Friday, April 22, 2011

Who is Better? Undertaker or Sting?

by Brian Phelps

I recently got into a debate with a guy on youtube on who was the greater wrestler between Undertaker and Sting. He said Undertaker, and I said Sting. This is my response to him. What do you guys think?

Bear with me, this will be long... but it contains some good information. Before I start, I want to say that I do not think you are wrong in your opinions or that I am "more" correct than you in my opinion. We just have a difference of opinion. I couldn't exactly explain myself fully because Youtube doesn't let you type that much lol. Undertaker or Sting. I say Sting, and you say Undertaker. I base my decision on the following criteria

1. Ability
2. Gimmick
3. Who did they put over?
4. Feuds
5. Storylines
6. Mic Skills
7. How did said wrestler impact his company?
8. The X Factor - A special attribute or significance about the wrestler that puts them over the top

While I respect both wrestlers as two of the all-time greats... I consider Sting the better all-around wrestler. Here's my argument as to why. The Undertakers biggest pitfall is that he is a one trick pony. Now, don't get me wrong The Undertaker is beyond the shadow of a doubt one of the all-time greats. Let's be real though, and examine that he does have many flaws.

1) Undertaker has NEVER been great on the mic. Undertakers gravelly voice, and cookie cutter "one size fits all promos" prevent him from standing out. Does anyone ever truly recall a great Undertaker promo? The answer is no. You're not going to get much beyond "This is my yard"... and "Rest in Peace"... or "One by one they've came and one by one I've put them down".

2) The Undertaker is not an amazing wrestler. He's not going to wow you with any fancy moves. He's just a very agile big man. We can talk all day about how HBK/Taker matches are the greatest Mania fights ever... but that's not because of the Undertaker. That's because HBK can make any man on Earth look like a million bucks. HBK did for Taker's legacy what he also did for Razor Ramons career at WM10... and that's make a bigger guy look like a million bucks. HBK did the same for Stone Cold and Bret Hart at Wrestlemania. Taker also had a fairly solid match against HHH this past year, but that's because it was a no DQ. Think about it... how many legendary Mania matches does anyone remember Taker for before HBK? MAYBE the 1st Kane match at WM14??? and that's a big maybe. The Undertaker has gotten by on his theatrics for at least a decade now. He isn't the wrestler he was in the 90s. Also, how many people has Undertaker really put over? I can't really think of anyone who wasn't already over. You might make an argument for Brock Lesnar, but by the time they feuded Lesnar had already defeated The Rock and Hulk Hogan CLEANLY. That's because Vince McMahon has fed EVERYONE to the Undertaker. He spends 99% of each year injured now anyways. He only wrestles once a year and he is 6 years younger than Sting.

3) This is my biggest schtick with him. The Undertaker is all gimmick. Everything about him is a gimmick. He's the most successful gimmick wrestler ever. The Undertaker has gotten by on his theatrics for a decade now. If you took away the Undertaker gimmick, he would just be another big man (which is exactly what he was in WCW before he went to the WWF in 1990). He was just in the right place at the right time, and got saddled with the greatest gimmick in wrestling history. Without "The Undertaker" gimmick, Mark Calaway would've just been another Crush or Adam Bomb flash in the pan big man. He was a low mid-carder in WCW. Look at when he tried to change his gimmick from the "Deadman" to the "Biker" gimmick. It was widely panned, and he eventually went back to the "Deadman" gimmick but by the time he did the damage had already been done to his character. He was no longer as believable as he once was. The "Biker" gimmick really killed his aura... and he's never really got it back all the way. He has the look, but the mystique is gone. I think I've made a very strong case thus far. The Undertaker character is the greatest one trick pony of a gimmick ever. Even all his memorable matches are gimmick matches. Hell in a Cell, Casket, Buried Alive etc. He needs all the theatrics, smoke and mirror entrances, and gimmick matches because unless he's wrestling HBK... the majority of his basic singles matches are boring. Anyone can "no sell" another wrestlers moves... and that is why any other big man could've very well have been chosen to be "The Undertaker". His act never really changes, but no one cares. He's like a classic rock band that just plays the same routine every concert but will always sell out the arena. He's even spawned spin-off characters like The fake Undertaker, Kane, The fake Kane, Paul Bearer, and even the short lived character Mordecai (who was supposed to be the "Undertaker" of Light... instead of darkness). The Undertaker was also the precursor that led to future successful deranged gimmicks like Mankind, TNA's Abyss, and The Brood. I'm not taking anything away from The Undertakers accomplishments, but Mark Calaway would likely have never had the career he had if the "Undertaker" gimmick hadn't taken off the way it did. Any number of big men could've played "The Undertaker" gimmick and had the same result. The fake Undertaker proved it, as Brian Lee pulled off playing the Undertaker to the T. He had the look, a stunning resemblance, the moves down, and everything. He actually had most people fooled initially. He was just 2 inches too short, and you could've fixed that by thickening the bottom of his boots... but they left it that way to help tell the difference. Nash, Crush, Adam Bomb, Brian Lee could've been given the Undertaker gimmick instead of Mark Callous and the result would've been the same. When Crush was in WCW as Brian Adams in Kronik, he actually looked like he could pull off an Undertaker style gimmick.

On the other hand, no one else could've pulled off Stings character.

1) Sting is one of the top mic workers ever along with The Rock, Ric Flair, and Rowdy Roddy Piper as far as electrifying the crowd. The only person who can get a crowd more juiced than Sting using only a microphone is The Rock. I'll hook you up with several Sting promos if you don't believe me. People sometimes forget Stings mic skills because WCW's hey day is 10 years gone now, and because not as many people watch TNA. Only The Rock has more NATURAL born charisma than Sting.

2) Sting isn't afraid to put people over. Sting in WCW put over rising singles stars Booker T and Scott Steiner, and as a result made them legitimate main eventers... and even put over Vampiro. In his nearly 6 years in TNA, he has worked his butt off to put over AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, Abyss, Christian, and Samoa Joe.

3) Unlike The Undertakers reinvention as the "biker", Stings reinvention as the "Crow" was the most successful reinvention in WRESTLING HISTORY and is still talked about constantly to this day. Sting has reinvented himself SUCCESSFULLY, not once but TWICE. To reinvent yourself this late in your career successfully is incredible. "Joker" Sting became along with CM Punk the most talked about story in wrestling in 2011. It was a hit for TNA, and a much needed one at that. Sting's ability to reinvent himself is amazing, and a true testament to Sting's understanding of the business and the fans.

4) Sting has held legendary feuds and battles with a who's who of hall of famers and legends including Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Four Horsemen, Lex Luger, Rick Rude, Randy Savage, Goldberg, Bret "Hitman" Hart, The Great Muta, The Steiner Bros, Dusty Rhodes, Scott Hall and Kevin Nash, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Kurt Angle, Rob Van Dam, Jeff Hardy, The Road Warriors... I could go on but do I need to? Stings classics with Ric Flair at the Clash of the Champions really put WCW on the map. Stings feud with Hulk Hogan culminated in Sting SHATTERING PPV BUY RECORDS at Starrcade 97.

