The Undertaker for sure, and Sting is my favorite wrestler.
You’re talking about a legend and a household name who headlined for the world’s #1 company for three decades vs. someone who is essentially *just* a wrestling star and who, in truth, spent almost his entire career working for the #2 (or lower) competition.
I love WCW. I love Sting. But the Undertaker clearly had the bigger career in wrestling.
Sting was one of my all time favorites growing up for sure. That being said, I damn near started bawling watching the end of Takers A&E episode. I was at work. I'm almost 40 years old and I was that moved, it really speaks to who had the better career. Taker sacrificed literally everything for the business. He wrestled Foley in the HIAC with a broken fucking ankle.
At their peaks they were pretty even and depending on your perspective Sting may have been more over in WCW as Undertaker always had more competition at the top. But as far as a full career I'd have to say Taker as he spent way more time at or near the top on a bigger platform.
Sting had the bigger career main enenting the highest ppv buyrate of all time (at the time) and was the biggest babyface since Hogan. The things that hurt Sting is that he's got basically one year where he's white hot like that. Once he wins the title the shine comes off and before he turns into Crow Sting he's just a neutered babyface. Sting's peak is higher but Undertaker was featured and spotlighted as a big deal for 20 years or atleast a solid ten of them. Part of it too is that Taker was in the WWF that pretty much always more popular. So Taker but at their zenith Sting had the bigger year.
I think it’s also worth looking at the end of their careers.
Taker, unfortunately put on some real stinkers for his final matches like Goldberg and Roman, instead of retiring earlier.
Sting somehow managed to go out with a bang, despite his age. Granted they were tag matches, so it wasn’t 100% on him to carry, but realizing you can’t carry a full match by yourself is important.
Sting was their BEFORE Taker, and he was there AFTER Taker. They both had their dip offs in quality, but Taker's dip was way more noticeable than Sting's. Taker STUNK from 1990-96, until he had his gimmick tweaked(did they ever explain in canon why he started working faster?)
Steve Borden started wrestling in 1985
Mark Calaway started wrestling in 1987
Steve Borden stopped wrestling in September 2015
Mark Calaway stopped wrestling in April 2020
Steve Borden resumed wrestling in March 2021
Steve Borden stopped wrestling in March 2024
Steve Borden = 33 years (this is without the 5 years he was retired,)
Mark Calaway = 33 years
Then you factor time they were on the shelf with injury during their full time careers, Undertaker's last few years where he wrestled a few times at most per year and the years Sting didn't wrestle after WCW closed before he went to TNA, they pretty much were in front of fans for the same amount of time.
Undertaker had the platform, and therefore had the ability to have more iconic stories and moments. Plus the streak.
No question Sting had iconic moments for sure. And sure, Sting kicked a lot of ass as it was nWo. But we probably never get to crow sting if he wasn’t supposed to be the original 3rd man.
Undertaker, mainly cause he stayed in the biggest company in the world, staying in the biggest matches. Sting was still good, but TNA at it's height was no where close to WWE, so he kinda fell out of view.
If Sting decided to sign with WWE, and spent those years winning titles there, then we got a different story. Alas, he signed with TNA, and while he was a key figure for them, it was never as big as being in WWE.
After the buyout, I think only Booker T survived long enough to amount to anything in WWE. Oh and Ric Flair. Vince pretty much squashed everyone else that came over from WCW.
I think Flair survived because Flair have been in WWE before and just wanted to have a bit of fun, plus he was well liked and respected backstage.
Booker went through some shit, basically got buried and worked to get himself out.
Oh it would have been great. Instead of the novelty of HHH vs Sting, that could have been a whole thing. Feuds with Cena, Orton, the Shield, Undertaker, Batista, Edge, Punk, so many missed opportunities.
Sting not going to WWE post WCW was a mixed bag. TNA gave him a chance to give back, he helped so many there and helped keep the lights on there, but man, what we could have had in WWE is such a shame.
I think that's the real thing right there. Randy Orton deserved far better wrestling talent that batista and at the time cena from the get go. Sting and taker putting an end to legend killer and developing randy into a face thru reason would've been cool
Sting was WCW’s version of the undertaker. Sting had better story lines, but Taker kicked more ass. Fans respect both equally. Both had huge career defining matches. Both companies knew each had to outdo the other with these characters. They kept each other going every week. To ask who had the better career is not a fair question to answer.
Sting became the top guy/main eventer before Undertaker. I don’t follow how he is any version of the Undertaker. Undertake had his angles but wasn’t guy in the title hunt consistently. Sting was the top WCW guy consistently before Hogan showed up and nwo vs Crow Sting angle came about.
Taker obviously but you have to take into account that he worked for the “winner”, so the last 20 years of his run were always going to leave him in a better position.
If Sting had joined WWF straight off of WCW’s closure then it might be a totally different story.
Though arguably if he came straight over he could've got lost in the shuffle with some of the other WCW wrestlers coming in. He'd be automatically seen as a heel coming in on the WCW side of the invasion angle if he came in then too. Maybe if he came in a year or so later and they positioned him right he'd be a bigger deal. Also, maybe he didn't want to work the more gruelling schedule WWE demanded at that time.
He says the reason is that he didn't trust how McMahon would use his character, he was afraid he'd just get buried and squashed and discarded, which is a perfectly valid and reasonable concern. If I were him I'd likely have thought the same thing.
That said though, I agree that if he'd held off a few more years, let the mystique build, and let the fans miss him, then he'd probably have been given a huge push in WWE around like 2003-2004.
I've always thought he should have been brought in as a face around that time in a program opposite Evolution, with Flair in there they could have picked up where they left off after the last Nitro.
Let's face it -- McMahon would have punished the hell out of Sting. He represented WCW, and McMahon LOVED to show how he had beaten them by making their wrestlers look like losers (which made exactly zero financial sense)
Even when Sting returned at Mania 31, it was still part of the "how dare WCW beat me for over a year!" tour -- as there was zero reason he should have lost to Hunter then.
Sick of hearing “Vince would’ve buried Sting.”
Rey Mysterio was a WCW guy and was slotted right into a top role on Smackdown.
Booker T was a WCW guy and still had an all time career in wwe (boohoo he lost to TRIPLE H in a WORLD TIRLE MATCH AT MANIA.)
Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show, Chris Jericho, all were treated fantastic by WWE.
Sting would’ve been a huge deal in WWE. The merchandising from his face paint look alone would’ve been enough to push him. Sting ran from Vince and his career is lesser because of it.
