6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- 135,850
- 116,508
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
1.9 millions!!
DAMN!!
DAMN!!
WrestleMania Fallout 4/6 - NT WrestleMania Prediction Contest Results Posted! p1
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by 4wrestling,
- Start date
- 30,184
- 1,991
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2000
Originally Posted by YardFather
Originally Posted by chillainvillain
So I hear Wrestlemania did 1.9 million buys?
source?
It was tweeted by a producer at ESPN. There is NO confirmation of this. It is far to early to have a number. It will take at least another week to get even a rough estimate indicator.
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
People are really #!*#!$*% on "The Icon" Sting?
Listen, if Sting couldn't get the job done Vince wouldn't have attempted to sign him for last years Mania.
Here's the thing about Sting.
STING STILL IS AN ICON. Icon's don't die. That's what makes you an icon. You can't stop being an icon. I can't even believe I'm debating the fact but a lot of posts in here are just silly. Let me just make a few points here.
First of all..
Meltzer's the authority on professional wrestling among insiders since when? Meltzer's shunned by insiders within in the industry and they still use his dirt sheet to promote agendas by giving him false rumors. He gets good info from some leaky wheels and while his info is fun to read, I hold his Hall of Fame in no higher regard than I do the WWE's. So the fact that Sting isn't in the WO HOF means nothing.
2ndly. Let's talk money.
I don't know who was the highest paid WCW wrestler during the wars but I will tell you what Kevin Nash said about Sting was during the "Legends of Wrestling Roundtable" talks. He said it was a reference known in the wrestling world back then as "Sting Money". Everyone's goal was to make Sting money. Nash said you were paid based on how well you drew and your expectations. He also personally said that Hogan was not paid more than Sting in those days. That's a small indication as to how big Sting was.
Do you guys think the NWO was the single handed reason the WCW beat out the WWF in the ratings for 83 consecutive weeks? Hell no. Was the NWO's main target and feud not Sting for that long time period? The full focus was on Sting.
The question on everyone's mind was would Sting join the NWO. That was the target and the basis of that era drawing as much as it did. That was Sting. He was the focal point of a major feud/angle for almost 3 years w/Hogan and the NWO. That feud drew BIG money. Hogan knew the only person he could draw huge money in that feud at that time as Sting. I'm not saying the Sting drew Hogan/Stone Cold money, but he did draw, and he did have a company build their brand around him. You know how people say"Warrior never drew a dime"...not true...at the time he was on top EVERY SINGLE STAR in the WWE wanted to work with him. Why? Because knew thats where the money was and they'd draw the most by working with him.
Meltzer and a few others show the numbers when Sting got his first title reign and they were way down to the point that his run was considered a flop and they had to put the belt back on Flair. So, there's partial proof that he didn't draw well. I'll admit that. But, on the flipside I think Sting had more drawing power than people want to give him credit for. It takes two to tango so to give his opponents all the credit for drawing in buys is BS. I will also say that for a good chunk of the 90s the entire industry (stateside) was in a downturn. Do you take that in to account when gauging the drawing ability of any wrestler that had their ascension during that period? Nobody drew great and consistently until the NWO and Attitude Era.
Now, just like Triple H/Taker (Which I was always sold on but I know initially people wern't) I know that many people would buy into Taker/Sting. It would be perfect for Sting. Same with Taker. Look at how amazing he looked Sunday. Give them limited dates and we know they would make a great match happen.
Given the promotion/video packages that we all know the WWE is capable of, they could easily generate TONS of interest in this match as only ONE of the featured matches @ WM. Taker is the draw and Sting could provide a great entertaining challenge for the streak that people would be into.
Sting wouldn't create any interest as Takers opponent? Really? You guys kill me sometimes.
Listen, if Sting couldn't get the job done Vince wouldn't have attempted to sign him for last years Mania.
Here's the thing about Sting.
STING STILL IS AN ICON. Icon's don't die. That's what makes you an icon. You can't stop being an icon. I can't even believe I'm debating the fact but a lot of posts in here are just silly. Let me just make a few points here.
First of all..
Meltzer's the authority on professional wrestling among insiders since when? Meltzer's shunned by insiders within in the industry and they still use his dirt sheet to promote agendas by giving him false rumors. He gets good info from some leaky wheels and while his info is fun to read, I hold his Hall of Fame in no higher regard than I do the WWE's. So the fact that Sting isn't in the WO HOF means nothing.