5) Sting is arguably the greatest all-around pro wrestler of all-time, and never had to step in a WWE Ring. Sting NEVER had the million dollar production, publicity, promotion, and marketing that Undertaker had with the WWE.Sting has done so much more than the Undertaker, with so much less. The thing is, Sting would've still been just as big of a legend without his "Crow" gimmick. 3 out of the record 4 times that Sting won PWI's Most Popular Wrestler award was BEFORE THE CROW GIMMICK. Sting was winning the most popular wrestler award with a 1/3 of the audience that Hulk Hogan had.

6) Sting was a part of the nWo Wolfpac... which was the most popular wrestling faction of all-time. At the height of WCW in 1998 the nWo Wolfpac was the most popular faction ever in terms of popularity (Sting was the most popular wrestler in the world in 1997 during the biggest time in wrestling history in terms of ratings as evidenced by him winning a record 4th PWI Most Popular Wrestler award). All anyone talked about was how awesome the Wolfpac was back then. They were like rock stars, and yes they were more popular than DX at the time... they just weren't around as long because WCW had to figure out how to end the nWo angle all together. Also, Sting was a part of the most legendary faction in TNA Wrestling, The Main Event Mafia.

7) Sting is one of the 1st wrestlers to have 2 different finishing maneuvers. Sting would beat you with a Scorpion Death Drop or the Scorpion Deathlock (Sharpshooter). Sting and Ronnie Garvin were the first two wrestlers to use the move prolifically in North America BEFORE BRET HART as it was originally called the Scorpion Deathlock which is derived from its original Japanese name. Sharpshooter was coined by Bret Hart later on, so despite what some think Sting popularized the move in N.America before Bret Hart did.

I could go on, but I think I've made a pretty strong case for Sting being the better wrestler.


  1. I think you are slightly underrating The Undertaker and I get the jist that you have observed more Sting than Undertaker from your comments.Your comment about Undertakers mic skills being not great and limited shocks me. At his peak which I believe was in 2002 when he was heel his promos were great and he showed his great ability as a heel and his ability on the mic, yeah they may not have been as good as the rocks or even stings but I think the decision of who is better between these two greats is much more blurred than you think.

  2. You know, back when Sting was playing in Pro Circuits, which included WCW, Mark Calaway (not Callous that was his ring name) was Main eventing with Hall of Famer Jimmy Snuka.
    Sting & Undertaker are the last of a great breed of men, but when you heard the gravely words of The Phenom, he sent chills down your spine. Which if a wrestler makes a believer out of you with a mic, that's pretty good (which Sting does as well)
    For gimmick, most would say Sting's coat, entrance, overall look comes from 'Taker. hmmm awesome.
    Names? Well 'Taker as literally all Hall of Famers (not including Andre or those retired before Taker)Sting however never faced Kane, Cena, and so on obviously.
    Personally, I cannot find a match of Sting's that really blew my mind. Great Muta matches got close, but not nearly as close as Undertaker vs Mankind KOTR 1998. Taker threw Mankind 25 feet off the cell and onto the table, then Chokeslammed him onto the "cement-like" canvas while the chair fell under Foley's head...dont remmeber Sting making an impact like that on WCW.
    Undertaker is believed to be in the top 5 wretslers of all time, not just in WWE, but of ALL TIME. There's more than just the gimmick that prove that.

  3. well guys if you are watching wrestling from last 20 years you can tell with out even hesitating that stinger is way better thn taker

  4. To me Undertaker's matches are more legendary,fast page,Violent and entertaining than Sting.Perhaps sting may little bit better in mic skill than Taker but when it comes to the mainstream overall package,Sting not even close to the Undertaker..
    Undertaker is way better than Sting...I have found out most of the Sting matches are boring and slow page..but no disrespect to Sting, he is a true Icon....

  5. @ Anonymous, did you just say the Undertaker's matches are more fast paced than Sting's? Are you kidding me? Obviously you didn't watch the first 10 years of his career. You know, when he walked around the ring veeerry slowly and no sold moves. Those matches were about as slow paced as you could get.

    I'll give you the more violent.

    I can't say that The Undertaker's matches are more entertaining than Sting's matches. Shawn Michaels and Mick Foley carried the Undertaker's greatest matches. Watch the original Hell in a Cell at Badd Blood 97 against HBK, or the Hell in a Cell 98 against Mankind. If it weren't for Mick Foley's spots during that match it wouldn't have been that great.

    Shawn Michaels is the greatest performer of all-time, he's been making the Undertaker look better than he really is for YEARS. The proof is in the pudding.

    Watch Wrestlemania 25 and 26 against Shawn Michaels, and then watch the Wrestlemania's where Taker fought Kane, Jake Roberts, Mark Henry, Triple H etc. Those matches are no where near as good. Trust me, it was Shawn Michaels that made those matches epic. Taker's last mania match against Triple H was lack luster in comparison to the HBK matches.

    The Undertaker is just a brawling big man. Sting all-around is a much better wrestler than the Undertaker is. You can pit Sting vs Hollywood Hogan from Starrcade 97 against any Undertaker match and it's better.

    Sting... a LITTLE better than Undertaker on the mic??? That is a laugh. Sting ECLIPSES the Undertaker on the mic. Sting is one of the GREATEST MIC WORKERS EVER. Sting is easily top 3 or 4 guys to ever pick up a mic in wrestling with the Rock, Ric Flair, Chris Jericho, and Roddy Piper.

    Let's look at the Undertaker's famed Wrestlemania streak. What amazing matches did he put on besides the HBK matches? Oh, that's right... none of them were spectacular other than the HBK ones.

    Sting is better than the Undertaker. Bar none. Although I get it. In some younger fans eyes who have never really watched Sting, or only have watched his TNA run... Sting can't win. But for any UNBIASED one who has been watching for 15-20 years can tell you that Sting is a better wrestler, who did far more with far less than the Undertaker did.

  6. Oh, yeah and who ever up there that tried to claim that Taker main evented with Jimmy Snuka is full of it. Jimmy Snuka was past his prime when he feuded with the Undertaker, and that was NOT a main event feud. That was a mid-card feud.

  7. I don't agree with anything u have written.
    Undertaker's Mic skills match his gimmick perfectly. He as cut memorable promos like " judge jury executioner of hogan ". His mic skills are at par with austin and rock.
    Similarly the undertaker uses 5 finishers hell's gate, Tombstone, Choke slam, Last ride, Dragon sleeper.
    His streak is legendary. He has had brilliant matches with hhh , hbk, Diesel at mania.