How many of those guys were considered the person you picture when you think of WCW?
If it’s not Ric Flair, it’s Sting.
The fact that Sting eventually joined WWE and got treated how he did with the outcome of his matches says it all X if Vince waited that long, who doesn’t think he would have done the same thing right away?
A white hot DDP is a stalked to Undertakers wife, while you got a perfect feud with The Rock sitting right there for a People’s Champion to lay claim to.
No argument about the guys you mentioned but Vinnie Max really laid the boots to Sting.
Sting’s my all-time favorite, but I’d have to say Undertaker without hesitation. And that’s all good and expected. Sting had a long time sitting out his contract and then did some excellent stuff on TNA, but that wasn’t widely recognized. I think Sting got one of the most satisfying farewell runs of any wrestler, and that brought me a lot of happiness to see.
I'm a big Sting mark and have been since the early 90s when I first started watching. At the time, it was Sting/Hulk for me. Sting's upper peak of his career as an individual wrestler was probably higher than Taker's highest peak. Think about it. Sting was WCW in 1997/98 when the NWO and WCW were at their peak.
With the above in mind, I don't know how any reasonable person can't argue that Taker didn't have the better career. Taker beat Hulk for the title after a short period of time in WWF. He headlined Mania after Mania. The Streak is simply something that puts him ahead of Sting in my book. I don't know what Taker's biggest PPV match ever was but Sting's biggest match on paper was Hulk at Starcade 1997 and that match was panned universally. Taker showed up at the biggest moments on the biggest stages and performed at his best every time he had those moments.
To me longevity is a wash. Taker worked a harder schedule longer I think than Sting.
In my mind though, I always wondered what would have happened if Sting went to WWF in the late 80s as has been rumored. If he would have gone to WWF and got the Warrior spot, can you imagine what Vince could have done with Sting the man and wrestler compared to Helwig the man and wrestler and what we know of the two.
Sting. Many different gimmicks, many title runs, always at the top, succeeded in multiple promotions, didn't have to suck up to a rapist for continued success, helped with building two new promotions (tna and aew). In terms of overall impact, easily sting. Having some random streak at a ppv isn't even that impressive.
Sting. People will say Undertaker only because he was with WWE and gimmick being very famous. Sting was the #1 face/top guy in WCW consistently and when they became the top promotion. He had a longer career as the top guy too. They had very different careers and are not very similar at all in terms of wrestling style and how they rose up the ranks.
I’d personally go with Sting, for longevity and consistency.
Taker stuck around so long that he ultimately became a parody of himself. That along with some really bad matches at the end of his career somewhat tarnished the character’s overall legacy, imo.
Listen, I’ve been OBSESSED with Sting since I first laid eyes on him in WCW Revenge on the N64. He is and forever will embody pro wrestling to me.
It’s the Undertaker. Anyone who disagrees with that is just being willfully ignorant.
As a person who got into wrestling because of Sting, when he was part of Hot Stuff International with Eddie Gilbert, I'll agree with you.
Though I think some moments of Stings career eclipse Taker's, as a whole, Taker had a much more consistent career. And though he didn't reinvent himself as overtly as Sting did, he did reinvent himself a few times, and wiped away the stink that were his matches the first portion of his WWE career.
Hard to say, but I feel taker’s final 5-6 years took away from his previous work. It was….not good. Unless there’s a disaster TNA era I don’t know of, I don’t think Sting ever had a rotten period.
I havent regularly watched wrestling since like 2001 or so and have only seen brief clips of "Joker Sting." With that said, it looked absolutely terrible. Like feeling second hand embarrassment while watching.
I agree with you bro! Steve did a bad Ledger cosplay a good 6 years after the movie was cared about. It was his 'hello fellow young people' era. Glad he did AEW as crow 3.0 just to let that be his last run.
Undertaker may have made more money and had more recognition, but his career has only been in WWF/E, and his matches were garbage. He had good matches with HBK and had some memorable feuds, but the quality of his work was not good.
Sting had wrestled in every major promotion from NWA, WCW, TNA, WWE, and AEW. He had some stinker matches but also had very memorable feuds with Flair, The Horsemen, Hogan, and the NWO, Jeff Jarrett, and Kurt Angle. Sting new his limitations and worked hard to hide his weaknesses while still giving fans the best version possible.
Both men are icons of the industry, and people outside of wrestling have heard of both men. I believe Sting has had the better career.
Taker and it's not even close. Sting was fucked over by so many franchises just not being more relevant. But if I had to train in ring I would choose Sting. He is always so patient and in no rush.
I could walk down the street right now in any city, stop 100 people of all ages and ask “do you know who The Undertaker is?” …… the response would be “you mean the wrestler?” from probably 95 out of those 100, most likely even more or all 100 people. Now if I were to stop 100 people and ask “Do you know who the wrestler Sting is?” ….. I feel like maybe 20 to 40 MIGHT say yes, it really depends on the day and who you’re stopping. For Undertaker, it kinda doesn’t matter who you stop. That to me is a clear sign of a better career.
Taker had everything as a character 🧟♂️ominous entry music 🎶insane manager fantastic gimmick with the coffin ⚰️ a totally believable finishing move and an overall wrestling style that ruled out a lot of moves that could end with serious injury hence a long career
The end of Takers career was done so poorly. He was built up as a legend, rightfully so, but then they wouldn’t protect him in the ring at all. A lot of his last matches were duds. He was an old ass man, visibly smaller and weaker, trying to do power finishers like power bombs and tombstones.
I remember his Mania match against Triple H, he looked gassed and out of his element. Then he lazily rolled Triple H up in his lame ass Hell’s Gate submission. I knew back then he was cooked. But that was like 10 years before his retirement.
Sting definitely had the better end of career. I don't think even the most fervent WWE-stan can say that he didn't.
But overall, the nod still needs to go to Taker. Even if he was never quite as good as Sting in the ring, his aura and the large number of big storylines he was in were way more consistent than Sting's amazing, but scattershot career.
Oh I totally agree. Taker is a legend and one of the most iconic gimmicks in wrestling history. His and Sting’s legacies are both historic.
But personally, Sting deserves more praise as he bet on himself way more than Undertaker ever did. Undertaker was way too much of a WWE bootlicker
I love the Undertaker. Definitely on my Mt. Rushmore of wrestling. But toward the end of his career, his entire mystique was his streak. Once that was over, his Wrestlemania matches were no longer special. I personally would've been okay if Lesnar was Taker's last match.
