Sting VS Triple H

If it does happen at Wrestlemania I personally don't think it would be a good match. Judging by the last couple of matches Sting had in TNA, he gets exhausted very quickly. Triple H obviously is younger and even though he hasn't wrestled in a while, he did say that he is still training in the podcast with SCSA. Sting on the other hand is at an age where he cant move around the ring as much etc....What do you think the best way to implement Sting would be if he does fight? A tag team match would be less exhausting.

I don't get this Sting thing. Despite all the many rumours I was pleasantly surprised when Sting appeared at Survivor Series, but it wasn't one of my highlights of 2014.

I guess in all my years of watching Surfer Sting, Crowe Sting, NWO Sting and the various incarnations of HHH. Not once have I wondered what a match between the two would be like.

And here's the biggest problem for me. That, as this story is being written, no one is getting over from this. The Crow Sting is an iconic character, but as a loner vigilante he has no younger wrestler to play Robin to his Batman.

They could have gone somewhere with the interference with the Survivor Series. When Rollins was holding Edge hostage to make Cena bring back the authority, maybe Sting appears there. Maybe Rollins curb stomps Sting and gets a big reaction, a moment that can be replayed forever.

But no, we've 55 year old Sting and 45 year old HHH in an angle that doesn't (as yet) involve anyone else.

Let's see what happens at Fastlane. It's a face to face confrontation in the ring. Which gives WWE a lot of scope. But like nadeem, for me Sting / HHH at WM isn't getting me excited.

If the Undertaker does come back I find it out that they are going to have both these icons on the same show yet not take have them go one on one. Maybe they think HHH has more of a chance of getting a passable match out of 55 year old Sting than the battered Undertaker? Personally I think that both matches would be no better than average, so why not put on the one that makes more sense?

I see exactly what you mean liverbnz.

But, is there not a point that at least with Wyatt / UT we can get one guy over who will be on the roster for years to come.

I actually think these two could have an okay match. I think both have limitations, but if Bray Wyatt does that inverted walk and goes over to UT while UT sits up from a Sister Abigail, I think that will be kind of cool.

Wyatt vs Taker is a better option right now. A Sting vs Undertaker match would be awful, and better left to the archives of 'What if Dream matches'.

The question i wonder is do WWE job Taker to Bray now that the Streak is gone (It's customary to go out on your back and id suspect Taker will go with that)

Would it spoil Reigns going over Lesnar? Realistically Reigns is going over to be the 1 who beat the guy who broke the streak which would make it seem pointless if Bray does it too....

They could build up Wyatt as the king of mind games, and beating and retiring Taker would almost make him the NEW Undertaker.

I dont think that it would spoil Reigns winning, purely because the Streak is already beat. I would rather see NO Undertaker match at all, but if they have to have one Bray Wyatt is probably the best choice right now.

So, do we think that Vince went too soon with ending the streak last year?

At the time I thought they did. But I look back a year and I look back at how Lesnar has wrestled and the style of his wrestling and no way could he not have defeated Taker and had the credibility he has.

Now, I'm still not sure that Lesnar was the best person to break the streak. But given that's the match there was last year, in retrospect I think that had to be the outcome.

After Summerslam and the urine poor booking that followed it, I was thinking they made a big mistake, but he's been booked so well since the turn of the year im starting to think it was the right idea again.

They could also have given it to Punk the year before to redeem that Mania, and make Bryan winning the main talking point of Mania 30. Would have given Punk his WrestleMania moment and probably enough to keep him around.

I agree about Punk. And I also think that when that didn't happen and Lesnar was next up, they should have made it about Heyman.

Heyman shooting a promo that last year Undertaker was lucky, but this year he's found someone who will not just end the streak, but end the Taker. And then Brock's music hits.

I kind of think that then, if Heyman had been the one to topple Taker via Brock he could have got the rub and passed that onto the next Heyman-man. Which would have helped Cesaro, not just taken away any light anytime Cesaro came out with him.

I'm actually glad the streak has gone. And that a legitimate guy got it. Because we can argue if Brock needed that rub, but we can't argue that Brock beating Taker is a thing. Whereas there are a lot of people who just don't think Wyatt is going to make it, and if he doesn't and he's jobbing in 18 months it would have been a hell of a waste of that streak if it went there.

You couldnt give the streak to Punk because the chance he might get bored and leave (which he did) - a point I argued about on here at Mania 29. Punk is my favourite wrestler of this era but you cant put something big like that on a man who might walk off.

Sting v HHH is a very good story so far and an interesting match. A lot of matches are not about who goes over and who gets the rub. I think Trips style meshes well with that Sting needs too; as Bryan has said in interviews about last year, HHH is a man who goes for less is more. Sting isn't going to be throwing out an art piece, but a slow, storypiece match will work. It'll be about the spectacle.

Any idea of Sting being in a multi-man match does not work for me. Whether or not some are interested, Sting being involved at Mania is big news. You shouldn't have him tagging with someone.

I'm also not sure i'm a fan of Wyatt v Taker. Not sure anyone really wants to see Taker lose another time at Mania, but with a nod to Bray's progression it is hard to want him to lose either.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:You couldnt give the streak to Punk because the chance he might get bored and leave (which he did) - a point I argued about on here at Mania 29. Punk is my favourite wrestler of this era but you cant put something big like that on a man who might walk off.

