Sting's New Gimmick!!! Yay or Nay???

[Big Bad Booty Daddy]

I love you. No I really do. YOU DA MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say he can still go decent. In pretty good shape too. Lean, and still a little definition. Moves well for 50+

Haha Thanks bro, I'll sort you out a couple of decent Ho's for Christmas =))

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Tatsumi Funjinami is a Japanese wrestling legend. Please tell me you've heard of at least some of the following:
Mitsuharu Misawa
KENTA
Kenta Kobashi
Hayabusa
Jinsei Shinzaki
Jun Akiyama
Kensuke Sasaki
Akira Hokuto
Katsuhiko Nakajima
Akira Taue
Toshiaki Kawada
Mil Mascaras
Robbie Brookside
Johnny Saint
Johnny Kidd
Rikidozan
Stan Hansen
Jumbo Tsuruta
Manami Toyota
The Jumbing Bomb Angels
Aja Kong
Dick Togo
Blue Demon
Blue Demon Jr.
El Santo
El Hijo del Santo
Jushin Liger
The Great Muta
Gran Hamada
Mariko Yoshida

I've heard of Misawa, Kobashi, Jushin Liger (my BOY), The Great Muta...

[SONICdopeFRESH]

If i remember correctly, Sting wasn't announced for the show. They stole the 2/21/11 idea and made a vid VERY similar which in itself was downright retarded AND instead of giving the kids a chance to have some time they brought back the old fart. I respect what Sting did in NWA & WCW plus his earlier TNA stuff BUT right now he has no business holding the title belt around his waist. He's 52, can't work a good match which is more then psychology which in that match STUNK. It was a pointless title change except for the fact they needed to get the belt off of Hardy who shouldn't have gotten it back from Anderson.

Sting is almost like the Big Show, you put him in a match with the title on the line against guys who should have the belt over him and he'll get the belt. Why? Not because he deserves it. He gets it because TNA writers suck and don't know what they're doing. Why do you think everyone dislikes and even hate Vince Russo so much? He puts in swerves for the sake of having them. He likes to play hot potato with a WORLD TITLE. If the TNA writers were smart then Anderson would still be champion from when he won the title at Genesis. Jeff Hardy wouldn't have won the belt back as it did nothing and Sting wouldn't have won it either. If Sting feels the need to stay in the ring, put over the younger guys without getting a title shot or even a real chance at becoming a World Champion again. When TNA doesn't know what to do, they put the title back on Sting. Which is TNA FAIL!!!

Well, can't blame Sting for bad booking. And, his matches are solid. Again. Do I think he should be in more of a role where he is putting the younger guys over? yes and no. TNA hasn't molded enough talent to realistically be on a level to beat Sting. To maybe the AJ & joe, yes. But not many names should be falling to him until they build younger stars. I'm not including the WWE guys in this. They've already been established. And TNA is smart putting the belt on him.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. Only slightly. It was just new marketing. The famous E&C vs. Hardyz ladder match from 99 used a lot of chairs, and there wasn't much of a different between the TLC matches and the "Triangle Ladder Match" from Wrestlemania 2000. And if TLC I was new, then TLC II wasn't.

2. I said that "legendary careers are made by legendary matches. Not that the careers make the matches. Booking, characters, and ringwork make the matches great.

3. Even if one followed your belief that everything was made by characters, the most legendary match of the 90's would be Rock vs. Austin or Hogan vs. Flair, not Hogan vs. Goldberg.

This is out of the same order, but Goldberg v. Hogan would be the greatest match of the 90's simply because there was that big ONE encounter. Georgia Dome. When you say those two names, you re-live THAT match. With Austin v. Rock or Flair v. hogan, WHICH match would it be? None generated the buzz. And considering the NWO & the WCW being the dominating company at that time, makes it even bigger.

Any concept is new. Even if something like it was done before, if it is a bit different, it's gonna generate a new interest. In most ladder matches prior, no other weapon was used, just ladders. These were the first time, perhaps the 2 most common hardcore weapons used (chair, table) were being tossed into it. Considering the era, who was in it, and how well it was promoted then, it was bound to be epic.

