Full disclosure: I never watched WCW. I watched WWE in 1992-1994, then didn't come back to wrestling until 1999, and then it was all WWE again. Beyond a few matches on YouTube and the WCW footage featured in WWE programming, I've not seen much of WCW.
I have, however, seen a few Sting matches from early 90s and then again from the Monday Night Wars, and the guy could go from what I could tell.
But this isn't 1999. This is 2011. I've been watching TNA sporadically for the last few years, and every outing I've seen from Sting has been mediocre at best. The man is in his early 50s; that doesn't mean he can't pull off one good match, but even working TNA's light, virtually travel-free schedule, when he did wrestle he looked...worn out.
Undertaker's injury problems are well-documented, so we needn't go down that same old road again. All signals point to Undertaker barely being able to participate in WrestleMania, let alone do so in tip-top condition.
I think people are buying into the IDEA of a Sting/Undertaker match without considering what the actual match itself will look like. It reminds me of the Bret Hart/Vince McMahon match from last year. Sure, Sting and Undertaker in 2011 are still worlds better than Hart and McMahon in 2010, but the comparison is apt: the IDEA of the match was so appealing that people didn't stop and think of the train wreck the match itself might become. Is there any reason to think that Sting and Undertaker, considering age and injury problems, could put on a match that comes even close to the hype that would surround it? Or are we to believe that, like Hulk Hogan v. The Rock, the buildup, the aura, and the moment will render the actual quality of the match irrelevant?
Honestly, am I the only one out there that isn't falling over at the thought of this?