more on Sting to WWE

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

When was his last watchable match? Well, I couldn't tell you one that happened in the last five years.

EVERY televised (well, PPV) match he's had since WCW closed has been in the good-very good range (**-***). By saying "not watchable" you're pretty much saying he's been racking in -*+ matches.

 

Working a super light schedule has made him more motivated I think. When you wrestle every day for 2 months, you're not going to put a great effort into everything because of wear and tear on the body.

[King Cucaracha 0]

When was his last watchable match?  Well, I couldn't tell you one that happened in the last five years.

EVERY televised (well, PPV) match he's had since WCW closed has been in the good-very good range (**-***). By saying "not watchable" you're pretty much saying he's been racking in -*+ matches.

 

Working a super light schedule has made him more motivated I think. When you wrestle every day for 2 months, you're not going to put a great effort into everything because of wear and tear on the body.

Styles/Sting vs Luger/Jarrett?

 

I'd put that at under *, and that's being generous.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Considering Sting was in the match for 2:00 and Luger no sold EVERYTHING, I wouldn't count that. Besides, it wasn't bad when it was Jarrett vs. whoevers in the ring.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

Considering Sting was in the match for 2:00 and Luger no sold EVERYTHING, I wouldn't count that. Besides, it wasn't bad when it was Jarrett vs. whoevers in the ring.

Dude, you have to count that. STING was in the match. Plus I didn't see you name one match of his in the last five years that WAS watchable.....

[King Cucaracha 0]

Sting/Jarrett had a couple of passable matches if I remember correctly.

 

If I also remember correctly, his matches for the WWA weren't ** or over either.

[KTID 0]

EVERY televised (well, PPV) match he's had since WCW closed has been in the good-very good range (**-***).

 

Is this how low standards are in WWE these days? **-*** star matches being called "very good"?

[Guest MikeSC]

Considering Sting was in the match for 2:00 and Luger no sold EVERYTHING, I wouldn't count that. Besides, it wasn't bad when it was Jarrett vs. whoevers in the ring.

Sting v JJ wasn't **.

 

Sting hasn't had a good match since he stopped working with Vader.

-=Mike

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

Sting as a 'One Shot Deal' say appearing from the rafters in Atlanta and laying out the heels or something, is fine with me. I like the idea of Sting's only ever WWE appearance coming and going in the blink of an eye, in keeping with the 'mysterious' aspects of his character. But pushing him beyond that would be worthless.

[Dangerous K89 0]

I would rather see Sting main event than Bradshaw on Smackdown. And an awesome Sting multi-disc DVD set is something I wouldn't mind adding to my wrestling DVD collection..

 

And, yeah, what the hell is IWC?

[Guest Coffey]

IWC = Internet Wrestling Community.

 

I wouldn't mind a Sting DVD either, if it showcased him against the nWo the most....

[Dangerous K89 0]

Why not just say..."Internet?" Or, to make it as short, say "Net." IWC sounds like an indy fed or something.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Considering Sting was in the match for 2:00 and Luger no sold EVERYTHING, I wouldn't count that. Besides, it wasn't bad when it was Jarrett vs. whoevers in the ring.

Sting v JJ wasn't **.

 

Sting hasn't had a good match since he stopped working with Vader.

-=Mike

Wow you have low standards.

 

As for my opinions on Sting matches, everyone has a different one. For a huge example, Tawren said the WM XX 3-Way sucked. But to most people, it was great.

 

Now I'm not gonna say sting's had great matches in the last year, but they were not awful or bad or below watchable. They were decent, not great, but not bad. That falls into the category of good.

 

Same goes for Kane. I tend to enjoy his stuff more because I actually like the character, and always have.

[Guest Wondermouse]

I wouldn't mind seeing Sting work about a 6-week program, maybe more, with very few (no more than 3) matches that are build up well.

[griffinmills 0]

EVERY televised (well, PPV) match he's had since WCW closed has been in the good-very good range (**-***).

 

Is this how low standards are in WWE these days? **-*** star matches being called "very good"?

I would say that is based on how one wants to attempt to quantify them. If he wants to say that...