  8. @Anonymous

    1)No one ever said his mic skills didn't match his gimmick.

    2)If you think a memorable promo is him claiming to be "judge, jury, and executioner of Hulk Hogan" then you have already proven that you have a biased distorted view of the Undertaker. I can EASILY name 20 guys (and more) that are better than the Undertaker on the mic. The Undertaker has NEVER been known for great mic skills... why do you think he had Paul Bearer for the majority of his career?

    3) The Undertaker can't hold the Rock's jock strap when it comes to mic skills. The Undertaker isn't even on Austin's level when it comes to mic skills. If you think The Undertaker can touch the Rock on the mic then once again you have a completely biased and distorted outlook on The Undertaker.

    4) The Undertaker has never really utilized the choke slam as a consistent finishing maneuver. It has for the most part always been a set up for the tombstone. There is a difference between a signature move and a finisher. Also, the Undertaker outside of a rare use at Wrestlemania doesn't even use the Last Ride anymore because it was his finisher for his "American Bad Ass"/"Big Evil" gimmicks. Like I said, he might break it out at a Wrestlemania but it's not a consistent finisher anymore. The Dragon Sleeper was never a consisten finisher either. I know of him actually closing out a match with a Dragon Sleeper and winning... once in a match against Big Show.

    5) The Undertaker never had "brilliant" matches with Triple H. At best, they were "pretty good" or "solid" matches. Did I hear you try to say he had a "brilliant" match with Diesel? Give me a break. That's a joke right? Kevin Nash has NEVER had an epic match. You're talking about the same Diesel who had one of the worst botched promos on the grandest stage of them all? His only brilliant matches at Wrestlemania was 14 against Kane, and 25/26 against Shawn Michaels. What other epic match did he have at Mania... Jake Roberts LMAO?

    What else you got buddy?

  9. I agree with about 90% of what you've said but I do have some fond memories of the Undertaker like Wrestlemania XX when he returned to fight Kane and Wrestlemania X-Seven when he fought Triple H in his Biker gimmick, and the Biker gimick wasn't panned quite a lot of people enjoyed it. Yeah I agree with u 100% that Sting is so much better with the mic than Taker

  10. Undertaker has schooled the Rock on the mic. I disagree with you, on the fact that Undertaker's Wrestlemania matches were boring. He had amazing matches with Randy Orton, Edge (especially) along with Hbk and HHH. Undertaker is the best striker in WWE history. His moves are a notch above Sting's. Undertaker uses matches that are other than the "classic" matches because it draws more fans. You say that Undertaker is only gimmick. Well wearing face paint, and carrying a baseball bat is not? I can also assure you that no one in the world could pull of the Deadman gimmick like Mark Callaway. The Deadman returned also for the fans.

    1. 1) Undertaker isn't even on the Rock's planet on the mic.

      (2) No offense, but Randy Orton and Edge vs Undertaker are nothing more than glorified Smackdown matches when they happened. Randy Orton wasn't at the level that he is now, and Edge vs Undertaker was nothing more than an awesome Smackdown main event in 2008. Those were good matches, but not legendary matches.

      (3) I do agree that Undertaker is the best striker in WWE history, but that doesn't really mean a lot in the grand scheme of things.

      (4) Undertaker using matches other than "classic" matches isn't because it draws more fans. It's because most of his average matches are somewhat boring (unless he's facing a great performer like Shawn Michaels, or Chris Jericho). He uses so many gimmick matches because his regular matches are generally boring (unless he takes on a great performer). I feel like he uses gimmick matches as a crutch at this stage of his career.

      (4) Trying to say that Sting is "all gimmick" is a laugh. Sting doesn't have to rely on gimmick matches to be entertaining. Sting doesn't need casket matches, hell in a cell, inferno, or buried alive matches to be entertaining. On top of that Sting has had 3 different gimmicks, ALL SUCCESSFUL. Sting won 3 out of 4 PWI Most Popular Wrestler awards as "Surfer Sting". You misinterpreted what I was saying. When I say that the Undertaker is all gimmick, it's because he needs smoke, lightning, "making lights come on", and a ton of gimmick matches to be entertaining. Sting became one of the greatest of all-time without all the "smoke and mirrors". Sting became one of the all-time greats with great all-around in-ring ability and charisma. Sting would've went down as one of the best ever on just his "Surfer" gimmick alone. Sting didn't have to come up with 5 different gimmick matches to be entertaining. There are only two Undertaker matches that I would consider TRULY legendary matches that didn't have any gimmick associated with them... and that's Wrestlemania 14 vs Kane... and Wrestlemania 25 vs Shawn Michaels. Wrestlemania 25 was mostly Shawn Michaels making Taker look like a million bucks like HBK does everyone. Think about it... all the other major ones.

      Taker vs Mankind... HELL IN A CELL
      Taker vs Triple H... NO HOLDS BARRED
      Taker vs Kane... INFERNO MATCH
      Taker vs Lesnar... HELL IN A CELL
      Taker vs Yokozuna... CASKET MATCH
      Taker vs Stone Cold... BURIED ALIVE

      I could go one, but do I need to? Also, Brian Lee proved he could pull off the Deadman gimmick because HE DID in 1994. Consider your argument shut down

  11. u must b a big fan of sting and u havnt watched taker...
    number 1 u must know that No wrestler is perfect wehether its hbk, jericho punk or ne1 , including The Undertaker.

    2. he is the deadman ... he cant give electrifying promos lyk rock ... man do u want a vampire to give a scary speech ... or say words lyk jackass ... it doesnt matter .. ayatolla of rock and rolla ... dude ... he just has to say slowly ... nd filler the arena with terror ... neways he had paul bearer ..
    3. he started as one of the best heels ever ... he won the gold against hogan ..with help frm flair .. and he was capable of even becoming a babyface
    4. he wrestles even if is 99.99% unfit ... go chk previous wrestlemania
    5. he was the only guy to have ballz and knock vincess door during the montreal screwjob to apologize
    6. hell ina cell ...casket matches... getting burried...
    7.. he is involved in 0% backstage politics
    8. there r many types of wrestler ... brwalers..grapplers.. luchadors.. hugh flyers.. hardcore... taker is mainly a brawler .. and can grapple and wrestler and tear thm apart ...apart frm this he has given awesome hard core matches... he jumps from the top rope being 7 foot..he has a sumission move it is difficult for a 7 footer to be a safe wrestler ...but he still manages.. owen hart has temporarily paralyzed austin..
    9. he made the ultimate warrior look gr8.. he lost to bret hart bret hart became a new face ... he has helpd steve austin .. the rock ..his promos with taker were the stepping stone of him goin to the top.. mr kennady ... hidenrich ( i dunt know much abt him ) brock lesnar...mankind(bow down) ... ( u can say it was mankind who took the fall ) bt sum part of credit goes to perfectly throw him and nt kill him...
    10. he has several injuries...but still has given the best at the past 3 4 wrestlemanias...

