HOF poll on Observer site

[Warner2BruceTD]

This topic is now comparable to Emmitt vs Barry and "do you tip?".

Well done, boys. I'm taking off. See you in six months when we do it again.

[FedEx227]

This topic is now comparable to Emmitt vs Barry and "do you tip?".

Well done, boys. I'm taking off. See you in six months when we do it again.

Nonsense, you got Larry's dander up. We're podcasting this at some point.

[Warner2BruceTD]

No, I mean I'm literally taking off. The flight. Last post. Really.

[FedEx227]

No, I mean I'm literally taking off. The flight. Last post. Really.

But you aren't off the grid in six months. This argument will return soon. I guaran-DAMN-TEE it!

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

One more.

If Sting was such a huge star, why has he never been a house show draw?

Don't blame WCW, other people drew on the road (Flair, NWO, Hogan, Goldberg) during Stings years.

Fed see if you can find those Zane Bresloff quotes from the observer board. Bresloff ran the house shows and was shocked at how little Sting mattered. Meltzer posted them. Search Dave + Sting hall of fame.

Sting rarely did house shows to begin with.

[FedEx227]

Sounds like a Hall of Famer.

[EmpireWF]

All I can get is the buys for Starrcade which was 650,000. I'll keep hunting.

Here's a list....WCW is after the WWE ones

http://www.genickbruch.com/statistiken/buyrates.html

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Nonsense, you got Larry's dander up. We're podcasting this at some point.

You know what really rustles my jimmies...Joe and I actually have the same opinion...he should be in.

I just think a lot of the details of where people knock Sting are a bit inaccurate or overblown.

No, Sting isn't a huge draw (but if you are just putting in the top draws, you get 6 over the course of 30+ years of United State's Wrestling, which is silly)...but he drew a little bit, and had a mix bag otherwise as a top guy, with some good shows and some poor showing during eras of bad business...he also wasn't a great worker, but he was a good worker...with quite a few top flight matches, a lot of really really good ones, and a lot of fucking stinkers.

I have seen Dave state before...basically...the best draws and the best workers are the ones who get in...but, IMO, guys who were a little bit of A and a little bit of B are very much qualified as well. He's not Hogan or Flair and he's not Danielson or Benoit...which, I guess would mean he shouldn't be in, but I think that's crap...I think its a no brainer he's in...he's not Warrior or some other stiff that was a bit of a star and a shitty worker, nor is he William Regal, a superior performer but not anything close to a star...he's like the Curtis Martin of wrestlers...always at the top, never considered great, but that's still Hall of Fame worthy, IMO.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

It is pretty funny looking back at these WCW PPVs...its no shock that this company couldn't hold momentum...holy fuck, what terrible booking.

[Bigpapa42]

It is pretty funny looking back at these WCW PPVs...its no shock that this company couldn't hold momentum...holy fuck, what terrible booking.

That is the amazing thing about Dub-Cee-Dub... doesn't matter if you look at 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999... there was almost always something really good going on and a whole bunch of really bad. During their peak, they minimized (but didn't get rid of) the bad, but it was always that way.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Basically, the reason Sting shouldn't be in the Observer Hall of Fame...he worked for WCW.

[EmpireWF]

Basically, the reason Sting shouldn't be in the Observer Hall of Fame...he worked for WCW.

He was very good and it's not the hall of very good.

The time he spent as one of the best in the business was few and far between. He was not a major boost for business and while he improved to be a fine worker, it was never his strong point.

If he does get in, it's longevity.

Maybe I've just soured on the guy, but you know what....Dr. Death is in (admittedly, I'm not up to snuff on his international career) and Eddie Guerrero is in.

Guerrero was a beast in the ring, was not a draw, but I'll assume gets voted in based almost exclusively on his workrate (he was great on the mic later in his career).

Maybe Sting has a place.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Eddie was A+ in the ring, a Savage like meticulousness to his match layout.

If there is a guy that is in the Observer Hall that I can point to and say "this guy is in, but Sting is not?" Its Ted Dibiase more than anyone else.

I hate looking at really old eras to compare...different era...and while Dibiase came a little before Sting...I don't see how Dibiase is in but Sting isn't.

With that said, I think both should be in.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Also, lets keep it real...you can write a novel on why Sting shouldn't be in a meaningless Hall of Fame, and attempting to discredit him...but really "Its Sting!" would trump any and all of the metrics and numbers to 99% of fans.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Basically, the reason Sting shouldn't be in the Observer Hall of Fame...he worked for WCW.

There is truth to this.

Meltzer once compared it to a QB being drafted by an awful team, and then not having the stats or championships to stake a hall of fame claim, even if the talent was there.

The fact is, nobody knows what he would have been in WWE. Its all speculation. And like you already said, because he wasn't a top draw or elite worker, people have trouble breaking him down.

For me, 1997 + longevity at or near the top puts him in. But I don't have a vote, brother. Cranky old m'fers only care about gate. Contemporaries place heavy weight on workrate. He ends up coming up short with both groups.