|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:This is true, but Kurt Angle was a constant main event player in WWE almost since his debut, whereas Sting did gently caress all for 5 years, and Kevin Nash was jobbing to Triple H and exploding his body parts in the years before joining. Yeah, I guess. Its just for some reason, despite the main events and the accolades and the championships and all of that, I never think of Kurt Angle as the main guy for a company. I don't know what it is because I love Angle, or I did from 2001 to 2006. I just think of Sting as being more famous than Angle. Or maybe even Foley since they signed him. Its the same with Edge. Hes always in main events and is a multi-time champion with lots of air time and big matches but something in him seems lacking to me. When he went against Taker in the main event at WM 24, he just seemed out of place to me for some reason. Its some indescribable feeling I have about them and I know its not coming across in the post and I apologize for that.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:Yeah, I guess. Its just for some reason, despite the main events and the accolades and the championships and all of that, I never think of Kurt Angle as the main guy for a company. I don't know what it is because I love Angle, or I did from 2001 to 2006. I just think of Sting as being more famous than Angle. Or maybe even Foley since they signed him. I absolutely understand your point, and you're right. Sting at his peak of fame would be much bigger than Kurt Angle at his peak. My point is that Kurt was still going strong in 06, while Sting was making a return after doing nothing of note. In addition, Kurt can still go like a motherfucker, and IMO Sting is awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 06:35
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:I absolutely understand your point, and you're right. Sting at his peak of fame would be much bigger than Kurt Angle at his peak. My point is that Kurt was still going strong in 06, while Sting was making a return after doing nothing of note. In addition, Kurt can still go like a motherfucker, and IMO Sting is awful. You are correct. Sting has been rather lackluster in what little I've seen of him while what I've read of Kurt is that he is still putting on some good matches. I remember when a lot of people I read were predicting Kurt was going to be dead or crippled within six months of leaving WWE and here he is still going strong. The man is not human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 06:52
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:I absolutely understand your point, and you're right. Sting at his peak of fame would be much bigger than Kurt Angle at his peak. My point is that Kurt was still going strong in 06, while Sting was making a return after doing nothing of note. In addition, Kurt can still go like a motherfucker, and IMO Sting is awful. I have to disagree on this. Kurt Angle at his peak was a bigger star than Sting was at his.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 06:54
|
|
|
TL posted:I have to disagree on this. Kurt Angle at his peak was a bigger star than Sting was at his. What do you consider each man's peak?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 07:02
|
|
|
TL posted:I have to disagree on this. Kurt Angle at his peak was a bigger star than Sting was at his. Really? I can only go on hindsight because I only started watching wrestling regularly in 04, but my impression was that Sting was consistently the top face in WCW until the end, where Kurt was always playing second fiddle to Austin, Rock, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 07:18
|
|
|
TL posted:I have to disagree on this. Kurt Angle at his peak was a bigger star than Sting was at his. You should not disagree with people who are correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
Kurt Angle is someone a lot of people know but he's not the kind of guy who's ever been able to carry a company on the weight of his popularity alone like Sting or The Rock or Steve Austin or, well, Hulk Hogan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 08:54
|
|
|
Sting was bigger at his peak because he was part of the biggest angle of the Monday Night Wars: Sting vs. the NWO. Kurt Angle was a perennial heel and prank-magnet on Smackdown. The reason Sting was popular was because he had the right gimmick; he was THE man who could take out the NWO. That doesn't mean Kurt probably worked a hundred times more matches in the same amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 09:22
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:Sting was bigger at his peak because he was part of the biggest angle of the Monday Night Wars: Sting vs. the NWO. Kurt Angle was a perennial heel and prank-magnet on Smackdown. The reason Sting was popular was because he had the right gimmick; he was THE man who could take out the NWO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 12:56
|
|
|
How are the Blu-Ray extras for The Wrestler ? It said on the box it featured a round table with a bunch of old wrestlers that seems interesting but I've seen the movie quite a few times and it's now on HBO. Also sorta unrelated but how is Big Fan which was written by the same guy as The Wrestler and features a dramatic role by Patton Oswalt ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 13:47