But careers DO make the matches. A lot easier to watch Punk v. Orton, than A Riley v. D Bryian. Because you have 2 guys on an almost heroic status to multiple demographics, making it EASIER to watch with an open mind. A lot of people have to be sold on the person, to feel the person, to like the person.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

I love you. No I really do. YOU DA MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say he can still go decent. In pretty good shape too. Lean, and still a little definition. Moves well for 50+

Haha Thanks bro, I'll sort you out a couple of decent Ho's for Christmas =))

[Big Red Machine]

Well, can't blame Sting for bad booking. And, his matches are solid. Again. Do I think he should be in more of a role where he is putting the younger guys over? yes and no. TNA hasn't molded enough talent to realistically be on a level to beat Sting. To maybe the AJ & joe, yes. But not many names should be falling to him until they build younger stars. I'm not including the WWE guys in this. They've already been established. And TNA is smart putting the belt on him.

Obviously Sting can't lose all of the time, because beating him wouldn't be special anymore. As for guys whom TNA has built up to the level where they can beat Sting, right now, I'd say the list is:
AJ
Joe
Daniels
Morgan
Ken Anderson
Abyss (he's already done this, though)

At one point, I think that Hernandez was on that level, but he has since gone down, and I think that Pope was definite;y on track to go there before they derailed him. With a little bit of a push (say winning the feud with Flair they have been hinting at), I think that Bobby Roode could be there as well.

The problem is, though, that while other guys shouldn't be beating Sting, Sting cannot take bumps well enough to be able to put the others over enough to give them a rub.

[Big Red Machine]

1. Only slightly. It was just new marketing. The famous E&C vs. Hardyz ladder match from 99 used a lot of chairs, and there wasn't much of a different between the TLC matches and the "Triangle Ladder Match" from Wrestlemania 2000. And if TLC I was new, then TLC II wasn't.

2. I said that "legendary careers are made by legendary matches. Not that the careers make the matches. Booking, characters, and ringwork make the matches great.

3. Even if one followed your belief that everything was made by characters, the most legendary match of the 90's would be Rock vs. Austin or Hogan vs. Flair, not Hogan vs. Goldberg.

This is out of the same order, but Goldberg v. Hogan would be the greatest match of the 90's simply because there was that big ONE encounter. Georgia Dome. When you say those two names, you re-live THAT match. With Austin v. Rock or Flair v. hogan, WHICH match would it be? None generated the buzz. And considering the NWO & the WCW being the dominating company at that time, makes it even bigger.

Any concept is new. Even if something like it was done before, if it is a bit different, it's gonna generate a new interest. In most ladder matches prior, no other weapon was used, just ladders. These were the first time, perhaps the 2 most common hardcore weapons used (chair, table) were being tossed into it. Considering the era, who was in it, and how well it was promoted then, it was bound to be epic.



For Hogan vs. Flair, it would have been their first match-at Bash at the Beach 94. With Rock vs. Austin, it would have been their Wrestlemania-headlining match at Wrestlemania 15. I think that the first meeting between the two biggest stars of the past 10 years or THE MAIN EVENT OF WRESTLEMANIA is a lot bigger than a match on Nitro with three days worth of hype.

The fact that Hogan and Goldberg only had one match was just absolute stupidity on WCW's part (that's right folks Hogan never got his rematch because he was too busy headlining the next two PPVs against the likes of Karl Malone and Jay Leno. I guess that wasn't as important as the WCW World Heavyweight Title). The fact that they only had one match doesn't add much to their match, nor can you possibly count the fact they had more than one match against each other against any pair of opponents. "You thought that Taker vs. HBK at WM25 was good... wait until you see the rematch!" That draws. That makes matches bigger. Would you really count the fact that they had a bunch of matches against each other against history's great pairings? You never hear anyone say "it would have been better if Sting annd Flair (or Flair and Dusty, or Raven and Dreamer, or RVD and Lynn, or Joe and Punk, or Dragon and Nigel or AJ and Daniels or HBK and Triple H, etc.) only had one match together." Instead, you get people debating which one of their series of amazing matches against each other was better. Look at boxing. How can you say that the Fight of the Century becomes less important because of the Thrilla in Manilla? It is ridiculous.

Also, at that point, the WCW vs. nWo buzz was dead. The big angle at that point was the nWo WolfPac vs. the nWo Hollywood (and Hogan, DDP, and the feuding celebrities).

