Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Sting vs Taker has probably been the most in-demand match for a long time among fans

But my question is

What year do you think would've been pefect to capitalize on this?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,929 Posts
1997. /thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
The first 2 posters are correct. Sting should have came in and been part of the invasion angle, and both were at a good age tocput on a classic, to be honest they could probably have a classic now but 2002 would have been the best year. Or hell how about 97/98 if Sting jumped ship, how id of loved that to happen
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,784 Posts
2002 would have been stupid, since Undertaker was in his American Bad Ass/Big Evil gimmick.

Gimmick wise, 1997/1998 was probably the best time, especially with the popularity of both men and wrestling in general.

Wrestling wise, for Undertaker, 2005-2009 would have been perfect. As for Sting... well it doesn't matter because he was largely average at best for his entire career :p.
 

·
Harvester of Sorrow
Joined
·
12,028 Posts
1998 was definetely the perfect time. You had the Lord Of Darkness, The Undertaker, which is proberly his best time as the deadman, and Crow Sting who was also at his best time as Sting, well 1997 might be a little better but it would have been too early. In 1998 Sting had fully established himself as Crow Sting so I think 98 would have been the perfect time.

If not 1998 then proberly 1999 when Unertaker was a heel. You could have had face Sting Vs heel Undertaker, and the storyline would be good too because you could add the Ministry of Darkness to the storyline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
[/QUOTE] 2002 would have been stupid, since Undertaker was in his American Bad Ass/Big Evil gimmick.

Gimmick wise, 1997/1998 was probably the best time, especially with the popularity of both men and wrestling in general.

Wrestling wise, for Undertaker, 2005-2009 would have been perfect. As for Sting... well it doesn't matter because he was largely average at best for his entire career . .[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, how wonderful it would've been to watch them in 09 when both men are at the tail end of their careers, and Sting's in-ring abilities had greatly diminished. Much better than in 02, when both men were in great physical condition and Sting was still a MASSIVE star after the demise of WCW. You should be a booker..
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,784 Posts
2002 would have been stupid, since Undertaker was in his American Bad Ass/Big Evil gimmick.

Gimmick wise, 1997/1998 was probably the best time, especially with the popularity of both men and wrestling in general.

Wrestling wise, for Undertaker, 2005-2009 would have been perfect. As for Sting... well it doesn't matter because he was largely average at best for his entire career . .
Oh yes, how wonderful it would've been to watch them in 09 when both men are at the tail end of their careers, and Sting's in-ring abilities had greatly diminished. Much better than in 02, when both men were in great physical condition and Sting was still a MASSIVE star after the demise of WCW. You should be a booker..


Oh yes, how wonderful it would've been to watch them in 09 when both men are at the tail end of their careers, and Sting's in-ring abilities had greatly diminished. Much better than in 02, when both men were in great physical condition and Sting was still a MASSIVE star after the demise of WCW. You should be a booker..[/QUOTE]

You definitely seem to have read my post, but clearly you didn't understand it. Not surprising, you can't even seem to quote things properly... despite the fact clicking the "QUOTE" button does it for you...

The reason 99.9% of people want to see Undertaker Vs Sting is because of their GIMMICKS. In 2002, Undertaker wasn't in the gimmick he needs to be in for this so called "dream match" to happen and satisfy fans. Hence the fact I said it was stupid.

As for the "2009" thing... from 2005 to 2009 Undertaker was a vastly improved wrestler despite his age, and I NEVER said 2009 for Sting, but then again like I DID say, it wouldn't matter because Sting has essentially remained the same, average wrestle for the last 2 decades.

Edit: And your inability to quote screwed up my post. Wonderful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
You actually believe Sting's wrestling abilities haven't diminished the last few years? :shocked:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
He's always been shit. Hard to get worse than that.
Also, no reason Undertaker couldn't have reverted back to the Deadman in order to feud with Sting. They could have done it in a similar fashion that they did in 04, just push it back 2 years.
 

·
#FunFact™
Joined
·
7,513 Posts
2006. Easily. Then we wouldn't have had Taker vs Henry at Wrestlemania.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,124 Posts
1999.
 

·
King James
Joined
·
24,704 Posts
If Sting didn't sign with TNA I say anytime between 2005 - 2008 would have been great.

But 1997/98 Crow Sting vs. 1997/98 Lord of Darkness or 1999 Ministry Undertaker is a real dream match.

Hell, Surfer Sting vs. Big Evil Undertaker would be great too.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top