ohtani's jacket

Arn did comedic stooge selling all the time. It was a big part of his repetoire and he was great at it. I don't care about the Flair flip. It's a signature spot and signature spots are part of pro-wrestling. I don't really think they affect the integrity of a match. The best skill you can have as a pro-wrestler is to be able to do your schtick within an otherwise serious match. McManus, Breaks, Satanico, Fujiwara, Arn, Funk were all great at this.

The doco was fairly good. There wasn't much in it for the hardcores aside from the new footage, but I liked the women's reactions to Klyondyke Kate, the weird medium/adviser/spokeswoman for Kendo Nagasaki and the Johnny Kincaid poem. I also want to see Steve Logan vs. Masambula as much as Pallo/McManus.

All righty, but we didn't even have sports magazines in New Zealand during Iaukea's day.

Oh yeah, Sting can't compare to the biggest star in the history of New Zealand. Did we even have a mainstream in Iaukea's day? And as for Williams being a star in Japan, where were the national endorsements, the movies, the household name? Williams was a star for wrestling fans in Japan the same as Sting in America. What Dave wrote was pretty convincing, but he should really stick to the US examples.

Gotta agree with Loss. Flair was flat in this.

Flair/Luger was an infinitely better match-up than Flair/Sting but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it. To me the Flair/Sting dynamic never really worked. Even watching the Luger/Flair matches years later, I wanted the Total Package to kick Flair's ass and take the title. With Sting it was more whether poor little Borden could overcome his knee troubles and hang in there.

To be honest, I don't think Sting was ace material. He didn't have the mic skills for it and I'm not sure he had the right look either. To me he was an Intercontinental Championship level guy, the equivalent of which was probably the US Championship but I never felt that belt was handled as well as the IC title so bear with me. With better booking he may have had a more successful tilt at the mainevent, but Sting's saving grace is that his work wasn't all that bad during the period in question. Given that Sting's work wasn't the problem, I have my doubts whether better booking would have helped the company's bottom line. A down period is a down period and few (if any) companies have been able to avoid them. It's possible that people started tuning out and houseshow numbers dropped because Sting didn't catch on, but I suspect it had more to do with Crockett as people knew it having run its course. Sting would have had to have been one of the great all-time attractions to prevent the downslide. Having said that if business had been a little healthy or Sting had drawn a few good gates from time to time maybe he'd have a stronger case. It seems WCW was still Flair to a lot of people during Sting's run and I wonder what things would have been like if it was obvious Flair was never coming back ala Hogan and the WWF. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems Bret was accepted by what remained of the WWF audience moreso than Sting was accepted in Flair's absence. Not that I mean to make living in Flair's shadow into the latest excuse for Sting. If he'd been overwhelmingly popular he would have made people forget about Flair. I just think the mechanics of what makes someone a star in pro-wrestling is interesting.

You could make a case for Moncrief as one of the top three players in the East in '82-83.

I don't think Sting's 1990-93 period should be used as a positive or thrown out. I just think it should be properly assessed and weighed accordingly, because to me there's a big difference between a guy who bombs on top because he's a terrible promo and a bad worker and a guy who is handicap by injury, poor booking, a downturn in business and politics even if the end result is the same. Who were the top 10 draws in the US from 1990 to 1993 and how much more did they draw in comparison to Sting? If Hogan's drawing power was reduced during the period then how can Sting have been expected to be a big draw? It's all well and good to say he failed and that's that, but I don't see how he could have realistically overcome those obstacles and I can't think of anyone who drew under those sort of circumstances. But this is getting a bit redundant and he's not going in anyway so it hardly matters.

Labeling Sting as a failure implies (to me, anyway) that he was responsible for that failure in some way. To date, no-one has explained what his failings were. KrisZ already ran through the booking and from the numbers it doesn't look like anyone could have done better than Sting in the period. So unless there's some overwhelming reason why Sting was poor in the ace role what is he being taken to task for? Because he wasn't a national draw on the level of Hogan? Sting on top may have been a failure, but how exactly did Sting fail in the role? And why does Hogan get credit for the NWO when he turned around and fucked the whole angle up, ultimately destroying the company? It was a hot angle that revitalised Hogan's flagging act and unlike Sting he didn't get the legs cut out from under him. None of this is a reason for Sting being in the HOF, but I don't think it's as simple as Sting dropping the ball. I also think it's stupid how non-American candidates are elected into the Hall without half as much analysis of their drawing ability as Sting. There wasn't even a single argument about McManus for example.

