Loss

It's hard to say. Frey had more ability to spend money. Watts was not brought in with the goal of competing with the WWF. A lot of the decisions he made were because he was told his goal was to cut costs. Cutting costs when trying to compete with the WWF isn't going to work. Watts got losses down to $400,000 for '92, and he did promote one show that did a tremendous buyrate for the time (Halloween Havoc), but Bill Watts being brought in to spend what he needed to spend to make WCW competitive likely would have had different results. It's hard to say if Frey would have been successful or not. WWF scandals at the time probably had a domino effect on all of wrestling's popularity. They may have done better. The junior division thing was his idea for WCW. I don't know how far he was going to go with it, but Bischoff was successful with it a few years later. Frey didn't know a lot about wrestling, but from all accounts was very interested in learning and was getting the hang of it. Frey was also the guy who brought in Jake, who did draw on the one show he headlined under Watts. He brought in Rude and Steamboat. Herd had a big problem keeping talent, and Frey was attracting people to WCW, so he had that as a positive. Watts was the one who got credit for Jake because Jake didn't show up until after Watts was in charge. The wrestlers liked Frey and were motivated to put on good shows because of the best match bonus.

I don't think anyone could have drawn in WCW at that point because of how WCW was run. It's not something I'd blame the wrestlers on top for, unless it's a case like Simmons where there is a significant and noticeable dip. It really is a credit to feuds like Flair/Luger and Flair/Funk that they were able to do moderately well in WCW's climate at the time. Even Ric Flair, who was bulletproof for a long time because of his promos, had been misused so much that while he was the company's best asset, he didn't mean nearly as much as he should have.

Shouldn't we look more closely at 92 then? 1992 WCW was fantastic from a wrestling standpoint. Kip Frey was a placeholder for Watts, and Dusty put the title on Sting after building the issue with Luger for a few months. This should have worked better than it did. Rude was probably the hottest heel in all of wrestling during Sting's run, but it was a weird time. While Sting and Rude did have a big house show run, they didn't have a PPV match during this time with Sting defending. Sting, as Jerry mentioned, didn't really get a main event match on PPV. It didn't light the world on fire, but it wasn't going to light the world on fire. WCW was so bad and did so much damage in 1991 that they created a hole that would take a few years to fully dig their way out of. I don't know that they made their situation worse in '92, like they would in '93, but they didn't really make it better either. Really, in '92, Sting was only put in a position to carry the company for about three months. He beat Luger, Rude was groomed for him in the short term, with Vader being groomed for him over summer. He had Cactus as a one-shot deal. I think they could have built up some other guys to make a run at him too. Frey's vision was a good one - and a breath of fresh air compared to Herd - but he didn't have enough time to see it through before Watts came in. Watts is someone who properly understood what was wrong with WCW and prescribed the wrong medicine to fix it. He came in with opinions on talent from 1987 and some of the people he pushed weren't really the best choices. Not just Doc and Gordy, but he also brought back Dick Slater! By early 1993, he was focused more on Barry Windham, Sting and Vader, was bringing Flair back, was pushing Pillman in a more prominent role and was signing some good young guys like Benoit, Scorpio and Regal. I think he was on a better path, but he had burned so many bridges in WCW's corporate structure, and it was painfully clear by that point that it wasn't going to work.

Flair didn't bury Sting. Flair liked working with Sting and put him over many times. I think Sting owes most of his career success to Flair. A better way to put it is that Flair overshadowed Sting just by being a bigger star, doing better interviews and performing in the ring at a much higher level. Also, regarding WCW being a national promotion, the point is that whether they were a good or bad national promotion, they were still a national promotion. The WWF was much stronger in most markets outside the Southeast without a doubt, but that doesn't mean WCW didn't exist at all in those markets. Had television ratings been the end-all, be-all in the early 90s like they would be a few years later, the perception may have been different, as WCW typically did better TV ratings. They were run by a television company, so you'd expect that.

