Is no Taker vs Sting inexcusable?

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2016 5:29:42 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Apr 15, 2016 21:45:50 GMT -5 Alice Syndrome said:

Because even more than Hogan or Cena, Taker was/is WWE, and Sting was WCW.

Not really. Hulk Hogan is professional wrestling. He's on his own level. Racist comments, sex tapes and embarrassing reality TV show and all. Hulk Hogan is the biggest name in wrestling ever and second isn't even close.

So far this thread says otherwise.

[kendrickisking]

Hulk Hogan is Pro Wrestling in the same way Tim Tebow is professional football and Seltzer And Friedberg are directors. Abstractly but not technically.

[lemonyellowson]

100 percent inexcusable. People hanging to see it for years. Not even a stare down. Clowns.

[sonofblaine]

I'll live.

[horseface]

The time to do it was Sting's debut, instead of having Taker wrestle Wyatt and having Sting fight HHH.

It didn't have to be technically masterful. Keep it 15 mins or under, short and to the point. Winner doesn't really matter. Crowd would have been thrilled to see it.

I mean the HHH/Sting match wasn't really bad, but the wrong guy won and it was a match nobody ever really asked for.

So yeah--fairly inexcusable. 

[Allie Kitsune]

"Inexcusable" is going a bit overboard.

"Disappointing" is more accurate.

[Aya Reiko]

Nope.

Both are at the point in their careers where they should just hang it up for good. The only time either should be in the ring is for the nostalgia pop and do one or two of their signature moves.

[Sephiroth]

Yes and no. If ever they were going to do it, WM 31 was the moment. They key would always have been the hype, and the circumstances were perfect in that case; Sting's first match, Undertaker absent for a whole year. But after that there was no point-the way they both are booked this past year removed the mystique.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Never understood the story there anyway. What reason is there? Both wearing trench coats?

[2 time pro bowler Fred Dryer]

I can't recall a time when I cared to see either of them on my TV, so this is an easy "no" for me.

[Urfarkendarf]

Who is there to blame? Vince? Sorry, but I don't blame him for not wanting to put two guys with a combined near 100 years of age in the ring together. The match has the potential to be the absolute drizzling shits and there's only so much nonsense that can be added to the stew (ala HHH vs Sting at 31) to help carry it. That only leaves Sting as being left to blame. He had multiple opportunities to join WWE post-WCW and chose not to until the end of his career. At the same time, its hard to sit here and pass blame on him. He made his decisions and that's really it. He earned the right to do what he wanted to do. The time to make the match meaningful has long since past. Sting would never get the win most likely and their careers are too close to the end for the match to be really special. It'd be an attraction that would never live up to the hype at this point.

So no, its not inexcusable. Its just how things worked out. Had Sting joined the E in 01-02 when he probably should've, who knows what the history would be.

[tms]

I'm glad it never happened.

There was no need for Sting to lose or be involved in screwy finishes in yet another high-profile match. Sting needed to win far more than Taker, and that was never going to happen.