2ndly. Let's talk money.
I don't know who was the highest paid WCW wrestler during the wars but I will tell you what Kevin Nash said about Sting was during the "Legends of Wrestling Roundtable" talks. He said it was a reference known in the wrestling world back then as "Sting Money". Everyone's goal was to make Sting money. Nash said you were paid based on how well you drew and your expectations. He also personally said that Hogan was not paid more than Sting in those days. That's a small indication as to how big Sting was.
Do you guys think the NWO was the single handed reason the WCW beat out the WWF in the ratings for 83 consecutive weeks? Hell no. Was the NWO's main target and feud not Sting for that long time period? The full focus was on Sting.
The question on everyone's mind was would Sting join the NWO. That was the target and the basis of that era drawing as much as it did. That was Sting. He was the focal point of a major feud/angle for almost 3 years w/Hogan and the NWO. That feud drew BIG money. Hogan knew the only person he could draw huge money in that feud at that time as Sting. I'm not saying the Sting drew Hogan/Stone Cold money, but he did draw, and he did have a company build their brand around him. You know how people say"Warrior never drew a dime"...not true...at the time he was on top EVERY SINGLE STAR in the WWE wanted to work with him. Why? Because knew thats where the money was and they'd draw the most by working with him.
Meltzer and a few others show the numbers when Sting got his first title reign and they were way down to the point that his run was considered a flop and they had to put the belt back on Flair. So, there's partial proof that he didn't draw well. I'll admit that. But, on the flipside I think Sting had more drawing power than people want to give him credit for. It takes two to tango so to give his opponents all the credit for drawing in buys is BS. I will also say that for a good chunk of the 90s the entire industry (stateside) was in a downturn. Do you take that in to account when gauging the drawing ability of any wrestler that had their ascension during that period? Nobody drew great and consistently until the NWO and Attitude Era.
Now, just like Triple H/Taker (Which I was always sold on but I know initially people wern't) I know that many people would buy into Taker/Sting. It would be perfect for Sting. Same with Taker. Look at how amazing he looked Sunday. Give them limited dates and we know they would make a great match happen.
Given the promotion/video packages that we all know the WWE is capable of, they could easily generate TONS of interest in this match as only ONE of the featured matches @ WM. Taker is the draw and Sting could provide a great entertaining challenge for the streak that people would be into.
Sting wouldn't create any interest as Takers opponent? Really? You guys kill me sometimes.
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Sting = Bret Hart. Yea he was great as a top star when others were around to share that spotlight with but when he was the #1 dude, nah no thankyou.
I don't think Sting is relevant enough to be able to have folks caring about him. He is old, he is washed up, he is past his time. And most importantly, he is a NWA/WCW dude. WWE fans won't care about him (if they know who he is). So no, Sting doesn't need to be anywhere WWE related.
Are they talking about signing him or something? Why are we even talking about him?
I don't think Sting is relevant enough to be able to have folks caring about him. He is old, he is washed up, he is past his time. And most importantly, he is a NWA/WCW dude. WWE fans won't care about him (if they know who he is). So no, Sting doesn't need to be anywhere WWE related.
Are they talking about signing him or something? Why are we even talking about him?
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
DC you don't know about anything wrestling related past 99, though.
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
DC you don't know about anything wrestling related past 99, though.
Nah move that up to 02.
But none of that matters because Sting is a nobody. He is barely someone in TNA why the hell would anyone think he would be a semi-decent draw in WWF?
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican
But none of that matters because Sting is a nobody. He is barely someone in TNA why the hell would anyone think he would be a semi-decent draw in WWF?
Because you're not looking at the big picture. Re-Read what I wrote in my prior post. Sting doesn't need to be the draw. Was Triple H/HBK the draw this year? Nope. But they added a key match that people loved watching. The same element could be implemented if Sting were ever to sign a one off with the WWE to work Mania with Taker.
- 2,045
- 19
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
Nah move that up to 02.
But none of that matters because Sting is a nobody. He is barely someone in TNA why the hell would anyone think he would be a semi-decent draw in WWF?
TNA is TNA.