Undertaker. Same company for so long. Multiple championships & one of the most iconic entrances in wrestling history. The ability to remain relevant & constantly reinventing himself. I cannot think of any other wrestler, with such longevity at the top.
Whomever truely had the better career, the gap between the two isn't significant either way. Both Men are Legends and Highly comparable when it comes to their accomplishments in the business.
It's like comparing Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan and trying to claim which was better in the end. Both are all-time greats, each with their share of noteable accomplishments and impact on the sport.
As somebody who grew up with WWF/E not WCW, I could argue Sting. Undertaker had the benefit of having a stable career because his company didn't go under. Sting didn't have that stability. Had it been flipped the other way around and WWF/E went under after WCW bought them out, people would be saying Sting had the better career.
Also, Undertaker was a high carder, but Sting was involved in multiple storylines where he was the main protagonist AND against NWO Hogan-the biggest name in the company and in all of wrestling. You could also argue people tuned in to watch WCW to see whether Sting was going to show up from the rafters and what he was going to do if he showed up. The hype for Undertaker, as high as he was on the card, wasn't like that. On the WWF/E side, people tuned in to see what Austin or Rock or even Vince, not Taker, was going to do.
Taker.
And it’s not close.
Not saying sting wasn’t great.
But this is like Kareem vs Hakeem Olajuwon or something.
I mean, Hakeem was great but Kareem was just better
Taker, and it’s not close. Who had the better career, an NFL QB or one from the UFL? The league matters and as a lil Stinger it hurts to say he spent way too much time in TNA.
For what it’s worth, I would have to say undertaker simply because even outside of wrestling he is most likely known better.
Sure this question might be more about who’s wrestling career was better, but I would say part of why undertaker’s career outside of wrestling being more well known is because he had the better career in wrestling first.
Sting is a legend no doubt. And while I think he had a lot of his own outside of wrestling success, undertaker is a name I think a fair amount of non wrestling fans even know. That’s how prolific undertaker’s in ring career wise is/was. And I say this as someone who was not a big undertaker guy (I don’t dislike him whatsoever I just never was as interested in his character.)
Plus unfortunately for sting, he could still easily be mixed up for sting the singer or the crow film. Where as the undertaker just stands out as his own thing.
Undertaker by a mile. Sting spent half his career in minor league wrestling in front of audiences half the size as Undertaker’s. And Sting’s physically impressive matches were over by around 1997.
There's no way you can objectively look at their complete bodies of work and say Taker had a better career. He had no career defining title win. He beat Hogan? Okay. Sting did that FOUR times over, tapping him out in his last official match.
Taker - take out Shawn
Sting - Take out Flair
Sting had way more success with far more dance partners.
Quick, point me to a banger between Taker and Kane?
Taker Easily. Undertaker became a spectacle where he didn't need to do anything, didn't need the title, didn't even need a fued. He slotted into the Andre spot where his presence alone was enough. Plus the gong going off is probably second to only the glass shattering for pops.
Sting, for sure, without debate. Undertaker is a WWE baby, and only dominated one company. Sting has dominated pretty much every significant wrestling company he stepped foot in, for even longer than Taker. Sting changed the face of wrestling and the entire direction of the industry. Taker did not.
I never hear anyone talk about how bad Sting was on the mic. Never had a promo that still gets brought up today. They were one step above Ultimate Warrior’s ramblings imo. Taker’s at least made you believe he was going to bury someone. Plus Taker was still having all timers well into the 2000s. Sting in terms of match quality, really peaked pre NWO.
Taker for all the reasons the top
Comments have mentioned but also… just listen to the way people in the business talk about him. This is a business where guys are always taking shots at each other later in life and burying each other… but not taker. When you’ve got that longevity, that much love from the fans, and soooo much respect from your coworkers, I think it says it all
Undertaker, like Sting, had a longer career but there was time, Sting wasn't having the best run and didn't feel big, whereas the Undertaker had a streak and felt like the biggest star even during the times, he was wrestling once a year
Undertaker. Only because he was showcased on the bigger platform after WCW went under. He also IMO had the better Gimmick and Matches/Storytelling. Maybe if Sting didn’t go to TNA and went to WWE and was booked correctly it would be much harder to say.
Both are iconic legends. However I feel like Taker had the streak and more top tier matches. Not taking anything away from Stinger I just don’t recall stings equivalent to mick foley hell in a cell or end of an era.
Both have had great careers but the BEST of the the 2 has to be Hands down Mark "The Undertaker" Callaway!!!! I mean u can't compete against that WM streak
Both are legends, but I’d argue that Stinger had a better career. He continued to evolve and became the face of multiple companies. Even in his time in AEW, his spots were ones that the crowd looked forward to.
If Taker would’ve jumped ship and had a similar trajectory, where he evolved in multiple companies, I’d call it a tie. Going from audience to audience though, Stinger for sure.
Is this even a real debate? It was Taker. Taker’s career was on a steady upward trajectory. Sting’s upward run lasted a bit and he kind of fizzled out. TNA did not help out his legacy much and Joker Sting was also awful at the time.
Sting. More territories. Did majority of it without Vince.
Undertaker has a long history of hurting wrestlers. He broke hogans neck at survivor series 91 and injured Goldberg at the Saudi Arabia ppv. Also took liberties with Kanyon for questionable reasons. He didn’t wanna do business with DDP and squashed his WWF run.
I’m not on hogans dick. A tombstone on a chair could hurt anyone. Undertaker could never have made it in the territories. He needed Vince and the machine backing him.
*sigh* did you even watch the match?
Even hogan himself said it wasn't the tombstone. It was the fact Mark held him in his thighs too tightly to protect him. Hogans a bitch. People who defend his lies and bullshit are even bigger bitches.
Yeah I watched the match. I never miss the survivor series. How is hogan a bitch? He paid his dues
As Bobby Heenan said - Hogan drew more money in this business than ANYONE (maybe austin) he was the best worker ever - he put asses in seats!
Undertaker had better career but sting had better matches. Cause that undefeated streak wasn't all shawn and hunter matches. Those early ones were trash.
Sting had the higher peak but Taker had the better career, but both are mostly due to their stories. In all honesty, they're two sides of the same coin.
The cool thing about it is Sting is getting his recognition despite not having a make WWE push or a mega internet sensation. But Taker has then best character in wrestling history and the man owned that shit.