As for the TLC matches, chairs and tables had been used in ladder matches before (in WWE, not less, within the past year)! I'm not disputing that the talent involved, the promotion, the booking, and the atmosphere all contributed to making those matches legendary. I am disputing your assertion that

The 1st 2 TLC matches were legendary because they were new.

And on to the next point:

But careers DO make the matches. A lot easier to watch Punk v. Orton, than A Riley v. D Bryian. Because you have 2 guys on an almost heroic status to multiple demographics, making it EASIER to watch with an open mind. A lot of people have to be sold on the person, to feel the person, to like the person.

The fact that people care about the wrestlers is part of the atmosphere. That, at its basest level, is what "being over" is. But to say that one match is inherently better than another because it features two guys who are more over than the two guys in the other match is utterly ridiculous.
As for you comments about it making the match "easier to watch" - what does that mean? That you won't watch a match with two guys you don't like? Then how do you ever like anyone new? That doesn't sound very "open-minded" to me. You won't watch a match just to enjoy the action?
And combining these two points: the best wrestlers can make you care about them with just one match, even if you have never heard of them before. I took a friend who had never seen a wrestling match before in his life to an ROH show with me, and by the end of the night, he was cursing out Nigel McGuinness along with the rest of the crowd, and even came back with me to a few more shows in the hopes of seeing someone take belt off of Nigel. The same thing happened at a show that my sister tagged along with us to Manhattan Mayhem III. She had never heard of them before, but by the end of the night, she was a fan of Steen & Generico and wanted to see the American Wolves lose the belts so badly that she watched their Final Battle iPPV match against the Briscoes with me, just to see them lose.

Look at Triple H vs. HBK from Summer Slam. Even if you don't know anything about wrestling other than the fact that it is a work, you can't help but root for HBK.

[Big Red Machine]

Tatsumi Funjinami is a Japanese wrestling legend. Please tell me you've heard of at least some of the following:
Mitsuharu Misawa
KENTA
Kenta Kobashi
Hayabusa
Jinsei Shinzaki
Jun Akiyama
Kensuke Sasaki
Akira Hokuto
Katsuhiko Nakajima
Akira Taue
Toshiaki Kawada
Mil Mascaras
Robbie Brookside
Johnny Saint
Johnny Kidd
Rikidozan
Stan Hansen
Jumbo Tsuruta
Manami Toyota
The Jumbing Bomb Angels
Aja Kong
Dick Togo
Blue Demon
Blue Demon Jr.
El Santo
El Hijo del Santo
Jushin Liger
The Great Muta
Gran Hamada
Mariko Yoshida

I've heard of Misawa, Kobashi, Jushin Liger (my BOY), The Great Muta...

So basically the two Japanese legends who get mentioned the most on this board, and the two guys who feuded with your favorite wrestler. Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't a big name.

[badnewzxl]

Tatsumi Funjinami is a Japanese wrestling legend. Please tell me you've heard of at least some of the following:
Mitsuharu Misawa
KENTA
Kenta Kobashi
Hayabusa
Jinsei Shinzaki
Jun Akiyama
Kensuke Sasaki
Akira Hokuto
Katsuhiko Nakajima
Akira Taue
Toshiaki Kawada
Mil Mascaras
Robbie Brookside
Johnny Saint
Johnny Kidd
Rikidozan
Stan Hansen
Jumbo Tsuruta
Manami Toyota
The Jumbing Bomb Angels
Aja Kong
Dick Togo
Blue Demon
Blue Demon Jr.
El Santo
El Hijo del Santo
Jushin Liger
The Great Muta
Gran Hamada
Mariko Yoshida

I've heard of Misawa, Kobashi, Jushin Liger (my BOY), The Great Muta...

So basically the two Japanese legends who get mentioned the most on this board, and the two guys who feuded with your favorite wrestler. Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't a big name.

which of those four besides Muta feuded with Sting?

[Big Red Machine]

I've heard of Misawa, Kobashi, Jushin Liger (my BOY), The Great Muta...

So basically the two Japanese legends who get mentioned the most on this board, and the two guys who feuded with your favorite wrestler. Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't a big name.

which of those four besides Muta feuded with Sting?

Liger (I thought).

