Sting Vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania

D.Q

Why does this keep cropping up as a dream match for people? I genuinely can't see the appeal in wasting one of the few remaining Undertaker mania matches on someone like Sting.

I understand that it would probably provide two very cool entrances, but as soon as that bell rings, both guys shortcomings would be very plain to see. Taker does incredible things every year considering his age, but he needs someone who can help paper over the cracks, I really don't think Sting could help Taker do that, in fact I'd say Taker would have to help Sting to a good match.

As well as that, I can't comprehend how people view them as anything close to equal. Looking at the last 5 years for both men, one of them languishes,irrelevant, in a company that is struggling to stay afloat, the other has been the main draw on the biggest show of the year, and more importantly, delivers the goods, on the biggest show of the year, despite his advancing age.

maybe a 1998 sting vs a 2009 Undertaker, but as they are now? I'd actually be sickened if they announced that match. No interest in seeing Sting anywhere near WWE tv.

Thats just my opinion though, I'd be interested in hearing from someone who DOES want the match to happen.

mitosis

Is that the same Sting as was around in the early/mid 1980s?

Machismo Fan

Two guys with relatively similar career paths who were top their respective companies and had similarish characters and never faced. It's quite easy to see the appeal. Would they have the best match in the world? Probably not. But at the very least it would be a spectacle. It'd be interesting to see how many WWE fans recognise Sting if he ever did go there (though still being on TV for the last eight years probably helps).

DM_7

Love the No gif

I can actually hear his voice.

Yeah so screw sting, give it to Bryan instead.

beakerjoe

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Two guys with relatively similar career paths who were top their respective companies and had similarish characters and never faced. It's quite easy to see the appeal. Would they have the best match in the world? Probably not. But at the very least it would be a spectacle. It'd be interesting to see how many WWE fans recognise Sting if he ever did go there (though still being on TV for the last eight years probably helps).

Maybe a few years ago it would of been a beter idea. I see the specticle but I believe it would be a let down considering they are both well past there prime. Both can still go but they would need a younger, quicker guy in there with them to help them through the match.

BMMachine

as is the way with wrestling, records are there to be broken. takers streak needs to be broken by someone, preferably bryan. there is little point in taker keeping it and it would get whoever wins it over huge. I only really want to see taker face one of the new faces on the scene, someone who can realistically win. there was never a chance HHH was gonna beat him and they just had spot fest matches. their first one in 2001 was by far their best too. Sting coming to WWE and wrestling would be fun to see but not against taker as theres just no way hes winning and its another wasted year.

Sting versus Warrior however

Sonics2k

What a strange combination. Sting is surely way past his prime, and while Taker is still a beast, he's near his end too.

As for Bryan being the one to break the streak, please God no.

gnfnrhead

BMMachine wrote: »

as is the way with wrestling, records are there to be broken. takers streak needs to be broken by someone, preferably bryan. there is little point in taker keeping it and it would get whoever wins it over huge.

Or you make him the most hated wrestler going for ending the one thing that pretty much everybody loves. Ending the streak could easily be the worst thing you could do.

their first one in 2001 was by far their best too.

Complete opposite for me. I thought that was the worst.

Sting coming to WWE and wrestling would be fun to see but not against taker as theres just no way hes winning and its another wasted year.

The only person with any chance of beating Undertaker, is Cena. Everyone else is just another name on the list.

BMMachine

gnfnrhead wrote: »

The only person with any chance of beating Undertaker, is Cena. Everyone else is just another name on the list.

it would do absolutely nothing for cena.
beating takers streak by turning heel would be absolutely amazing. immediate angles set up, tons of heat, good story to tell.
takers an old school guy, hes going out on his back. if he doesnt I would be shocked.

fact is, it needs to end. there is absolutely no point in taker keeping it and then retiring. would be like going out with a belt. i mean come on, just put someone over, no need to hogan it

Moneymaker

Time for Sting vs Taker has passed I think. Few years too late.

gnfnrhead

BMMachine wrote: »

it would do absolutely nothing for cena.
beating takers streak by turning heel would be absolutely amazing. immediate angles set up, tons of heat, good story to tell.
takers an old school guy, hes going out on his back. if he doesnt I would be shocked.

fact is, it needs to end. there is absolutely no point in taker keeping it and then retiring. would be like going out with a belt. i mean come on, just put someone over, no need to hogan it

