Dylan Waco

Main was good, but not outstanding. I am actually happy that Ziggler was somewhat restrained with the bumping as I legit feared for his life in this environment. Right guy one and the AJ turn made sense. My guess is it will be revealed that the guy she was visiting in the Hotel rooms was Dolph. Over all this was a good ppv. People are going batshit over Final Battle so I'll watch it later tonight/early tomorrow.

Show/Sheamus was good, but not great. Having said that Show is fucking insane for the bumps he was taking in that match. It wasn't just the bump through the chairs either. The big guy was flying and skidding around like he was 200 pounds lighter and 20 years younger. It's too bad Sheamus character is so lame because the guy almost always delivers with a really good match. I enjoyed the finish. Del Rio almost killing himself in the 3MB match was wildly unnecessary. Can't believe I didn't see the Brawler thing coming

Eve's music hitting after that was fucking hilarious. "Don't use pronouns!"

Shield match was a great segment. As a match you can bitch about guys "disappearing" for long periods of time and other such shit, but it delivered exactly what it should have. Everyone actually looks better coming out of it and having The Shield win clean was the absolute right thing. I'll probably have more to say about this match at the end of the ppv, but Ambrose really feels like a major star already and as awkward as Ryback was at times I give him credit for giving these guys so much, but also for knowing when his monster spots should be hit.

My guess is AJ turns and forms a power couple with Dolph

Agree with you on that Will, except I actually love 3MB.

Opener was pretty fun, but nothing especially interesting. I actually liked how old school Cesaro worked the second match. Seemed like a deliberate troll in a good way and make sense as he's been attacking Truth as a "highlight reel" wrestler.

I actually think you are right Flik. Anyway I watched Christian v. Kaz. It's actually from Genesis 07. Not the best Ladder Match you'll ever see, but very much a good match. Christian gets busted open early in a really nasty way which adds to it. Christian is actually really good throughout and takes a few lunatic bumps, including one where he tumbles wildly through the ropes and then smacks on the floor. Watching this stuff makes me really miss Don West who is ten thousand times better than any current commentator not named William Regal. Finish to this one was predictable but fun.

I thought the Ladder Match from Impact was v. Kazarian. I do remember it being really good. Aries has had several really good matches this year that are worth going out of your way to see

Match reminded me a whole lot of a Bigelow/Taz match from ECW. Really good atmosphere, with both guys feeding off of it to some extent and busting out really insane/impressive spots. The crowd brawling was so obviously being done to set up the big spot with the dropkick that it was kind of ridiculous, but it was such a nutty spot I didn't really mind it. I thought Sting put fourth a lot of effort, but to me Joe was clearly the better guy in the match as his offense looked a lot better and his mannerisms really carried the day at times. The spot where both guys blow off the execution of their own finish was pretty silly, but also in keeping with Taz/Bammer theme. Finish sucked, but was not as bad as I remembered to be honest. Very much worth watching.

I don't think it's an outlandish thing to point to in an HoF discussion, but I can't imagine any scenario in which that should be a determining factor in who you would vote for.

He was referencing complaints that came up in the thread.

I started to post this on Classics the other day when someone mentioned Sting as a "bubble" candidate, but I liken him to a college basketball team from a major conference that is a game or two above five hundred, with a weak RPI, but one win against a top five team.