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Obviously Sting can't lose all of the time, because beating him wouldn't be special anymore. As for guys whom TNA has built up to the level where they can beat Sting, right now, I'd say the list is:
AJ
Joe
Daniels
Morgan
Ken Anderson
Abyss (he's already done this, though)

At one point, I think that Hernandez was on that level, but he has since gone down, and I think that Pope was definite;y on track to go there before they derailed him. With a little bit of a push (say winning the feud with Flair they have been hinting at), I think that Bobby Roode could be there as well.

The problem is, though, that while other guys shouldn't be beating Sting, Sting cannot take bumps well enough to be able to put the others over enough to give them a rub.

See, I excluded the ex WWE guys because you will see TNA and say "hey, he was in the WWE," because it's the big company. That'd leave us with AJ, Joe, Daniels (I couldn't see it for some reason as much as I like CD), and Abyss (as you mentioned, been done).

I agree, Hernandez I feel is nowhere near that status anymore. Pope as well, but again, ex WWE guy who we all knew beforehand. I mean Bobby Roode is good, but Beer money is better. Honestly, that's the best damn tag team today.

Sting can take bumps. Pretty sure he catches finishers a lot.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Any concept is new. Even if something like it was done before, if it is a bit different, it's gonna generate a new interest. In most ladder matches prior, no other weapon was used, just ladders. These were the first time, perhaps the 2 most common hardcore weapons used (chair, table) were being tossed into it. Considering the era, who was in it, and how well it was promoted then, it was bound to be epic.



For Hogan vs. Flair, it would have been their first match-at Bash at the Beach 94. With Rock vs. Austin, it would have been their Wrestlemania-headlining match at Wrestlemania 15. I think that the first meeting between the two biggest stars of the past 10 years or THE MAIN EVENT OF WRESTLEMANIA is a lot bigger than a match on Nitro with three days worth of hype.

The fact that Hogan and Goldberg only had one match was just absolute stupidity on WCW's part (that's right folks Hogan never got his rematch because he was too busy headlining the next two PPVs against the likes of Karl Malone and Jay Leno. I guess that wasn't as important as the WCW World Heavyweight Title). The fact that they only had one match doesn't add much to their match, nor can you possibly count the fact they had more than one match against each other against any pair of opponents. "You thought that Taker vs. HBK at WM25 was good... wait until you see the rematch!" That draws. That makes matches bigger. Would you really count the fact that they had a bunch of matches against each other against history's great pairings? You never hear anyone say "it would have been better if Sting annd Flair (or Flair and Dusty, or Raven and Dreamer, or RVD and Lynn, or Joe and Punk, or Dragon and Nigel or AJ and Daniels or HBK and Triple H, etc.) only had one match together." Instead, you get people debating which one of their series of amazing matches against each other was better. Look at boxing. How can you say that the Fight of the Century becomes less important because of the Thrilla in Manilla? It is ridiculous.

Also, at that point, the WCW vs. nWo buzz was dead. The big angle at that point was the nWo WolfPac vs. the nWo Hollywood (and Hogan, DDP, and the feuding celebrities).

As for the TLC matches, chairs and tables had been used in ladder matches before (in WWE, not less, within the past year)! I'm not disputing that the talent involved, the promotion, the booking, and the atmosphere all contributed to making those matches legendary. I am disputing your assertion that

The fact that people care about the wrestlers is part of the atmosphere. That, at its basest level, is what "being over" is. But to say that one match is inherently better than another because it features two guys who are more over than the two guys in the other match is utterly ridiculous.
As for you comments about it making the match "easier to watch" - what does that mean? That you won't watch a match with two guys you don't like? Then how do you ever like anyone new? That doesn't sound very "open-minded" to me. You won't watch a match just to enjoy the action?
And combining these two points: the best wrestlers can make you care about them with just one match, even if you have never heard of them before. I took a friend who had never seen a wrestling match before in his life to an ROH show with me, and by the end of the night, he was cursing out Nigel McGuinness along with the rest of the crowd, and even came back with me to a few more shows in the hopes of seeing someone take belt off of Nigel. The same thing happened at a show that my sister tagged along with us to Manhattan Mayhem III. She had never heard of them before, but by the end of the night, she was a fan of Steen & Generico and wanted to see the American Wolves lose the belts so badly that she watched their Final Battle iPPV match against the Briscoes with me, just to see them lose.

Look at Triple H vs. HBK from Summer Slam. Even if you don't know anything about wrestling other than the fact that it is a work, you can't help but root for HBK.