*=poor

**=good

***=very good

****=great

*****=perfect

...then that looks reasonable to me. For some people the stars can have huge gulfs between them like nothing gets more than ** or **1/2 and it is a pretty big deal for them to give out ****'s let alone *****. For others it is a per event basis, for example perhaps when reviewing Heat or Velocity a ** match might hit ***1/2 "for a heat match."

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

I go by the above star basis. Except I don't judge differently for whatever show.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I disagree slightly with the above star ratings. ** is mediocre. *** is good. **** is great. ***** is outstanding, but not necessarily perfect. By calling it perfect you end up comparing it with other matches too much. If Match A is ***** and Match B is *****, but Match A is slightly better than Match B, people will deliberately lower Match B for that reason. The ratings are not meant to work that way. The Godfather is better than The Godfather Part 2, but they are both **** films.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Why not just say..."Internet?" Or, to make it as short, say "Net." IWC sounds like an indy fed or something.

Because that's smartmark kayfabe. 'Net is what everyone that isn't in the IWC is.

 

I really hope that Sting doesn't show up in WWE. If he did, what would TNA have to put on their commercials?

[Guest MikeSC]

I disagree slightly with the above star ratings. ** is mediocre. *** is good. **** is great. ***** is outstanding, but not necessarily perfect. By calling it perfect you end up comparing it with other matches too much. If Match A is ***** and Match B is *****, but Match A is slightly better than Match B, people will deliberately lower Match B for that reason. The ratings are not meant to work that way. The Godfather is better than The Godfather Part 2, but they are both **** films.

I agree. There is no such thing as a perfect match. One can ALWAYS find a flaw at some point if they wish to. For me, ***** simply means outstanding. Heck, in school, you could get an "A" and not be perfect.

-=Mike

...Some people find Steamboat v Flair at WrestleWar '89 to be perfect. I find it to be rather slow and plodding and the worst of their matches in their 1989 series.

[Dangerous K89 0]

They would have to put Lex Luger and Jeff Jarrett in it along with 5 seconds of the New Age of Wrestling, AJ Styles. Then, have Hogan shill the whole thing in 8 month old footage.

[Tawren 0]

As for my opinions on Sting matches, everyone has a different one. For a huge example, Tawren said the WM XX 3-Way sucked. But to most people, it was great.

Except I gave reasons and examples.

 

Name ONE good Sting match since 99.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Well, WWE is cheap about licensing fees / royalties with most bands so we can kiss use of "Seek and Destroy" goodbye. Same with stock music. Well there goes the Crow theme too.

 

Name ONE good Sting match since 99.

 

Sting / Booker T (Monday Nitro - 7/31/00)

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

As for my opinions on Sting matches, everyone has a different one. For a huge example, Tawren said the WM XX 3-Way sucked. But to most people, it was great.

Except I gave reasons and examples.

 

Name ONE good Sting match since 99.

I didn't watch WCW after 1998 except maybe a random Nitro now and then in 2000-01, and none had Sting matches.

 

His matches vs. Jarrett in TNA and from the WWA PPV were good IMO. Just because I think they're good maybe someone else doesn't. I'm not Mr. Answer, I have opinions, sometimes people agree, sometimes they don't. If everyone agreed about everything, what fun is therE? Just repeating the same nonsense?

 

I can bet a LOT of people think Kane matches suck, but I enjoy them, because IMO, he's a good worker for a man of his size. I don't mean to say he should be named the greatest worker of all time, but I think people seriously under-rate him.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Sting could always be looking for his 'Apprentice'.. who will probably end up turning heel on him anyways

[Tawren 0]

As for my opinions on Sting matches, everyone has a different one. For a huge example, Tawren said the WM XX 3-Way sucked. But to most people, it was great.

Except I gave reasons and examples.

 

Name ONE good Sting match since 99.

I didn't watch WCW after 1998 except maybe a random Nitro now and then in 2000-01, and none had Sting matches.

 

His matches vs. Jarrett in TNA and from the WWA PPV were good IMO. Just because I think they're good maybe someone else doesn't. I'm not Mr. Answer, I have opinions, sometimes people agree, sometimes they don't. If everyone agreed about everything, what fun is therE? Just repeating the same nonsense?

So you are admitting you haven't seen most of his work?

