[Pareshx]

If you ran a wrestling company and you could sign either HBK or Sting at their peak, who would you choose?

I'd go for Sting for several reasons. The main one, I think he could lead a franchise better.

 

[D17]

Sting.

WCW in the early 90s > HBK's run from around 1996-1997.

 

[Violent By Design]

Shawn for sure.

Sting wasn't a bigger draw than Shawn was. They were both the faces of companies that were totally flunking.

They're both very charismatic in their own right, but Shawn has a much better grasp of Pro Wrestling. Shawn is a wrestling prodigy who lived up to his potential. Sting on the other hand was raised to be the next Hulk Hogan basically since he graduated wrestling school.

Shawn is way more innovative, he'll have a ton of great ideas - something that I don't think Sting will have. People will pay to see Shawn Michaels matches even if they have no plotline, you can't say the same about Sting really.

A big time main event? Throw Michaels in there to make the show memorable.

Also Shawn has versatility. His in-ring skills get him over as a face, and he can play heel by working the stick. Sting can really only work as a face.

 

[The Tony]

Sting. No doubt.

 

[jimboystar24]

Sting definitely. Shawn Michaels was one of the worst drawing champions of all time.

Plus at shawn's peak, he had lots of political power so once you want to have a show that didn't focus on him, it would be a battle backstage. Sting, from everything I can recall, NEVER a problem and highly respected

 

[dangreenday]

im gonna say HBK on this one

 

[---Candyman----]

Crow Sting

 

[Violent By Design]

Sting definitely. Shawn Michaels was one of the worst drawing champions of all time.

I don't get this argument at all. Are you implying that because the WWF was at a down period that it is Shawn Michaels fault? Quite literally every PPV buy they had during that time was only for HBK, because he was the only wrestler worth watching during his first title reign.

To challenge this statement, if we're going to just measure drawing power by the state of the companies during a champions reign - then how is Sting "not one of the worst" drawing champions of all time as well? WCW in the early 90s were poor as hell and way worst off than the WWF in 96. With Sting they actually had to bring back Ric Flair just so they could put the belt on him.

Not to mention the fact that Sting has been champion on TNA multiple times and they never go any where, in fact Sting for the most part has little impact on TNA while Michaels has headlined Wrestlemania's and his retirement speech was one of the highest rated RAWs in a while.

So what makes Sting such a great draw? The only time WCW was ever in a good state when Sting was champion was when people were paying to see the nWo. And after Sarrcade no one cared about Sting anymore. So yeah, Sting was booked as a superman and teased the fans for a year by jumping the nWo with an awesome gimmick - then once he actually wrestled no one cared any more. That's longevity.

 

[D17]

Sting definitely. Shawn Michaels was one of the worst drawing champions of all time.

Plus at shawn's peak, he had lots of political power so once you want to have a show that didn't focus on him, it would be a battle backstage. Sting, from everything I can recall, NEVER a problem and highly respected

This.

Also adding to my first post, Sting did more with less and was generally more over with the audience, look at Survivor Series 1996.

 

[SolarKhan]

Based on EVERYTHING I know now, I would go with Shawn. Sting would be the natural choice, but any man that is naive enough to pass on a WrestleMania match with Undertaker is someone I would rather not hire unless I had to.

 

[Lm2]

i would choose sting, im not much of a shawn michaels fan plus sting at one time in wcw was the man, shawn was into political power the only reason most shows were about him.

 

[C.M.Punk93]

HBK

 

[UltraPanda Black]

Sting without question.

 

[La Parka]

Sting.

 

[Medo]

Shawn Michaels definetly.

 

[joshman82]

sting was wcw...such as it was. when you think of wcw, you think of sting. when you think of wwF..you think hogan.
its close..but between the two, i'm going to go hbk. the thing with hbk is that he could make anyone look like a star...make anyone look good. sting was good, but he wasn't that good.

 

[PaulHBK]

Shawn of course

 

[Violent By Design]

sting was wcw...such as it was. when you think of wcw, you think of sting. when you think of wwF..you think hogan.
its close..but between the two, i'm going to go hbk. the thing with hbk is that he could make anyone look like a star...make anyone look good. sting was good, but he wasn't that good.

Actually, a lot of people think of Hogan when they think of WCW.

I think people have this idea that because Sting represented WCW, that that some how makes him bigger than Shawn Michaels.

WCW does not equal to the WWE in anyway. From 96-98 were the only years where WCW was comparable, and during those years Sting was not a champion for any decent amount of time. the nWo is what people paid to see. Years after and before 96 and 98 were years where WCW was bush league.

If Hogan had not arrived in 94, WCW would have went bankrupt probably before Turner would really start funding them.

 

[game3525]

Actually, a lot of people think of Hogan when they think of WCW.

I think people have this idea that because Sting represented WCW, that that some how makes him bigger than Shawn Michaels.

WCW does not equal to the WWE in anyway. From 96-98 were the only years where WCW was comparable, and during those years Sting was not a champion for any decent amount of time. the nWo is what people paid to see. Years after and before 96 and 98 were years where WCW was bush league.

If Hogan had not arrived in 94, WCW would have went bankrupt probably before Turner would really start funding them.

Exactly, give me Michaels.

 

[Moonlight_drive]

HBK, Sting is way to overrated with his stolen gimmick, name and shitty finisher..