Sting

[Grimmas]

Discuss here.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't see it, I really don't. A handful of great matches with Vader don't make you a top 100 guy. It matters, I guess, that I'm generally so down on the matches with Flair. Sting is probably my least favourite Flair opponent, and at the same time his most "cookie cutter" opponent. You can make it a knock on Flair that he didn't respect Sting enough to do anything different from his usual match vs. strong men (see also Hawk, Nikita, Luger in 88), but I think it says more about Sting that those matches -- Clash 1, for example -- don't hold up (for me at least) like the great Luger matches at GAB 88 or Starrcade 88. Or that later when Flair faced Luger again, he gave him the respect of working different types of match ups with him. Not so for Sting.

 

Beyond Vader and Flair, you're starting to grasp a bit. There's the Cactus Jack match. There's the "Triangle match" with Luger and Flair that I like quite a bit. There's the match tagging with Luger vs. Steiners, which I still love, but a lot of people (Chad, many on PWO, the fun police) don't. What then?

 

For a guy with such a longer career and so many opportunities to shine, it's not a lot. I should say that I'm stopping at 2001. There may be classics from TNA that I don't know about, but I like to pretend TNA doesn't exist. So no, Sting's not top 100 for me. I want to say he might not even be top 200.

[soup23]

 

Beyond Vader and Flair, you're starting to grasp a bit. There's the Cactus Jack match. There's the "Triangle match" with Luger and Flair that I like quite a bit. There's the match tagging with Luger vs. Steiners, which I still love, but a lot of people (Chad, many on PWO, the fun police) don't. What then?

 

 

You are having arguments every day with Matt D that sound like english thesis lectures, but were the fun police?

 

Anyway, I can't see a case at all for Sting. In fact, of none multi-man matches that are great and he was a apart of, he may honestly only have the Vader series right off the top of my head.

[BigBadMick]

The fun police! Got a good chuckle outta that.

 

 

Sting had some good matches in TNA with Angle, Aries and Roode.

 

It exists. Damnit, when will you people realise it exists!

[Matt D]

Hey, I'm having fun at least. I can't speak for Parv, but this is probably what he lives for.

 

I'm not going to push for Sting.

 

Why? Because everytime I see his name the orchestral Crow Sting music comes into my head for an hour and I can't deal with that right now.

[shoe]

Parv you really think Sting is a worse opponent for Flair than Nikita?

[JerryvonKramer]

Yes, because Flair works de facto face in those matches and so can work an underdog against-the-odds narrative and get the crowd behind him, whereas Sting is always face and so it's just cookie cutter Flair-by-the-numbers. If you watch Flair vs. Nikita again, they kind of work a Rocky vs. Mr. T narrative. Wereas what's the narrative with the Sting matches? Let's watch Flair get Gorilla press slammed for the 17th time while they run the clock down.

 

I still have no idea why Clash 1 is routinely given five stars.

[shoe]

In the GAB 85. At Starcade 86 and beyond Flair is clearly the heel. Their are more heel Flair vs. Face Nikita than heel Nikita vs. face Flair for what it's worth that made tape .

[BillThompson]

He'll probably make it for me. I hear all the arguments against him, and they aren't without their validity. The thing is, I value the skills he did have, and he impresses me very much in the great matches he is in. At the end of the day I think he has the volume of great matches/performances to make the list.

[goodhelmet]

He has the Vader feud and a couple of Regal matches. Everything else was done better by other wrestlers.

[KrisZ]

Believe me....Sting was WAY better as an opponent for Flair than Nikita was. I saw all their matches at The Omni and Nikita was very limited in the early ones and Starrcade 86 while he was better was still not nearly as good as the Sting matches.

[ohtani's jacket]

Sting had more than a couple of good Regal matches. Every time they locked up it was cool. Sting would bust out all these holds you never thought he could do. Not a guy I'd vote for, but there's no way I'd call him a bad worker.

[Timbo Slice]

Yeah, I was talking to Loss about him and I think the one thing Sting has for him is his willingness to go outside his comfort zone against certain guys. He didn't have the same match with Vader as he would with Regal or Foley or Luger or Flair. He adapted well. I understand if people think he wasn't the best guy in those matches, but he was a good worker.

[stomperspc]

Putting the Vader series aside, I think Sting had a nice run (1988 – 1996) as an above average worker. There is enough in that time frame to support that notion.

 

On the singles side, the Flair matches – while some are definitely overrated (ie. Clash 1) – were still good matches. He had the “Submit or Surrender” and Beach Blast matches with Cactus Jack. The Regal series produced nothing but good or better matches every time out. You have post-prime matches versus DDP (title matches in early 1998 and April 1999) and Goldberg (September ’98 Nitro) that were amongst the best main event-level television matches in either WCW or WWF during that period. He had some above average matches against New Japan guys including Muta and Hase. Recognizing that is not at all an exhaustive list of Sting’s best matches, it at the very least gives a good idea of his non-Vader singles match output, while working against a wide variety of opponents over a significant period of time.

 

He was a capable tag worker in that he could play both roles (hot tag and selling) very effectively. Sting’s ability to mesh his power offense with selling and working from behind is one of his strong points in general. He has the more spot heavy Steiner matches (w/ Luger & Muta) and the matches teaming with Flair against J-Tex Corporation in 1989, before you event get to the Dangerous Alliance period where he was part of several good trios and regular tags.