It wont end. If Bryan beats Undertaker this year, and Undertaker wants to wrestle again next year, he has nothing. That's a MASSIVE Wrestlemania attraction gone. It isnt work the risk of ending it. Retirements in wrestling rarely last.

gerTheGreat

Unfortunately, I think that Moneymaker may be right. Both Sting and Taker are too close to the end of their careers. There's a strong chance that they couldn't pull off the match, which is really unfortunate because there is a generation of people who grew up during the New Generation/ Attitude Era who would have loved it. I don't think as many people this side of the pond care for Sting due to WCW's lack of exposure in the UK and Ireland (as opposed to WWE that was running on Sky), but he was a massive deal. Personally, I'd love to have seen but the only way that I can see it working is in a triple treat match, which I can't see the WWE doing at Mania because of the Streak.

BMMachine

gnfnrhead wrote: »

It wont end. If Bryan beats Undertaker this year, and Undertaker wants to wrestle again next year, he has nothing. That's a MASSIVE Wrestlemania attraction gone. It isnt work the risk of ending it. Retirements in wrestling rarely last.

Im not sure. he just wont have the 'streak'. hes still the undertaker after all, he can do more than wrestle at mania and if needs must, he can do a tag match or something. it is totally best for business for someone to end the streak, someone young who the crowd love and who can carry that for their career

Corholio

The streak is only as good as the end of it. If he never loses it's like....ok he never lost. But when he loses it'll be huge and will gain far more attraction WWE's way.

SimonQuinlank

I don't care if he ends the streak or even wrestles Taker,I just want to see Sting in WWE before he retires!

Taker vs Cena or Taker vs Brock are the only matches I really have any interest in seeing at Mania over the next year or two.

gnfnrhead

BMMachine wrote: »

Im not sure. he just wont have the 'streak'. hes still the undertaker after all, he can do more than wrestle at mania and if needs must, he can do a tag match or something. it is totally best for business for someone to end the streak, someone young who the crowd love and who can carry that for their career

Daniel Bryan is 33 this year. Not exactly young. He only has a few years left in him at the top. Then what? You ended the streak for nothing.

You are also vastly under-rating how important the streak is for Wrestlemania.

riffmongous

But the streak is gettting less important imo as they run out of believable opponents, the whole point of the streak is to see if he will lose it,and at this point only Cena will be seen as having a chance of doing it. Last year Punk wasn't believable I thought, everyone knew the match would be great and it was, but the streak didnt make it any better. If Paul Bearer hadnt passed away it would have been a very tough sell I think. I dont see Vince giving the green light to WCW/TNA Sting going over one of the WWE's biggest ever stars either, and since the match would be very tough to pull off. I'd have to give it a thumbs down too despite how cool the idea is

DM_7

If they continue pushing reigns he could be a ideal for this year.

He is not tainted by being over and not in need of something so big.

Best candidate outside Cena to make people think he could win.

SimonQuinlank

Far too soon,would go the way of Randy Orton's initial rush job main event push.

gerTheGreat

Reigns could be an excellent idea for Mania 31 if he was built properly but like SimonQuinlank said, March this year is too soon.

DM_7

Nobody is going to beat him, not even Cena so Reigns fits for me as it would be differant than the established wrestler.

I disagree that it would be like Ortons first big push.

Its just one match that would give him a nice spotlight on the night. Fits in with how the Shield took out Taker in London.

Sirsok

I'd like to see sting come in for wrestlemania and possibly face Kane so as not to hamper takers mania match and to give sting the win but the end result I'd like to see taker and sting face off at summerslam

rossie1977

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Daniel Bryan is 33 this year. Not exactly young. He only has a few years left in him at the top. Then what? You ended the streak for nothing.

he is 32 so barring major injury i don't think bryan is going anywhere for a while. lets consider that flair was 32 in 1981, hogan was 32 in 1985, sting was 32 in 1991, bret hart was 32 in 1989, kevin nash at 32 was playing oz and still 2 years away from signing with wwe, austin was still 2 years away from mania 14, benoit and eddie were still in wcw at that age..

LOTD

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Daniel Bryan is 33 this year. Not exactly young. He only has a few years left in him at the top.

33 is young for a wrestler, if Bryan stays fit and healthy he could wrestle another decade and a half.