|
|
|
Chunky Delight posted:How are the Blu-Ray extras for The Wrestler ? It said on the box it featured a round table with a bunch of old wrestlers that seems interesting but I've seen the movie quite a few times and it's now on HBO. Also sorta unrelated but how is Big Fan which was written by the same guy as The Wrestler and features a dramatic role by Patton Oswalt ? I liked the extras ok. There is the music video by Springsteen on there and I think the roundtable wrestlers were: Luger, DDP, Piper, and I think one more but can't quite remember right now. I wouldn't buy the Blu-Ray just for the extras however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 15:11
|
|
|
Angle headlined a Wrestlemania. He was and is a bigger deal than Sting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 17:14
|
|
|
It always seemed to me that sting was the top guy in WCW when they didnt have any other choice. If they had ANYONE else they thought could carry the company (Hall/Nash, Flair, Goldberg, Sid, Hogan, whoever) then sting was generally relegated to second banana. It just seems to me (although I was never that knowledgable about WCW, so I could be wrong) that they didnt have that much confidence in him. His stints as the companys #1 guy seemed to be more based on the fact that he never went to WWE than the company having any real faith in him. Maybe I'm wrong and WCW just had faith that he'd continue to be over whatever they did, but it really did seem at times that WCW thought of him as "safe but dull hands" when they had no other ideas. I would say to internet wrestling fans, signing sting was probably a bigger deal than angle. To casual wrestling fans (who make up most of the viewers) Angle would probably be a bigger deal as he was working in upper card the WWE until he turned up in TNA, and the average casual wrestling fan doesnt remember WCW. Not because it was bad, but because it folded like 8 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Angle headlined a Wrestlemania. He was and is a bigger deal than Sting. If I'm not mistaken, Starrcade '97 had a significantly higher buyrate than Wrestlemania 19. Sid and Yokozuna headlined two Wrestlemanias. Are they bigger, besides physically, than Sting? Than Angle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 18:19
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Angle headlined a Wrestlemania. He was and is a bigger deal than Sting. Would you consider Sid to be a bigger deal than Angle? He headlined two WrestleMania's. Starrcade 1997 had a 1.8 buyrate vs the 1.4 that WrestleMania 19 drew. Edit: beaten on the Sid fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:It always seemed to me that sting was the top guy in WCW when they didnt have any other choice. If they had ANYONE else they thought could carry the company (Hall/Nash, Flair, Goldberg, Sid, Hogan, whoever) then sting was generally relegated to second banana. It just seems to me (although I was never that knowledgable about WCW, so I could be wrong) that they didnt have that much confidence in him. His stints as the companys #1 guy seemed to be more based on the fact that he never went to WWE than the company having any real faith in him. Maybe I'm wrong and WCW just had faith that he'd continue to be over whatever they did, but it really did seem at times that WCW thought of him as "safe but dull hands" when they had no other ideas. This is exactly what I mean, and you put it much better than I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 18:26
|
|
|
Actually I don't think signing Sting was big to anyone but TNA fans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 18:54
|
|
|
To be honest it was signing Christian that made me watch TNA and I stopped caring about TNA after he left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 19:21
|
|
|
Going back to the Shawn WM stuff didn't Kurt Angle and him have another match(es) that was almost on par or better than their Wrestlemania one that Shawn won or did I dream this? If not how many matches have they had vs one another total?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 22:29
|
|
|
Bearnt! posted:Going back to the Shawn WM stuff didn't Kurt Angle and him have another match(es) that was almost on par or better than their Wrestlemania one that Shawn won or did I dream this? If not how many matches have they had vs one another total? They had a rematch at Backlash that Shawn won that I think was just as good as the WM encounter. And they also had an iron-man match on a three-hour RAW that ended in a draw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
Chunky Delight posted:To be honest it was signing Christian that made me watch TNA and I stopped caring about TNA after he left. Same here. This wasn't a guy who was way past his prime like Sting. Or a guy who had known physical problems like Angle. This was a guy who was doing the best stuff of his career. A person who the fans were SCREAMING to get a main event program and WWE just wouldn't listen. His jumping ship to TNA actually made TNA look like a competing promotion rather than just a retirement home/glorified indie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 22:44
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:They had a rematch at Backlash that Shawn won that I think was just as good as the WM encounter. And they also had an iron-man match on a three-hour RAW that ended in a draw. It was Vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 22:45