Meltzer with a run-in in the Sting thread at Classics Cena is a Hall of Fame level draw by objective standards. If you go through in 2012, 2011, 2010, etc. compare cards Cena on and average attendance,and those he's not on, you'll find a substantial difference. There is nobody who drew as much as he did for as long as he did who is not in. In fact, there is not even one person you can put in his league as a guy who drew on top year after year as top guy in the business who isn't in. The closest I could find was Vincent Lopez, and he's a long way from Cena. Now, are his numbers in the ballpark of Hogan, Austin, Rock, Londos, Rocca, Rogers, the really great draws. No. He's below that pack and ahead of the Bret/Michaels pack, who were big stars but not fantastic drawing cards. And they are ahead of the Sting pack. Sting is a guy who is a strong candidate to be talked about. As far as getting in, when the best argument is he was a better draw then Benoit, or John Cena was pushed and TV ratings have fallen (which they have, but he also brought attendances up from a bottoming out period seven years ago to a higher level today), you need to do research and come up with something better. There are several voters in this thread and they are very open minded, as years go by, we all get more open minded about people. If you make a valid case for Sting, he'll get in. It's happened with a lot of people in the past. The valid case isn't anything to do with John Cena, who was a no brainer pick. Sting is a brainer, like dozens of marginal guys, you need to show why he belongs in. Saying Benoit or Jericho is a bad argument because Benoit and Jericho were both considered by their peers to be very close to the best performers in the business during their peaks. Benoit obviously more than Jericho, but both are held in very high regard. If Sting was considered at their level as a performer, he'd have been in a long time ago. He's not. They are both bad comparison points unless you want to argue inside the ring Sting is better than they were. And if you do, you're not looking at it as a wrestler for sure because it would mean you don't know the difference between leader and follower and guy who doesn't want to do anything more than get by and guy who wants to be the best. Sting had one home run PPV, with a year long build against one of the bigger stars in history. Batista did almost 500,000 more buys for his best PPV against a guy who was no Hogan on a strong four month build and you don't see a lot of people saying Batista should be in. Batista's PPV numbers generally are far better than Sting's. His house show numbers on top blow Sting away. It's not a "could have" Hall of Fame. "Could have" is a nice thing to do, but you can't use it for a Hall of Fame. Also, regarding people getting in, unless you understand it, don't comment on it. I never voted for Steve Williams, but to those in Japan, where he was voted in on, Steve Williams is a Hall of Famer. I know who voted for him and he had universal respect, particularly among those who worked with him. The only thing that kept him out was Americans who voted for Japanese candidates, but within Japan, the respect he had was huge. I see him as borderline, but I don't live in Japan, only visited and watched TV. Still, at his peak he was a better wrestler than Sting for sure, a bigger star (partially because All Japan in the 90s trumps WCW within their respective cultures) except for maybe 1997 and a few months of early 1998. Sting beats him for longevity at the top. Sting was a far bigger U.S. star, but this isn't a U.S. wrestling Hall of Fame. Even Iaukea, who I also never voted for, Iaukea was closer to the biggest star in Australian history than Sting is in U.S. history, was the single biggest star ever in Hawaii during a boom period drawing tons of sellouts, is either the biggest or second biggest star ever in New Zealand. That's where he got voted in from. In those parts of the world he trumps Sting to the point you can't even make an argument. Iaukea in New Zealand at his peak was a genuine mainstream sports star, on covers of sports magazines that Sting could never get his name in the U.S., let alone a cover. In Hawaii, he's a huge cultural figure. There is probably nobody over the age of 45 in Hawaii who doesn't know Curtis Da Bull Iaukea. In mainland U.S., I'd guess 80% or so of the population that was around in the 90s when asked about Sting, would think you're talking about a rock star and have no idea who the wrestler is. Yeah, he was big in wrestling magazines, but to the public, he was never like Cena, Savage, Piper, Hogan, Flair, Andre, etc. You don't see states wanting to make him the face of their Lottery even after tons of bad pub. He doesn't have national endorsements. He's not in movies. All the things the larger than life stars had, Sting never got a whiff of, because he was only a star to wrestling fans, while the biggest wrestling stars were names people like my mom and dad would know and Sting's not even close there. Goldberg is even ahead of Sting in that regard. Regarding WCW, the fact is WCW's business was strongest in 1998 with Goldberg as the top face. Goldberg and Sting got monster pushes and Goldberg's year was better than Sting's year if you look at the attendance figures. I spoke to Zane Bresloff 3-5 times daily, and that was his department. He's the guy selling the tickets and he never thought Sting was a guy who sold tickets. It was Hulk and it was Goldberg the next year. At Sting's peak in 1997 they brought him to L.A. and spent six figures marketing a show around Hulk and Sting, they announced Hulk first, sold tickets and when Sting was announced for the late push (they were feuding with WWF which had a show the same day or same weekend, I don't remember) and the addition of Sting sold no extra tickets and they ended up actually losing money on the show. That was when Sting never did house shows and was at his so-called peak, so it had to be 97. Even then, he was not a draw past the match with Hogan, which did great, but also fell off huge after the first meeting. If wrestlers considered Sting a great worker, he'd be in. While that's not entirely what got Benoit in or Jericho in, their peers did vote for them in strong numbers. Angle even more. I can't tell you how many guys, I mean guys who have worked on top with everyone, including if I name names, Austin, Rock, Benoit, Guerrero, Jarrett and even Flair who have told me that in their opinion, Kurt is either the best (three of the above said absolute best) or one of the best they were ever in the ring with. That's why he got in. You could argue they are wrong, but it is their opinion and those names have been in with an awful lot of great wrestlers. Sting's drawing numbers are not Hall of Fame. His in-ring ranges from very good at times to really ****** at times, but a Hall of Fame worker without the drawing power, not a chance. His best argument is that he had a bunch of world titles at a time they were devalued, and main evented a lot of shows that didn't do very well and a few that did. He had a very long career where he was considered a top star, and still is today, which is a plus and is his best credential. I did drawing comps in the 50s for Sting, and his comps were Roy Shire (who is in, but would not be in as a wrestler), Angelo Poffo (not in), Sheik (who is in but more for the 70s and Sting never had a 70s Sheik run anywhere) Crusher (also in, but for the 60s and 70s and if Crusher never did anything after the 50s nobody would consider him), Mexico's Tony Borne (not in), Bull Curry in Texas (not in), Prince Neff Maiava (not in). Dick Hutton had a few years as a non-drawing world champion and is also not in. For the 60s, his drawing comps are Bob Ellis (who I think would actually be ahead of Sting or at least equal, but isn't in), Johnny Barend (not in), Hans Moriter (not in), and Toru Tanaka (not in). I get people's childhoods but you have to be able to move past that. My childhood had Rocky Johnson (who had a hell of a career, I worked on the guy's WWE Hall of Fame speech and it was way more than I expected) and Pepper Gomez as top faces who kids of my era where I lived knew far better than Sting at a similar stage. Johnson is not in, never got support, and I won't argue him, and he had a hell of a career in a lot of places. Gomez is probably even stronger as a candidate, and is to this day a household name is any second generation Hispanic household around here in a way Sting could never be, and he's not in. And I've never voted for either. For a sports analogy, maybe not the best, but from reading this thread, this is how I see the argument, Sting was a quarterback who was a first round draft choice by a real good team, in his third year he worked his way to starter and started for several years, most years on a crappy team and his stats were below average. He had one year where the team went to the Super Bowl. But he had a really long career. And he was pretty famous. His team doesn't get him in, his stats aren't even close, but you get a bunch of arguments that if he had only gone to the 49ers and played under Walsh, he'd be in. And who is to say it's not true, and who is to say Walsh would have started someone over him that was already there. Or who is to say he would have started and flopped. In any case, that's not a Hall of Fame argument at all.

