The Sam
El Dandy
The Brainiest Sam of all
Posts: 8,423
|
Post by The Sam on Dec 16, 2012 10:50:15 GMT -5
The way I see it, Sting has made millions of dollars over his 30+ year career, has millions of passionate fans, he's wrestled the top names in the industry and has become an icon. So after all of that, do you think Sting cries himself to sleep every night knowing he did not make the hall of fame?
I'm sure he would appreciate being inducted. But at the end of the day, he's accomplished so much that maybe he doesn't need a gold watch or a ring or a trophy or a ham sandwich to prove his worth.
But hey, if you don't like that Sting isn't in Meltzers Hall of Fame, then start your own Hall of Fame. Make Sting the only inductee and then send him a ham sandwich for his troubles.
|
|
|
Post by hughgrection on Dec 16, 2012 11:05:49 GMT -5
This alone should disqualify him from any Hall of Fame (except TNA's lol):
Language Warning
As a HUGE WCW Fan during the Monday Night Wars, I think Sting is the most overrated guy ever. NWO is what drew me in.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Dec 16, 2012 11:51:03 GMT -5
Not personally, because ultimately I think the real legacy carved out from that angle was the nWo concept. Sting just happened to be the guy that was the lead face put against them. Perhaps if they executed the big match better, Sting's stock would be better, but Sting won the match in a really awfully put together match, nWo finagled their way back into the picture soon after, and it was more chronicles of nWo. Sting was a cool part of the nWo angle, but I don't think anyone but hardcore fans look back and say "I remember Hulk Hogan vs. Sting", they thing "I remember nWo". He wasn't really a made man after that feud, he was still the really cool wrestler that people appreciate when they see him, but don't necessarily go just to see him. Yeah, and unfortunately it's of no fault of Hogan and Sting's that the fallout of Starrcade '97 sucked so bad. Hogan claims (if you take his word at face value because he blows smoke out of his ass so often) that he pretty much wanted Sting to squash him at Starrcade. Bischoff and Nash talked him out of it because, hey, why kill the gravy train when the money is still rolling in, right? So they squeezed in the whole fast count and Bret Hart crap. Horrible idea on WCW's part. You build up a huge angle for over a year, keep both men apart that long, Sting doesn't say a word or wrestle a match for that long and they do huge business...and deliver a screwy finish. More so than the finish, do you think Sting not wrestling for over a year hurt's his legacy?
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 16, 2012 13:20:32 GMT -5
This alone should disqualify him from any Hall of Fame (except TNA's lol): Language Warning As a HUGE WCW Fan during the Monday Night Wars, I think Sting is the most overrated guy ever. NWO is what drew me in. Wow...maybe this is why sitting up in the rafters for a year and not talking was the perfect angle for Sting.
|
|
The Heenan Family
Unicron
I'm a legend in this sport. If you don't believe me, ask me.
Posts: 2,569
|
Post by The Heenan Family on Dec 16, 2012 14:38:46 GMT -5
I wonder if Meltzer thinks Raven is qualified to be in his online HoF? He'll send him a ballot to vote, but does that come with a rant about why he's not qualified to be inducted too? Or does Meltzer think he's more qualified than Sting? I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure Raven will be on the ballot at some point. Though I doubt he'll reach the 38% Sting did. He asks Raven to vote in his online HoF to give it more legitimacy but doesn't think Raven is qualified to be in his HoF? Thus will Raven get long explanation as to why he is not qualified? Or maybe he does think Raven deserves to be in his HoF but not Sting?