|
|
|
ColeM posted:It was Vengeance. Your right. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 23:00
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:It always seemed to me that angle was the top guy in WWF when they didnt have any other choice. If they had ANYONE else they thought could carry the company (Undertaker, Austin, Rock, HHH, Batista) then angle was generally relegated to second banana. It just seems to me (although I was never that knowledgable about WWE, so I could be wrong) that they didnt have that much confidence in him. His stints as the companys #1 guy seemed to be more based on the fact that he never went to WCW than the company having any real faith in him. Maybe I'm wrong and WWE just had faith that he'd continue to be over whatever they did, but it really did seem at times that WWE thought of him as "safe but dull hands" when they had no other ideas. See, do you see? I love Angle and Sting - but Sting's contributions are severely undermined around here and I never could understand why. Like I said before, he was the WCW equivalent of the Undertaker - everything that you would apply to the Undertaker (historical dominance, significance to fans, maybe not the most over face or main personality at any given time but always a consistent top-of-the-card presence for an amazing amount of time, reinventing himself to stay relevent) applies to Sting from the WCW perspective. Kurt Angle is a phenomenal entertainer - he is not in Stings tier with regards to historical significance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:See, do you see? Most people here just don't care about WCW at all. Sting was huge to WCW. Angle was pretty big I guess in WWE/F To most people around here, being pretty big I guess in WWE/F is orders of magnitude more meaningful than being huge in WCW.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:21
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:See, do you see? Except Sting was put on top for extended amounts of time in the early 90s and bombed. The Undertaker was never expected to be a top draw, but when he had the title, he did really well in terms of house show gates, something Sting could never do. Sting's big return to win the title off Flair the first time did a loving awful gate (just over half full, about 8,000 paid) and not much of a buyrate. And from there WCW went to hell in a hand basket, and when Flair left the company just did worse and worse despite Sting on top. I was a big Sting fan. I still like the guy. But he was a draw for two big buyrates both against Hogan that capped off an 18 month program. Before that he was popular but not a big draw and after that the same applied. Angle, at his peak wasn't as big of a star. But his overall significance to the business may end up being bigger for one reason: He got guys over. He put over a ton of guys and made others look great beating them. Edge would not be what he is today without the Angle feud. Cena's STFU wouldn't have gotten as over if it wasn't established against Angle. And then there is the evil fact that TNA wouldn't have flirted with profitability if it wasn't for Angle's star power helping them get TV deals. When Sting was at his peak he wasn't putting younger guys over like Flair did to make him a star. This probably isn't his fault since the culture in WCW wouldn't allow these things to be booked. But, it does mean when it is all over, Angle may have more significance because of the fact like Flair he did lots of jobs and made guys look good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:43
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Most people here just don't care about WCW at all. That makes a certain amount of sense. To a guy who grew up watching both promotions in the 80s and 90s though.. comparing Angle to Sting is almost like comparing Angle to Hogan. Obviously Angle is going to run circles around him in a technical (and even in a promo) sense.. but when you step back and look at it, what did Angle do for the industry vs Sting? He got some mainstream press when he signed, vs Sting keeping the underdog company viable for years until it could momentarily take the top spot. Its not comparable in my opinion. I really have to stress that I think Angle is awesome and in particular, his stuff with Austin and Mcmahon during Invasion was amazing. But Sting... it's impossible to explain especially if you just started watching in the past 10 years or so. It's literally like trying to explain the relevance of Flair or Hogan, except they seem to get the benefit of the doubt from newer fans and Sting just gets "Uhhhh gently caress him. " Im convinced that you're right. If Sting had been in the WWE for even three seconds, and gotten one good WWE pop, he would be a thousand times more 'legit'. I also still consider my ultimate dream match Sting vs Undertaker at Mania. It won't ever happen but if it did it would humiliate all major event matches that have ever happened, ever. Ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:45