You either watch it or you don't. Nobody in TNA draws because it's TNA.
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Originally Posted by hombrelobo
Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican
But none of that matters because Sting is a nobody. He is barely someone in TNA why the hell would anyone think he would be a semi-decent draw in WWF?
Because you're not looking at the big picture. Re-Read what I wrote in my prior post. Sting doesn't need to be the draw. Was Triple H/HBK the draw this year? Nope. But they added a key match that people loved watching. The same element could be implemented if Sting were ever to sign a one off with the WWE to work Mania with Taker.
Why bring him in and have to pay him to be the 3rd main event? You have people currently employed already that can do that. That can be a better story than Sting. Not even worth the storywriting to put him into the mix.
How am I not seeing the bigger picture? What is the big picture that I am not seeing? The perks of bringing in a 50 year older to be a half/part-time performer? For what? Seriously why? What would be the point?
I just don't see the point and I don't see how it helps WWF.
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
Really? For entertainments sake.. Who currently employed could already do that?Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican
Originally Posted by hombrelobo
Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican
But none of that matters because Sting is a nobody. He is barely someone in TNA why the hell would anyone think he would be a semi-decent draw in WWF?
Because you're not looking at the big picture. Re-Read what I wrote in my prior post. Sting doesn't need to be the draw. Was Triple H/HBK the draw this year? Nope. But they added a key match that people loved watching. The same element could be implemented if Sting were ever to sign a one off with the WWE to work Mania with Taker.
Why bring him in and have to pay him to be the 3rd main event? You have people currently employed already that can do that. That can be a better story than Sting. Not even worth the storywriting to put him into the mix.
How am I not seeing the bigger picture? What is the big picture that I am not seeing? The perks of bringing in a 50 year older to be a half/part-time performer? For what? Seriously why? What would be the point?
I just don't see the point and I don't see how it helps WWF.
Please, let's not get into perks of bringing in half time performers. It's clearly a strategy that's working for the WWE. One could argue why do that but the numbers don't lie. That's why Rock/Brock are back.
- 10,803
- 3,542
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
Taker/Sting would actually DETER me from buying mania. I have zero interest in that match-up and I doubt the WWE "writers" could come up with anything that would make me interested.
The guaranteed sell for me would be if Austin is returning for one more match. Even if it is Brock/Rock I don't think I'll be paying $60 again.
The guaranteed sell for me would be if Austin is returning for one more match. Even if it is Brock/Rock I don't think I'll be paying $60 again.
- 8,406
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
"whos this will barrett?"
"wheres my rey mastrio"
But seriously:
If you dont understand the current landscape, how can you comment on who'd be a draw?
This forum talked about A-Train for 2 pages, and how he improved, I imagine Sting would get a decent amount of support from older fans and younger ones.
Flair was wreslting in WM at the age of 55. How did he help with his routine?
"wheres my rey mastrio"
But seriously:
If you dont understand the current landscape, how can you comment on who'd be a draw?
This forum talked about A-Train for 2 pages, and how he improved, I imagine Sting would get a decent amount of support from older fans and younger ones.
Flair was wreslting in WM at the age of 55. How did he help with his routine?
- 11,539
- 7,076
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
THISOriginally Posted by YardFather
Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican
Nah move that up to 02.. When the real ECW died. I followed the Lightheavyweight title in WWF as well as the Radicals.
But none of that matters because Sting is a nobody. He is barely someone in TNA why the hell would anyone think he would be a semi-decent draw in WWF?
TNA is TNA.
You either watch it or you don't. Nobody in TNA draws because it's TNA.
- 30,184
- 1,991
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2000
Originally Posted by hombrelobo
People are really #!*#!$*% on "The Icon" Sting?
First of all..
Meltzer's the authority on professional wrestling among insiders since when? Meltzer's shunned by insiders within in the industry and they still use his dirt sheet to promote agendas by giving him false rumors. He gets good info from some leaky wheels and while his info is fun to read, I hold his Hall of Fame in no higher regard than I do the WWE's. So the fact that Sting isn't in the WO HOF means nothing.
Secondly, you obviously do not know what you are talking about regarding the Hall of Fame. Dave has NO say on who or who doesn't go into the WO Hall of Fame. It is voted on by professional wrestling journalists, historians, and past/present pro wrestlers. Being inducted into the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame is 100x the honor of getting into the WWE Hall of Fame.