See, when you say Flair v. Hogan, you think of many matches. While Bash at the Beach 94 may standout, their encounters on which match was the best is debatable. When you say Goldberg v. Hogan, you know which one it is. And BTW, the NWO was STILL waaaaaaay over & taking names. This time, Goldberg took the belt from them & brought it back to the good guys (WCW), and the fans (emphasized by Bobby the Brain), knew it was staying for a good amount of time. I had A LOT more to type, but I lost connection during my initial response, so I sent & got a "diagnose connection error," issue.

Easy to watch, no. I always am down to watch new guys... On mainstream that is. Easy to watch in the sense that you KNOW you have to see punk v. orton, because it's going to go down. But, say take Riley v. Tyson Kidd... yeah. Which will you make sure you (and not you specifically, but say an average fan) will be more interested in watching?

[SONICdopeFRESH]

So basically the two Japanese legends who get mentioned the most on this board, and the two guys who feuded with your favorite wrestler. Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't a big name.

What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING? I never said any of these guys weren't big names. I just stated that I only knew four. And for the record, Muta & Liger have nothing to do with their feuds with Sting... I actually like Liger. Muta, meh.

[Big Red Machine]

Obviously Sting can't lose all of the time, because beating him wouldn't be special anymore. As for guys whom TNA has built up to the level where they can beat Sting, right now, I'd say the list is:
AJ
Joe
Daniels
Morgan
Ken Anderson
Abyss (he's already done this, though)

At one point, I think that Hernandez was on that level, but he has since gone down, and I think that Pope was definite;y on track to go there before they derailed him. With a little bit of a push (say winning the feud with Flair they have been hinting at), I think that Bobby Roode could be there as well.

The problem is, though, that while other guys shouldn't be beating Sting, Sting cannot take bumps well enough to be able to put the others over enough to give them a rub.

See, I excluded the ex WWE guys because you will see TNA and say "hey, he was in the WWE," because it's the big company. That'd leave us with AJ, Joe, Daniels (I couldn't see it for some reason as much as I like CD), and Abyss (as you mentioned, been done).

I agree, Hernandez I feel is nowhere near that status anymore. Pope as well, but again, ex WWE guy who we all knew beforehand. I mean Bobby Roode is good, but Beer money is better. Honestly, that's the best damn tag team today.

Sting can take bumps. Pretty sure he catches finishers a lot.

But it doesn't matter if he was in WWE and didn't do anything (like Pope) or if he is at a much higher level in TNA than he was in WWE (like Anderson).

Sting only takes bumps that require him to not fall very far (Mic Check, Frog Splash, clothesline etc.) when was the last time you saw Sting take a powerbomb or a suplex of any kind?

[Big Red Machine]

Any concept is new. Even if something like it was done before, if it is a bit different, it's gonna generate a new interest. In most ladder matches prior, no other weapon was used, just ladders. These were the first time, perhaps the 2 most common hardcore weapons used (chair, table) were being tossed into it. Considering the era, who was in it, and how well it was promoted then, it was bound to be epic.



For Hogan vs. Flair, it would have been their first match-at Bash at the Beach 94. With Rock vs. Austin, it would have been their Wrestlemania-headlining match at Wrestlemania 15. I think that the first meeting between the two biggest stars of the past 10 years or THE MAIN EVENT OF WRESTLEMANIA is a lot bigger than a match on Nitro with three days worth of hype.

The fact that Hogan and Goldberg only had one match was just absolute stupidity on WCW's part (that's right folks Hogan never got his rematch because he was too busy headlining the next two PPVs against the likes of Karl Malone and Jay Leno. I guess that wasn't as important as the WCW World Heavyweight Title). The fact that they only had one match doesn't add much to their match, nor can you possibly count the fact they had more than one match against each other against any pair of opponents. "You thought that Taker vs. HBK at WM25 was good... wait until you see the rematch!" That draws. That makes matches bigger. Would you really count the fact that they had a bunch of matches against each other against history's great pairings? You never hear anyone say "it would have been better if Sting annd Flair (or Flair and Dusty, or Raven and Dreamer, or RVD and Lynn, or Joe and Punk, or Dragon and Nigel or AJ and Daniels or HBK and Triple H, etc.) only had one match together." Instead, you get people debating which one of their series of amazing matches against each other was better. Look at boxing. How can you say that the Fight of the Century becomes less important because of the Thrilla in Manilla? It is ridiculous.