As far as Sting V Undertaker, I would have love to seen it ten years ago preferably, not Sting in a t-shirt or Undertaker with a beer gut. If they did it would have to be a Rock/Hogan type of deal, not the greatest match in the world but they worked the crowd to perfection.

I wouldn't mind even if it wasn't at Wrestlemania because the streak is untouchable.

hufpc8w3adnk65

I really don't see Sting jumping. I also think he'll live too regret that big time in years too come!

gnfnrhead

rossie1977 wrote: »

he is 32 so barring major injury i don't think bryan is going anywhere for a while. lets consider that flair was 32 in 1981, hogan was 32 in 1985, sting was 32 in 1991, bret hart was 32 in 1989, kevin nash at 32 was playing oz and still 2 years away from signing with wwe, austin was still 2 years away from mania 14, benoit and eddie were still in wcw at that age..

A wrestler's peak today ends around 36/7. Thats 3/4 years assuming no injuries. WWE are usually on the road about 300 days a year. That wasnt the case for nearly everyone you listed. All that travelling takes a lot out of you.

Is it really worth ending the streak to give a bump to someone who could easily be a main eventer already if they wanted? Not for me.

LOTD wrote: »

33 is young for a wrestler, if Bryan stays fit and healthy he could wrestle another decade and a half.

So you think he will still be going at 48? Very few go far past 40 these days. Big Show, R-Truth, Tensai and Batista are the only full time wrestlers over 40 on the roster. Christian too but he hasnt wrestled in quite a while. Any one else is part time.

LOTD

gnfnrhead wrote: »

So you think he will still be going at 48? Very few go far past 40 these days. Big Show, R-Truth and Batista are the only full time wrestlers over 40 on the roster. Christian too but he hasnt wrestled in quite a while. Any one else is part time.

Said he could wrestle for another decade and a half if he avoids major injuries and stays healthy or even if he wants to, obviously not in the same capacity as he is now.

Vision of Disorder

If Undertaker has a shred of the respect he claims for the business he'll go out on his back. I don't think it will happen though. I realise that I'm in a minority (most likely of one) but I'm completely bored of the streak. We get a spot-laden, stitched together with long spells of inaction, nailed on result in advance match once a year. Obviously it's a big deal to an awful lot of people but it leaves me completely and utterly cold by now.

jaykhunter

I'm not a fan of the taker matches either but i won't deny they're huge Mania selling points. The bigger problem with him doing business on his way out is that nobody in creative or a suit would even *suggest* Taker lose. He'll retire 25-0 (probably), have a DVD made, and that's that. Hooray! Massive potential star-making wasted.

bradlente

The streak has had its good(HBK,Edge,Orton) and not so good(Henry,Batista) matches.The ones that have really been great have been the ones where it looked possible he would lose it and like others have said it's become less and less likely.I still haven't seen the Punk match from last year.It was probably great but he was never winning it.Cena Taker would bring back that feel.Sting really wouldn't give that at this stage and the match might struggle too.Would still love to see it for what it is and the build-up would be worth it alone.Some sort of triple threat with Sting involved would be awesome but a bit impossible to work.Get a third "super-natural" character in there...Wyatt maybe?

If they really wanted to milk the streak for what it is now he could draw one match with someone,Putting them over while still preserving the streak and then for his last official match lose it,Putting 2 over big time instead of 1.Seems like he might just never have an official last match at this stage though!

Also,Why is Sting flipping me off in that picture,Asshole...

LOTD

Vision of Disorder wrote: »

If Undertaker has a shred of the respect he claims for the business he'll go out on his back. I don't think it will happen though. I realise that I'm in a minority (most likely of one) but I'm completely bored of the streak. We get a spot-laden, stitched together with long spells of inaction, nailed on result in advance match once a year. Obviously it's a big deal to an awful lot of people but it leaves me completely and utterly cold by now.

That's a harsh thing to say about the guy given that he has been in the business 30 years, who seems to be so well respected. I've never heard or seen a bad word said about him, never seems to be ego driven either.

The WWE have painted themselves into a corner with the whole streak, Taker is only going to be there for a few weeks to build a feud and yes you know the result. As for spot laden matches, the guy wrestles 1 match a year, he is going try to make it as spectacular as he can, people don't want to see a good solid match with brilliant holds and technical sound chain wrestling. They want epic, with as much drama as possible.

I do think the streak is becoming a side attraction to Wrestlemania though and it's not serving a purpose to the current product.