    1. I love how because I'm able to put forth FACTS that cannot be disputed that means I'm a Sting fan, and or that I have never watched the Undertaker. I've been watching wrestling over 20 years. Half of your "points" are inaccurate.

      2. The fact that he had Paul Bearer proves that Undertaker is not a great mic worker. That's why managers exist. So, case in point, Undertaker can't touch Sting on the mic.

      3.He was a great heel, we are in agreement on that point. I never said he wasn't a great heel or a great face for that matter.

      4.The fact that the Undertaker can barely wrestle a match every year without getting hurt tells me he needs to just hang it up here pretty soon.

      5. Undertaker had NOTHING to do with the Montreal Screwjob. The Montreal screwjob involved Vince, Shawn Michaels, and Earl Hebner. So, your claim that Undertaker knocked on Vince's door and apologized is completely FALSE. Undertaker had nothing to do with the Montreal Screwjob.

      7. Undertaker isn't big on backstage politics that we know of, but you can say the EXACT SAME THING ABOUT STING. Sting has never been involved in backstage politics. I've never heard anyone say anything negative about Sting. I have heard that Triple H and the Undertaker don't really get along in real life and that's why Triple H has always been on RAW and Triple H on Smackdown. You notice when Triple H was on Smackdown for a couple of months that Undertaker wasn't around.

    2. (Continuing the last comment)

      8. Undertaker is mainly a brawler yes, but that's why his matches aren't that exciting unless they're gimmick matches. You are making my exact point that Undertaker is mostly exciting in gimmick matches. His regular matches typically are boring unless you put him up against the greatest in-ring performers ever (Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho, etc.).

      9. He NEVER made the Ultimate Warrior look great. Also, your claim that he made Bret Hart is complete hog wash. Ric Flair and "Rowdy" Roddy Piper put over Bret "Hitman" Hart and took him to the main event level. Undertaker had nothing to do with it. By the time Undertaker and Bret Hart fought, Bret Hart was already world champion. He didn't help Stone Cold either. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart MADE Stone Cold. Stone Cold was already WWF Champion by the time he feuded with Undertaker. The Rock's promos with Undertaker were not a stepping stone of him going to the top. Ken Shamrock and Steve Austin at the Intercontinental level were The Rock's stepping stones to the top. The Undertaker had nothing to do with elevating Mr.Kennedy or Heidenreich. Heidenreich was just a mid-carder that never amounted to anything. Brock Lesnar was ALREADY OVER by the time he feuded with Undertaker. Brock had already defeated The Rock and Hulk Hogan cleanly before he even feuded with the Undertaker. Mick Foley (aka Mankind) had already made a name for himself in WCW, ECW, and Japan before he feuded with Undertaker. Also, it was Mankind that took the fall in the Hell in a Cell. The Undertaker had nothing to do with it because when Mankind fell through the cell... that wasn't supposed to happen. It was an accident. He was never supposed to fall through the cell. So, the Undertaker had nothing to do with it. That's why Foley had teeth broke off and lodged into his nose. It was AFTER the Mankind match that WWE started fixing the cell to where it had trap doors and made it to give way in certain spots.

      10. Undertaker has not given the best matches at the last 3 or 4 Wrestlemanias. It wasn't the Undertaker in those matches. Wrestlemania 25/26 were because of Shawn Michaels. Shawn Michaels can make anyone look like a million bucks. HBK made Stone Cold, Razor Ramon, and John Cena look like a million bucks at Wrestlemania. That's why he is the greatest in-ring performer EVER. Taker's match with Triple H wasn't as good as the HBK matches (hmmm... I wonder why), and had to be helped out by making it a no Disqualification match.

      So half your points weren't even true, and I dethroned the other ones. Why can't someone make a counter argument with ACCURATE FACTS.

  12. cont ... bottom line is the u cant compare these 2 ... both of thm are extremly good .. but taker is 1% better than sting and always will be

  13. you don't know who the Undertaker is? Have you been living under a rock or something even people who don't watch WWE knows who Undertaker is 'Sighs'

    1... dude go chk out hius promnos when he was a biker american bad ass.... again i m telling u he is the dead man ... he cant use flashy words .. lyk rock jericho miz ... bla bla ... he has to terrorize ... and he does that awesomely

    2.. we all know its tym for him to stop ... but every wrestlemania ...people want him ... he does it for his fans ... who are on thier foot whn takers in the ring ... go chk wm 27 ... had undertaker nt been booked... it wud have been the worst wrestle mania ever ...the only match worst watching was taker vs hhh ... n orton vs punk (which again sucked coz orton cant take defeat ..)

    3.whn did i say taker was involved in the screwjob ...its was after the screwjob that taker knocked vinces door and demanded that he apologize and this is the main reason why taker cant stand hhh (his politics and constant effort to be overevery 1)

    4. u must be seriously kidding me...taker goes above the top rope that move is called No-handed over the top rope suicide dive... he also gives old school
    5.. wrestlemania 24 vs edge ..was awesome ... dude a 10% fit undertaker wud give a match which is better than the combination of the entire roster.. he wrestled and given awesome matches with broken things in his body... go chk undertakers matches and thn criticize him ...
    6. although i respect sting remeber this Sting is a wannabe Joker and wannabe Undertaker ...Undertaker is skilled enough to out perform Sting in his prime and in real life.
    7. u know why has vince allowed taker to keep his streak ... its out of respect towards him ... for his passion his skills .. i dunt see any michaels sting or any 1 with a streak ...
    8. By the End Of thw Day Its The undertaker Who is the most respected man in the industry for the fact any promotion... even hhh lyk u said before who is nt eye to eye with taker hasnt criticized him of anything ...thats respects ...that means he is the best ... and u cant talk thrash abt him even if u r his boss...
    9. sheamus jack swagger have been world champs ..but doesnt means they have formed thmselves to the top ... that is the place where undertaker comes in... wrestling with him means u get a plus star.. thats how stonecold brock the rock .. bla bla come in to picture ....dude edge in his retirement speech has said ..that main eveting with the undertaker is top accomplishment he ever had..
    10 . u can call sting the undertaker of a poor show tna wcw..what ever crap where he is or where he was

    1. When did I say that I never watched the Undertaker? I specifically said that I've watched his entire career. You need to improve your English because you keep misunderstanding what I'm saying. Also, if you really think that Sting is just a poor man's Undertaker, then you know absolutely NOTHING about professional wrestling. That is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard in regards to wrestling.