Also, at that point, the WCW vs. nWo buzz was dead. The big angle at that point was the nWo WolfPac vs. the nWo Hollywood (and Hogan, DDP, and the feuding celebrities).

As for the TLC matches, chairs and tables had been used in ladder matches before (in WWE, not less, within the past year)! I'm not disputing that the talent involved, the promotion, the booking, and the atmosphere all contributed to making those matches legendary. I am disputing your assertion that

The fact that people care about the wrestlers is part of the atmosphere. That, at its basest level, is what "being over" is. But to say that one match is inherently better than another because it features two guys who are more over than the two guys in the other match is utterly ridiculous.
As for you comments about it making the match "easier to watch" - what does that mean? That you won't watch a match with two guys you don't like? Then how do you ever like anyone new? That doesn't sound very "open-minded" to me. You won't watch a match just to enjoy the action?
And combining these two points: the best wrestlers can make you care about them with just one match, even if you have never heard of them before. I took a friend who had never seen a wrestling match before in his life to an ROH show with me, and by the end of the night, he was cursing out Nigel McGuinness along with the rest of the crowd, and even came back with me to a few more shows in the hopes of seeing someone take belt off of Nigel. The same thing happened at a show that my sister tagged along with us to Manhattan Mayhem III. She had never heard of them before, but by the end of the night, she was a fan of Steen & Generico and wanted to see the American Wolves lose the belts so badly that she watched their Final Battle iPPV match against the Briscoes with me, just to see them lose.

Look at Triple H vs. HBK from Summer Slam. Even if you don't know anything about wrestling other than the fact that it is a work, you can't help but root for HBK.

See, when you say Flair v. Hogan, you think of many matches. While Bash at the Beach 94 may standout, their encounters on which match was the best is debatable. When you say Goldberg v. Hogan, you know which one it is. And BTW, the NWO was STILL waaaaaaay over & taking names. This time, Goldberg took the belt from them & brought it back to the good guys (WCW), and the fans (emphasized by Bobby the Brain), knew it was staying for a good amount of time. I had A LOT more to type, but I lost connection during my initial response, so I sent & got a "diagnose connection error," issue.

Easy to watch, no. I always am down to watch new guys... On mainstream that is. Easy to watch in the sense that you KNOW you have to see punk v. orton, because it's going to go down. But, say take Riley v. Tyson Kidd... yeah. Which will you make sure you (and not you specifically, but say an average fan) will be more interested in watching?

1. The reason that you know which match people are talking about when you say "Hogan vs. Goldberg" is because there was only one. Not because that match was so much better than the other matches they might have had. Your argument is predicated on something that is irrelevant to the quality of the match in question.

2. The nWo was still big, but it wasn't the same. The split had already happened. Goldberg winning the belt was big for WCW, but it was something we had seen twice before (when both Sting and Luger won it... and having them lose it was WCW's own stupidity not some master plan to push Goldberg to the title, or else he wouldn't have won the US Title first, and they would have actually HYPED UP the title match. Goldberg himself said that he didn't even know he was going to be challenging for the belt until JJ Dillon announced it on Thunder.)

3. They would be more interested to watch Punk vs. Orton... because those guys have been given time to show off what they can do. But that doesn't mean that they would give up half way through watching Riley vs. Kidd. And after watching both guys a few times, they now know what those guys can do, and would become progressively more interested in watching Riley vs. Kidd. That is how new stars get made.

[Big Red Machine]

So basically the two Japanese legends who get mentioned the most on this board, and the two guys who feuded with your favorite wrestler. Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't a big name.

What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING? I never said any of these guys weren't big names. I just stated that I only knew four. And for the record, Muta & Liger have nothing to do with their feuds with Sting... I actually like Liger. Muta, meh.

Your comments about Fujinami dismissed his match with Hogan was being completely unimportant because you had no idea who he was, in a debate about whether big names or workrate were more important to a match.

[badnewzxl]

Liger (I thought).

