Along the lines 10 years ago of the argument of some over what year was the new millennium, 2000 or 2001, what is the wrestling philosophy over what year a decade ends, the 9 year or the 0 year? If it is the 0 year, an interesting scenario could develop in the year 2011. Both Undertaker and Sting won their first world championship in 1990, which could be determined to have been the conclusion of a decade. That would mean that there could be a competition between the 2 to become only the second wrestler (Lou Thesz being the other) to win a world championship in 4 separate decades. If it is marketable, I'm sure the promoters will consider the 0 to end the decade.
Here are some more thoughts from a demented mind in Central Florida: I hate to rain on your parade, because it's an interesting point you pose. However, last I checked, 'Taker didn't win a world title until winning the WWF World Title from Hulk Hogan at Survivor Series in 1991. Are you counting his USWA Unified World Heavyweight Championship reign? (I'm ass/u/m(e)-ing not, since that happened in '89, and you referred to his first world championship as being in '90.)
Sting, however, might just qualify. But I don't know if he has enough gas left in the tank to pull it off.
Why yes, I am both a musician and a lawyer. Thanks for asking. :)
I think during the "new" Monday Night Wars, if you want to dignify them with the word "wars", Vince proved to everyone's satisfaction that it didn't really matter what RAW showed against Impact-- a tag-team match between four midcarder...