While he was not amongst the standout performers in either the ’91 or ’92 War Games, I’d argue that his presence in those matches as the captain of the face side added a significant amount of heat to those matches (particularly ’92). Everyone is over in ’92 War Games, but Sting and the crowd’s reaction to him clearly positions him as the big star of the group.

 

So basically without the Vader matches Sting is a wrestler with an above average eight year run who proved himself capable against a variety of different opponents in a variety of different matches & contexts. He was not always (in fact, he often was not) the best wrestler in those matches I think it would be inaccurate to reduce his contributions to that of a warm body. I think that is a resume that at least gets a wrestler in the discussion for Top 100 of all-time.

 

Post-1990, I would put the Vader vs. Sting matches above any other US Heavyweight series including ones Rock vs. Austin, Austin vs. Hart, Cena vs. Punk, ect. They also hold up against the better heavyweight matches in the world during that period (1992 – 1994) and that was not a weak time period for heavyweights on a worldwide basis. The GAB ’92, Starrcade ’92, Superbrawl ’93 strap match, Slamboree ’94, and Fall Brawl ’94 triangle are legitimately good to great matches. I view the Vader series as the factor that pushes Sting over the edge from borderline candidate to almost certain top 100 wrestler. Again, Vader might have been doing the heavy lifting but I am not sure I could be convinced that Vader could have had those matches with many other wrestlers at the time.

[fxnj]

His TNA stuff is really underrated. With how much stock people here place on being a good worker into old age I don't see why him having really good main events with Styles, Foley, and even Hogan into his 50's doesn't get played up more.

[Matt D]

I'll go out of my way to see some of his TNA stuff. Him and Christian and maybe some James Storm tag stuff.

[Jimmy Redman]

Is anyone going to vote for Sting? He feels like a guy that like, at least one person is going to vote for, you know?

 

I sort of feel bad for Sting, in a way, in that I think he's better than he's often given credit for. He's a good babyface, sells well, makes big face comebacks. I see so much of him in Cena, except that I think Cena is clearly miles better. He has the classic Vader series, and some other good stuff with Flair, Regal, Foley, Steiners. His ring work in the Crow period is a clear weak spot. But, as has been mentioned, in TNA he was remarkably decent as Old Man Sting and had shockingly good matches with AJ, Roode and Hogan, of all people.

 

I can't disagree with the point that was made in this thread about people being all about Old Man work when it is done in a fashionable environment like lucha, but not really bothering with it when it happens in TNA.

 

Having said all that, I'm not really that high on Sting and certainly won't be voting for him. It's just weird that he's a guy that hasn't been talked about since 2014.

[Matt D]

Loss almost got Sting onto my list, but I can't justify it.

[InYourCase]

I'm voting for Sting. He'll be in my bottom 20, but he'll be on there. Going through a bunch of his Saturday Night matches on YouTube recently convinced me that he's a little too strong to leave off my list. I dig his selling and he's one of the better American babyfaces I've ever seen. Add on that to his peak stuff and he gets on my ballot.

[WingedEagle]

I haven't watched any of his big TNA matches. Does anything there add to his case?

[InYourCase]

I haven't watched any of his big TNA matches. Does anything there add to his case?

I'll check with TNA expert Garret Kidney a little later on today to see if he has anything to add, but to me, this is his best TNA match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv064jrwSXE

 

If anything his TNA run adds to his case because he was consistently good. Never great, sometimes bad, but often solid from his debut through 2013.

[Jingus]

I voted for him. Not high, but he was there. His feud with Vader alone was plenty enough for nomination, those two made magic together in a way that most of Leon's other opponents in WCW weren't capable of achieving.

[JerryvonKramer]

Probably the guy I feel most embarrassed about having on my list, and I'm blaming the system.

 

But he is darn good in 92.

[Matt D]

I don't see it, I really don't. A handful of great matches with Vader don't make you a top 100 guy. It matters, I guess, that I'm generally so down on the matches with Flair. Sting is probably my least favourite Flair opponent, and at the same time his most "cookie cutter" opponent. You can make it a knock on Flair that he didn't respect Sting enough to do anything different from his usual match vs. strong men (see also Hawk, Nikita, Luger in 88), but I think it says more about Sting that those matches -- Clash 1, for example -- don't hold up (for me at least) like the great Luger matches at GAB 88 or Starrcade 88. Or that later when Flair faced Luger again, he gave him the respect of working different types of match ups with him. Not so for Sting.

 

Beyond Vader and Flair, you're starting to grasp a bit. There's the Cactus Jack match. There's the "Triangle match" with Luger and Flair that I like quite a bit. There's the match tagging with Luger vs. Steiners, which I still love, but a lot of people (Chad, many on PWO, the fun police) don't. What then?

 

For a guy with such a longer career and so many opportunities to shine, it's not a lot. I should say that I'm stopping at 2001. There may be classics from TNA that I don't know about, but I like to pretend TNA doesn't exist. So no, Sting's not top 100 for me. I want to say he might not even be top 200.

 

Are you more frustrated by that or Inoki?

[JerryvonKramer]

This.

 

Sting is probably the biggest beneficiary of the consistency oversight.