kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 14, 2012 20:34:51 GMT -5
I feel like somehow this reflects a fault in the criteria, not Sting. Like surely Sting should be in the wrestling hall of fame. Maybe there should be some kind of consideration for connection with fans? Like how every time Sting came out everybody cheered for him? No mixed reactions, smark dissent, 50/50, none of it. It just sucks that all the dots have to align perfectly when, f*** man, it's Sting. This is STINGGGGGGGGGGGG!
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Dec 14, 2012 21:53:46 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that Steve, it's a fascinating read.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Dec 14, 2012 23:21:05 GMT -5
I don't think some of these critiques really hold much water. Comparing Sting, a guy that even casual fans now have heard of, to various regional guys like Pepper Gomez in San Francisco or guys who were big in New Zealand is just silly.
How about this aspect of Sting in the pro Sting column: Sting was a fascinating hybrid babyface at his peak, as in he was a mix of the superhero WWF style Hogan/Warrior babyface along with elements of a more traditional Ricky Steamboat babyface. Sting's 1988-94 era work is quite stellar and he basically carried the company despite some of the worst top level babyface booking anyone has ever had to endure. How many times did someone turn heel on Sting and make him look like a fool? How many times did we see Vader beat him in a pulp? Yet the guy stayed over.
I will admit that Sting's later WCW stuff (1998-2000) was pretty mediocre, as I don't think he ever quite recovered from the Crow gimmick. However, I would say his TNA run has been quite good. Sting has been a lower key HBK type in fact, albeit without mega classic matches.
Meltzer may have a point about Sting's drawing power in the early 90s, but nothing was drawing in WCW at that point. But his actual work? The matches with Flair, Muta, Cactus, Vader, etc.? I fail to see how Bret Hart's 1991-94 run was significantly better than Sting's peak years from an in ring standpoint, and I am a pretty big Bret fan.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 14, 2012 23:30:30 GMT -5
Eh if a guy like Sting isn't a Hall of Famer, there are very, very few guys that are. Plus, it's a make believe sport, so any sorta criteria is bogus anyway.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 14, 2012 23:56:00 GMT -5
Meltzer if anything, is a thoughtful, analytical-type wrestling industry thinker. He is not a "personal vendetta" type guy in the least. I've heard him complement Dana White in the same sentence where he was recounting White calling him an a**hole.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 15, 2012 0:18:20 GMT -5
LOL, Sting will get into the WWE Hall of Fame first, without working for the company.
It's a pretty goofy oversight. Not a draw but everyone is disappointed when it's the Undertaker instead of Sting.
|
|
|
Post by notasmark on Dec 15, 2012 1:19:07 GMT -5
Sting would be top 10 in the biggest stars of all time to be honest.
Dave Meltzer and his groupies are dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Dec 15, 2012 1:21:28 GMT -5
Ego trip for Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 1:39:15 GMT -5
Sting is somewhat a victim of his never going to the E. He was a huge star in the late 80s early 90s WCW, but once WCW brought Hogan and others in he never really had a chance to be the man outside of the nWo angle which WCW f***ed up royally.
If he had gone to the WWF in the mid to late 90s or even after WCW folded he would have remained relevant and would be thought of more highly in terms of Hall Of Fame status.
Then again I also subscribe to the theory that pro wrestling is fake, and Sting was a big part of it for a long time so why shouldn't he be in?
|
|
|
Post by sdoyle7798 on Dec 15, 2012 1:47:27 GMT -5
Isn't Benoit in this hall of fame?
Going just on his career (and not the...well, you know), I would say he doesn't match up to Sting in anything but workrate (Benoit's workrate was far better than Sting's).
My opinion, of course. YMMV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 1:53:45 GMT -5
Eh if a guy like Sting isn't a Hall of Famer, there are very, very few guys that are. Plus, it's a make believe sport, so any sorta criteria is bogus anyway.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Dec 15, 2012 1:55:25 GMT -5
LOL, Sting will get into the WWE Hall of Fame first, without working for the company. It's a pretty goofy oversight. Not a draw but everyone is disappointed when it's the Undertaker instead of Sting. Not everyone... I've always liked Taker better.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 15, 2012 2:05:31 GMT -5
LOL, Sting will get into the WWE Hall of Fame first, without working for the company. It's a pretty goofy oversight. Not a draw but everyone is disappointed when it's the Undertaker instead of Sting. Some of the IWC gets hyped up, but I would be surprised if most casual WWE fans even know or care who Sting is.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Dec 15, 2012 2:08:01 GMT -5
Man, it's a no brainer for me. He's arguably the greatest rival of the man that man consider to be the best ever (Flair). He's the greatest rival of the group that changed the business and might be the most popular stable ever (nWo). He is/was the face of WCW, one of the most popular promotions ever. He had great matches (particularly from 88-94) with all sorts of different wrestlers. He has that uncanny charisma that draws everyone into going apeshit over him, even though he was booked horribly for 90% of his career. He is one of the main reasons that TNA got the TV deals they did, and became one of the faces of that company as well. Etc.
|
|
Dat Dude
Dennis Stamp
Wait, what?
Posts: 4,785
|
Post by Dat Dude on Dec 15, 2012 2:16:26 GMT -5
Any wrestling HOF that doesn't think Sting isn't worthy a candidate, isn't worth a damn to me.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Dec 15, 2012 2:20:35 GMT -5
LOL, Sting will get into the WWE Hall of Fame first, without working for the company. It's a pretty goofy oversight. Not a draw but everyone is disappointed when it's the Undertaker instead of Sting. Some of the IWC gets hyped up, but I would be surprised if most casual WWE fans even know or care who Sting is. Unless he debuts to go against Taker at Mania as the yearly rumor goes and the kids love him and Sting masks sell like hotcakes. Sting would be a merchandising machine for Vince.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 15, 2012 2:34:06 GMT -5
The Observer HoF is voted on by many former and current pro wrestlers and wrestling journalists, not just Dave Meltzer. I would think Sting's peers would be a better judge than I am.
And I was never that big of a Sting fan. He was average at best in the ring, and never really a big draw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 2:59:20 GMT -5
I wonder how many fans nowadays even know Sting still wrestles? I've been curious how him showing up at Raw would go over with the audience they have now.
On topic: He makes some valid points regarding why Sting doesn't quite make the grade for an induction into their HOF, but still, he's Sting. The guy has had one of the most prolific and consistent career of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Dec 15, 2012 3:01:24 GMT -5
My question is, who are these "peers" that vote?
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 15, 2012 3:05:20 GMT -5
My question is, who are these "peers" that vote? I would guess people like Chris Jericho, Lance Storm, Mick Foley, Konnan, Jim Cornette, Raven, Les Thatcher, Mike Tenay, and many others from Japan and elsewhere.
|
|