Vision of Disorder

LOTD wrote: »

That's a harsh thing to say about the guy given that he has been in the business 30 years, who seems to be so well respected. I've never heard or seen a bad word said about him, never seems to be ego driven either.

If (IF) he loses on his way out I will apologise to both you and him. If he doesn't then I still maintain he's putting himself above the business, contrary to his carefully crafted image of old school wrestling guru.

I was never impressed that he ran telling tales when Punk disregarded his advice to wear a suit either while we're at it.

Overall I think Undertaker seems like a decent enough sort of guy but one who is very impressed with himself. He deserves a huge send off when he finally calls it a day but the preservation of his streak (which, let's not forget, is as fictitious as every other wrestling achievement at the end of the day) isn't an essential part of that. There's a myriad number of scenarios which could give Undertaker a huge farewell moment while still respecting the traditions of the business and putting somebody over on the way out.

Off the top of my head, something like this: Undertaker loses to Wrestler X at Wrestlemania in a hard fought match. Neither man walks out unaided. The following night on RAW the victor is too banged up to attend (having beaten the Undertaker and ended the streak I don't think they'd be weakened too much by this). Taker could walk/hobble out and address the WWE one last time, talking about the high (and low points) of his career, about the streak and how it will always be a huge part of his legacy (invite all the guys he's beaten at Mania back for a Guard of Honour to circle the ring if you want, could look quite nice) and, most importantly, have him endorse the man who's beaten him with fulsome and genuine praise. Clear everybody else out of the ring but the man himself and end RAW with "Thank you Taker" chants ringing ad nauseam.

As for the matches themselves they've just bored me the last few years. Personally I am 100% convinced that he will win before they start (especially given the last few years of matches and rematches against guys who are already over and have no reason to beat him) so there's no anticipation. I've been less impressed than most by the quality of them too (I didn't watch Mania last year though so have no opinion on that one), held together by spots and gimmicks, punctuated by long lulls in the action where Taker sucks air. I don't object to the spots themselves but it's all that's there and is basically used as a device to hide his shortcomings between them. He just can't work like he used to. That's not a knock on the guy, he's just ageing and pretty broken down. His entrance remains one of the greatest ever but once the bell rings... not as impressive as he was. From WWE's point of view I can understand why they keep pushing the whole thing, a majority of their audience gets off on the spectacle of it all still and I have no problem with that. For me though... it leaves me completely cold and it can't end soon enough for me.

LOTD

Does he have to go out at Wrestlemania?

As far as that Punk story, there is something there alright, but it might it have been Punk's tone or attitude something he is notorious for plus when Taker does his rare pieces of media out of character,he wasn't exactly the suit wearing kind either you never know the full story with these backstage incidents.

As I've said before the streak is becoming a side attraction to Mania, what to do pair him against seasoned veterans or the new guys, It does nobody any real good, at this stage. The punk match was alright, though it did feel like it was cobbled together by what had been done in previous matches, plus Taker was out of shape.

I think the streak match represents a bigger problem for the WWE and that's the lack of faith they have in new talent and giving them chances. I want to see Sandow, Rhodes, Bryan, Cesaro, Ziggler and Punk go against each other.

krudler

Vision of Disorder wrote: »

If Undertaker has a shred of the respect he claims for the business he'll go out on his back. I don't think it will happen though. I realise that I'm in a minority (most likely of one) but I'm completely bored of the streak. We get a spot-laden, stitched together with long spells of inaction, nailed on result in advance match once a year. Obviously it's a big deal to an awful lot of people but it leaves me completely and utterly cold by now.

To be fair though ever since WM23 usually the streak match is the highlight of the card. Batista, Edge, HBK x2, HHH x2 and Punk all good to great matches. Michaels kicking out of the big Tombstone, arms crossed and all pin at 25 was an unbelievable moment, the crowd lost their sh1t and for a second you believed he might actually do it, that kind of drama is lightning in a bottle stuff these days. If Taker wrestles once a year and delivers a great match then hey, he's earned it as a 20 odd year employee who never jumped ship.

If they were ever going to do it then the right time was Orton in 2005, now it's either going to be wasted on someone green as grass who doesn't deserve it or someone who's a long established main eventer or star who doesn't need it.

