not in).
I get people's childhoods but you have to be able to move past that. My childhood had Rocky Johnson (who had a hell of a career, I worked on the guy's WWE Hall of Fame speech and it was way more than I expected) and Pepper Gomez as top faces who kids of my era where I lived knew far better than Sting at a similar stage. Johnson is not in, never got support, and I won't argue him, and he had a hell of a career in a lot of places. Gomez is probably even stronger as a candidate, and is to this day a household name is any second generation Hispanic household around here in a way Sting could never be, and he's not in. And I've never voted for either.
For a sports analogy, maybe not the best, but from reading this thread, this is how I see the argument, Sting was a quarterback who was a first round draft choice by a real good team, in his third year he worked his way to starter and started for several years, most years on a crappy team and his stats were below average. He had one year where the team went to the Super Bowl. But he had a really long career. And he was pretty famous. His team doesn't get him in, his stats aren't even close, but you get a bunch of arguments that if he had only gone to the 49ers and played under Walsh, he'd be in. And who is to say it's not true, and who is to say Walsh would have started someone over him that was already there. Or who is to say he would have started and flopped. In any case, that's not a Hall of Fame argument at all.
If you go through in 2012, 2011, 2010, etc. compare cards Cena on and average attendance,and those he's not on, you'll find a substantial difference. There is nobody who drew as much as he did for as long as he did who is not in. In fact, there is not even one person you can put in his league as a guy who drew on top year after year as top guy in the business who isn't in. The closest I could find was Vincent Lopez, and he's a long way from Cena.
Now, are his numbers in the ballpark of Hogan, Austin, Rock, Londos, Rocca, Rogers, the really great draws. No. He's below that pack and ahead of the Bret/Michaels pack, who were big stars but not fantastic drawing cards. And they are ahead of the Sting pack.
Sting is a guy who is a strong candidate to be talked about. As far as getting in, when the best argument is he was a better draw then Benoit, or John Cena was pushed and TV ratings have fallen (which they have, but he also brought attendances up from a bottoming out period seven years ago to a higher level today), you need to do research and come up with something better.
There are several voters in this thread and they are very open minded, as years go by, we all get more open minded about people. If you make a valid case for Sting, he'll get in. It's happened with a lot of people in the past. The valid case isn't anything to do with John Cena, who was a no brainer pick. Sting is a brainer, like dozens of marginal guys, you need to show why he belongs in.
Saying Benoit or Jericho is a bad argument because Benoit and Jericho were both considered by their peers to be very close to the best performers in the business during their peaks. Benoit obviously more than Jericho, but both are held in very high regard. If Sting was considered at their level as a performer, he'd have been in a long time ago. He's not.
They are both bad comparison points unless you want to argue inside the ring Sting is better than they were. And if you do, you're not looking at it as a wrestler for sure because it would mean you don't know the difference between leader and follower and guy who doesn't want to do anything more than get by and guy who wants to be the best.
Sting had one home run PPV, with a year long build against one of the bigger stars in history. Batista did almost 500,000 more buys for his best PPV against a guy who was no Hogan on a strong four month build and you don't see a lot of people saying Batista should be in. Batista's PPV numbers generally are far better than Sting's. His house show numbers on top blow Sting away.
It's not a "could have" Hall of Fame. "Could have" is a nice thing to do, but you can't use it for a Hall of Fame.
Also, regarding people getting in, unless you understand it, don't comment on it.
I never voted for Steve Williams, but to those in Japan, where he was voted in on, Steve Williams is a Hall of Famer. I know who voted for him and he had universal respect, particularly among those who worked with him. The only thing that kept him out was Americans who voted for Japanese candidates, but within Japan, the respect he had was huge.
I see him as borderline, but I don't live in Japan, only visited and watched TV. Still, at his peak he was a better wrestler than Sting for sure, a bigger star (partially because All Japan in the 90s trumps WCW within their respective cultures) except for maybe 1997 and a few months of early 1998. Sting beats him for longevity at the top. Sting was a far bigger U.S. star, but this isn't a U.S. wrestling Hall of Fame.