- 2,045
- 19
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
Quoting self for emphasis.
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Really? For entertainments sake.. Who currently employed could already do that?
Please, let's not get into perks of bringing in half time performers. It's clearly a strategy that's working for the WWE. One could argue why do that but the numbers don't lie. That's why Rock/Brock are back.
1. Who could work with Taker and build a nice matchup if time was taken to actually build/work it up? Someone that people will care more about than some damn Sting? What about Kane? What if we revisited that? If done correctly that would be a nice way to send Undertaker along his way.
2. Half time performers that you named left bicep > Sting. Why even make that comparison. People are willing to deal with half time performances from Brock and Rock. Who the hell is Sting at this point of his life to be that important? He is a nobody right now man. There wouldn't be any interest for the dude at this point in time to current WWE fans.
Like I said man, you are really overestimating the interest in Sting. Nobody would give a damn about dude.
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
I understand the voting process. I understand that Dave has no say. But how many real wrestling journalists are there out there? Practically none. WO HOF can be seen as more prestigious by some only because you must meet certain % criteria to get in. But really, that doesn't mean $%!% to a guy like me.Originally Posted by 4wrestling
Originally Posted by hombrelobo
People are really #!*#!$*% on "The Icon" Sting?
First of all..
Meltzer's the authority on professional wrestling among insiders since when? Meltzer's shunned by insiders within in the industry and they still use his dirt sheet to promote agendas by giving him false rumors. He gets good info from some leaky wheels and while his info is fun to read, I hold his Hall of Fame in no higher regard than I do the WWE's. So the fact that Sting isn't in the WO HOF means nothing.
C'mon. I know for whatever reason you have a problem with him, but he's shunned by Vince McMahon which in turn makes everyone else in WWE shun him publicly. Dave still has many connections within WWE, and while not every new items he reports comes to fruition, many of them do. And many of the ones that he reports incorrect turn out to be incorrect not because Dave reported incorrectly or given false information. They turn out not to be true because Vince changes his mind 100 times per day. Where do you think 95% of the "News and Notes" that get posted in this thread come from? They are straight copy/pastes from the Observer. Meltzer is and has been the authority on pro wrestling for the past 30 years, and if you say otherwise, you just sound foolish.
Secondly, you obviously do not know what you are talking about regarding the Hall of Fame. Dave has NO say on who or who doesn't go into the WO Hall of Fame. It is voted on by professional wrestling journalists, historians, and past/present pro wrestlers. Being inducted into the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame is 100x the honor of getting into the WWE Hall of Fame.
- 6,261
- 1,266
- Joined
- May 21, 2009
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Come on dude, he was wrestling the biggest villan in the business. Let's not credit Sting for all of that. Not to mention he was hyped up and didn't really wrestle for however long he was playing that "In the Rafters" nonsense. Plus it was Starrcade. The Grand Daddy of them all. He had every reason to draw that night.
Why do I have to be into wrestling currently to know that nobody gives a damn about Sting? Don't use fallacious comebacks to prove whatever point you are trying to prove. Sting is irrelevant. Nobody cares about the dude. Nobody would care about the dude.
Man I wish we had a hypothetical machine right about now. No point of going back and forth because none of us know.
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
1. Who could work with Taker and build a nice matchup if time was taken to actually build/work it up? Someone that people will care more about than some damn Sting? What about Kane? What if we revisited that? If done correctly that would be a nice way to send Undertaker along his way.
2. Half time performers that you named left bicep > Sting. Why even make that comparison. People are willing to deal with half time performances from Brock and Rock. Who the hell is Sting at this point of his life to be that important? He is a nobody right now man. There wouldn't be any interest for the dude at this point in time to current WWE fans.
Like I said man, you are really overestimating the interest in Sting. Nobody would give a damn about dude.
People would. Just like people wouldn't give a damn if Muta came in to challenge taker. That is until they were given time to buy into the idea.
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
People would. Just like people wouldn't give a damn if Muta came in to challenge taker. That is until they were given time to buy into the idea.
Was that supposed to offend me? I can see that you are in your feelings. I don't think any amount of pushing would get folks to care about Muta being a viable challenger. The "Mysterious Asian" gimmick is so old and tired. It wouldn't work today.
