[Long winded, unnecessary babble about pictures in a post and the OP's opinion, etc. etc...] Just to give you a polite heads up, it's not an opinion if you don't have an argument to back it up, plain and simple.
Sorry to inform you of this, but an opinion is just that, an opinion. You don't have to have an argument to back it up, that's why the word "argument" is a different one. Opinion is opinion, without any reason. Argument or debate is what should be supported by facts and such. So if you're going to bash somebody, please make better sense.
Yes, there is no denying that Hulk Hogan and John Cena's strong suits do not lie in the reliability of a vast repertoire of moves. You will not see them executing planchas and hurricanranas that is true. They're not going to be at the level of a Bret Hart where they use every wear down move in the book. However to argue your less than open minded point, I've seen matches where Hogan and Cena have both stepped outside their showman role and have been able to pull off a few moves (See some of Hogan's matches against Kurt Angle, his stuff in Japan, and even the Rock and Hogan match showed him step outside the big boot, body slam, leg drop act, and Cena's shown his own against guys like Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle) you might not typically associate with either wrestler and make no mistake both men still deserve that status as a wrestler even if they don't fit your expectations of what a wrestler should be.
Ok, here at the beginning, you say there's no denying, etc. etc. which means you got the OP's point. Then at the end you say "if they don't fit your expectations, etc. etc." which, again, is the point of "opinion". Hence more contradiction and muddling of your own definitions. That's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. Personally, I like Cena, never liked Hogan (and yes, I was a kid and grew up in the "Hogan" era) so I'll just comment on Hogan instead of Cena, and I'll try put it as best I can. I agree Hogan was a great gimmick, horrible WRESTLER (OH, NO, I JUST SAID "WRESTLER" TOO, HULKAMARKIACS UNITE!). I will say that what you were describing was a good SHOWMAN. Hogan was a terrible wrestler, but had great "showmanship". There's a difference. He lumbered around the ring like a drunken bear and honestly the only Hogan matches I can barely recall any in-ring action about was his match w/Andre and w/Warrior.
That being said, you spoke of a couple of matches you could count on one finger showing his "wrestling abilities". Why bother when he was more noted for his "showmanship"? I mean, growing up as a kid in the 80's, I didn't have a readily available outlet for seeing Hogan's matches in Japan and only knew him from the tv and matches my "opinion" is being based on. It would also be ridiculous to fault a kid for not knowing all of that info back then anyway so, going with what was known, there's not much of a reason for somebody to spend time digging up a match or two of Hogan in Japan if 98% of his work was the stuff I disliked in the first place. Plus I'm sure it wasn't that spectacular to change my attitude completely anyway.
I'd even dare say despite how controversial it might be to say that both men are good wrestlers, why I say this? Well in my opinion, no one in theory is going to make it to the level of both these men without knowing the fundamentals of the sport.
Um, no one is going to make it anywhere without knowing the "fundamentals of the sport". Hell, whether you're Hogan, Cena, Warrior, Joe Shmoe in FCW, Frankie Williams, or any other jobber through the years, you're still not going to make it unless you know the fundamentals, so not sure where you're going with this observation. Plenty of guys that knew the fundamentals still never got very far, and just knowing the fundamentals doesn't make you a "good wrestler". It gives you the basic knowledge to begin a possible career path in that field, it doesn't mean you're good in that field. I know of ball players that knew fundamentals, but you wouldn't necessarily hear of them being good ball players. You can have the fundamentals to start a business, but that doesn't make you a good businessman. So going by that simple statement doesn't refute the OPs opinion.
While I personally can't stand Cena's persona and I just don't care for his act at all, I have a respect for his athletic ability and give him credit for what he can do in the ring, even if he does not appeal to me. In Hogan's case, say what you want about moves like the Leg Drop but the guy was a superhero character performing in a pre-determined outlet like wrestling, sometimes you just have to throw realism out the window and accept that it's the nature of the game. Sure the Leg Drop was a silly move in many respects and I prefer more of Hogan's matches that ended in submission and more power based moves (Next time you want to make an argument you best go back and watch some of Hogan's older matches in his pre-Hogan persona, there's no excuse to not be able to find them with YouTube these days).
Bottom line, great idea in concept for a thread but it's dreadfully poor in its execution. Unless you yourself have ever laced up a pair of boots, and put yourself through the same physical exertion that it takes to be a professional wrestler, I'd be very careful on how you choose to criticize the workers in the business. I can respect if you think Hogan and Cena are both bad, but you better give an argument next time. Because in my opinion, your opinions were anything but opinions. Next time give us some weight and argument don't just state it and use a couple of cute little pictures with a few words to illustrate your point. Because you have done nothing to convince me that you've made an opinion at all.
So you don't care for Cena but respect his athletic ability. Ok. Respecting people's athletic ability and considering them "good wrestlers" are two different things. Case in point, I like Ken Anderson. I respect his athletic ability and think he's a "good wrestler", but there are multitudes of people that don't consider him a "good wrestler". That's called opinion. And what about Miz? People say he's a "horrible wrestler". Does that mean they're wrong? To them, no. They don't like his in-ring work and consider it "bad". Are they wrong in saying that? No. I can see where they could formulate that idea but again, I like the guy's work ethic and showmanship, so I find him entertaining to watch, and would classify him as decent. A little green still, sure, but decent. I don't dislike his matches like I did Hogan's. But again, my opinion doesn't make him a "good" wrestler, either.
The point is, you're saying the OP's "opinions", since they don't contain detailed "arguments", are not opinions. That's just ludicrous. I think you might want to re-evaluate your definitions of certain terms. I can have the "opinion" that a certain movie sucks. I don't have to explain that "opinion" necessarily, but if I do, then I am "supporting my opinion". If further argument/discussion supports an opinion, then the basic idea of what I'm saying is exactly that, my opinion, and I'm just further explaining it. To not explain it is not "lacking an opinion".
And as for the topic? I believe I made my opinion clear in what I wrote. I think Hogan was a great example. Will I look up his work on Youtube? No. I don't see the point because he does not interest me enough to do so. But like I said above, he definitely didn't have me glued to the chair to watch his in-ring ability in the matches and the federation that solidified his popularity and what he is noted for, which is why I would still pick him as a good example.
Another good gimmick/bad wrestler? Even though I liked him back in the day, I'd go with Warrior. Yeah, his persona, energy, and showmanship took him to the top of the mountain back in the day but his wrestling ability? I have to say that there's so many times you can shake the ropes and use clotheslines and slams without becoming old hat.
ugh
