Is no Taker vs Sting inexcusable?

[Deleted]

Perhaps I made the question confusing. Yes = they should have had it, No = it's fine they didn't do it

This may seem to be a tired subject but I think it still needs to be discussed. WWE has dropped the ball so many times in the past especially after Vince bought WCW. All of the great matches that we could have had and never had. That is not to say that I am not unthankful for the matches that the WWE has delivered. I very much am grateful. 

Why in the world would they not give the fans what they want with Taker vs Sting at wrestlemania? They KNOW the fans want this and even Sting wants it probably Taker too. We had Sting and Taker on the same wrestlemania card but not against each other. No one would want to see Taker vs Bray or Sting vs HHH over Sting vs Undertaker. It is outright absurd. It would be for their own benefit as well. I know that Sting is not as popular as he used to be maybe but it would still have to be a huge draw. 

Sting is "retired" now, yes I know. I am still hoping that it might happen next year. If it doesn't happen next year then I doubt it ever will. I tuned in this year to see if something would happen and it never did. 

WHY? WHY? WHY did WWE not give the fans what they want? 

[JCBaggee]

As I've said a MILLION times, the problem with Sting vs. Undertaker is everyone thinks they're getting Sting and Undertaker from the early 00s.

Now, if anyone could do it? It'd be these two. It would have been a great match, but the hype and years of anticipation would have saddled it and everyone would have ragged on it.

Some dream matches are just better left as dreams.

[Jobes]

I don't want to see two broken down dudes gas themselves out for fifteen minutes.

[GuyOfOwnage]

No, it was never promised. But your story was built-in right there - two of the most popular wrestlers of the 90s, two guys who represented their respective companies better than anyone else during that period. Then it looked like it would never happen - then they were finally in the same company around WrestleMania time - and they gave Sting's only WM match to Triple H...sigh.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2016 15:03:21 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

As I've said a MILLION times, the problem with Sting vs. Undertaker is everyone thinks they're getting Sting and Undertaker from the early 00s.

Now, if anyone could do it? It'd be these two. It would have been a great match, but the hype and years of anticipation would have saddled it and everyone would have ragged on it.

Some dream matches are just better left as dreams.

As long as they can do their signature moves that is all that matters. 

[Ecks Ecks Ringout Ecks Ecks]

Yes, I rank this up there with Hogan/Flair in WWF as missed opportunities go.

It would have been fine as 90% theatrics and 10% signature spots. There are numerous past matches regarded as classics that had very few actual bumps. Tell the story properly and it would have been fine.

[JCBaggee]

Apr 15, 2016 15:05:30 GMT -5 @itiswrittenkjv1611 said:

Apr 15, 2016 15:03:21 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

As I've said a MILLION times, the problem with Sting vs. Undertaker is everyone thinks they're getting Sting and Undertaker from the early 00s.

Now, if anyone could do it? It'd be these two. It would have been a great match, but the hype and years of anticipation would have saddled it and everyone would have ragged on it.

Some dream matches are just better left as dreams.

As long as they can do their signature moves that is all that matters. 

What? No, that's a terrible idea.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2016 15:11:07 GMT -5 JCBaggee said:

Apr 15, 2016 15:05:30 GMT -5 @itiswrittenkjv1611 said:

As long as they can do their signature moves that is all that matters. 

What? No, that's a terrible idea.

how?

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

No. Sting never wanted to come to WWE previously because he thought he wouldn't be used right. And for the most part he was right.

[I'm Team Bayley and Indi]

Triple H just couldn't admit to himself that the Sting WWE match that people was clamouring for was not against Triple H

[domrep]

More Sting's fault for not coming in sooner. It didn't have to be a match with a 57 year old and a 50 year old...Sting probably could have come in 5 years ago and it would have been passable.

[Alice Syndrome]

They had ONE job.

[domrep]

Apr 15, 2016 15:20:00 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

No. Sting never wanted to come to WWE previously because he thought he wouldn't be used right. And for the most part he was right.

The first reason was b/c it went against his religious beliefs, which is understandable. When he finally did come in, you could sense he regretted not being in the company sooner. Looks like he realized it was more than just wrestling, it was the toy deal, Hall of Fame, etc. Honestly, I thought that was him in 2011, in the cabin vignettes.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

No, this isn't a dream match for me any more than Triple H v Sting was, but I'm happier we got that than a match with the Undertaker, screwy ending and all. Taker shat all over every WCW guy he was put against and I'd rather not have him shamble his way through and get the win in one of Sting's final matches and get the win to grind some salt and broken glass into that wound, and let's face it, he would be going over.

[Kevin Hamilton]

While it's puzzling they didn't bother, I never cared one way or another. So no.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2016 15:05:19 GMT -5 GuyOfOwnage said:

No, it was never promised. But your story was built-in right there - two of the most popular wrestlers of the 90s, two guys who represented their respective companies better than anyone else during that period. Then it looked like it would never happen - then they were finally in the same company around WrestleMania time - and they gave Sting's only WM match to Triple H...sigh.

I think the dust settled far too much from the Monday Night Wars for Sting's WWE debut to be about "let's see who's better now that we're all rickety and damaged." The Triple H/Sting thing made sense from a standpoint that Sting didn't want to see WWE suffer from a faction tearing the place apart like WCW did. If he came in after Undertaker they would have a pretty tough time explaining why he waited so long. At least for me to really buy into it.

I always found it pretty asinine of Sting to think he's on the level worthy of an Undertaker match at Wrestlemania, given his TNA work up to then. I wouldn't turn it down if they booked it, but I wasn't dying for it either.

[bob]

I still don't understand why we didn't get this for WrestleMania last year.

[Nickybojelais]

If Sting had come over during the buyout of WCW the yes. I'd even say yes if Sting came over about 6 years ago when his TNA contract expired.

But at this point in their careers, absolutely not.

[Deleted]

Eh, I'm sure they had their reasons for not doing it when they had the chance and really, though they probably should've gone for it, I can understand their thinking at the time given Taker was coming off of looking pretty broken down and what seemed to be a rather serious concussion while Triple H can absolutely still go and could prop up Sting if he had needed it. I know personally I was much more interested in Triple H / Sting on paper than I ever would've been in Taker / Sting; hell, even before they actually started building that one I was saying I'd rather see him face Triple H.

[xCompackx]

Apr 15, 2016 15:22:07 GMT -5 I'm Team Bayley and Indi said:

Triple H just couldn't admit to himself that the Sting WWE match that people was clamouring for was not against Triple H

Vince was the one that didn't want Sting vs. Undertaker. Honestly, HHH was probably the safest choice to face Sting if 'Taker was out.