Sting might be your dude but I don't see why they would waste the time, ideas, and money on HIM. HE is not worth it at this point. Maybe 7 years ago? But now? Come on now. He hasn't been relevant since "99"
- 8,916
- 472
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
Was that supposed to offend me? I can see that you are in your feelings. I don't think any amount of pushing would get folks to care about Muta being a viable challenger. The "Mysterious Asian" gimmick is so old and tired. It wouldn't work today.
Sting might be your dude but I don't see why they would waste the time, ideas, and money on HIM. HE is not worth it at this point. Maybe 7 years ago? But now? Come on now. He hasn't been relevant since "99"
Feelings? No, man. I'm making a point. People would eventually catch onto the idea. That's my point. Clearly, you're already made up in your mind that Sting wouldn't be a good Taker opponent. Clearly I feel the complete opposite.
If he wasn't worth it WWE wouldn't have tried to sign him last year, 2011, since he has no relevance. Right ?
- 159,978
- 141,377
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Originally Posted by GotHolesInMySocks
i disagree with rock/brock as the biggest match ever.
that was hogan/rock, even hogan/warrior
taker/sting would be even bigger than rock/brock, but it wont happen
One match CAN headline, the other can't. You tell me which one is bigger. Let go of the past man, it is ok.
I don't think you all understand what a Dream Match is. A Dream match pits two people against each other in their PRIME years. Not when they are over the hill. They call it a Dream match because it will probably never be possible. That would be like me seeing Mike and DR J playing 1-on-1 and me calling it a Dream matchup. No it isn't, they are both old and out of their prime years.
- 1,854
- 19
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
just agree to disagree about Sting and WWE, and file his what if he went to WWE with the other what ifs:
What if the Montreal screw job never happened? WCW never going under, Austin never getting fired from WCW, Rock never leaving for hollywood and what ever other what ifs you have...
What if the Montreal screw job never happened? WCW never going under, Austin never getting fired from WCW, Rock never leaving for hollywood and what ever other what ifs you have...
- 30,037
- 25,465
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
4w-Quit with the Meltzer salad tossing..Dude is a jerk and isn't nearly as respected in the industry as you want him to be..For every one person you can find in the business who thinks he's great, I can find one who thinks he's a petty, no talent, hack "journalist"..So lets just quit with the Meltzer talk, besides he's no Apter anyway..
And what's with you guys and all your Sting hate?..The man is a legend thats been in the business for almost 30 years and has the respect and admiration of some of the greatest of all time..If he is so overrated then why does Hogan, Flair, Rude, Nash, Hall, Vader, Race, Windam, Simmons, Luger, Austin, Anderson, Savage all have nothing but praise for the man and his ability in the ring and his professionalism outside of it?..If he's just a total turd like yall are making him out to be then why has he been given the World title over a dozen times and asked to carry the ball for the company and be the face of 2 major organizations..Why is it that Vince McMahon himself has said several times that he always wished he'd been able to do business with Sting and that Sting is the "One that got away" and has tried to get him to come up north everytime his contract is up?..If my boy is so horrible then how's come Undertaker has said for well over a decade that Sting is his top choice for "Person you never got to work with that you always wished you could"?..
Enought said..Argument over..Sting would be a huge WM event, but at the end of the day we all know it'll never happen..
And what's with you guys and all your Sting hate?..The man is a legend thats been in the business for almost 30 years and has the respect and admiration of some of the greatest of all time..If he is so overrated then why does Hogan, Flair, Rude, Nash, Hall, Vader, Race, Windam, Simmons, Luger, Austin, Anderson, Savage all have nothing but praise for the man and his ability in the ring and his professionalism outside of it?..If he's just a total turd like yall are making him out to be then why has he been given the World title over a dozen times and asked to carry the ball for the company and be the face of 2 major organizations..Why is it that Vince McMahon himself has said several times that he always wished he'd been able to do business with Sting and that Sting is the "One that got away" and has tried to get him to come up north everytime his contract is up?..If my boy is so horrible then how's come Undertaker has said for well over a decade that Sting is his top choice for "Person you never got to work with that you always wished you could"?..
Enought said..Argument over..Sting would be a huge WM event, but at the end of the day we all know it'll never happen..
