John Cena: First ballot Wrestling Observer HOF'er

[s@ppisgod]

This is why I hate these fucking nerds as much as the dolts who argue hard-line for football metrics. There's so many things going on at different times in wrestling, that you can't point to one number and argue it as a stand-alone. That first quote is a joke. WCW was getting to a point where the roster was pretty loaded, and it could draw with Sting off the card or Macho Man injured as he often was or Hogan filming a movie. They were deeper than one guy. But Sting got such a reaction every time he showed up for a split second, it's hard to believe that people bought tickets to see Flair outside of the south, being that he was pretty stale at the time, not to mention always a heel. If somebody wants to downplay Sting for not being on a poster, and JUST the most crazy over guy in the business at a couple points that year, that's kind of a jackass idea though. Everybody whowent to Nitro around that time, did so hoping to see Sting come down and clean house. Crowds would crane their necks during good matches with big names, trying to catch a glimpse of the guy pacing on a catwalk.

Him being a lackluster merch seller is on WCW. Outside of the mask, there wasn't much to sell on him. SCSA had a different shirt or hat every month or so, much like Cena now. Sting just hung out in the rafters in his ring gear and with a bat. You can't really sell bats, so he's left with one, cheap piece of merchandise that is geared more towards kids. It's pretty niche.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I think everybody agrees that Sting was a really big deal in 1997.

But there were a lot of guys who were a really big deal for one year.

Shit, there are plenty of guys who were bigger than Sting for longer than one year, like Kerry Von Erich, and don't sniff the HOF.

There is no data set or any sort of evidence that suggests that Sting was ever much of a draw outside of that one year, and he only wrestled one match. I mean, look at that PPV chart. If Sting was such a big deal, why was he never really given the ball as THE top guy? I'll tell you why. Because when he was on top, business never moved. So they would go back to Flair, or try Luger for the thousandth time, or whatever.

Again, I lean yes. But not based on drawing power. No way. Too much of that is rooted in myth and our perceptions from when we were kids and Sting was on TBS all of the time. His level of popularity never matched his push outside 1997.

[s@ppisgod]

Here is the criteria:



Sting ticks box #3. Not a great worker, not a top tier drawing card.

Edge was probably a better draw than Sting in the big picture, similar workers with maybe a slight edge to Edge, #3 is close.

Bret & HBK are all time great workers, and also better draws than Sting. Honestly Sting shouldn't even be mentioned with those two in a HOF context imo.

Foley was a much better draw than Sting, and kills Sting with the third criteria. Far more famous, too. Work is close, depends on what you prefer, but most people would tell you Foley blows him away.

It's the promotional effect though. Hart drew low for the promotion, but compared to Sting during the same loose time-period, he drew better. But does that take into account that WWF/E has always been the king of PPV? Same with HBK. Neither were good draws in the mid-90's, but when the business took off, they started to "draw" tied to Austin. Coincidence?

Was Foley a draw on equal ground in WCW? Did he ever draw not tied to Rock/Austin or even Trips?

[s@ppisgod]

I think everybody agrees that Sting was a really big deal in 1997.

But there were a lot of guys who were a really big deal for one year.

Shit, there are plenty of guys who were bigger than Sting for longer than one year, like Kerry Von Erich, and don't sniff the HOF.

There is no data set or any sort of evidence that suggests that Sting was ever much of a draw outside of that one year, and he only wrestled one match. I mean, look at that PPV chart. If Sting was such a big deal, why was he never really given the ball as THE top guy? I'll tell you why. Because when he was on top, business never moved. So they would go back to Flair, or try Luger for the thousandth time, or whatever.

Again, I lean yes. But not based on drawing power. No way. Too much of that is rooted in myth and our perceptions from when we were kids and Sting was on TBS all of the time. His level of popularity never matched his push outside 1997.

WCW in GENERAL wasn't a big time draw on par with WWF outside of mid-96 to very early 99. At the beginning, he was out for a while. Then he was a big deal. Then they fumbled him and lost footing until Goldberg gave them one last hurrah. That's the problem with buys and "draws". I'm not comfortable downgrading Sting because WCW screwed him up, then upgrading someone else because they simply got in the ring with Austin on PPV when he was the hottest selling thing on earth.

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's the promotional effect though. Hart drew low for the promotion, but compared to Sting during the same loose time-period, he drew better. But does that take into account that WWF/E has always been the king of PPV? Same with HBK. Neither were good draws in the mid-90's, but when the business took off, they started to "draw" tied to Austin. Coincidence?

Was Foley a draw on equal ground in WCW? Did he ever draw not tied to Rock/Austin or even Trips?

But if Sting was as popular as people think he was, he would have taken WCW to WWE levels. He never came close.

We can't play what if. He never jumped to WWE, so we don't know.

I can tell you that Bret & HBK were better house show draws than Sting, even during the WWE down period. WWE PPV's were also beating WCW PPV's in the early 90's when neither company was doing particularly well. Everybody recognizes that Austin carried them later, but lets not forget that Hart was the bigger star and pushed harder when he feuded with Austin initially. Austin even credits Hart for helping to get him over. Sting in the early 90's pre Hogan was a lousy house show draw, drawing around 1,500 per night on top. and you can't just chalk that up to WCW being WCW, because Flair never drew that badly and always did better if you want to talk context.

