Why I Want to See Hulk Hogan vs. Sting at Lockdown

I want to see Hulk Hogan vs. Sting at Lockdown, and something tells me I might be the only one.

After all, a one-one-one match between Hogan, 56, and Sting, 50, would exemplify TNA’s fundamental flaw: shining the spotlight on legends l ong since past their prime...right?

Not necessarily, in my opinion.

I’ll admit that on paper, you couldn’t find a match much more ancient than Hogan vs. Sting.

Their first bout was on WCW Monday Nitro in 1995. Their first on pay-per-view was built throughout all of 1997, culminating in December, and well into 1998. Their most recent feud was in 1999, over a decade ago.

So, why, then, do I want to see Hulk Hogan vs. Sting in 2010?

Because of what I believe to be the reason why Sting turned heel.

From 1988 to 1994, Sting was the poster boy of NWA/WCW. When WCW signed Hogan in ‘94, they practically pushed Sting by the wayside. He was no longer the top babyface in the company.

It wasn’t until Hogan turned heel that Sting would again be the top babyface, but even then Hogan turning heel was so shocking it made him a bigger star than before.

Fast forward more than a decade and Sting is now the biggest name in TNA. That is, until January 4th, 2010, with the arrival of Hogan, who is basically heralded as the savior of TNA.

My theory is that Sting felt history was repeating itself—that he was once again being pushed aside for Hogan. That would explain his outburst at TNA President Dixie Carter.

Another theory is that he did it for the company. Sting may have felt that Hogan would destroy TNA like he did WCW, and wanted to take out Hogan before he could ruin the company that Sting had worked so hard to help build.

Whether or not Hogan would allow those real-life opinions to come into play is unknown, but it would make sense, and add a new level to an old feud.

The match could even be billed as “The Final Encounter,” invoking the history of their feud while promising the magnitude of its finality, something WCW never did or had the chance to do.

Would the match be great? Probably not, but the right story, the “steel cage” environment, and the likelihood that they would both bleed could add intensity to where the match lacked athleticism.

We’re in an era of wrestling that has the opportunity to utilize history to tell a greater story.

Look at the current feud between Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker. It would seem stale were it not for the 25-year career and 19-year WrestleMania winning streak on the line. They couldn’t have had this feud in 1997.

Ironically, a feud between Hulk Hogan and Sting could be fresher in 2010 than it was in 1999. All it needed was time.