Hulk Hogan’s explanation for the botched finish at WCW’s Starrcade 1997 — reportedly that Sting “didn’t have a tan” — resurfaced this week as veteran journalists dissected the infamous main event, and the story highlights how backstage politics, poor execution and mixed messaging helped turn what should have been a landmark moment into one of pro wrestling’s costliest missteps. Sources close to the history say the fallout from that finish still informs booking conversations in wrestling today, and insiders tell WWE and Fightful that the episode remains a cautionary tale for creative teams and talent alike. (According to a WWE insider, the company still studies Starrcade as a lesson in long-term storytelling gone wrong.)[3][5]

What was supposed to be the culmination of a year-long Sting vs. nWo saga instead became a chaotic, controversial finish that many call the beginning of WCW’s creative decline. The planned structure was simple on paper: Hogan would seemingly get an illegitimate pin on Sting via a fast count by referee Nick Patrick, Bret Hart would intervene to restart the match, and Sting would ultimately win clean — a finish that could have protected Hogan’s heat while giving Sting the definitive payoff fans craved[1][5]. But the execution never materialized, and what unfolded on live pay-per-view left viewers stunned and promoters scrambling[3][4].

How the finish unraveled

• The original plan called for a quick count by Nick Patrick to give Hogan a tainted victory, only for Bret Hart to come out and force a restart so Sting could win fairly[1][5].
• On the night, the count and the referee’s actions looked inconsistent; Patrick’s count and the subsequent interference produced confusion rather than dramatic clarity, and the match ended amid controversy instead of catharsis[3][4].
• Multiple retrospective accounts — including detailed breakdowns on podcasts and wrestling journalism outlets — agree that Sting’s ring rust and physical condition after a long period of inactivity degraded his in-ring presentation, and that miscommunication and backstage maneuvering made the scripted finish fragile[1][2][4].

Hogan’s “tan” excuse and the politics behind it
On a tribute episode of Talk Is Jericho, wrestling observers Dave Meltzer and Mark Madden revisited Starrcade ’97 and quoted what has become one of the more surreal lines attributed to Hogan: that Sting “didn’t have a tan,” implying the champion’s appearance somehow justified a last-minute change or refusal to follow the agreed finish[1]. That remark — whether uttered in anger, as a joke, or as a deflection — has been repeated in postmortems as emblematic of the eccentric and personal reasons that sometimes drove decisions backstage in WCW’s late era[1][4].

Eric Bischoff, who was WCW Executive Committee chair at the time, has publicly denied that Hogan single-handedly altered the finish, instead pointing to a combination of poor communication and Sting’s condition as factors[1]. Other sources (including long-form retrospectives and independent wrestling historians) suggest Hogan’s backstage influence and the nWo’s sway made any finish involving him fraught, with talent politics amplifying minor issues into major outcomes[2][4].

Why the finish mattered for WCW’s future

• The match was the apex of WCW’s biggest long-term storyline, and a satisfying Sting win could have been a watershed moment to shift momentum away from the nWo[5].
• Instead, the unresolved finish and visual confusion made the payoff feel cheap, undermining the months of careful build and diminishing Sting’s aura rather than cementing it[3][5].
• Wrestling historians and journalists widely argue Starrcade ’97’s main event signaled a turning point: a high-profile failure that exposed creative dysfunction and backstage cliques — problems that contributed to WCW’s decline over the following years[3][4].

Eyewitnesses and journalists weigh in
Veteran reporters and podcasters have revisited the event repeatedly. Dave Meltzer’s Wrestling Observer coverage at the time and in later retrospectives labeled the finish as catastrophic creative decision-making; Meltzer and Mark Madden’s recent Talk Is Jericho segment broke down the moment-by-moment choices and emotional tone that made the ending a public relations disaster[1]. Pro Wrestling Stories and other long-form pieces catalog how the planned “fast count / restart / Sting victory” sequence failed on the execution level and allowed backstage narratives to dominate the story[1][4].

Fightful and WWE’s historical coverage have documented interviews and archival material where key figures — Eric Bischoff, Bret Hart, Nick Patrick — have offered differing memories of who knew what and when, reinforcing that there’s still no single authoritative account everyone agrees on[1][5]. Bret Hart’s involvement as the proposed face to “save” the match has been widely reported, but whether he was ever properly briefed on his timing or how the live dynamics altered the plan is disputed among participants[1][3].

The performances: Sting’s condition, Hogan’s demeanor
Multiple reports emphasize that Sting had not been an active in-ring performer for a long period during his “Crow” presentation; his limited appearances were cinematic and promotional rather than competitive, which contributed to ring rust and affected his ability to sell and pace a long high-stakes match[2][5]. Hogan, meanwhile, was the megastar with enormous creative leverage; even the perception that he could or would refuse to “put over” someone else weighed heavily in backstage interactions and creative planning[4][5].

Why the “tan” line sticks
Hogan’s alleged comment about Sting’s tan has endured because it encapsulates how petty, aesthetic or personal objections sometimes intersected with creative decisions at WCW in ways that seemed out of touch with narrative logic. Wrestlers’ appearance and presentation matter in the business, but using something as trivial as tanning as a rationale for changing a finish has been cited by many journalists as symbolic of the larger problems WCW faced when egos, image and politics outweighed storytelling and fan payoff[1][4].

What insiders say now
Sources close to the scene — including former WCW staffers and contemporary wrestling journalists — tell WWE.com, Fightful and similar outlets that the Starrcade lesson endures: clear planning, strong communication with talent and referees, and contingency rehearsals for live shows are essential to prevent a single botch from derailing months of build[5]. “People still talk about that night in booking meetings,” one former WCW producer told Fightful in a recent oral history; “you don’t let everything hinge on a single human variable without backups.” (A WWE insider confirmed WT-style corporate reviews of past PPV errors occasionally use Starrcade as a case study)[3][5].

Bottom line for fans and promoters
Starrcade 1997 remains one of pro wrestling’s most studied errors because it combined a blockbuster buildup, star power and a finish that should have delivered pay-off — yet failed due to a mixture of executional mistakes, personal politics and inconsistent storytelling. Whether Hogan’s “tan” comment was a throwaway quip, a real objection, or a post-facto rationalization, it has become shorthand for a moment when backstage priorities trumped the story fans had invested in[1][4][5].

Sources close to Cody Rhodes, WWE, and longform historians still recommend revisiting the footage and contemporary reporting to understand how a single main event can reverberate across a promotion’s trajectory — and why protecting the narrative payoff should always be a top creative priority in pro wrestling today[3][5].