It actually got AJW temporarily kicked off the air in some regions of Japan if the story is true.

That '82 Devil/Jaguar match is clipped so it's a tough comparison, but by '85 she had began a face turn after being phased out as the top native heel.

That's not the argument I would make against Edge. Does anyone make that argument against Edge? I've probably forgotten the arguments against Edge. I thought people had counter arguments for Meltzer's points about Edge as a ratings draw or whatever it is. My point really is about timing. If Edge were to get in because he came along at a time when business was strong and Sting doesn't because he was on top when business was poor then how much of it is based on each man's merits or lack thereof and how much is sheer dumb luck?

Well, if it had nothing to do with Sting and everything to do with the business then why emphasise what a poor draw he was? Unless there were specific reasons why he couldn't draw. What were his failings? That's not the point. What were his successes? Putting Sting in the HOF because his failures weren't his fault isn't a particularly strong case. At some point, you have to switch from just responding to negatives and start producing some big positives, which I haven't really seen anyone do yet. It's all in a feeling, which is fine, but it's not a HOF case. I'm not trying to say it strengths his case. I just think if his failure to draw wasn't his fault then it shouldn't be held against him as black mark. Wrestling is a business and it's on the bookers first and foremost if a promotion can't draw. If Sting had done something to turn customers away I could understand the emphasis, but apart from being wooden and not as charismatic as the top stars he did just about everything you'd expect of him. When business was bad he couldn't spike attendance. When business was in an upswing he played his part. People are basically holding it against him that he wasn't an all-time great draw. I understand your point about producing positives, but what I'm driving at is that if there's a big negative then people ought to be clearer about whose fault it was instead of pinning it on the worker like they're inherently to blame.

Well, if it had nothing to do with Sting and everything to do with the business then why emphasise what a poor draw he was? Unless there were specific reasons why he couldn't draw. What were his failings?

The thing I don't get about Sting is that people say he couldn't draw during a low drawing period but then they say guys like Edge shouldn't be in for drawing during a reasonable drawing period, so if Sting had been in Edge's position would he be a HOF'er?

From now on, I'm going to refer to Tito Santana as a curtain jerkin', headlin' mid-carder and Brad Armstrong as an Alabama playa.

Yeah, I definitely would have.

That Arn/Windham match is awesome. I was disappointed when I was the only person who seemed to give a shit about it in the WCW poll. The tag is cool as well. Just curious, what from 91 wcw did you put over it? I don't have a copy of my ballot anymore, but I can't remember voting for too many matches from '91. My ballot was pretty 1989, 1990 and '92 heavy with a few matches from '94. I quite liked the beginning of '91 before Flair jumped.

Is it really that unusual for wrestling to be in a movie? My favourite wrestling "appearance" is probably the author of a book on soul music interrupting Screamin' Jay Hawkins watching the graps.

I don't care about the WON HOF and find this all a theoretical exercise but I don't think you can disregard the booking. Major stars are booked well. How many instances can people think of where this wasn't the case? If you're going to argue that Sting couldn't draw alongside Rude, Roberts and Vader surely that means that the heels couldn't draw either.

What was the time frame for Sting being on top? I've always been a bit partial towards Sting as I think he was capable in the ring, but can you really blame him for not drawing with shit like the White Castle of Fear and all of his other escapades? Sting was a poor promo and a shabby actor which stopped him from being a bigger star IMO, but Bret was no great shakes in that department either. The difference between them is that when Bret had his annus horribilis in '95 someone had the good sense to make it part of the build-up to the Survivor Series '95 title shot with those cool sitdown interviews which were also the beginning of Diesel seeming actually bad ass. What did Sting get in '95? Dungeon of Doom? The Flair feud? Spare a thought for what he had to work with.

Thought this was pretty much what you'd expect from these two in this sort of setting even with the eye injury. Decent outing for a Dome show but it would've been more heated in a venue like Denen Coliseum, which was used for Hansen/Andre (though it was closed by this point.)

The last time I watched All Japan for Ditch's poll I thought all of the Jumbo vs. young guy matches were on the weak side. I much preferred the six mans from this era.

That Arn/Windham match is awesome. I was disappointed when I was the only person who seemed to give a shit about it in the WCW poll. The tag is cool as well.