I couldn't find anything about it. Liger didn't feud with any heavyweights in the US; he was primarily WCW's guy to get their Junior Heavyweights over. And Sting was such a huge draw that it's hard to forget the guys he feuded with (esp pre nWo). Liger was WCW's most identifiable Japanese competitor (prolly even more so than Muta and Chono; or at least right up there with them). Sting had a small feud with Kensuke Sasaki around Starrcade 95, when they had the whole WCW v. New Japan deal....

[SONICdopeFRESH]

But it doesn't matter if he was in WWE and didn't do anything (like Pope) or if he is at a much higher level in TNA than he was in WWE (like Anderson).

Sting only takes bumps that require him to not fall very far (Mic Check, Frog Splash, clothesline etc.) when was the last time you saw Sting take a powerbomb or a suplex of any kind?

Most fans that watch TNA, watch WWE. That's probably a safe assumption to make. Over 50% easily. Pope DIDN'T do anything in the WE. But we still knew he was an ex WWE guy that had skill if given the time. TNA just gave him the time for a bit. Anderson as well. As much noise as he may make in TNA, he was more popular in the WWE, because the legend is there. The history is there. The fanbase is there. that's STILL the major leagues. A mid carder in the WWE, will still be known to more of society than a main eventer in TNA. It's like the NFL vs. Arena Football.

I see Sting take hella suplexes and slams BTW.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

Your comments about Fujinami dismissed his match with Hogan was being completely unimportant because you had no idea who he was, in a debate about whether big names or workrate were more important to a match.

It obviously wasn't match of the year... America ain't talking about it. And if I don't know about it, I won't speak on it, so I'll move around to something else. Almost like if I went in a topic about an indy, ROH wrestler, etc... not gonna spend much time on something that means nothing to me.

[SONICdopeFRESH]

1. The reason that you know which match people are talking about when you say "Hogan vs. Goldberg" is because there was only one. Not because that match was so much better than the other matches they might have had. Your argument is predicated on something that is irrelevant to the quality of the match in question.

2. The nWo was still big, but it wasn't the same. The split had already happened. Goldberg winning the belt was big for WCW, but it was something we had seen twice before (when both Sting and Luger won it... and having them lose it was WCW's own stupidity not some master plan to push Goldberg to the title, or else he wouldn't have won the US Title first, and they would have actually HYPED UP the title match. Goldberg himself said that he didn't even know he was going to be challenging for the belt until JJ Dillon announced it on Thunder.)

3. They would be more interested to watch Punk vs. Orton... because those guys have been given time to show off what they can do. But that doesn't mean that they would give up half way through watching Riley vs. Kidd. And after watching both guys a few times, they now know what those guys can do, and would become progressively more interested in watching Riley vs. Kidd. That is how new stars get made.

1). Who cares about the qulaity of the match in reality? It's moreso how epic the encounter is. Most people would rather see that Goldberg v. hogan match again live, as opposed to say Orton v. Cena...Something only happens once makes it rare, keeps it from being played out, and makes it much more in demand to see that ONE epic encounter. Then say something that was played out... Very rarely will a multiple match/year feud be hype. back then because it happened so much that you don't know which one is supposed to mean more. And now because fans are so impatient & internet hungry, we get tired of somethings too quick. Can't have an ongoing year feud like you could back in the day. Say, Sting v. Vader... Some great matches... But which one was supposed to hold the most weight? The DRAW between the two??? What match between Cena v. Orton is supposed to be the biggest one??? Oh wait, then you have to try & remember what happened in the most standut match of them... That question doesn't happen with Hogan v. THE MAN.

2). let's see... Luger held the belt all in all for 5 or 6 days... Sting's victory was as epic as my birth (VERY epic). But with Goldberg, you have a man, who was running through everyone. Who had hype out of this world. Who was seen in ring doing everything a powerhouse does. Who made it look like a true a** whooping... You had that beast go up against HOGAN. The man responsible for the group that took WCW apart. Yeah, the NWO was beefing. But it was still WCW v. NWO... Even at future PPV's... It was NWO black n white v. Wolfpac v. WCW. The gold was always wanted in WCW by the good guys (commentary as well as the super babyfaces).

3). new stars get made by doing something to get them over. Wrestling a good match doesn't do that. We can count on 50 fingers & toes good wrestlers now. Probably 100 or 150 really. You need to have great mic skills, or something that stands out & say "I'm the reason you keep from turning the channel." And a lot of these good wrestlers, don't have that.