Foley was a legitimate big time ratings draw during the same period that Sting was doing his thing on Nitro, and the companies were on equal ground. And Foley was the better draw.

[Warner2BruceTD]

WCW in GENERAL wasn't a big time draw on par with WWF outside of mid-96 to very early 99.

This statement hurst Sting more than it helps him. This shows he wasn't as popular as we perceive him to be. WCW couldn't move the needle until Hogan showed up.

At the beginning, he was out for a while. Then he was a big deal. Then they fumbled him and lost footing until Goldberg gave them one last hurrah. That's the problem with buys and "draws". I'm not comfortable downgrading Sting because WCW screwed him up, then upgrading someone else because they simply got in the ring with Austin on PPV when he was the hottest selling thing on earth.

I agree there were people who rode Austin's coattail.

Forget WWE for a second. Where is the evidence, outside 1997, that Sting was a better draw in WCW than his WCW peers?

[s@ppisgod]

WCW was firmly on top in rating in 97 with Sting as the main attraction. Starrcade 97 was the biggest buyrate WCW ever had.

I'm not playing what-if with Sting. I'm saying that when Hart and HBK were at the top in the mid-90's, their PPV buyrates BY WWE STANDARDS, weren't great. Their business almost went belly-up with Hart at the top, I believe. And I say that as a huge Hart fan. But there's so many underlying elements that you can't point to one number as a be-all, end-all.

[s@ppisgod]

I don't think we're far off here.

I don't thin the first point you mentioned "hurts" Sting because the WWF had a huge head-start as a nation-wide promotion and THE top dog. Him not being as big of a deal as Hogan, enough to make up the difference, isn't a huge mark against him IMO. Mainly because Hulk Hogan in 94 was still Hulk freakin Hogan at the time.

I don't think he moved the needle more than his peers in WCW. I also think you could say the same about HBK and Hart, and that makes them no less HOFers in my book by any standard of any credible wrestling associated group.

You will almost never convince me Foley was a draw. He was never the top guy in the WWF, belt or not. He was a likable guy, post-Mankind. But there's no way that a large amount of people came to see Mick Foley. I like Foley, and find him very entertaining. But WWF sold tickets based on Austin, Rock, DX. I'd argue the same for UT, to a lesser degree.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Again, nobody is denying that Sting was the fucking man in 1997. It was a weird dynamic, but that doesn't matter, it is what it is. But it was only one year out of 20+ that he was a true top guy. The perception is different.

The year he headlined the highest percentage of PPV's in his career (1993) was the worst year WCW ever had until the very end when they became a total joke.

He got the ball in 1990, and business plummeted from a very solid Flair led 1989, and they went right back with Flair a few months later.

In 1998, Goldberg got hot and surpassed everybody in WCW, and was neck & neck with Austin briefly, which shatters this idea that WCW was never on equal footing. Hogan, Goldberg, and to a lesser extent Flair, NWO, Savage all were able to raise WCW to WWE levels, something Sting did ONE year out of now going on nearly 30 in his career, lol.

We can quibble about Sting vs Hart & HBK as draws, but it's a waste of time because Hart & HBK are all time elite workers and are in the hall of fame based on that more than anything else.

Let's remember that I lean yes on Sting. But honestly, I don't know why. I am probably guilty of being wrapped up in perception and what I thought was true as a kid. If you asked me to formulate an argument for my yes vote, I have a hard time doing it. Ask me to do it without mentioning the year 1997, and i've got virtually nothing.

There are dozens of guys who have Sting's longevity on or near the top who arent in. There are dozens of guys who drew more who arent in. I'm far more offended that somebody like Kensuke Sasaki or Dr Warner Sr or Pedro Morales isn't in. All drew circles around Sting, all are better or comparable workers, all hd similar longevity on top, etc.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Also, I should note that Michaels did not make it on his first try and was a very controversial pick at the time. Seems crazy now, but that was before the two Undertaker matches, etc.

[Warner2BruceTD]

One more point, lol

I was equally baffled years ago when Sting not only wasn't in, but never really even comes close in the voting. Dumbfounded. But then when you look at the criteria, and the evidence, it starts to make sense.

[s@ppisgod]

Again, nobody is denying that Sting was the fucking man in 1997. It was a weird dynamic, but that doesn't matter, it is what it is. But it was only one year out of 20+ that he was a true top guy. The perception is different.

The year he headlined the highest percentage of PPV's in his career (1993) was the worst year WCW ever had until the very end when they became a total joke.

He got the ball in 1990, and business plummeted from a very solid Flair led 1989, and they went right back with Flair a few months later.

In 1998, Goldberg got hot and surpassed everybody in WCW, and was neck & neck with Austin briefly, which shatters this idea that WCW was never on equal footing. Hogan, Goldberg, and to a lesser extent Flair, NWO, Savage all were able to raise WCW to WWE levels, something Sting did ONE year out of now going on nearly 30 in his career, lol.