I guess at the end of it all it's Vince and Taker who'll decide. Even if the streak is broken it won't hurt it in the slightest, it'll never be replicated (and in fairness it's a made up streak, he didn't "win" ever year he just wasn't told to lose) It's a huge selling point for Mania and usually one of the highlight matches of the year.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Whats the punk story?

beakerjoe

MrMac84 wrote: »

Whats the punk story?

Back in 2009, Punk was on the European tour, as was Taker. Punk was Champ at the time.

Now it may not have went down this way but as i recall reading, Taker asked Punk nicely to improve his dress code as he was now champion and he was representing the comapny overseas. Punk replied "What about John Cena?". According to sources, Creative got wind of this conversation and a couple of weeks later, Punk dropped the title to Taker.

Rumour went around that punk was seen as disrespectful and creative took the title off him as punishment. Its a rumour and I dont know how true that story is.

LOTD

MrMac84 wrote: »

Whats the punk story?

When Punk was WHC back in 2009, Taker apparently gave Punk advice about dressing more smartly for appearances while overseas on European tour. Punk
allegedly said what about Cena or something along those lines.

Again rumour or backstage stage, but he did lose the belt very quickly after that.

Omackeral

WWE implemented a dress code for all talent to adhere to when travelling to and from events. Punk was annoyed that some people were exempt from this (mainly Cena) an he wasn't. He was World Champion at the time an after the outburst dropped the strap to Taker in clean and short fashion. I think his gripe was that Cena was exempt on account of his gimmick but in that case, Punks gimmick at the time was hardly to conform either. Anyway, it would seem locker room leader Taker had words/stooged him out to top brass and he went down the card again

LOTD

Omackeral wrote: »

WWE implemented a dress code for all talent to adhere to when travelling to and from events. Punk was annoyed that some people were exempt from this (mainly Cena) an he wasn't. He was World Champion at the time an after the outburst dropped the strap to Taker in clean and short fashion. I think his gripe was that Cena was exempt on account of his gimmick but in that case, Punks gimmick at the time was hardly to conform either. Anyway, it would seem locker room leader Taker had words/stooged him out to top brass and he went down the card again

I find the whole dress code thing a little hard to believe, considering Taker didn't really adhere to the dress code in appearances as well. I think Punk smarted off to the wrong person, Taker had been 19 years in the company at this stage, Punk four years. There is always a hierarchy in a work place. Also stooged him out are you for real?

Mr.Saturn

BMMachine wrote: »

takers streak needs to be broken by someone, preferably bryan. there is little point in taker keeping it and it would get whoever wins it over huge.

It's worth money, that's the point. Take UT's streak, and whilst he's still capable, you take away a proven, reliable draw for the company's biggest show. Besides, it's a bit of curse in how to remove the streak; to do so would mean it'd have to be the main event, as the crowd would be killed, and so too the show, yet it makes no sense to take it while he's still able to go, but by the time he's not, it'd be bad for trade to stick a subpar bout on the central slot of WWE's biggest broadcast.

Also, who could break it and take the reputation? There's so few characters on the show that could take that burden and absorb it, navigating the backlash and the boulder of being 'that' guy; similar to how HBK had to be the one to take Flair's career, or UT had to be the one to end HBK's, it takes a lot audience goodwill to live with that tagline, and not have it come to dominate the character.

As well, there'd be no point in using UT's streak to 'make' a newcomer, as by its very definition to 'make' someone means they're an unproven commodity, and what point would there be burning through a guaranteed draw in the hopes of building another guy that could, quite frankly, flop?

I honestly only meant to write two lines. Anyways, on topic, wouldn't a Sting/Undertaker bout be better served on a non-WM card? It'd buoy a b-PPV, and leaves 'Taker free a whole host of other part-timers to dance with.

krudler

Omackeral wrote: »

WWE implemented a dress code for all talent to adhere to when travelling to and from events. Punk was annoyed that some people were exempt from this (mainly Cena) an he wasn't. He was World Champion at the time an after the outburst dropped the strap to Taker in clean and short fashion. I think his gripe was that Cena was exempt on account of his gimmick but in that case, Punks gimmick at the time was hardly to conform either. Anyway, it would seem locker room leader Taker had words/stooged him out to top brass and he went down the card again

Punk was in the right too in fairness if it's true. If Taker is as old school as he claims to be then living the gimmick should be more important than dressing nice. Just because Cena gets to go around dressed like his own biggest fan doesn't mean Punk should have had to.