 

As for the TNA match vs Sting (I have not seen the WWA one), I hated that. It was short and both men were exhausted quickly and thus it was slow as hell. There was no actual story told and poor offense by both men, with weak brawling that goes nowhere taking up lots of time. The interference at the end is cliche and expected. Very bad match.

 

Please explain why you liked it.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

You DO Realize Sting wrestled from 1986-1996 right? So I've seen MOST of his work, considering he only wrestled part-time from 1998-on from what I understand.

 

As for the TNA match you mentioned, I didn't mind the brawling, considering Jeff Jarrett can brawl decent enough for a good match, but cheap endings I hated. Like I said, ** isn't a GREAT match, it's decent. I haven't watched it in a while so maybe my opinion is changed. I usually just watch a TNA Show once, maybe twice if it's really good.

[Tawren 0]

You DO Realize Sting wrestled from 1986-1996 right? So I've seen MOST of his work, considering he only wrestled part-time from 1998-on from what I understand.

Ah, I read incorrectly. I thought you said you didn't watch UNTIL 98. Sorry about that.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Eh, it happens. Like the time I bitched about how Miss jackie could get injured and wrestler (when she never does), and then realized I read it wrong and she was only sick.

 

I got chewed out by about 14 people for that one/

[griffinmills 0]

I disagree slightly with the above star ratings. ** is mediocre. *** is good. **** is great. ***** is outstanding, but not necessarily perfect. By calling it perfect you end up comparing it with other matches too much. If Match A is ***** and Match B is *****, but Match A is slightly better than Match B, people will deliberately lower Match B for that reason. The ratings are not meant to work that way. The Godfather is better than The Godfather Part 2, but they are both **** films.

Excellent point. It is funny how a simple poor or lazy word choice can have dire consequences on peoples reactions. Some words just slowly lose or change meaning over the years. "Awesome" was once used to describe the face of a god, now it is less than a forgotten catch phrase for Bill and Ted! Basically becoming a worthless "marketing" word.

I really like the movie analogy.

[Guest Trivia247]

I disagree slightly with the above star ratings.  ** is mediocre.  *** is good.  **** is great.  ***** is outstanding, but not necessarily perfect.  By calling it perfect you end up comparing it with other matches too much.  If Match A is ***** and Match B is *****, but Match A is slightly better than Match B, people will deliberately lower Match B for that reason.  The ratings are not meant to work that way.  The Godfather is better than The Godfather Part 2, but they are both **** films.

Excellent point. It is funny how a simple poor or lazy word choice can have dire consequences on peoples reactions. Some words just slowly lose or change meaning over the years. "Awesome" was once used to describe the face of a god, now it is less than a forgotten catch phrase for Bill and Ted! Basically becoming a worthless "marketing" word.

I really like the movie analogy.

almost off topic, but that explaination kinda on point as to why people just can't accept someone is "ok". Remember when Ok was an exceptional answer for someone asking how are you? But NOOOO Ok is like some sorta middle ground between feeling good and absolutely shitty. because every ok I gave lately people go... "Why ok" Is something wrong?

[Guest MikeSC]

I disagree slightly with the above star ratings.  ** is mediocre.  *** is good.  **** is great.  ***** is outstanding, but not necessarily perfect.  By calling it perfect you end up comparing it with other matches too much.  If Match A is ***** and Match B is *****, but Match A is slightly better than Match B, people will deliberately lower Match B for that reason.  The ratings are not meant to work that way.  The Godfather is better than The Godfather Part 2, but they are both **** films.

Excellent point. It is funny how a simple poor or lazy word choice can have dire consequences on peoples reactions. Some words just slowly lose or change meaning over the years. "Awesome" was once used to describe the face of a god, now it is less than a forgotten catch phrase for Bill and Ted! Basically becoming a worthless "marketing" word.

I really like the movie analogy.

almost off topic, but that explaination kinda on point as to why people just can't accept someone is "ok". Remember when Ok was an exceptional answer for someone asking how are you? But NOOOO Ok is like some sorta middle ground between feeling good and absolutely shitty. because every ok I gave lately people go... "Why ok" Is something wrong?

Man, was that response ever OK?

-=Mike