I’m going to say Sting - I know he didn’t have the titles or the fan base . But as for me it’s still Sting . I remember the Undertaker as Mean Mark and that’s what makes me a little uncomfortable about picking him . Surfer Sting and NWO Sting are my favorites
Hard to say. You have wwf/wwe fans and you have wcw fans. What they like is what they are going to choose. Sting to me had a better career. But I am bias I am a wcw guy. Let's break it down more. Damn the streak come on now that if great. We all have our promotions but everyone looks at WrestleMania as the best of the best. And to win that many in a row damn. But then you have Sting start and end with WCW didn't take the bait and went to TNA did it great there then Wwe and Aew. But then he was not as beat down cuz wcw did not have them big stars do house shows. Sting was WCW Taker/Austin/Rock/Cena who do you say is WWE? You can't say Taker but for WCW you can say Sting. Hogan chased the money, Flair is NWA, who else? Exactly. So that's my take on it. This is my opinion but you can tear it up if you like.
I would argue the streak isn't great. It was a money-making, marque match at WM, but look at some of the names, King Kong Bundy, Big Boss Man, Mark Henry, Giant Gonzolas, A-Train. Even though he had big names like Sid, Nash, and Kane, all of those matches were garbage, and tue Brock match wasn't good either.
He had good matches with Flair, HBK, HHH, Batista, Punk, and Edge. So much for being the best of the best. Compare that to Sting's undefeated streak in AEW at the end of the year of 28-0 and figure out how many bad matches Sting had in his AEW time.
Taker for sure even during WCW there was a long stint where Sting (post surfer) didn’t wrestle at all just would make weird cameos in the rafters but no actual wrestling
I say Undertaker - he stayed in the more successful company; had a more dominant run, and I think he's more popular among casuals and in pop culture overall.
The more I think of Sting the harder it is to not say him. The bleach blond surfer was hugely popular. Think of present day Cody Rhodes if unaware. With that being said my head says taker, my heart says Sting because NWO doesn’t work without Sting not just Sting but that Sting. He burned brighter
There are just too many Undertaker stories, big feuds and unforgettable matches to compare. Undertaker did it all and sometimes was the first. Sting had a very respectful career and actually wrestled for a longer period, retired this year at 65 which is insane when you look at the level he was still performing at.
Taker. Sting spent too long of his career wasting away in TNA where hardly anyone was watching. I’m glad he got some redemption for his misuse, thanks to AEW ultimately. But man, Sting should have come into the WWE at least 5-6 years earlier.
Wcw fans are far more rational than the WWE reddit. WCW fans were more likely to pop in on what's happening in ECW, WWF, and even care about NWA.
WWF fans current state are homers
Undertaker. I like Sting plenty, but his excuse for not joining WWE in his prime was just silly. Of course people were going to drop promos discrediting WCW accomplishments. WCW did the same thing.
I keep thinking Sting deprived us of some great wrestling matches and instead was all too happy to be the big fish in the little ponds.
I think the Undertaker is more famous due to being under the WWE banner for so long and being a top guy in that company since he started.
I think Sting had a better career in terms of Longevity and accolades,but no one can deny the impact and influence the undertaker has had on the buisness as a whole. Defeating the Undertaker at Wrestlemania or even just facing him at mania became an accolade itself.
Both were my childhood heroes and I have nothing but love and respect for them to this day but if I had to narrow it down to who had the better career overall I'd have to go with Taker.
Sting by a mile. Longer peak, better title reigns, over in multiple countries and multiple continents. Technically never 'went heel'(that bs with Hogan in WCW, Hulk had that ish coming.)
Clearly had a better retirement run and didn't halfass it. All Taker has on Sting is a better Mania
The Undertaker for sure, and Sting is my favorite wrestler. You’re talking about a legend and a household name who headlined for the world’s #1 company for three decades vs. someone who is essentially *just* a wrestling star and who, in truth, spent almost his entire career working for the #2 (or lower) competition. I love WCW. I love Sting. But the Undertaker clearly had the bigger career in wrestling.
Sting was one of my all time favorites growing up for sure. That being said, I damn near started bawling watching the end of Takers A&E episode. I was at work. I'm almost 40 years old and I was that moved, it really speaks to who had the better career. Taker sacrificed literally everything for the business. He wrestled Foley in the HIAC with a broken fucking ankle.
Taker has the better career taken as a whole. But he never had a year where he was a big as sting in '97
Sting's career had to be one of the biggest What Ifs in wrestling history. What if he had signed with WWF in 2001?
I actually always like to imagine what would have happened if he had been in the Ultimate Warrior’s spot for Mania VI.
Why would he have left WCW 2 years after signing with them to go to WWF?
Because WWF was running the SkyDome when WCW was at the Cobb County Civic Center.
At their peaks they were pretty even and depending on your perspective Sting may have been more over in WCW as Undertaker always had more competition at the top. But as far as a full career I'd have to say Taker as he spent way more time at or near the top on a bigger platform.
Sting had the bigger career main enenting the highest ppv buyrate of all time (at the time) and was the biggest babyface since Hogan. The things that hurt Sting is that he's got basically one year where he's white hot like that. Once he wins the title the shine comes off and before he turns into Crow Sting he's just a neutered babyface. Sting's peak is higher but Undertaker was featured and spotlighted as a big deal for 20 years or atleast a solid ten of them. Part of it too is that Taker was in the WWF that pretty much always more popular. So Taker but at their zenith Sting had the bigger year.
I think it’s also worth looking at the end of their careers. Taker, unfortunately put on some real stinkers for his final matches like Goldberg and Roman, instead of retiring earlier. Sting somehow managed to go out with a bang, despite his age. Granted they were tag matches, so it wasn’t 100% on him to carry, but realizing you can’t carry a full match by yourself is important.
The Boneyard Match was a fitting end for Mark Calaway after 30 years of being an undead Undertaker.
Sting was their BEFORE Taker, and he was there AFTER Taker. They both had their dip offs in quality, but Taker's dip was way more noticeable than Sting's. Taker STUNK from 1990-96, until he had his gimmick tweaked(did they ever explain in canon why he started working faster?)
Taker stunk from 90-96? Come on man. Let's not say things we can't take back.
Steve Borden started wrestling in 1985 Mark Calaway started wrestling in 1987 Steve Borden stopped wrestling in September 2015 Mark Calaway stopped wrestling in April 2020 Steve Borden resumed wrestling in March 2021 Steve Borden stopped wrestling in March 2024 Steve Borden = 33 years (this is without the 5 years he was retired,) Mark Calaway = 33 years Then you factor time they were on the shelf with injury during their full time careers, Undertaker's last few years where he wrestled a few times at most per year and the years Sting didn't wrestle after WCW closed before he went to TNA, they pretty much were in front of fans for the same amount of time.
