Quote:
Originally Posted by Noid
There it is. You accused me of Triple H hate, but there's the truth of where your argument comes from on this. "Sting is just a guy." I'm not even the dude's biggest fan, but I've the two points I'd like to raise are this:
1) No, he's not.
2) Even if he were, wouldn't it be a good idea to try and present him like he was more than that?
I wonder if they pay Sting "just a guy" money? That'd be interesting. I wonder if Spike TV fronted TNA's paychecks to the man because he was "just a guy?" I think the evidence against Sting being "just a guy" is pretty overwhelming.
|
He's not "just a guy" in the sense that say Fandango is "just a guy". But what I'm trying to say is if you were to rank all the guys who are part time performers who appear basically only at Mania, Sting would be on the same level to me as a Chris Jericho. A big name, who can come in and work a program that means something, but not a Rock/HHH/Taker who can actually carry a long term program.
Plus, in a lot of ways HHH is more important than all those guys because he's a regular character on TV, and one who should command authority. Pardon the pun. Therefore, when I look at it long term, HHH winning was best because the long term money program is Rollins finally on upping HHH.
If you think Sting, would mean more for WWE business long term by beating HHH, thats cool, I just think you're way off base and letting some hatred for HHH get in the way.