Why doesn't he deserve the honor of being the winner of a fake tournament?
Because to imply that John Cena is the greatest professional wrestler of all time is absolutely absurd. Even his biggest marks know damn well that quite a few people rank ahead of Cena on a list of the all time greats, and the Undertaker is one of them. The man has been insanely over for nearly twenty years now. Cena hasn't even wrestled as long as the Undertaker has been over. Anything Cena has accomplished, the Undertaker can match easily and you know it.
But like I said, to suggest Cena is the single greatest professional wrestler of all time is almost insulting. That's why he doesn't deserve to win this tournament LJL. Atleast not in my view. And I'm not hating on the man either, you know I'm a fan of his. But best of ALL TIME? Afraid not.
What does Undertaker do better than Cena?
Just about everything actually, aside from maybe mic skills. He's certainly a harder worker in the ring, and is one of the rare cases of a wrestler actually getting better and better as he got older. He's certainly a far better face than John Cena, because you guys seem to be forgetting the fairly large contingent of boos he receives in almost every city the WWE vists. I remember actually counting about 4 consecutive PPV world title matches he was involved in over this past fall where the crowd absolutely shit on him and cheered on his opponent for most of the match (that being Randy Orton). Sure, Cena haters criticisms are usually bullshit, but that doesn't make up for the fact that such a large chunk of the fanbase vehemently dislikes him.
I've already went through the fact that when Cena is out, ratings drop and when Undertaker is out nobody cares.
Ratings are relevant to this discussion how? Do you have any idea how high the ratings for Raw were in 1998 and 1999 LJL? I'm sure you do. Guess who was one of the big four main players of those two years? That's right, the Undertaker. He feuded with Stone Cold, the biggest wrestler on the planet, for several months and ratings kept skyrocketing. By the time around May of 1999 hit, Raw was hitting it's highest ratings in the history of the show, all of which still stand as benchmarks for the company. Want to know who was the WWF Champion from in May of that year? That's right, the Undertaker. So if you're really going to sit here and compare Cena in his prime getting measly 3.0-4.0s, is more impressive than the Undertaker being the champion of the company and one of it's main focuses when Raw would pull in fucking 7.0's and 8.0s, we can do that. If you want to talk ratings, I'd say Undertaker trumps Cena in that department rather easily.
Undertaker has only had one or two good years in his career
Straight up one of the dumbest things said in this entire tournament. One or two good years? Try about 15 years. The man is older than half of the roster (including Cena) and he's still putting on matches that win Match of the Year, as he did with Michaels last year and as Meltzer has all but already announced they will win again for this year for HBK's retirement match. Undertaker had absolutely fantastic wrestling matches from 1996 until, I don't know, about a month or two ago? Get back at me when Cena maintains that kind of consistency.
while Cena has had three or four. Your post isn't as better as any of the other Undertaker arguments I had to reply to.
So your argument for Cena winning is that he's had three or four good years? That's kind of absolutely nothing in comparison to being on top of a company for 20 fucking years and being the leader of the entire locker room as well as the most respected man probably in the entire fuckin' business of professional wrestling today.
That was an absolutely horrid post man.