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 14:42:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure Raven will be on the ballot at some point. Though I doubt he'll reach the 38% Sting did. He asks Raven to vote in his online HoF to give it more legitimacy but doesn't think Raven is qualified to be in his HoF? Thus will Raven get long explanation as to why he is not qualified? Or maybe he does think Raven deserves to be in his HoF but not Sting? Not all of the voters are HOFers. Some are non-HOF veteran wrestlers, and some are wrestling journalists/historians. If lots of people are talking about Raven's HOF credentials (unlikely), then I'm sure Meltzer would weigh in with a long-winded analysis of the situation. That's what he does for a living. I remember when Daniel Bryan changed the name of his hold to the "Yes lock", saying "who did Gene Labell ever beat?", Meltzer rambled on forever about Gene Labell's pro wrestling career and how he, in fact, never really beat anyone or had much success in pro wrestling. It wasn't a "vendetta" Meltzer had against Labell, it's just how the guy's brain operates. He offers an analysis on every guy of the ballot, dozens year after year after year. He'll spend more time talking about the ones for whom there's some kind of debate. Point is, Meltzer giving a long explanation about something doesn't mean there's something weird going on, it mean's Meltzer's awake.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Dec 16, 2012 14:47:57 GMT -5
He even mentioned in the thread that he doesn't talk about the candidates publicly until AFTER the ballots have been sent in.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Dec 16, 2012 14:51:04 GMT -5
What he said:
"I have a policy to never discuss the Hall of Fame and new candidates publicly until after the balloting ends. I have in the past done stories the week before the issue (two or three weeks after the ballot deadline) giving my picks but I haven't even done that in years. "
And because it amused me in learning Dave has a sense of humor:
"Granted, in recent years my powers of telepathy are used on everyone who votes forcing them to only vote for people I like. Ask everyone who votes, they'll all admit to it. "
|
|
|
Post by Manute Bol on Dec 16, 2012 15:03:09 GMT -5
Sting in the WWE Hall of Fame? Sure, why the hell not? But the Observer Hall of Fame? Please no. We need least one HOF that tries to maintain credibility.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,642
|
Post by khali on Dec 16, 2012 15:13:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure Raven will be on the ballot at some point. Though I doubt he'll reach the 38% Sting did. He asks Raven to vote in his online HoF to give it more legitimacy but doesn't think Raven is qualified to be in his HoF? Thus will Raven get long explanation as to why he is not qualified? Or maybe he does think Raven deserves to be in his HoF but not Sting? So if I'm understanding this right, you're criticizing him for having guys voting for the Hall of Fame that are not in the HOF or on the ballot. Wouldn't it be a whole hell of a lot less legitimate if Raven was on the ballot and was voting as well? Also, it is possible that Raven was on the ballot at some point. If someone receives less than 10% of the vote, they drop off the ballot. I don't know off the top of my head if Raven was ever on the ballot, but he could have been. So don't just make that assumption. As Kash pointed out by not talking about his opinions publicly until after voting has closed, Dave clearly doesn't go out of his way to make this go the way he wants it to. And he's only one voter, so it's not him who ultimately decides all of this.
|
|
The Heenan Family
Unicron
I'm a legend in this sport. If you don't believe me, ask me.
Posts: 2,569
|
Post by The Heenan Family on Dec 16, 2012 16:08:46 GMT -5
He asks Raven to vote in his online HoF to give it more legitimacy but doesn't think Raven is qualified to be in his HoF? Thus will Raven get long explanation as to why he is not qualified? Or maybe he does think Raven deserves to be in his HoF but not Sting? Not all of the voters are HOFers. Some are non-HOF veteran wrestlers, and some are wrestling journalists/historians. If lots of people are talking about Raven's HOF credentials (unlikely), then I'm sure Meltzer would weigh in with a long-winded analysis of the situation. That's what he does for a living. I remember when Daniel Bryan changed the name of his hold to the "Yes lock", saying "who did Gene Labell ever beat?", Meltzer rambled on forever about Gene Labell's pro wrestling career and how he, in fact, never really beat anyone or had much success in pro wrestling. It wasn't a "vendetta" Meltzer had against Labell, it's just how the guy's brain operates. He offers an analysis on every guy of the ballot, dozens year after year after year. He'll spend more time talking about the ones for whom there's some kind of debate. Point is, Meltzer giving a long explanation about something doesn't mean there's something weird going on, it mean's Meltzer's awake. It still takes a lot of nerve asking a guy like Raven to vote in his HoF to give it some legitimacy yet being fully prepared to give a long-winded response as to why they aren't qualified to actually be in it. I'm sure in an effort to get what Meltzer wanted (Ravens participation), he spared him such a rant. Unless of course he thinks Raven is far more qualified than Sting. In which case I'd love to hear an explanation on that.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 16, 2012 16:22:01 GMT -5
If I may, I think you're still slightly missing the point. The stuff about Sting isn't a rant he had prepared ahead of time, it was analysis after the fact of Sting not being voted into the HOF. There's no reason to try to turn this into Meltzer being a dick or having personal vendettas. I don't know how it could me made clearer at this point.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 16:42:06 GMT -5
Not all of the voters are HOFers. Some are non-HOF veteran wrestlers, and some are wrestling journalists/historians. If lots of people are talking about Raven's HOF credentials (unlikely), then I'm sure Meltzer would weigh in with a long-winded analysis of the situation. That's what he does for a living. I remember when Daniel Bryan changed the name of his hold to the "Yes lock", saying "who did Gene Labell ever beat?", Meltzer rambled on forever about Gene Labell's pro wrestling career and how he, in fact, never really beat anyone or had much success in pro wrestling. It wasn't a "vendetta" Meltzer had against Labell, it's just how the guy's brain operates. He offers an analysis on every guy of the ballot, dozens year after year after year. He'll spend more time talking about the ones for whom there's some kind of debate. Point is, Meltzer giving a long explanation about something doesn't mean there's something weird going on, it mean's Meltzer's awake. It still takes a lot of nerve asking a guy like Raven to vote in his HoF to give it some legitimacy yet being fully prepared to give a long-winded response as to why they aren't qualified to actually be in it. I'm sure in an effort to get what Meltzer wanted (Ravens participation), he spared him such a rant. Unless of course he thinks Raven is far more qualified than Sting. In which case I'd love to hear an explanation on that. We don't even know that Raven's a voter or that Sting isn't a voter for that matter. Regardless, the point escapes me. Are you saying that because Raven was sent a ballot once in the 90s, and as far as we know Sting doesn't vote, that's why Meltzer publicly opposed Sting for the HOF and not Raven?