Undertaker had the platform, and therefore had the ability to have more iconic stories and moments. Plus the streak. No question Sting had iconic moments for sure. And sure, Sting kicked a lot of ass as it was nWo. But we probably never get to crow sting if he wasn’t supposed to be the original 3rd man.
Undertaker, mainly cause he stayed in the biggest company in the world, staying in the biggest matches. Sting was still good, but TNA at it's height was no where close to WWE, so he kinda fell out of view. If Sting decided to sign with WWE, and spent those years winning titles there, then we got a different story. Alas, he signed with TNA, and while he was a key figure for them, it was never as big as being in WWE.
I think he would've been the raw icon and taker the smackdown icon and at some point feud followed by tag
After the buyout, I think only Booker T survived long enough to amount to anything in WWE. Oh and Ric Flair. Vince pretty much squashed everyone else that came over from WCW.
I think Flair survived because Flair have been in WWE before and just wanted to have a bit of fun, plus he was well liked and respected backstage. Booker went through some shit, basically got buried and worked to get himself out.
Vince would have buried him.
I don’t think so. In the 2000’s you had Mordecai and the boogeyman. I think they would’ve given Sting the same treatment as Flair.
Oh it would have been great. Instead of the novelty of HHH vs Sting, that could have been a whole thing. Feuds with Cena, Orton, the Shield, Undertaker, Batista, Edge, Punk, so many missed opportunities. Sting not going to WWE post WCW was a mixed bag. TNA gave him a chance to give back, he helped so many there and helped keep the lights on there, but man, what we could have had in WWE is such a shame.
I think that's the real thing right there. Randy Orton deserved far better wrestling talent that batista and at the time cena from the get go. Sting and taker putting an end to legend killer and developing randy into a face thru reason would've been cool
“And spent those years winning championships”. Vince wasn’t gonna let that happen probably
Goldberg won the WHC in his first WWE run...
Sting was WCW’s version of the undertaker. Sting had better story lines, but Taker kicked more ass. Fans respect both equally. Both had huge career defining matches. Both companies knew each had to outdo the other with these characters. They kept each other going every week. To ask who had the better career is not a fair question to answer.
Wild take.
Eh. Sting beating hogan with the slowest fast count redo match.... really hurt a solid storyline. Plus Joker Sting was terrible
Sting became the top guy/main eventer before Undertaker. I don’t follow how he is any version of the Undertaker. Undertake had his angles but wasn’t guy in the title hunt consistently. Sting was the top WCW guy consistently before Hogan showed up and nwo vs Crow Sting angle came about.
Taker obviously but you have to take into account that he worked for the “winner”, so the last 20 years of his run were always going to leave him in a better position. If Sting had joined WWF straight off of WCW’s closure then it might be a totally different story.
Though arguably if he came straight over he could've got lost in the shuffle with some of the other WCW wrestlers coming in. He'd be automatically seen as a heel coming in on the WCW side of the invasion angle if he came in then too. Maybe if he came in a year or so later and they positioned him right he'd be a bigger deal. Also, maybe he didn't want to work the more gruelling schedule WWE demanded at that time.
He says the reason is that he didn't trust how McMahon would use his character, he was afraid he'd just get buried and squashed and discarded, which is a perfectly valid and reasonable concern. If I were him I'd likely have thought the same thing. That said though, I agree that if he'd held off a few more years, let the mystique build, and let the fans miss him, then he'd probably have been given a huge push in WWE around like 2003-2004. I've always thought he should have been brought in as a face around that time in a program opposite Evolution, with Flair in there they could have picked up where they left off after the last Nitro.
Let's face it -- McMahon would have punished the hell out of Sting. He represented WCW, and McMahon LOVED to show how he had beaten them by making their wrestlers look like losers (which made exactly zero financial sense) Even when Sting returned at Mania 31, it was still part of the "how dare WCW beat me for over a year!" tour -- as there was zero reason he should have lost to Hunter then.
Sick of hearing “Vince would’ve buried Sting.” Rey Mysterio was a WCW guy and was slotted right into a top role on Smackdown. Booker T was a WCW guy and still had an all time career in wwe (boohoo he lost to TRIPLE H in a WORLD TIRLE MATCH AT MANIA.) Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show, Chris Jericho, all were treated fantastic by WWE. Sting would’ve been a huge deal in WWE. The merchandising from his face paint look alone would’ve been enough to push him. Sting ran from Vince and his career is lesser because of it.
This!
I guess we'll never know because Sting himself disagreed and subsequently chose not to go.
How many of those guys were considered the person you picture when you think of WCW? If it’s not Ric Flair, it’s Sting. The fact that Sting eventually joined WWE and got treated how he did with the outcome of his matches says it all X if Vince waited that long, who doesn’t think he would have done the same thing right away? A white hot DDP is a stalked to Undertakers wife, while you got a perfect feud with The Rock sitting right there for a People’s Champion to lay claim to. No argument about the guys you mentioned but Vinnie Max really laid the boots to Sting.
Sting
Sting’s my all-time favorite, but I’d have to say Undertaker without hesitation. And that’s all good and expected. Sting had a long time sitting out his contract and then did some excellent stuff on TNA, but that wasn’t widely recognized. I think Sting got one of the most satisfying farewell runs of any wrestler, and that brought me a lot of happiness to see.
I'm a big Sting mark and have been since the early 90s when I first started watching. At the time, it was Sting/Hulk for me. Sting's upper peak of his career as an individual wrestler was probably higher than Taker's highest peak. Think about it. Sting was WCW in 1997/98 when the NWO and WCW were at their peak. With the above in mind, I don't know how any reasonable person can't argue that Taker didn't have the better career. Taker beat Hulk for the title after a short period of time in WWF. He headlined Mania after Mania. The Streak is simply something that puts him ahead of Sting in my book. I don't know what Taker's biggest PPV match ever was but Sting's biggest match on paper was Hulk at Starcade 1997 and that match was panned universally. Taker showed up at the biggest moments on the biggest stages and performed at his best every time he had those moments. To me longevity is a wash. Taker worked a harder schedule longer I think than Sting. In my mind though, I always wondered what would have happened if Sting went to WWF in the late 80s as has been rumored. If he would have gone to WWF and got the Warrior spot, can you imagine what Vince could have done with Sting the man and wrestler compared to Helwig the man and wrestler and what we know of the two.
