Do you think Sting vs. The Undertaker should have happened, many years ago, or do you think it was best to leave a little to the imagination?

Question

And wonder what could have been.

Answer 1

Favourite answer

With the hindsight of how they handled Sting's match with Triple H at Wrestlemania, maybe it's best to let this dream match remain a dream.

Answer 2

It should of happen, but WWE was finally able to sign

Sting (Steve Borden) Triple H (Paul Michael Levesque) An WWE morons decided to have Sting lose? 

Source(s): WWE Still Sucks

Answer 3

It should of happen, could of happen, too bad it didn’t 

Answer 4

No i do not neither one needed that match

Answer 5

Best that it was left to pur imaginations. Really why would we want to see two heroes like Taker and Sting do battle when they can each turn back a different villain?

Answer 6

Personally, I would have loved to have seen Blonde, Surfer Sting vs. Mean Mark Callous in 1989 or 1990, but it never happened. I also thought I should have gotten more Road Warriors vs. The Skyscrapers Matches and The Skyscrapers vs. Rick and Scott Steiner Matches. Did we ever get to see Doom (Butch Reed and Ron Simmons) vs. The Skyscrapers Matches? How about The Samoan Swat Team vs. The Skyscrapers Matches? How about The Skyscrapers vs. The Four Horseman (Barry Windham and Sid Vicious Matches? Yes, I have a whole list of matches I would have loved to have seen in WCW.

That being said if Sting had jumped to The WWF in 1990, there is a pretty long list of Matches I would have loved to see Sting do in The WWF from 1990 to 2010 and beyond if they were going to treat him right.  Sting vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania would have been epic and The WWF would have had Sting lose in order to preserve The Undertaker's Streak. 

Answer 7

It should have happened at Mania 27 when both had their legendary status cemented. However I don't think the match would have been the epic we imagine.

Answer 8

It should have happened when they both were in their prime.