  14. Theres no point getting angry over an article this is just one guy's opinion in mine taker is a bit better than sting but i love them both i don't agree that taker's mic skills are bad and watching a lot of his matches he certainly dosen't need to be carried by anyone including hbk. None of stings and hogans matches were better than every taker match. He doesen't show it in every match but he's a very sound wrestler certainly not a bad one. Also i couldn't imagine anyone to be able to pull of the gimmick to the perfection Callaway has could you imagine big show or kevin nash being taker no. The way i see it is wwe got the right for the man for the right gimmick. Also you can say taker's had it easy being in wwe but another person might look at it and say he's broken through in the best wrestling company and stayed successful for 20 years when others have come and gone saying taker's all gimmick is like saying stings only good because he where's facepaint which isn't true might i add. He's also the most respected man in the history of the industry and if you don't believe me ask stone cold,rock,hhh,hbk,cena,orton,kane and probably even vince mcmahon himself. This is one of the most ignorant articles i've seen in regards to wrestling

  15. sting is far better than the undertaker, mic skills= sting, wrestling ability= sting, popularity= sting, undertaker is great he is probably a top 5 wrestler in wwe history, but sting is imo along with hbk the greatest ever

  16. I think Sting's greatness is kind of an elephant in the living room situation for the WWE. They begrudgingly acknowledge he was a good wrestler, but they don't want to give him too much credit, being he was the face of WCW and is the one star to never work for them. And the fans who didn't watch much WCW, especially in its pre-nWo days, don't

    Sting never gets nearly enough credit for his in-ring ability. He may not have been in the Malenko/Benoit/Angle class when it came to technical wrestling and whatnot, but he was good technically and holy fuck was he quick and explosive. His vertical leap was insane. He was one of the best you'll ever see at selling an ass could always count on him to make you look good.

    And unlike so many wrestlers who start to fall into predictable patterns, he was constantly creative. Flair may have called all the matches during their rivalry, but Sting was clearly calling most of his matches in the late 90's/early 00's, and they were always entertaining.

    When his matches hit, it always went up another level...he was going at a gear nobody else was, or could...except the cruiserweights. Even during the dying days of WCW, he always put on a good show. That's what I'll remember most about Sting. I'll remember explosive cat-like quickness, an NBA guard vertical jump, and consistency, even in the face of a dying company.

    1. Thank you. This is probably the most accurate portrayal of Sting I've seen of all the blog comments that visitors have made.

      People don't realize that Sting was main eventing in NWA/WCW 2-3 years before Undertaker even made his WWF debut.

      This is the elephant in the room that none of these Undertaker fans that dog Sting want to admit. Undertaker has NEVER HAD TO CARRY THE COMPANY. Undertaker in his entire career, has never been "the top dog" in WWE. He's always played 2nd or 3rd fiddle, and has pretty much always been historically a transitional champion. When he started in WWF, the top dog was Hulk Hogan. Then it was Bret Hart, and Shawn Michaels. Then it was Stone Cold and the Rock. Then it was Triple H and Brock Lesnar. Then it was John Cena and Randy Orton. Now it's Cena/CM Punk. He's NEVER been the top dog in the promotion. He's never been the "franchise" of WWE. Sting has had to carry not one, but TWO companies on his back. He was the "Franchise" of WCW. He carried WCW when Flair left for WWF, and as Flair was getting past his prime. Then, he was the Centerpiece in WCW from 96-98 on the greatest wrestling roster in history. Then, fast forward to late 2005-Jan. 2006, and Sting has carried TNA on his back. It was said that Spike didn't agree to a tv deal with TNA until they had signed Sting because they didn't really have any house hold names. He was the first house hold name to sign w/TNA (before Kurt Angle, Scott Steiner, Booker T, Jeff Hardy, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, and RVD). Undertaker fans don't give Sting any credit for this.

      Sting has successfully reinvented his gimmick, TWICE. His "Crow" gimmick was the most popular gimmick/storyline in wrestling history. His reinvention last year as the "Joker" was a brilliant reinvention and modernized the "Sting" character again.

      What makes Undertaker entertaining was never his actual wrestling. What makes Undertaker entertaining is the overly theatrical, dramatic, and cartoony entrance (the darkness, smoke filling the arena, the implication that he turns the lights on by raising his arms, and rolling his eyes in the back of his head, riding a motorcycle to the ring). Then, his matches are usually entertaining because they're all gimmick matches (Casket match, buried alive match, last ride match, inferno match, hell in a cell, etc). He's average on the mic, not bad.... but he's never been an elite mic worker... that's why he had Paul Bearer talking for him. Sting doesn't need all the theatrics, smoke and mirrors, or gimmick matches to be entertaining.

  17. I don't normally comment on these things, but since you are talking about my two favorite wrestlers here we go. Sting might be a better mic guy however like many people have said The Undertaker has to stay within the confines of his character. Sting doesn't need theatrics was true for his pre crow days, repelling from the rafters is pretty theatrical to me. Yes The Undertaker has had alot of gimmick matches which explains the condition he is in. Sting has reinvented himself successfully twice, The Undertaker has not, the one time he attempted to people wanted the old Taker back, I don't think that says as much about the biker gimmick has it does the Deadman people just like him more and have for over 20 years the deadman gimmick has just worked if its not broke why fix it. Has far as The Undertaker not putting anyone over I do beleive one of the biggest babyfaces in the WWE started off with a feud with Taker.(John Cena) There have been others along the way. What better way to get over than to beat the man who has beat them all. I could be wrong but I don't remember sting using the scorpion death drop as a finisher until the Crow gimmick. Sting is a smaller guy and faster making him a perfect fit for submission move. Taker is a bigger stronger guy making him more suited to power knockout moves and yet he has adapted adding hells gate. You say any big man could have pulled off The Undertaker gimmick, however all the fake Taker proved was someone could pull off the look not the character. Paul Bearer was Takers manager till 97 when Kane showed up then off and on speradically. Saying any big man could pull off the character is like saying anyone could pull off the Crow/Joker character I mean there are at least 5 crow movies and several joker characters over the ages. The Crow/Joker were popular characters before Sting. By saying the Taker/HBK matches are all HBK show you do not really know wrestling it takes two to make a match great if only one person is out performing the other you notice as a fan and the match loses its impact. HBK is a great performer but you are saying put anyone in that match and it the same caliber which it wouldn't have been. The under may or may not be as technical as Sting however you will never get to see it due to his size so I give that to Sting. By saying sting carried the two companies on his back takes away from other great wrestlers in both organizations especially TNA. I think he had carried WCW on his back in the end however TNA he has been a great asset to, and improved the show but I wouldn't say he has carried it on his back. The Undertaker has you say has never been TOP DOG however he has been at the top of for over 20 years where are the TOP DOGs at now? He may not be the franchise but he is definitely the corner stone.

