Wrestling Culture Episode 58

[puropotsy]

On Episode 58 of The Wrestling Culture podcast, Dylan Hales and are joined by our new friend Andy of to discuss the Wrestling Observer Hall Of Fame candidacy of wrestler Sting. Andy argues the pros and Dylan argues the cons with me pitching straight down the middle. It was a good time so please listen, and also check Andy's work on the So We Were Told podcast.

 

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=112658&cmd=tc

[Steenalized]

As always, I loved the show, guys. One very minor point on Sting that comes up from time to time; Dylan brought it up at the last minute here. I don't think Sting's candidacy is bolstered by "I thought he was super cool as a kid." But, I do think Sting was a character who appealed to kids more than adults. You're a 20 or 30 year old guy in the late 80s or early 90s, you're probably going to care more about Flair or Luger than Sting. But Sting's aesthetics could easily appeal to little kids. His Crow gimmick from the NWO era didn't have that, but if I may use some anecdotal evidence, Sting was easily the most popular WCW baby face with me and my peers (me being 8-10 at the time) until Goldberg eclipsed him. I think some reason why he wasn't as big of a spike in drawing compared to others (say Roddy Piper) is that the people who actually have money to buy PPVs, adults, remember and know Piper and get his appeal. Kids who are or were into Sting might have some sway in PPV buys, but a lot less so than the 18+ demo. It's a marginal point that I don't think changes the reality of Sting as a Hall of Famer, but it may be worth noting.

[pol]

I do think the very fact that so many people who aren't really thinking very hard about whether Sting is a great candidate based on drawing power consider him such a no-brainer shoo-in HOFer is an argument for him in itself. The guy has an aura far in excess of his statistical record as a draw and far in excess of comparable candidates like Luger. He's one of the top guys considered synonymous with WCW for many people, and he's seen as a legendary performer. In a business like wrestling where perception is everything (or at least a solid second to making money) I think that should factor in. How much you see that as a factor for induction probably weighs a lot on whether you think he passes the line or not.

[Matt D]

Ok, I am about 35 minutes in, and I'm going to raise a question, or a thought, mainly because I don't have time to listen to the rest until tomorrow. You guys may raise this point later on but if we're thinking heavily about WCW's performance during Sting's period on top in the early 90s, and why a lot of people don't penalize him for it, I do have a theory and I think it's worth talking about. Let's put nostalgia aside for now. That's hard. A lot of us were into Sting at that key period.

 

Instead, let's think about this: What did Sting do during that period that caused WCW to fail. Alternatively, what could have Sting done better to cause them to succeed?

 

When you look at the end of Hogan's run on top in WWF, you can see things he may have done poorly. When you look at Hogan early in WCW, the same. Or the failure of the NWO towards the end. Alternatively, you can see a ton of things that Hogan does successfully in his key runs that you can attribute towards the success of the companies he's in. Causality stemming from his performance.

 

What did Sting do wrong in 1991-3? He was consistently over with what crowds were in those arenas. They seemed hugely excited to see him. Listen to the reaction he gets at Beach Blast or vs Vader or even vs Johnny B. Badd.in the Clash I just watched. This is the period with the series with Vader and Rude and Cactus Jack, like Andy said. He was pretty giving in a lot of ways, putting some talent like Bagwell under his wing and he sure helped to put Badd over in the match that I saw him in. And those were just younger guys. He more than put over Rude and Vader to get them established with the fans. Was he an amazing promo? No but he was an enthusiastic one and he seemed to connect with the fans that were there.

 

It's hard to hold those years against Sting because we do what we do: we analyze, and in analyzing, I don't think we can find a ton of things that we think he did wrong or even a lot that we wished he would have done better. Therefore, maybe it was other factors?

 

Now, this is just then. One thing we're seeing out of the 98 yearbook so far is a lot of people disappointed with him that year. I'm just talking about this 90-93 period.

 

Yes, he didn't draw, and therefore, he obviously didn't connect with enough fans, but why? How? It's not an opportunity thing, necessarily, or a counter-factual that keeps people from holding this against him quite as much. I'm arguing here, or at least suspecting, it's because there isn't a fast and easy list that we can come up for on this specific point. We can't find the causality in Sting's performance or his existence that led to him not being a success, and instead see lots of things he did right or well or that looked like they should have been successful. That's where the "opportunity" element comes in. That's why people think Sting might have been successful if only... because the flaws that caused him not to be aren't immediately evident in his performance in this period. People have a hard time finding qualitative reasons to explain the quantitative realities.

 

The same is sort of true with Bret Hart during this down period, no? In some ways, it's almost easier to spot what Bret could have done differently or where he was deficient than Sting, even (But that's another, parallel argument).

[kjh]

I think it says a lot about TNA that Sting's run there was barely touched upon. But it should have been talked in more detail. I can see it being seen as a total black mark other than him finally becoming a good promo, because well it's TNA, but there's pockets of evidence that he had a positive impact on ratings and pay-per-view buys, especially when he first came in. Moreover, signing Sting was important in getting Spike TV to move TNA Impact into prime time and his loss (along with Hulk Hogan and others to a lesser degree) probably led to Spike TV losing interest in airing TNA on their station.

[King Kang]

The 59th best episode. Andy the guest didn't add much and failed to make one argument in favor of Sting's candidacy.

 

My own take: I think we always thought that whatever stud was going to replace Flair was going to eat the world on fire and challenge Hogan for popularity. I think WCW fans wanted that to even the sides so to speak in the bi-lateral world. But Sting and Luger never did that. The closest WCW ever came to creating that guy was Goldberg. Sting was never the best in the world at anything and that makes it hard to advocate for him.

[DR Ackermann]

I'm only 30 minutes in but on the scorpion deathlock, it was the sasori gatame in Japan and in brets book he says konnan tought him the move. I think it was pat Patterson that suggested he use it.

[DR Ackermann]

Coincidentally sasori-gatame means scorpion hold...

[El Boricua]

Two questions:

 

What are the judging /consideration criteria for the WON Hall of Fame?

 

Where can one find / look at WCW attendance figures?

[pol]

Coincidentally sasori-gatame means scorpion hold...

 

I assume it's so named because the receiver's body resembles a scorpion when in the hold. Same deal as the manji-gatame (swastika hold).

[WrestlingPower]

Really enjoyed the show and this type of discussion. I agree that Andy didn't really bring forward many points to change people's minds but it was interesting to explore points that are oversold or undersold. I would have liked to hear more on TNA also. Maybe his TNA run only served to keep Sting more relevant in people's minds than Luger. I agree with Dylan that I very much see Luger & Sting as equals as far as candidates go & Luger isn't even on the ballot. Sting's "fame" and perception is what caused TNA to sign him year after year and in some ways Sting's run there made him a more complete performer as he brought in more elements (like promos) that were a criticism of him over the years. Maybe TNA's reputation and booking have clouded views on Sting like early 90s WCW did? I feel that the TNA run might be the difference in Sting over Luger, since he did help them in various ways, and it's just a matter still of do those factors carry him across the line? They certainly brought him longevity that he wouldn't have had otherwise. Maybe the question should have been raised, if Sting's career was over in 2001, how does he look as a candidate? If you're going to focus on early 90s and 97-98 as his peak periods, then theoretically his career ending in 2001 should make no difference.

[slackermillionaire]

As always an enjoyable listen, great work guys. Just curious how do people feel Sting stacks up against guys who had their major run in the last 10 years- like Edge, Batista, Orton and even someone like Jericho who is already in the WON HOF?