Yeah, I do agree with this. I think they have a very similar charisma, and also, if you look at Cena in those early UPW pics, he looks like Sting looked when starting out. I think the things that made them have appeal are similar, with the exception being that Cena is a much better talker. One thing that I do think is worth pointing out is that I think Sting had superstar potential. He could have and probably should have been bigger. Part of it is that he came along at the tail end of the initial boom and in what should have been his peak years, wrestling was in a pretty sorry state. Part of it is that his injury at Clash X came at a horrible time for him and he didn't really recapture the momentum he had when he came back that July and beat Flair at the Bash. Honestly, and I think the 1990 Yearbook will make this even more apparent, Sting was used pretty badly while out with the injury. Fans never had a chance to miss him because he was still on television every week, and not being programmed with Flair *after* winning the title was bad for him too. That feud had legs for a while and they ended it after one match. So the attempt to affirmatively end the Ric Flair era so decisively indirectly hurt Sting too. And of course, the Black Scorpion feud did a number on him too. No one could have succeeded in the environment in WCW of 1991-1993. Near-constant leadership and direction changes made it impossible. Again, I don't blame Sting for most of that. I blame the way he was portrayed. So saying Sting shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is not something I think anyone would say means that he had no appeal or potential, that he didn't deliver in the right settings and that he didn't bring huge positives. But if you look back, Sting was going to be the guy to carry things when Ric Flair left. And Ric Flair never left. So most of his run was in limbo waiting to take that top spot, which he never got. And in some ways, it was unfair to Sting, because he was never going to be able to perform at the level Flair did as champ. But because WCW/NWA fans had Flair on top so long, that's what they expected in that role. You could write volumes about WCW's problems during this time. Some of them were so obvious and easily fixable that it's frustrating that no one did. Some of them qualified, smart people tried to fix and failed for various reasons. Some of them couldn't be fixed no matter what, because so much damage had been done. Some of it is WCW never fully picking a side - did they want to be a company that would take on the expenses and marketing campaigns and dirty promotional tactics needed to get competitive with the WWF? Or were they content to produce original programming on TBS that got great ratings but never really did great business? (In the latter case, by the way, Sting was severely overpaid.) If that's what Jerry was getting at in saying WCW wasn't truly a national promotion, maybe it's just a phrasing difference, but there is something there. They weren't a *good* national promotion. They were horrible at marketing their top stars and hyping their big shows. There were too many people involved who were TBS corporate rejects who didn't understand wrestling, and were outwardly hostile to the idea that wrestling was unique and what worked for every business wouldn't work for wrestling. Sting got caught in the middle of all of that. Not his fault, but it's what happened, and for that reason, he's not a Hall of Famer.

Jerry, I apologize if I painted you in a corner too much. Maybe that wasn't fair. My post was too much about you and not enough about your argument. I see everyone piling in on you and feel a little bad about it. But at the same time, I hope the point was made that WCW was certainly a national promotion from Day One and never tried to be anything else.

One thing I will say about Toyota working the mat is that she is so ridiculously flexible that it makes it easier to get over the submissions. Her matches don't always play that up, but this match definitely does. This match is laid out really well, but in a way that surprises me at first based on what I've seen from Hasegawa. I'm used to seeing her as the lovable underdog. She is the aggressor for the first few minutes of this, and after getting stretched like a pretzel for a while, Toyota has enough and gets pissed off, slapping her around a few times and really showing her who is boss on the mat. Eventually, they settle into a groove that is more like what we've seen from them before, but without many of the excesses that annoy Toyota haters much of the time. They did an excellent job of making this match feel different from Hotta/Yamada on the same show, while still working a match primarily around holds. That's not usually what you get from Toyota, and for her to not only do it, but also do it on a show with other mat-heavy matches and still make the match feel unique, is impressive. I enjoy Hasegawa, but in this match, Toyota is the star. It's one people should point to when making the case for her as a great wrestler. The Hasegawa upset was a huge surprise and a great moment. Something good in the water on 6/3/94.

Great, great match. Felt like the Joshi version of a UWFI match. As you'd expect with these two, there is a heavy focus on footwork. Yamada is the aggressor more often than you'd expect, as Hotta was the one being pushed as a killer. Funny moment when the camera zooms in on her motioning for Yamada to kick her again. Interesting in that case that Hotta is calling a match where she is letting Yamada take most of it. It works toward debunking the myth that she's selfish and unprofessional. They also do a great job of building drama, as they tease a KO, with Hotta struggling to get up by the ten count and almost not making it. In another moment, they fight over a superplex for nearly a minute, with lots of ooohs and ahhs from the crowd for each momentum shift. I wish they hadn't done the tiger driver/nearfall stuff at the end, as I liked the kicks/matwork stuff so much better, and I think they did one kickout too many, but those are very minor quibbles. These two are an awesome matchup stylistically, and this would have been a great series. UWFI body with AJPW final stretch would be the best way to describe this.