More evidence that when you and I see eye to eye it is a miracle.

The amount of crazed lying in that clip alone, rivals the totality of Brickhouse Brown's shoot.

Sting did some good numbers v. Flair at times in 90, but they were basically isolated cases surrounding by poor showings. Luger actually did reasonably well v. Flair for the portion where Sting was out with injury. I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that, but it's not a positive for Sting.

Hennig was Hogan's worst drawing opponent during his first major run IIRC. Warrior was the replacement for Hogan and things slipped. Neither guy is really comparable to Cena, because again, he's been the biggest star in wrestling for seven (really eight) years. I get your point but Cena is a guy who will have a better track record then the bottom barrel aces of the WWE by a healthy margin.

I don't disagree with any of that, though I would note that this isn't a "dark age" period the way something like 90-93 was. Not even close. At worst we will look back on the Cena era and say "business was pretty decent, with some gigantic shows he was on top of and some solid numbers, along with long term slides in ratings." No one is going to say "business was shit when Cena was on top" because it hasn't been.

If Cena got hit by a bus tomorrow and ratings and attendance don't significantly drop, how much of a draw was he? It is major problem putting someone in a Hall of Fame when they're are still in the top position. We don't know what will happen when he is replaced. It is taken for granted that Cena is a good draw, but his records don't seem to be systematically examined. I don't consider him a great worker, so in a strict Hall of Fame, he would need to be a proven strong draw to balance that out. Just being on top is not enough for Sting, and it is not enough for Cena. This is a reasonable argument in many ways...except for one thing. Cena is the top star in the wresting business. Not his promotion. Not the U.S. The wrestling business. Moreover he has been the top star in the wrestling business for at minimum seven years. Take a look through the HoF roster and the list of guys not in. There is no one in the history of wrestling who was the top star in the business for as long as Cena who is not in. I'm not saying that's a "case closed" statement, but I do think in a world where Cena has been lambasted by smart fans for years for all sorts of sins imagined and otherwise, it would really reflect poorly on the WON HoF if Cena wasn't a first ballot guy. I almost hate to say that because I agree with the general principle and now that he's in I can see a case for never voting for "prime of their career" candidates again. But it's how I feel. More importantly I think there is a clear difference between Cena and Sting, because "being on top" in Sting's sense is in no way comparable to being on top in the sense that Cena has been.