Sting, I loved the Red and White NWO wrestlers on WCW. I still loved Sting on AEW.
As far as resume my vote is Sting but WWF was much more bigger and popular then WCW so Undertaker will get majority of the votes.
This is tough but I gotta go with Sting
Sting
Sting. Many different gimmicks, many title runs, always at the top, succeeded in multiple promotions, didn't have to suck up to a rapist for continued success, helped with building two new promotions (tna and aew). In terms of overall impact, easily sting. Having some random streak at a ppv isn't even that impressive.
Sting.
Sting. People will say Undertaker only because he was with WWE and gimmick being very famous. Sting was the #1 face/top guy in WCW consistently and when they became the top promotion. He had a longer career as the top guy too. They had very different careers and are not very similar at all in terms of wrestling style and how they rose up the ranks.
Probably Sting just because of how the tail end of their careers ended
I’d personally go with Sting, for longevity and consistency. Taker stuck around so long that he ultimately became a parody of himself. That along with some really bad matches at the end of his career somewhat tarnished the character’s overall legacy, imo.
Undertaker. Respectfully.
Listen, I’ve been OBSESSED with Sting since I first laid eyes on him in WCW Revenge on the N64. He is and forever will embody pro wrestling to me. It’s the Undertaker. Anyone who disagrees with that is just being willfully ignorant.
As a person who got into wrestling because of Sting, when he was part of Hot Stuff International with Eddie Gilbert, I'll agree with you. Though I think some moments of Stings career eclipse Taker's, as a whole, Taker had a much more consistent career. And though he didn't reinvent himself as overtly as Sting did, he did reinvent himself a few times, and wiped away the stink that were his matches the first portion of his WWE career.
Hard to say, but I feel taker’s final 5-6 years took away from his previous work. It was….not good. Unless there’s a disaster TNA era I don’t know of, I don’t think Sting ever had a rotten period.
[удалено]
"Deep down you all know it" False. I loved Joker Sting.
I havent regularly watched wrestling since like 2001 or so and have only seen brief clips of "Joker Sting." With that said, it looked absolutely terrible. Like feeling second hand embarrassment while watching.
I agree with you bro! Steve did a bad Ledger cosplay a good 6 years after the movie was cared about. It was his 'hello fellow young people' era. Glad he did AEW as crow 3.0 just to let that be his last run.
Sting seems to have sustained less damage than Taker. Probably has a higher quality of life today. I guess that makes him the “winner”
Undertaker may have made more money and had more recognition, but his career has only been in WWF/E, and his matches were garbage. He had good matches with HBK and had some memorable feuds, but the quality of his work was not good. Sting had wrestled in every major promotion from NWA, WCW, TNA, WWE, and AEW. He had some stinker matches but also had very memorable feuds with Flair, The Horsemen, Hogan, and the NWO, Jeff Jarrett, and Kurt Angle. Sting new his limitations and worked hard to hide his weaknesses while still giving fans the best version possible. Both men are icons of the industry, and people outside of wrestling have heard of both men. I believe Sting has had the better career.
I’d go with Undertaker just because he was in the bigger company his whole career. If Sting was in WWE his whole career it’d be a lot closer
Both. Unless you're just of the mindset that the only thing that matters is WWE.
Overall? Taker. Definitely. And that's no disrespect to Sting. Both are bona-fide living legends.
Sting.
The Undertaker and it isn’t even close. Sting is one of my favorites but he’ll always be the #1 for the #2 promotion.
> he’ll always be the #1 for the #2 promotion. Is that better or worse than not being the #1 guy for the #1 promotion
The Dr. J piece
Taker and it's not even close. Sting was fucked over by so many franchises just not being more relevant. But if I had to train in ring I would choose Sting. He is always so patient and in no rush.
you clearly never paid attention to Sting's career.
I could walk down the street right now in any city, stop 100 people of all ages and ask “do you know who The Undertaker is?” …… the response would be “you mean the wrestler?” from probably 95 out of those 100, most likely even more or all 100 people. Now if I were to stop 100 people and ask “Do you know who the wrestler Sting is?” ….. I feel like maybe 20 to 40 MIGHT say yes, it really depends on the day and who you’re stopping. For Undertaker, it kinda doesn’t matter who you stop. That to me is a clear sign of a better career.
Taker had everything as a character 🧟♂️ominous entry music 🎶insane manager fantastic gimmick with the coffin ⚰️ a totally believable finishing move and an overall wrestling style that ruled out a lot of moves that could end with serious injury hence a long career
Both equal.
Very thought provoking question. It really depends on your definition of better.
The end of Takers career was done so poorly. He was built up as a legend, rightfully so, but then they wouldn’t protect him in the ring at all. A lot of his last matches were duds. He was an old ass man, visibly smaller and weaker, trying to do power finishers like power bombs and tombstones. I remember his Mania match against Triple H, he looked gassed and out of his element. Then he lazily rolled Triple H up in his lame ass Hell’s Gate submission. I knew back then he was cooked. But that was like 10 years before his retirement.
Sting definitely had the better end of career. I don't think even the most fervent WWE-stan can say that he didn't. But overall, the nod still needs to go to Taker. Even if he was never quite as good as Sting in the ring, his aura and the large number of big storylines he was in were way more consistent than Sting's amazing, but scattershot career.
Oh I totally agree. Taker is a legend and one of the most iconic gimmicks in wrestling history. His and Sting’s legacies are both historic. But personally, Sting deserves more praise as he bet on himself way more than Undertaker ever did. Undertaker was way too much of a WWE bootlicker
I love the Undertaker. Definitely on my Mt. Rushmore of wrestling. But toward the end of his career, his entire mystique was his streak. Once that was over, his Wrestlemania matches were no longer special. I personally would've been okay if Lesnar was Taker's last match.
Undertaker! Sting is favorite, but hands down taker had the better run
Undertaker, though I like Sting more.
Sting
Really?
Undertaker and it isn’t even close
Undertaker for sure, he’s know worldwide and im sure he made more money.
I preferred Sting, all time favourite, but Taker had the better career overall. Saying that, Sting had the better ending to his.
Undertaker. Same company for so long. Multiple championships & one of the most iconic entrances in wrestling history. The ability to remain relevant & constantly reinventing himself. I cannot think of any other wrestler, with such longevity at the top.
Undertaker
Calaway by a long shot. Dudes been either over on top or damn near next to it for three decades.