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Dec 16, 2012 17:15:34 GMT -5
The irony of most of the anti Sting posts here are directed at the peak era of WCW circa 1997-98. If that's all you knew about Sting then you'd certainly find him overrated. I mean the dude went a whole year without wrestling anyone. Not exactly impressive. I recall a segment on Nitro where Dillon offered Sting various contracts for PPV matches against Hennig and Syxx, but Sting only wanted Hogan. To which I must ask: Why are you a contender, jobber? You won't even wrestle the lower level NWO guys to build some cred. This came back to haunt them later as Sting came back rusty and had crappy matches. As far as Sting squashing Hogan goes, I actually agree with the Bischoff, Nash, Hall crowd on this one. Well, not when it comes to a schmozz finish, but you can't build a match for a year and have a PPV and then give us a 2 minute squash match. It needed to be a Sting squash at first, but then Hogan cheats and gains the upper hand for a while, then Sting makes a comeback, maybe fends off some NWO goons, and applies the Scorpion Death Lock.
Anyway, I'd put Sting in my HOF primarily for his 1988-96 work. He was a terrific combination of white meat babyface and superhero babyface at a time when such a thing wasn't typical.
|
|
The Heenan Family
Unicron
I'm a legend in this sport. If you don't believe me, ask me.
Posts: 2,569
|
Post by The Heenan Family on Dec 16, 2012 19:25:38 GMT -5
It still takes a lot of nerve asking a guy like Raven to vote in his HoF to give it some legitimacy yet being fully prepared to give a long-winded response as to why they aren't qualified to actually be in it. I'm sure in an effort to get what Meltzer wanted (Ravens participation), he spared him such a rant. Unless of course he thinks Raven is far more qualified than Sting. In which case I'd love to hear an explanation on that. We don't even know that Raven's a voter or that Sting isn't a voter for that matter. Regardless, the point escapes me. Are you saying that because Raven was sent a ballot once in the 90s, and as far as we know Sting doesn't vote, that's why Meltzer publicly opposed Sting for the HOF and not Raven? My initial post was based off the testimony of celticjobber who said Raven was sent a ballot 10 years ago. But whether he asks Raven or Tommy Dreamer or Don Leo Jonathan, he still asks specific wrestlers to participate in his Hall of Fame to give it legitimacy. I assume that comes with some sort of humility and gratefulness as I don't think they need him for such a project more than he needs them. With that said, does Meltzer give the same sort of "analysis" he gave Stings career to those he asks to participate in his HOF voting? Or does he keep it to himself in an effort to get what he wants and not rock the boat? I doubt Sting votes in Meltzers HoF and if he does, I don't think he does so with Meltzer fully disclosing such rants about his career. But what about someone like Raven? I don't think he should be throwing stones in a glass house.
|
|
|
Post by Evilution E5150 on Dec 16, 2012 19:30:24 GMT -5
Even Iaukea?
im australian, i follow australian wrestling?
who the f*** is Even Iaukea?
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Dec 16, 2012 19:46:17 GMT -5
Curtis Iaukea. Even {Curtis} 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.
|
|
|
Post by evilone on Dec 16, 2012 20:07:45 GMT -5
Drawing power isn't a fixed number or a perfect science but data can be evaluated in the context from which it comes from, and analyzed. If Jon Stewart's ratings tanked it would hurt his overall marketability. If his agent could convince people that there were other reasons for the ratings drop, like a weaker overall TV network or bad time slot, then maybe he could minimize that drop. It's just one criteria, and it's not the only one Meltzer talks about, and it's not the only one that's considered in evaluating HOF eligibility. But your success in drawing money wrestling, as far as it can be ascertained from the data, is certainly relevant. Agree. Point is no wrestler in WCW or any other place in US draw and sold more than main event guy in WWE. It is not comparable in my opinion. If some wrestler could be in HOF because he drew the most in some territory or country he performed that argument can also comply to Sting and WCW without getting WWE into equation.
|
|
Rican
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
July 17, 2011 - HHHe called it
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Rican on Dec 16, 2012 20:30:41 GMT -5
I skimmed at parts and I could be misreading, but he doesn't seem to be saying Sting absolutely shouldn't get in. Just saying that it's not necessarily a no-brainer like it is for some other people. And I disagree with him, but he does make a valid presentation for why not.
|
|