I think the best was the guy who argued that Cena going in as the top star in wrestling for at least the last seven years was the equivalent of the top star in Continental in 83 going in.

It's been redundant. KrisZ wrote a very good post outlining the issues Sting had to deal with on top. I didn't address it directly because a. I mostly agree with it and b. it doesn't alter the reality of his poor run as an ace. Sting was unfortunate enough to have come along during the dark ages of wrestling. One way of looking at that is "man that really sucks for the guy, he could have done so much more if things were different." There are other ways of looking at. For example if someone was REALLY negative about Sting as a candidate they could argue that the "WCW was an incompetent disaster company run by fools" talking point applies to the decision to build the company around a totally unproven commodity like Sting in the first place and then stick with him after it was obvious things weren't working. They could point out that at a time when WCW was rapidly losing ground in their home region, SMW with a tiny, tiny sliver of their budget, no national tv and a much thinner talent roster was actually doing pretty well, expanding and at times drawing pretty comparably to WCW under Sting. Furthermore they could build on the "who were the top 10 draws in the US from 90-93" and point out that even in this admittedly low period for wrestling in the States there was no point where Sting was EVER the top draw in the United States. Does a guy pushed as "the guy" by the most incompetent, shitty decision making company in history, who was less successful as ace of a company than 1993 Bob Armstrong and who couldn't even rise to the level of "top draw in the United States" during a period regularly referred to as the dark ages of wrestling really sound like a Hall of Famer? Now THAT would be a negative narrative on Sting. I actually think my take is fairly moderate. I think he's a better worker than a lot of his supporters do (as evidenced by the Classics thread where his biggest cheerleader called him "passable") and I tend to give him a decent amount of credit for the Crow Sting run. I don't think the longevity issues are completely irrelevant, but I don't see much value in them. I give him credit for the great series with Vader. I feel bad for his bad luck, but can't help but think it's not a coincidence that WCW's worst period coincides almost exactly with his run as company ace, nor do I think it's easy to explain away the fact that he wasn't even a top level challenger for Flair despite his push.

I thought that was utterly insane also, glad I'm not alone

McManus was elected from a voting pool that I would guess was drastically different than the pool that keeps Sting out. No one is "taking Sting to task" because he wasn't a Hogan level draw. That might be the single biggest strawman I've seen on this board actually. People are merely pointing out that in the world that existed Sting was not a draw as an ace. Since this is impossible to dispute the Sting defense squad seems to fall back on "well it wasn't his fault." Well okay, maybe it wasn't. But it doesn't change reality and it's hardly applying an absurd degree of scrutiny to say "Sting wasn't a draw as an ace." Does this alone mean Sting is not an HoFer? No. For example if he was a great drawing challenger over several years I could see a case for him. The problem is he wasn't. If he was an all time great worker, with the longevity he has as a guy on top you could make a case. But he wasn't. If he was hugely influential I could see a case for him. But he wasn't. In fact no one is even arguing any of these things. Instead the focus of the Sting discussion has basically been around two things: 1. How much credit he deserves for the Crow Sting run? 2. Whether or not it is fair to criticize him for the fact that his run as an ace did not draw well? I am actually willing to give him more credit for the Crow Sting run than John or Loss. But I still don't think one year as the top babyface in the States (which is arguable in the eyes of some) - even during the period he was hot in - is enough to get in. But what really gets me is that we have people arguing that it's wrong to criticize Sting or assign him any blame for the failings of WCW when he was on top and instead these people apparently want to argue that this is somehow a POSITIVE for his candidacy because "hey it could have been worse" or "well he was on top at least" or "it's part of the longevity argument we need to build a modicum of a case." If people want to toss any discussion of Sting as ace out the window that's fine, but let's be fair about it. Drop the longevity/consecutive years on top argument, drop any talk about his best matches virtually all of which occurred during that period, drop complaints about booking and unfairness, et. Instead make the case based on 88-89 and 94-present. Does anyone really think such a framing would help his case?

It isn't my fault people like shitty wrestlers Cue Schneider with a joke about your Jericho comp