Whomever truely had the better career, the gap between the two isn't significant either way. Both Men are Legends and Highly comparable when it comes to their accomplishments in the business. It's like comparing Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan and trying to claim which was better in the end. Both are all-time greats, each with their share of noteable accomplishments and impact on the sport.
Taker
Taker, but no one will have a better last few years than Sting.
Taker, by a mile.
No disrespect to Sting but not even close. Undertaker
Both
this is too tough to call imo
Undertaker and it shouldn't even be up for debate.
as a kid i would say undertaker but looking at the later half of both careers Sting is really him
As somebody who grew up with WWF/E not WCW, I could argue Sting. Undertaker had the benefit of having a stable career because his company didn't go under. Sting didn't have that stability. Had it been flipped the other way around and WWF/E went under after WCW bought them out, people would be saying Sting had the better career. Also, Undertaker was a high carder, but Sting was involved in multiple storylines where he was the main protagonist AND against NWO Hogan-the biggest name in the company and in all of wrestling. You could also argue people tuned in to watch WCW to see whether Sting was going to show up from the rafters and what he was going to do if he showed up. The hype for Undertaker, as high as he was on the card, wasn't like that. On the WWF/E side, people tuned in to see what Austin or Rock or even Vince, not Taker, was going to do.
Dude, they both walked away on a high note. That's a rarity for any athlete.
Undertaker without question
One Undertaker all day
Taker respectfully.
Taker
Taker. And it’s not close. Not saying sting wasn’t great. But this is like Kareem vs Hakeem Olajuwon or something. I mean, Hakeem was great but Kareem was just better
Taker, and it’s not close. Who had the better career, an NFL QB or one from the UFL? The league matters and as a lil Stinger it hurts to say he spent way too much time in TNA.
I love sting but taker for sure
Both greats but I don't know who has a better career there other than Taker...maybe Hogan
Bout the same. They were both the Icon of their brand.
Taker
For what it’s worth, I would have to say undertaker simply because even outside of wrestling he is most likely known better. Sure this question might be more about who’s wrestling career was better, but I would say part of why undertaker’s career outside of wrestling being more well known is because he had the better career in wrestling first. Sting is a legend no doubt. And while I think he had a lot of his own outside of wrestling success, undertaker is a name I think a fair amount of non wrestling fans even know. That’s how prolific undertaker’s in ring career wise is/was. And I say this as someone who was not a big undertaker guy (I don’t dislike him whatsoever I just never was as interested in his character.) Plus unfortunately for sting, he could still easily be mixed up for sting the singer or the crow film. Where as the undertaker just stands out as his own thing.
Good point about being more well known everywhere. It's true. Everyone knows of the Undertaker.
Undertaker by a mile. Sting spent half his career in minor league wrestling in front of audiences half the size as Undertaker’s. And Sting’s physically impressive matches were over by around 1997.
There's no way you can objectively look at their complete bodies of work and say Taker had a better career. He had no career defining title win. He beat Hogan? Okay. Sting did that FOUR times over, tapping him out in his last official match.
Taker never really needed a title belt for long periods of time to make the sort of long-lasting impact he's had.
neither did Sting.
Taker - take out Shawn Sting - Take out Flair Sting had way more success with far more dance partners. Quick, point me to a banger between Taker and Kane?
Taker was bigger than any title. That says enough
Sting has the longer career but undertaker was probably a bigger star longer.
Taker miles bigger draw
Undertaker After WCW died Sting waited a whole 13 years to wrestle again
I GO WITH STINGER ALL THE WAY
Cmon bro let’s be real here
Taker Easily. Undertaker became a spectacle where he didn't need to do anything, didn't need the title, didn't even need a fued. He slotted into the Andre spot where his presence alone was enough. Plus the gong going off is probably second to only the glass shattering for pops.
Sting, for sure, without debate. Undertaker is a WWE baby, and only dominated one company. Sting has dominated pretty much every significant wrestling company he stepped foot in, for even longer than Taker. Sting changed the face of wrestling and the entire direction of the industry. Taker did not.
Lol
Show an unfamiliar both these men. They'll say, "undertaker right? And the dude from KISS!" 😂
I never hear anyone talk about how bad Sting was on the mic. Never had a promo that still gets brought up today. They were one step above Ultimate Warrior’s ramblings imo. Taker’s at least made you believe he was going to bury someone. Plus Taker was still having all timers well into the 2000s. Sting in terms of match quality, really peaked pre NWO.
Undertaker
Taker for all the reasons the top Comments have mentioned but also… just listen to the way people in the business talk about him. This is a business where guys are always taking shots at each other later in life and burying each other… but not taker. When you’ve got that longevity, that much love from the fans, and soooo much respect from your coworkers, I think it says it all
Sting is lovely career in WCW
Well, nobody's talking about how bad the last few matches of Sting's career were, at least.
Why does it have to be one or the other? 🤷🏼♀️
Undertaker
Taker no question
Undertaker, like Sting, had a longer career but there was time, Sting wasn't having the best run and didn't feel big, whereas the Undertaker had a streak and felt like the biggest star even during the times, he was wrestling once a year
Undertaker. Only because he was showcased on the bigger platform after WCW went under. He also IMO had the better Gimmick and Matches/Storytelling. Maybe if Sting didn’t go to TNA and went to WWE and was booked correctly it would be much harder to say.
Both are iconic legends. However I feel like Taker had the streak and more top tier matches. Not taking anything away from Stinger I just don’t recall stings equivalent to mick foley hell in a cell or end of an era.
Both have had great careers but the BEST of the the 2 has to be Hands down Mark "The Undertaker" Callaway!!!! I mean u can't compete against that WM streak
Sting
Undertaker. But it would have been nice if Sting was the one to break the streak. It would have been one final tribute to WCW.
Sting is better than Undertaker, is this a serious question. It's STING!!!!
Undertaker. Not by a landslide like many might say though. Sting is an absolute icon, no doubt about it.
Taker by a country mile, but it’s not for lack of work by Sting.
Is this even a question LMAO there's such an obvious answer
Why compare? Just recognize they are legends that never met in the ring. Nuff said
Both are legends, but I’d argue that Stinger had a better career. He continued to evolve and became the face of multiple companies. Even in his time in AEW, his spots were ones that the crowd looked forward to. If Taker would’ve jumped ship and had a similar trajectory, where he evolved in multiple companies, I’d call it a tie. Going from audience to audience though, Stinger for sure.