This is a fine argument. But didn't WWE end up doing just that? Putting the streak on someone who'd in the past walked off bored and could well do that again?

I think two slight differences being that Lesnar wont just up and leave with no notice and that booking someone to go over Punk after he beat the streak would not have felt anywhere near as big.

Thanks for the additional comments. I see what you mean now.

I don't know Punk, so I really can't answer for him. But, I'm not so sure he'd have just upped and left WWE on a whim if he was in a story. It seems he had plenty of times he could have used the leverage of a stronger position to do that and it was almost that he just left when there wasn't an overwhelming reason for them to want beg him to stay. Maybe that was deliberate on Punk's part, to see if they wanted to keep him rather than keep a story. Still with a history of Vince being scared of someone taking the belt I can see why he'd not go there.

I don't know if Lesnar is that different. But what we can say for him on this run is he might only be obligated to a small number of matches. But boy does he bring it when he's in the ring. I've a sneaky suspicion that if WWE signs a sponsorship deal with Tap Out they'll have a nice wad of cash to use on Lesnar and what better man to promote the Tap Out gear. So, I'm really not sure he won't renew that contract, I think he's just looking for a great deal.

Just changing tack slightly. I think I should re-evaluate Wyatt. Other than his first match against Cena, are there any stand-out singles matches he's been in that people can recommend?

His matches with Ambrose were good. I think he's improved massively over the year, as seen by his performance at the Rumble and his match with Ziggler on RAW. This should be his year.

Chris I just wondered how you come to the conclusion that Sting v HHH is a very good story so far? Because from what I've seen, all we know is that Sting has shown up twice and inexplicably screwed HHH both times. No reasoning behind it, not a word from Sting, and all HHH has done is talk about dealing with the 'problem'. For me, there is no story there at all, yet. The most interesting way forward for me would be for Sting to say he done what he done to HHH and The Authority as an act of revenge for the Monday Night Wars, or atleast a reference to that effect, saying its been 20 years in the making blah blah. I can't see why or how Sting would attract a younger fanbase, the kids wont know who he is, so why not target the demographic who actually give a damn about him and talk about what his fans are actually going to remember. The match itself will be good enough for what it is, HHH is good enough to make the match watchable, but Sting is 100% going over.

Taker v Punk didn't excite me and Taker v Lesnar didn't excite me, so Taker v Wyatt hasn't got a chance, especially with the Streak no longer in question.

Thanks Samo.  I'm generally not a fan of hard core matches, its not that they can't be done well and entertain me, but too often it feels like this is a cover for the wrestlers not being able to perform in the ring.

That said, I should go back and check out the Ambrose matches.  I know that I'd become bored by the time we got to the ambulance match.  And that was a shame because it did have some reasonable spots in it, it was just that the story around the whole thing wasn't holding me.  Maybe at a distance I can now see that feud through different eyes.

I just searched the Network for Wyatt Ziggler.  It gave me 4 pages of results.  Thanks for being so helpful with your metadata guys.  I'm guessing you didn't mean the Raw in 2013 as that seems like a 5 minute match. Interestingly as I've now watched that. I had in my head that there was speculation of who Sister Abigail is / was? Commentary quite clearly says it was named after his late sister. Or maybe I'm just mis-remembering more recent events, there's so much talking in Raw its hard for me to keep up.

Mr H wrote:Chris I just wondered how you come to the conclusion that Sting v HHH is a very good story so far? Because from what I've seen, all we know is that Sting has shown up twice and inexplicably screwed HHH both times. No reasoning behind it, not a word from Sting, and all HHH has done is talk about dealing with the 'problem'. For me, there is no story there at all, yet. The most interesting way forward for me would be for Sting to say he done what he done to HHH and The Authority as an act of revenge for the Monday Night Wars, or at least a reference to that effect, saying its been 20 years in the making blah blah. I can't see why or how Sting would attract a younger fanbase, the kids wont know who he is, so why not target the demographic who actually give a damn about him and talk about what his fans are actually going to remember. The match itself will be good enough for what it is, HHH is good enough to make the match watchable, but Sting is 100% going over.

Taker v Punk didn't excite me and Taker v Lesnar didn't excite me, so Taker v Wyatt hasn't got a chance, especially with the Streak no longer in question.

I think the fact that it has been low key, quiet but intense is why its a very good story. It hasn't been blurted out all of a sudden, no one has been exposed and whilst I think there are obvious reasons for what Sting is doing, there has been much left for the audience to ponder too. Even the little things like making sure he is called The Vigilante have just worked. It suits his character very well from WCW, the abiding image of him being that he fought for the company and is a man who wouldnt take villains running the show (and I say the abiding memory cos we all know that isnt all Sting was, and Crips will delight in coming on here and explaining how that was not the majority of his time or something equally trite).

I also think HHH signing him only for it to backfire is easy to explain too. Whether they say HHH signed him up as a vanity signing, thinking he would be low key and sell merch only to find Sting wont take his c*ap, or they say Vince signed him (I rather hope not). But theres a very easy, linear story there.

Sister Abigail is oft referenced to be about his dead sister but never much more mentioned. Could be something they eventually explain or could just be a reason hes nuts.