    1. I think you make some good points, but you are also wrong on several points. A lot of your statements were factually INACCURATE. The Undertaker didn't put over John Cena. John Cena faced the Undertaker one time at Vengeance 2003 and LOST. John Cena put over the UNDERTAKER. Undertaker did NOT put over John Cena. So your facts were wrong there. As far as Stings (theatrics), he only came down from the rafters a handful of times and he stopped coming down from the rafters after Owen Hart's death. So, coming down from the rafters was an extremely short period in his career in which he only did it a few times. You're singling out something Sting did a handful of times in a 2 year period against theatrics that the Undertaker has been using for 20 years so my point stands. My point stands that Sting has NEVER had to rely on theatrics, while the Undertaker has relied on theatrics his ENTIRE WWE CAREER. Also, your claim that Paul Bearer was Undertaker's manager until 1997 when Kane showed up is WRONG. Paul Bearer turned on Undertaker in 1996 and began managing Mankind. Your statement that Brian Lee (fake Undertaker) pulled off the look but not the character is wrong too. You're thinking all wrong. You have to think, had the original Undertaker NEVER EXISTED and if the fake Undertaker was actually the ORIGINAL Undertaker than Brian Lee PROVED he could pull off the character. Your comparison of Undertaker gimmick to the Crow/Joker gimmicks makes no sense as they are apples and oranges. If you don't think Shawn Michaels CARRIED those matches to legendary status you are out of your mind. Think about it. Outside of the HBK matches at Wrestlemania, how many LEGENDARY matches has Undertaker had at Wrestlemania? Maybe his first match against Kane at Wrestlemania 14? Other than that, all his other matches were solid matches (the Triple H matches) to subpar matches (the Mark Henry match). For having wrestled 20 times at Wrestlemania, he's only had 3 legendary matches and 2 of them were against the SAME GUY (HBK). How many legendary matches has Shawn Michaels had at Wrestlemania outside of Undertaker? He's had epic matches w/John Cena, Razor Ramon, Bret Hart, Stone Cold etc. So, I'm not saying the Undertaker CANNOT wrestle. He would've just had a SOLID match if it weren't for HBK. HBK made them EPIC matches. HBK made John Cena look 10x better than he actually was at Wrestlemania 23. He made Razor Ramon look 10x better than he was at Wrestlemania 10. Also, don't try to tell me what I am "saying". Don't put words in my mouth because I never said anyone besides Undertaker against HBK would've had the same caliber match. I said anyone can have a match with Shawn Michaels and it's always going to be a great match because HBK is the greatest performer of all-time. Don't twist my statements. As for Sting carrying two companies, he did. It does NOT take away from other wrestlers. Everyone knows that Sting carried WCW on his back as the ONLY wrestler who never jumped ship to WWE. He also carried TNA on his back after he joined the company, because it was said that Spike wouldn't give TNA a TV deal back in 2005 until Sting signed with them because he was the ONLY HOUSEHOLD NAME TNA had for a long time and it's evidenced by the fact that he is the FIRST inductee in the TNA Hall of Fame. Also, you have no right to say I don't know wrestling. I've probably forgotten more wrestling than you've watched. Who's the one with a blog generating nearly 20,000 views a month? If I didn't know anything about wrestling, my blog wouldn't have any viewers. Case closed.

  18. Before I say anything I just want to get a few things cleared. I am not a wrestling analyst or a critic. I am not an expert. In fact I'm younger than the streak. I am not an American and know next to nothing about Sting. But, let me tell you what I am. I practically worship the Undertaker and I am not going to watch you take my childhood hero apart.

    Like I said I am not going to comment on the comparisons cause Sting is practically a stranger to me. But, I do think you have undersold the Undertaker.

    1.The Undertaker needs gimmick matches to look good.
    Yes, maybe he does. But why is that a bad thing ? He puts his body on the line and sacrifices himself over and over again. Think about it - he popularised the Hell in a Cell match, the Casket match, the Inferno match, the Last Ride match and the Buried Alive match. People on one side complain he can't innovate himself and on the other that he is nothing without gimmicks. He gave us so many memorable moments in each of these matches. He even had a TLC match with Edge and gave us a great match inspite of the fact that his physique is not suited for ladder matches. Like him or not you have to respect him for sacrificing his body so many times. He can't be dismissed as a big biker hiding behind smoke and mirrors with no wrestling skills.

    2.The Undertaker can only put on a great match with another great performer.
    True to an extent but it's kinda like how Nadal brings his A-game later on in the tournament and is a tad bit off his game(by his own high standards) in the earlier stages. It doesn't make him a bad player . It just means that a big stage brings out the best in him. The Undertaker needs another great performer to bring out his best but the same can be said of Kurt Angle. Everybody isn't Shawn Michaels. While Shawn Michaels did make him look better, I don't think he could have had that kind of match with anybody other than The Undertaker. Before you throw his past matches in my face, I think both the Undertaker matches were better than all his previous Wresltemania matches including the Iron Match with Bret Hart. But then again I am fanatical about The Undertaker.

    3.Yes, the Undertaker's best matches have been gimmick matches. Having said that I don't think it is fair that you say that every great match he has had was great because of his opponent whether it's Mick Foley or Shawn Michaels. The Undertaker made both those guys look good too you know.
    While I respect your right to have an opinion and don't have half of your wrestling knowledge, the match with Edge with Wrestlemania was NOT a glorified Smackdown mainevent.The second Tripple-H match was great too. It was not fast paced because neither of the guys are high-flyers. The Undertaker kicked out of a spine buster through a table, multiple chair shots, three pedigrees and a piledriver. If that's not epic, I don't know what is! He had a fantastic match with Kurt Angle at No Way Out, which in my book(admittedly not as big as yours) is one of the greatest of all time.

  19. This a continuation of the previous comment....

    4.The Undertaker puts over people who are already over. The Undertaker has had feuds with stone Cold, the Rock, Mick Foley, Shawn Michaels,HHH, Bret Hart, John Cena, Kane and of late Randy Orton, Edge, Mr. Kennedy, MVP, C.M.Punk and the Great Khali. Not one of these guys can claim that they haven't benefitted from his feuds.Maybe they were already stars but that doesn't mean The Undertaker didn't give them a boost.
    The Undertaker doesn't have to lose to put somebody over and increase their popularity and better thier image. Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair can lose because their reputations are based out of being larger-than-life performers. Tripple H, Edge, Chris Jericho can lose because their reputations are (primarily) those of being heel champions. The likes of Hogan and Cena can lose since the commentators can base it on their poor technique. Technical guys like Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit and Bret Hart can lose and it wouldn't damage thier reputations of being the technical best. The Rock and Stone Cold would still be crowd electrifiers. Giants will still be giants.
    But, The Undertaker is a bit different. His reputation and aura are based off of invincibility. He isn't invincible because he has a great reputation. His reputation IS INVINCIBILITY. It would greatly damage his gimmick if he lost cleanly unlike the guys at the top.
    But that doesn't mean he is selfish. He hardly ever asks for a long title reign and mentors the younger guys. Just having a rivalry with the Undertaker gives them a boost. Bigger than a clean win over some of the stars mentioned above.