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:Except Sting was put on top for extended amounts of time in the early 90s and bombed. The Undertaker was never expected to be a top draw, but when he had the title, he did really well in terms of house show gates, something Sting could never do. Sting's big return to win the title off Flair the first time did a loving awful gate (just over half full, about 8,000 paid) and not much of a buyrate. And from there WCW went to hell in a hand basket, and when Flair left the company just did worse and worse despite Sting on top. Has Angle ever headlined a (non TNA) PPV without a bigger star on the card? I am really curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:47
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:Has Angle ever headlined a (non TNA) PPV without a bigger star on the card? Angle/Lesnar main evented Wrestlemania 19 and was quite clearly the big focus of the show with Angle being used to finalize Lesnar's position as the future of WWE. That show did feature the superb HBK/Jericho, Hogan/Vince and the third Rock/Austin as well, but Angle/Lesnar was definitely the big draw with those other matches just excellent bonuses. Plus it's difficult to come up with ANY show from WWE in the last 10 years that didn't have some kind of "bigger star" on the card who wasn't in the main event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:55
|
|
|
Well like MRP says above you, Sting was never a huge success compared to the kinds of successes they have in the WWE, he just wasn't as big of a star because WCW was smaller and less successful in general, and he never took over the world like Hogan or even the Warrior or something did. But I generally don't think in those terms, because what the gently caress do I care about buyrates or gates? Sting was the Hogan of WCW in the terms of the way the promotion worked, so thats how I think of him. I grew up watching both, and while WCW wasn't as successful as the WWF back then it didn't matter to me. I wasn't one of those kids that only read Marvel or DC comics one or the other either. It just depends on how you look at things. To continue the comic book metaphor, if WWF was marvel and WCW was DC, Angle was like, Cyclops, a dependable guy that had a good run and his moments some people might even say he's their favorite (those people are crazy), but Sting was Superman in his continuity. A stupid dumb Superman that got betrayed all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:55
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:To continue the comic book metaphor, if WWF was marvel and WCW was DC, Angle was like, Cyclops, a dependable guy that had a good run and his moments some people might even say he's their favorite (those people are crazy), but Sting was Superman in his continuity. A stupid dumb Superman that got betrayed all the time. Angle is clearly Mr. Fantastic. He's absolutely 100% the very best in the world but he has really poor judgment and is constantly putting his loved ones at risk, and everybody goes to Captain America (Hulk Hogan) or Iron Man (Steve Austin) or the Mighty Thor (Rock) first before saying,"Well I guess we'll go ask Mr. Fantastic...."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Angle is clearly Mr. Fantastic. He's absolutely 100% the very best in the world but he has really poor judgment and is constantly putting his loved ones at risk, and everybody goes to Captain America (Hulk Hogan) or Iron Man (Steve Austin) or the Mighty Thor (Rock) first before saying,"Well I guess we'll go ask Mr. Fantastic...." I think HHH would be Thor and The Rock should be Spider-man. I mean, the Rock is funny, like Spider-Man. Also Thor sucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 00:59
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I think HHH would be Thor Marvel Films disagreed!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I think HHH would be Thor and The Rock should be Spider-man. I mean, the Rock is funny, like Spider-Man. The Rock is The Flash. Watch his run in during the Mick Foley/Evolution promo. He goes at least twice the speed of light. (Plus he's sarcastic and funny and he is legitimately able to kick rear end in huge fights) Austin is Captain America (from Earth X). He's got tons of demons and issues but God Dammit you believe in your heart that he will do the right thing in the end. Bret Hart is Hal Jordan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:But Sting... it's impossible to explain especially if you just started watching in the past 10 years or so. It's literally like trying to explain the relevance of Flair or Hogan, except they seem to get the benefit of the doubt from newer fans and Sting just gets "Uhhhh gently caress him. " Now, that's just not true. I don't care about Sting or Hogan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:Bret Hart is Hal Jordan. In brightest day, in blackest night, No screwjobs shall escape my sight Let those who worship Montreal's plight, Beware my power... The Hitman's right!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 01:38
|
|
|
The funny thing about Sting is he probably would have been a much bigger attraction in the WWF than he was in WCW just because he was such a kid friendly character and no matter how popular WCW got they never captured any kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
Chunky Delight posted:To be honest it was signing Christian that made me watch TNA and I stopped caring about TNA after he left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Hi, there! for someone who doesn't care you sure defend tna a lot
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 02:05
|
|