There's a lot of nonsense locker room stuff like that in wrestling

Vision of Disorder

LOTD wrote: »

Does he have to go out at Wrestlemania?

Of course he doesn't have to but I feel that it makes the most sense and would be the best way he could give back to the business on his way out the door.

krudler wrote: »

To be fair though ever since WM23 usually the streak match is the highlight of the card. Batista, Edge, HBK x2, HHH x2 and Punk all good to great matches.

I thought the second Michaels match and both Triple H matches were bizarrely over-rated. Most will disagree with that obviously and fair enough. Opinions and what not.

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

Also, who could break it and take the reputation? There's so few characters on the show that could take that burden and absorb it, navigating the backlash and the boulder of being 'that' guy; similar to how HBK had to be the one to take Flair's career, or UT had to be the one to end HBK's, it takes a lot audience goodwill to live with that tagline, and not have it come to dominate the character.

As well, there'd be no point in using UT's streak to 'make' a newcomer, as by its very definition to 'make' someone means they're an unproven commodity, and what point would there be burning through a guaranteed draw in the hopes of building another guy that could, quite frankly, flop?

The whole purpose would be to see your waning star (Undertaker) defeated by the up and comer. That is how new stars are created. Undertaker himself got to win the title from Hulk Hogan not too long after he arrived (briefly I'll grant you but it certainly elevated him). The attitude could have been, "Hogan is the big draw, this Undertaker guy could flop, what's the point?" You can't be sure anybody will get over unless they're given a chance.

I agree with you that there's nobody on the roster here today that seems a natural candidate to end the streak right now. Punk, Orton and Cena *spits* are already over enough that they don't need to. Daniel Bryan doesn't seem a natural fit to me for some reason (and in any case he's getting over well enough by himself which is pretty much the core of his character).

Guys like Sheamus or (if they drop the comedy gimmick and repackage him well) Wade Barrett, if built up well in the next twelve months or so, are people that I think could be potential streak enders. Roman Reigns might be the guy (so could Dean Ambrose actually) in a year or so but he's not established enough yet to seem a viable threat yet. I can easily see Reigns in a year (or two) at the top end of the table and at that point the mantle of 'Streak Breaker' could make him.

Omackeral

LOTD sorry if you find the dress code hard to believe but it happened. Read Hardcore Holly's book, he has a section on it where he says why would he, a redneck tough guy character, wear a suit and tie? He also mentions the Punk incident

Deadlie

How many Wrestlemanias does Taker have left in him at this stage?

Charisteas

Deadlie wrote: »

How many Wrestlemanias does Taker have left in him at this stage?

I'd like to see him get to 25.

eireannBEAR

As a massive wCw/sting fan.i can tell you sting is gone any match would be a let down as for the other guy,i dont know his condition,but id imagine its bad too.

Moneymaker

Like I said before, the time for this match is long past.

5 years ago maybe, definitely not now though.

Hangballlouie

I wasn't a big WCW fan back in the day so I'm probably wrong on this but I feel Sting is overrated tbh.
In fairness that is only from the bits and pieces I watched of WCW in his heyday and the documentaries/old PPV's I've downloaded etc.

Am I wrong folks? If so, can you point me to some matches/angles that might change my mind. Apart from the Flair ones.

eireannBEAR

hangballlouie wrote: »

I wasn't a big WCW fan back in the day so I'm probably wrong on this but I feel Sting is overrated tbh.
In fairness that is only from the bits and pieces I watched of WCW in his heyday and the documentaries/old PPV's I've downloaded etc.

Am I wrong folks? If so, can you point me to some matches/angles that might change my mind. Apart from the Flair ones.

Apart from his early career in 96/97 he was the baby face of the biggest wrestling company on earth leading the war against the nwo for wcw,which was the biggest wrestling angle ever!

SureYWouldntYa

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Apart from his early career in 96/97 he was the baby face of the biggest wrestling company on earth leading the war against the nwo for wcw,which was the biggest wrestling angle ever!

biggest but not the best. hogan v sting at Starrcade felt like an anti-climax

Hangballlouie

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Apart from his early career in 96/97 he was the baby face of the biggest wrestling company on earth leading the war against the nwo for wcw,which was the biggest wrestling angle ever!

Yep know all that, watched some of it, but wasn't really impressed with him.

Austin/McMahon had the bigger angle IMO.