    5.The Undertaker has terrible mic skills
    This is a topic I am particularly passionate about. When you judge a orator you consider certain factors like quality of language, delivery style and crowd reaction. I think The Undertaker is every bit as good as the Rock on the mic. Hold on a sec.... don't dismiss me as an Undertaker fanatic yet(altough I am).
    In the WWE the quality of language is not a factor since they don't write it themselves. The Rock does have some of the best catchphrases. For the other two factors I would like to draw an interesting analogy.
    I have always thought that The Undertaker post the biker era was based out of Clint Eastwood's man with no name in those movies of the "wild wild west". If you have seen any of the Dirty Harrys, you would have noticed the lack of dialogues. Clint Eastmood doesn't have to give a Shakespearan monologue. All he has to do is give you an icy stare and say "Do you fell lucky today, punk ?" or "Most people respect the badge, everybody respects the gun." and that's enough. It doesn't mean he's a bad actor just that he's making the best of his limited abilities.
    Similarly, the Undertaker doesn't have to talk us sick like C.M.Punk, Cena, Chris Jericho or the Rock. He just has to wait for his opponent to finish and then give us his trademark phrases like "Rest in Peace" or "I have seen the best, I have fought the best, I have beaten the best." Did you see the Tripple-H promo. Tripple-H did most of the talking and at the Undertaker, at the end said "There can only be ONE LAST OUTLAW." and it stole the promo.

    1. I respect your difference of opinion. You like the Undertaker and that is fine. However, I find it interesting that you say you're not going to let me take the Undertaker apart... yet you agreed with all of my statements. You agreed with everything I said, you just try to rationalize it. Also, I prefaced this blog post by stating that the Undertaker is one of the greatest of all-time. This is a blog post examining which superstar is better than the other. Both superstars are legends and neither one of them suck. Your opinion in regard to this blog is irrelevant because you willingly admit you know absolutely nothing about Sting. Therefore any argument you make for the Undertaker over Sting has no credibility. I myself am a huge Undertaker fan, but I'm not going to act like he has no flaws or limitations. I'm also not naive enough to ignore Sting's more accomplished career.

  20. Wow ! You replied in less than 24 hours. Thanks a lot for that !

    I wasn't rationalising it. I just think you are a very skilled analyst and made most of his strengths look like weaknesses.

    I think the Undertaker in terms of overall presentation is just as good as the rock. Maybe he can't electrify a crowd like the rock can. But the Rock can't have the crowd in silent awe like The Undertaker can(or could rather. Crowds these days have no respect).

    By the way, do you mind writing an article about Y2J vs Edge vs Orton ?

    Thanks a lot.

    1. No problem man. Personally, presentation wise... I think the Undertaker is BETTER than the Rock. But... I'm only speaking in terms of presentation. Do I think he is as talented as the Rock? No, Undertaker is not as talented. I think the Undertaker has arguably the most polished gimmick of all-time. Undertaker's presentation is as close to flawless as we've ever seen in pro wrestling. The Rock is a better overall superstar, but I think that the Undertaker has done far more to change pro wrestling than The Rock ever has. It's not even close.

      The Rock doesn't have the crowd in silent awe like the Undertaker because that's not The Rock's gimmick or style. That's not what he does.

      One knock against the Undertaker is that he's never had to carry the WWE as the face of the company. HOWEVER, Taker is the heart and soul of the WWE though in the same way that Tommy Dreamer was the heart and soul of ECW. When you look at the Rock on the whole, I've lost some respect for the Rock from a pro wrestling aspect. The Rock has done little to nothing to give back to the WWE over the years. Steve Austin, HBK, and Mick Foley have done far more to give back to the WWE than the Rock has. I think The Rock blows a lot of smoke up the fans butts as far as missing them and coming back "for the fans". The Undertaker is an amazing wrestler and employee who should be applauded for being the glue that's held WWE together for the last 20 years.

      As for Y2J vs Edge vs Orton, what kind of article are you looking to see? A similar article to this Undertaker vs Sting article? Like... who's better between Y2J/Edge/Orton?

  21. Another reply in less than two days! You are the best man! would like to add one last point.You say that Mark Calaway just happened to be at the right place at the right time to land the greatest gimmick in wrestling history. But with all due respect Sir, Mark Calaway got an ordinary gimmick. He made it the greatest gimmick off all time. I mean think about it...... why should a dead man be any less ridiculous than say Goldust or a guy that eats worms ? It took charisma to make the role work. You say that anyone could have pulled off the Undertaker ...but there WERE many "potential Undertakers" most of whom we don't care to remember.
    As for carrying the company,the Undertaker's general awareness is God-like! People who can't tell you what the WWE stands for know that The Undertaker is "The Dead Man" ! Without the Dead Man halo, Mark would still technically be better than the likes of Mark Henry, Big Show, Kevin Nash, HHH, Austin, Cena, Kane,GOldberg and Batista right ?

    Yes, something similar to this article if you don't mind.Also I would love to know your thoughts on Goldberg, The Streak(whether it should end) and who is worthy of being his last opponent.

    I love your writing styler. It seems awfully familiar. Do you have another blog on relationships or something ?

    Thanks a lot. You made my day by replying. I am going to brag to all of my friends that a professional analyst thought my comments were important enough to reply to - TWICE.

    Thanks a ton.May God Bless You.

  22. I um forgot to say this in my last comment but um .. what did you think of my Clint Eastwood analogy ?

    Thanks again.
    May God Bless You.

  23. Well, first of all :
    Agreed Sting does have better mic skills than the Undertaker. But to put him in the same class as Jericho, Rock, Roddy Piper and Ric Flair is ridiculous. Come to think of it , putting Jericho in that class is ridiculous.

    I'm a huge fan of The Undertaker. I say that the greatest argument used both for and against The Undertaker is his gimmick. The larger-than-life dead man, the fading light, the eerie music, the gong of death and the all-black dress can blow anyone's mind off ! Like you say, it might possibly be the most polished gimmick in history. But, in my mind, that gimmick did not become like that until after he returned from The Biker gimmick. His entrance was much less grand before.

    Sting has a painted face, baseball bat and desending rafters to combat The Undertaker. He loses every time. NOBODY comes close to The Undertaker's presentation.

    You say that anybody can play The Undertaker. In that case, why don't we think of Kane in the same way we look at The Undertaker ? I'll concede that The Lita angle took away some of his aura but The Undertaker bought Sara too. Think of some of the other ridiculous characters : Goldust, Boogeyman, Abyss I could go on. How come you're not writing an aricle comparing Abyss to Sting ? I'll tell you why. Because The Undertaker is a legend.

    But I'll admit that only 45 percent of the credit for the presentation of The Undertaker gimmick should go to Mark Calaway. The writers, technicians and other superstars all deserve credit. Sting would get a much larger percent of credit for his gimmick.