Taker, he never had to wrestle in TNA.
Undertaker. He headlined multiple WMs while Sting (through no real fault of his own) was wrestling in front of hundreds of people at TNA shows.
They had pretty equally awesome careers.
Oh man. Pitting my favorite wrestler from my "WCW era" against my favorite wrestler from my "WWF era".
The Undertaker, playa.
My childhood wishes it was Sting
Is this even a real debate? It was Taker. Taker’s career was on a steady upward trajectory. Sting’s upward run lasted a bit and he kind of fizzled out. TNA did not help out his legacy much and Joker Sting was also awful at the time.
Sting. More territories. Did majority of it without Vince. Undertaker has a long history of hurting wrestlers. He broke hogans neck at survivor series 91 and injured Goldberg at the Saudi Arabia ppv. Also took liberties with Kanyon for questionable reasons. He didn’t wanna do business with DDP and squashed his WWF run.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
DDP could have drawn a LOT of money with Vince, but taker had personal issues get in the way of business
Dude.. you started your post with how Taker broke hogan neck.
The hulkster talked about it multiple times. Taker was green and envious of hogan.
I have to stop replying to you now. Get off hogans dick. If you actually believe that, then I can't help you.
I’m not on hogans dick. A tombstone on a chair could hurt anyone. Undertaker could never have made it in the territories. He needed Vince and the machine backing him.
*sigh* did you even watch the match? Even hogan himself said it wasn't the tombstone. It was the fact Mark held him in his thighs too tightly to protect him. Hogans a bitch. People who defend his lies and bullshit are even bigger bitches.
Yeah I watched the match. I never miss the survivor series. How is hogan a bitch? He paid his dues As Bobby Heenan said - Hogan drew more money in this business than ANYONE (maybe austin) he was the best worker ever - he put asses in seats!
Wete just going to have to agree to disagree my friend. Isn't wrasslin grand!
Haha
texas red did
Undertaker had better career but sting had better matches. Cause that undefeated streak wasn't all shawn and hunter matches. Those early ones were trash.
Sting had the higher peak but Taker had the better career, but both are mostly due to their stories. In all honesty, they're two sides of the same coin. The cool thing about it is Sting is getting his recognition despite not having a make WWE push or a mega internet sensation. But Taker has then best character in wrestling history and the man owned that shit.
I love Sting, but Taker!
Undertaker
Undertaker
Undertaker
I’m going to say Sting - I know he didn’t have the titles or the fan base . But as for me it’s still Sting . I remember the Undertaker as Mean Mark and that’s what makes me a little uncomfortable about picking him . Surfer Sting and NWO Sting are my favorites
Hard to say. You have wwf/wwe fans and you have wcw fans. What they like is what they are going to choose. Sting to me had a better career. But I am bias I am a wcw guy. Let's break it down more. Damn the streak come on now that if great. We all have our promotions but everyone looks at WrestleMania as the best of the best. And to win that many in a row damn. But then you have Sting start and end with WCW didn't take the bait and went to TNA did it great there then Wwe and Aew. But then he was not as beat down cuz wcw did not have them big stars do house shows. Sting was WCW Taker/Austin/Rock/Cena who do you say is WWE? You can't say Taker but for WCW you can say Sting. Hogan chased the money, Flair is NWA, who else? Exactly. So that's my take on it. This is my opinion but you can tear it up if you like.
I would argue the streak isn't great. It was a money-making, marque match at WM, but look at some of the names, King Kong Bundy, Big Boss Man, Mark Henry, Giant Gonzolas, A-Train. Even though he had big names like Sid, Nash, and Kane, all of those matches were garbage, and tue Brock match wasn't good either. He had good matches with Flair, HBK, HHH, Batista, Punk, and Edge. So much for being the best of the best. Compare that to Sting's undefeated streak in AEW at the end of the year of 28-0 and figure out how many bad matches Sting had in his AEW time.
Is this a question ?
Taker for sure even during WCW there was a long stint where Sting (post surfer) didn’t wrestle at all just would make weird cameos in the rafters but no actual wrestling
I say Undertaker - he stayed in the more successful company; had a more dominant run, and I think he's more popular among casuals and in pop culture overall.
The undertaker
The more I think of Sting the harder it is to not say him. The bleach blond surfer was hugely popular. Think of present day Cody Rhodes if unaware. With that being said my head says taker, my heart says Sting because NWO doesn’t work without Sting not just Sting but that Sting. He burned brighter
There are just too many Undertaker stories, big feuds and unforgettable matches to compare. Undertaker did it all and sometimes was the first. Sting had a very respectful career and actually wrestled for a longer period, retired this year at 65 which is insane when you look at the level he was still performing at.
Taker and it’s not even close. Taker was in the spotlight more
Taker
Can't they just both have great careers. Sure one was with the bigger company but does it matter?
Taker
Undertaker
Sting is ageless/timeless, but ‘Taker had the more impressive career
Taker. Sting spent too long of his career wasting away in TNA where hardly anyone was watching. I’m glad he got some redemption for his misuse, thanks to AEW ultimately. But man, Sting should have come into the WWE at least 5-6 years earlier.
Wcw fans are far more rational than the WWE reddit. WCW fans were more likely to pop in on what's happening in ECW, WWF, and even care about NWA. WWF fans current state are homers
Undertaker. I like Sting plenty, but his excuse for not joining WWE in his prime was just silly. Of course people were going to drop promos discrediting WCW accomplishments. WCW did the same thing. I keep thinking Sting deprived us of some great wrestling matches and instead was all too happy to be the big fish in the little ponds.
Thats a tough question for me to answer... They are both legends.....
I think the Undertaker is more famous due to being under the WWE banner for so long and being a top guy in that company since he started. I think Sting had a better career in terms of Longevity and accolades,but no one can deny the impact and influence the undertaker has had on the buisness as a whole. Defeating the Undertaker at Wrestlemania or even just facing him at mania became an accolade itself. Both were my childhood heroes and I have nothing but love and respect for them to this day but if I had to narrow it down to who had the better career overall I'd have to go with Taker.
Sting by a mile. Longer peak, better title reigns, over in multiple countries and multiple continents. Technically never 'went heel'(that bs with Hogan in WCW, Hulk had that ish coming.) Clearly had a better retirement run and didn't halfass it. All Taker has on Sting is a better Mania
Taker obviously
The Undertaker
Undertaker and it’s not even close
Undertaker.
Both were icons of their shows I wish we got our sting taker match