We can quibble about Sting vs Hart & HBK as draws, but it's a waste of time because Hart & HBK are all time elite workers and are in the hall of fame based on that more than anything else.

Let's remember that I lean yes on Sting. But honestly, I don't know why. I am probably guilty of being wrapped up in perception and what I thought was true as a kid. If you asked me to formulate an argument for my yes vote, I have a hard time doing it. Ask me to do it without mentioning the year 1997, and i've got virtually nothing.

There are dozens of guys who have Sting's longevity on or near the top who arent in. There are dozens of guys who drew more who arent in. I'm far more offended that somebody like Kensuke Sasaki or Dr Warner Sr or Pedro Morales isn't in. All drew circles around Sting, all are better or comparable workers, all hd similar longevity on top, etc.

WCW was on equal ground in 98. They weren't in the early 90's


HBK/Hart are great workers. But them not being huge draws in the mid-90's doesn't hurt them IMO. Again, it's a situation with 1,000 different variables. What I'm saying is they are HOFers regardless of what they drew. I think the same of Sting. I'll never argue that he was as good as HBK/Hart in the ring, he clearly wasn't. But I do think his whole body of work is worthy.

[Warner2BruceTD]

WCW was on equal ground in 98. They weren't in the early 90's

But isnt this more of an indictment of Sting, than something in his favor? Other people were able to do what he couldn't later on. And WWF was certainly vulnerable during that period.

HBK/Hart are great workers. But them not being huge draws in the mid-90's doesn't hurt them IMO. Again, it's a situation with 1,000 different variables. What I'm saying is they are HOFers regardless of what they drew. I think the same of Sting. I'll never argue that he was as good as HBK/Hart in the ring, he clearly wasn't. But I do think his whole body of work is worthy.

Here's the thing - I agree. Except as I said, if you ask me to explain why I think he is, I can't tell you! Lol. I just "feel" like he is. Which is why I cant go all in when it comes to Sting. My memories and my heart say yes, but my brain says there just isn't enough tangible evidence to put him over the top. Especially when people like Morales, Sasaki, Carlos Colon, etc who drew far bigger money aren't in.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The fact that they put so much writing into fragmenting Sting's qualifications for the Hall of Fame show they are trying too hard, IMO.

RE: "The Numbers of Drawing"...while I was trolling a bit for the sake of arguing the Austin debate in the wrestling thread, I do firmly believe the way they traditionally quantify what is considered a "draw" on the National scale of wrestling is silly. For example, Sting would never show up in your traditional "who drew the most gates" in any given year, because he never worked house shows, especially later in his career. And they way they quantify the "main event" not only NOW, but even in the 90's...it starts to get silly as television became more popular and the structure of a show started to vary in the late 80's. The way the develop the Sting argument looks like they are trying way too hard to skew the "numbers" to their side.

Another example...1992, a year where I would consider Sting to be at the top of the WCW card...they give credit to 2 of 5 pay per views "main eventing"...I'll even expand this discussion to Clash events...there were 10 events and Sting was the featured match in 8 of the cards. WCW had been given over to Bill Watts and they were in developing different formats for their shows. It wasn't uncommon for the title match to be in the middle of the card.

-Clash 18 -> Tag Match w/ Steamboat v. Dangerous Alliance.
-Superbrawl II -> v. Luger for the Title.
WrestleWar 92 -> War Games
Clash 19 -> Not On Card
Beach Blast 92 -> v. Foley for the Title.
Great American Bash 92 -> v. Vader for the Title.
Clash 20 -> Elmination Tag Match.
Halloween Havoc -> v. Jake Roberts.
Clash 21 -> King of Cable Semis v. Rude.
Starrcade -> King of Cable Finals v. Vader.

There is two caveats here...I think it is extremely obvious that Sting was their guy and he was the featured guy throughout the entire year...however, on the flip side, business for WCW was bad...

89/90...89 was the year Sting went from mid-card to the top...of the 10 events, Sting was the featured match in 5 of them (3 of 4 cards in the final quarter)...in 90, he was in the featured match all year. Now, I'm not going to give Sting the credit for business...as Flair was the "top" guy and was a heel, but Sting was the top face and was at the top all year. Havoc 90 did the second highest Havoc buyrate ever, against Sid. Bash 90 did the third highest buyrate when he won the world title. In "WCW's Big Event" Starrcade, Sting was in the main event for four of the top six highest buyrate Starrcade events, including the highest buyrate WCW ever got.

Listen, I'm not saying Sting is on par with the top tier of guys...but the boys at the Observer are grossly underrating him and skewing numbers to boot...see, I just did it myself in Sting's favor.

[s@ppisgod]

Because WCW, while a quick riser, wasn't an overnight success. They built with Hogan, with Nitro, with the NWO, and dominating 97. All of it laid the groundwork for them to put up the crazy numbers they did in 98. Goldberg put it over the top. t if you're only putting guys in the HOF who directly caused huge bumps in business, that's going to be a really small Hall.