Even Iaukea, who I also never voted for, Iaukea was closer to the biggest star in Australian history than Sting is in U.S. history, was the single biggest star ever in Hawaii during a boom period drawing tons of sellouts, is either the biggest or second biggest star ever in New Zealand. That's where he got voted in from. In those parts of the world he trumps Sting to the point you can't even make an argument. Iaukea in New Zealand at his peak was a genuine mainstream sports star, on covers of sports magazines that Sting could never get his name in the U.S., let alone a cover. In Hawaii, he's a huge cultural figure. There is probably nobody over the age of 45 in Hawaii who doesn't know Curtis Da Bull Iaukea. In mainland U.S., I'd guess 80% or so of the population that was around in the 90s when asked about Sting, would think you're talking about a rock star and have no idea who the wrestler is. Yeah, he was big in wrestling magazines, but to the public, he was never like Cena, Savage, Piper, Hogan, Flair, Andre, etc. You don't see states wanting to make him the face of their Lottery even after tons of bad pub. He doesn't have national endorsements. He's not in movies. All the things the larger than life stars had, Sting never got a whiff of, because he was only a star to wrestling fans, while the biggest wrestling stars were names people like my mom and dad would know and Sting's not even close there. Goldberg is even ahead of Sting in that regard.
Regarding WCW, the fact is WCW's business was strongest in 1998 with Goldberg as the top face. Goldberg and Sting got monster pushes and Goldberg's year was better than Sting's year if you look at the attendance figures. I spoke to Zane Bresloff 3-5 times daily, and that was his department. He's the guy selling the tickets and he never thought Sting was a guy who sold tickets. It was Hulk and it was Goldberg the next year. At Sting's peak in 1997 they brought him to L.A. and spent six figures marketing a show around Hulk and Sting, they announced Hulk first, sold tickets and when Sting was announced for the late push (they were feuding with WWF which had a show the same day or same weekend, I don't remember) and the addition of Sting sold no extra tickets and they ended up actually losing money on the show. That was when Sting never did house shows and was at his so-called peak, so it had to be 97. Even then, he was not a draw past the match with Hogan, which did great, but also fell off huge after the first meeting.
If wrestlers considered Sting a great worker, he'd be in. While that's not entirely what got Benoit in or Jericho in, their peers did vote for them in strong numbers. Angle even more. I can't tell you how many guys, I mean guys who have worked on top with everyone, including if I name names, Austin, Rock, Benoit, Guerrero, Jarrett and even Flair who have told me that in their opinion, Kurt is either the best (three of the above said absolute best) or one of the best they were ever in the ring with. That's why he got in. You could argue they are wrong, but it is their opinion and those names have been in with an awful lot of great wrestlers.
Sting's drawing numbers are not Hall of Fame. His in-ring ranges from very good at times to really ****** at times, but a Hall of Fame worker without the drawing power, not a chance. His best argument is that he had a bunch of world titles at a time they were devalued, and main evented a lot of shows that didn't do very well and a few that did. He had a very long career where he was considered a top star, and still is today, which is a plus and is his best credential.
I did drawing comps in the 50s for Sting, and his comps were Roy Shire (who is in, but would not be in as a wrestler), Angelo Poffo (not in), Sheik (who is in but more for the 70s and Sting never had a 70s Sheik run anywhere) Crusher (also in, but for the 60s and 70s and if Crusher never did anything after the 50s nobody would consider him), Mexico's Tony Borne (not in), Bull Curry in Texas (not in), Prince Neff Maiava (not in). Dick Hutton had a few years as a non-drawing world champion and is also not in.
For the 60s, his drawing comps are Bob Ellis (who I think would actually be ahead of Sting or at least equal, but isn't in), Johnny Barend (not in), Hans Moriter (not in), and Toru Tanaka (not in).
I get people's childhoods but you have to be able to move past that. My childhood had Rocky Johnson (who had a hell of a career, I worked on the guy's WWE Hall of Fame speech and it was way more than I expected) and Pepper Gomez as top faces who kids of my era where I lived knew far better than Sting at a similar stage. Johnson is not in, never got support, and I won't argue him, and he had a hell of a career in a lot of places. Gomez is probably even stronger as a candidate, and is to this day a household name is any second generation Hispanic household around here in a way Sting could never be, and he's not in. And I've never voted for either.
For a sports analogy, maybe not the best, but from reading this thread, this is how I see the argument, Sting was a quarterback who was a first round draft choice by a real good team, in his third year he worked his way to starter and started for several years, most years on a crappy team and his stats were below average. He had one year where the team went to the Super Bowl. But he had a really long career. And he was pretty famous. His team doesn't get him in, his stats aren't even close, but you get a bunch of arguments that if he had only gone to the 49ers and played under Walsh, he'd be in. And who is to say it's not true, and who is to say Walsh would have started someone over him that was already there. Or who is to say he would have started and flopped. In any case, that's not a Hall of Fame argument at all.