    Let's look at The Undertaker beyond his gimmick.The Undertaker is probably the Best Big Man Ever. Guys his height are usually uncordinated and awkward. He is a great puncher(much better than Steve Austin), has two semi and two complete finishers ! And while you're bashinkg Mark Calaway's technical ability, let me remind you that even a "technical" wrestler of Owen Hart's calibre messed up The Piledriver. How many years has The Undertaker been using it ? The move is now banned which means he will be the last person to ever use the move !

  24. continuation of the last comment .........

    Undertaker vs Kurt Angle at No Way Out 2003 was an exhibition. I remember that match very fondly. Correct me if I'm wrong here( I don't know as much about wrestling as you do) but I do believe that The Undertaker is the first and last person to break the ankle lock once it's figure-foured.

    And can you honestly tell me that you don't find Old School and Suicide Dive attractive ?

    The Undertaker was also a pioneer. He was in so many first matches. Hell in a Cell, Casket(not first but he popularisedit), Inferno, First Blood, Last Ride, Punjabi Prison Match, Buried Alive Match and Biker Chain Match(I think it's the same as The Last Ride Match).

    I agree with the analogy of Clint Eastwood you gave. The Undertaker used his limited oratory skills perfectly. Also you're right about the fact the nobody else can have the crowd in silent awe like The Undertaker can.

    There are a few points I will concede though. Sting would still be where he is today without his gimmick. Undertaker not so much. But the gimmick DID happen. We got arguably the mos unforgettable gimmick of ALL TIME. Mark Calaway has given us plenty of gimmick matches and earned his push with his gimmick and his streak.

    I'm not an American so maybe I can't relate to Hulk Hogan's gimmick but from a storyteller's point of view, The supernatural, eerie God-like dark, mysterious Undertaker(who still plays on the good side) makes for a better character.

  25. continuation.....

    The most legitimate argument made in Sting's favour is that he had to carry WCW and subsequently TNA while The Undertaker never did. In The Attitude Era, there was Rock, Stone Cold and DX. Before that it was The Bret Harts, Ric Flairs, Roddy Pipers and Shawn Michaels and after it's John Cena, C.M.Punk and company.The Undertaker was a solid presence you could always count on. Your best soldier, never your general. Great argument.

    But, like the credit for his gimmick can't go completely to him, the blame for this can't be entirely his either. I mean, he's old now but there was always a time when there seemed something more important than him. Except maybe when he retired Shawn Michaels.

    But The biggest faces of the WWE have been : Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold, The Rock, HHH, John Cena, Edge and C.M.Punk. Does that make ANY of these men better than The Undertaker. In terms of gimmick and wrestling ability, I'd say no. In terms of popularity and mic skills I'd say yes. But the overall better will always go to The Undertaker. When I say gimmick, I mean the quality of The Undertaker. The Undertaker has a dark past,plays with the forces of darkness, yet is someho always clean.

    Other people can lose, not The Undertaker. Like you said, his aura is built off of invincibility. He could only lose cleanly in The Biker gimmick .Sting's gimmick(atleast partially) is based out of losing sanity.

    Also, in general awareness and pop-cultural references, Undertaker would even beat the likes of Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan at their peak. Maybe they can't say he's a wrestler but they'll definetely know he's something to be scared of!

    I'm sorry if I came on a little aggressive but I'm pretty passionate about this.

    Also, I would love your opinion on these questions :
    1. Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels : Who's better ?

    2.Would you like The Undertaker to retire at this Wrestlemania ? If so, who would you like to be known as His Last Opponent ? Streak intact ?

    3.How much do you like the idea of us getting a retirement speech from Mark Calaway ? Not The Undertaker. Break Kayfabe like Edge. I would hate it if his retirement was just another death ! Do you want to see him break kayfabe in his retirement speech ? The man himself ?

  26. let me try and end this for both of you. Yes sting is a better wrestler. But no man has ever made little kids cry just by walking down the aisle other then taker. If it was a 1 on 1 match I would probably give it to sting. However we are talking about if it were to happen it would be the headline of Wrestle Mania. There is no man alive that can come into the takers yard and beat him after 20-0 and which would be his last match ever. Undertaker plus WM plus so many years in the making to be 20 and o plus last match. This my friend is where it gets rough though, we are talking about Sting. Sting coming into the WWE(F) for the first time ever for a last match of his career. Which I don't see either man signing up for the match in less they are giving the win. We will never know which black cape would win in a straight up fight. Maybe the only way to win is a unfair advantage. Kane and Wyatts could be both related to him, we don't know yet but they would have his back. Or the fact that he can control lighting and the power of the earn. Sting on the other has now the TNA guys to back him up along the most overrated wrestler of all time but is still the mighty Hulk Hogan. Both guys can control the light in the arena. All im saying is it could be fixed to go either way. So it comes down to witch man deserves to win the last match of his career more. Given the takers streak and it being WM. Given the Stinger is the one who is the hunter in this situation and has finally crossed over to make it happen. (Allow me to interrupt myself to say this is the only way sting will get the rights to have dvds and other merchandise sold is to finally give his soul to Vince. So even more so it has to happen) Either man cannot loose, plain and simple. Both men are to respectable. If the match was to take place the only way for it to end is to somehow find a way for both men to be victories. HBK is my favorite behind Steve Austin and him loosing in his last match to the phenom had to happen but these two guys and the story that will unfold, it is the only way. So to sum it up in a conclusion both you are wrong for asking the wrong question. The real question at stake is how can both icons respectfully walk away with there legacy in tacked? To be defeated in this grand of stage in this point of there careers... has to be decided in some kind of draw

  27. The last posted anonymous makes a very valid point. It would be a utter sham to have either man loose. It seems as if every hard fought these two men have ever faced was just leading up this point. It would tarnish both of there careers to have be defeated with these type of stipulations. Some kind of respectable draw would not only have to be in order but is keen. Followed by a colorful bow of course. (I was the last anonymous poster)

  28. I only can about The undertaker is his "Legendary STREAK" does sting have a streak like that. Undertaker entrance can make children cry.There is no one who can even compare to the undertaker not even stone cold, hulk hogan,hbk,brett hart or even The most electrifying man in wwe history (the rock)

    1. Sting is undefeated at the grand daddy of em all in STARRCADE, and WWE stole the undefeated streak and made it a big deal, not to mention WrestleMania is only here because of Starrcade. BTW I've never seen a kid cry seeing taker's entrance.

  29. Ten people better than undertaker in descending order.

    10 - Steve Austin
    09 - Chris Benoit
    07 - Chris Jericho
    06 - Bret Hart
    05 - Ric Flair
    04 - Mick Foley
    03 - Shawn Michaels
    02 - Kurt Angle
    01 - Sting