I have never seen you praise someone at this board who did not work in the WWF. I'm glad that you have watched other stuff, but I haven't seen you mention, say, Jumbo Tsuruta, here. I see more about Irwin R. Schyster and Sean Mooney. I have seen you dismiss other promotions. To a point where you are trying to argue that WCW, a promotion that aired on national television for its entire existence, was not a national promotion in its early days. WCW, a company that did a European tour in 1993. WCW, a company that did cross promotional shows with New Japan, the largest wrestling promotion in the world at the time, in 1991 and 1992. WCW, a company backed by a huge media conglomerate with a pretty far reach. Even Jim Crockett Promotions was a national promotion. Sure, they were primarily focused in the Southeast, but they ran shows in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston and other markets. In their first full year of existence, WCW ran pay-per-views in: * Chicago * Nashville * Baltimore * Philadelphia * Atlanta All major markets. In their second full year of existence, WCW ran pay-per-views in: * Greensboro * Washington DC * Baltimore * Philadelphia * St. Louis All major markets. In their third full year of existence, WCW ran pay-per-views in: * Denver * St. Petersburg, FL * Baltimore * Chattanooga, TN * Norfolk, VA Ok, not major markets there, but the point stands. But even where metrics exist, you haven't really cited them. And of course there are metrics. Were the matches good or bad? Because those things are reflective of being "effective" and/or anchoring a promotion. They are inherent in other categories that are already mentioned. Do you really think someone who consistently had heatless matches would be considered for the WON based on work? Sting was over his entire career. Because of WCW's heavy focus on television, he seemed like a bigger star than he really was. Stevie Ray and Scott Norton had larger contracts than Ric Flair in 1998. It's not something I'd really cite.

The "metric" for wrestling ability is a match list. We could go back and forth, but probably the best bet at this point is to Gordy List Sting. jdw put this list together, which is a great starting point for a HOF discussion. Maybe one of the pro-Sting people can complete this.

Yeah, didn't see much good about this, but I still felt the need to include it in full to paint the full picture of their rivalry.

I actually meant that rhetorically. I'm surprised that you think she is even 50/50. But to get this back to the key point, would have/could have/should have should have absolutely no bearing on the HOF. Doesn't mean it's not a topic worth talking about. It just means it's not really related to the HOF.

Sable was at one time a bigger ratings draw than Steve Austin. She was a bigger star than all of them as well. Do you think she should go in the HOF?

"At the time" being 1998. Obviously, The Rock caught on later.

They were over midcarders. They were still midcarders. They were never put in a position to sell a PPV. Austin is singlehandedly, singlehandedly, by himself, only him responsible for the WWF's success at the time. Everyone else was riding the train. Some were able to make a career out of it, and more power to them.

Slowly splitting off all of this stuff. Use this thread to debate the merits of people who are already in the HOF, make cases for people who aren't on the ballot and write anything that contains the word "overness" as criteria.

They were midcarders.

Yes, because they headlined so many PPVs and house shows where you can directly credit them for the live gate. You can't be serious.

Haven't we been through all of this before? We've had this conversation at least a half dozen times, then it seems to restart a few months later like it never happened. I don't understand that. Anyway, it's not a Hall of Guys I Like. If it was, Sting would be in mine. Benoit went in because he was considered one of the top five wrestlers in the world for 15 years. The HOF is biased more toward guys with reps than guys who look good watching old footage now. I don't know how long you have been online, but Benoit had a pretty great rep before he murdered his family. Based on what I know about your interests, you didn't like him because he wasn't part of the WWF gimmick era. Sting surprises me a little coming from you because it's the first time I've ever heard you praise anyone that wasn't in the WWF in the 80s or 90s. That seems to be your point of interest, and that's fine, but sometimes, whether you see it or not, you do it to the detriment of all other wrestling, implying that if it didn't happen in the Hogan era of the WWF, it doesn't count. If you don't get it, you don't get it. I'm not even sure Benoit should be in the HOF. But do you seriously not understand why he went in? He went in based on work, just like dozens and dozens of other people in the HOF. It's the exact same reason Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Ted DiBiase and Ricky Steamboat went in. Why aren't you saying the same about them?

This was a lot of fun. I had never done a podcast before, but I really enjoyed this and hope to do it again sometime. Thanks to Dylan, Dave and Will for helping put together a great show.

Yes, you can compare them. Are you aware that during the summer of 1987, the NWA was outdrawing the WWF on house shows based on the strength of the War Games gimmick, to a point where everyone in the company thought they had turned a corner? The death of JCP had a lot of factors, but not enough people liking wrestling or being willing to support a good presentation was not one of them.

Jim Crockett Promotions sold more live event tickets in 1986 than WWE in 2009. Different time periods, and other things to consider, but the answer to your question is a solid yes.

No. TNA vs 1970s Florida.

The company was in the red every single year during that time period too. I don't blame Sting for all of WCW's problems (probably not any of WCW's problems) during that time, but the Hall of Fame is not a place to right wrongs and vote on what might have been had he been used properly.

1991 - 1993 were terrible, terrible years for WCW. Really, I love WCW, but there is no one in the Hall of Fame exclusively based on the strength of what they accomplished in WCW. And I think that's probably for the best.