ILL HAVE TO SAY IN A WHOLE OF COURSE THE UNDERTAKER BUT HE SAID CURRENT TIME THATS CENA HANDS DOWN IN MY OPINION.UNDERTAKER HAS DONE SO MUCH HAS ACCOMPLISH MUCH MORE THAN I THINK CENA WIIL I MEAN THE WRESTLEMANIA STREAK ALONE WILL TOP ALOMOST ANYTHING CENA HAS DONE. BUT Cena right now love him or hate him is the one. at the current time see you said current time so yeah i got to go with cena on this one.
Better Career: John Cena or Undertaker
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
Xemmy
of the Le'beau family
Would it be better to say, Main Eventing while still being able to preform at a main event level. Hogan stopped being able to preform at that level a long long time ago. Bruno's career was half spent in territories.
Can't argue Flair much though. So fine- I was being overzealous.
Fine- he didn't actually win several of the matches. Alot of them involved disqualification. That seems to be missing the point. He fueded with all of them. I'd like to point out that he beat John Cena back in 2006 when Cena was the WWE champion. Though by disqualification again. Those 4 or 5 years did have some really annoying fueds, but they were still above the mid-card level, even if some of them sucked. He wasn't exactly fighting for the IC title....
This seems to be missing the point though. Admitedly I was being zealous, but my point was that the Undertaker has always been a major realistic threat to the title, like no one else in history and he has been in the ring if not beaten, at least dominated ever single man on that list. I think I left out the Rock too.
Gordon Hickenbottom
New Member
This is a question I fear cannot be answerd due to how close it is. I would love to go with Taker as in my opinion he has given so much to the industry in the past two decades. Having said that, to denie John Cena's acomplishments in such a short period of time would be absurd. I know this thread is going to be full of Taker marks giveing it the five moves of doom bull, but I am going to take a look at this subject regarding two key points.
Drawing Power
John has to take it as far as drawing power goes. This is not to say The Undertaker is not a huge draw, he is a very very big draw, especially around Wrestlemania time. However in the year 2004 when Lesner decided he could not be assed with wrestling anymore, John Cena put the company on his back around a year later. Back in the ninties Undertaker had Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage, and near the end of the decade had The Rock and a certain Stone Cold Steve Austin. Not bad in all honesty compared to what John Cena has to work with(Batista,Triple H). That is no disrespect to those wrestlers, but compared to the earlier list, they cannot compare. So as far as drawing goes, John takes this catogory becuase not only has he taken the company such a long way without such a supporting cast, but also becuase he brings in a ton load of money throguh merchindice sales and so on.
Reputation
This one I will keep short, becuase we all know the current reputation that Cena holds, especially on the internet. "HE ONLY KNWZ 5 MOVES!" etc. Althroguh that statement is complete and utter bull, it is indeed what the currect fan base(again, speaking from internet perspective) think of John Cena. Where as the Undertaker has a fantastic reputation not just here, but in the whole wwe universe. Undefeated at Wrestlemania, classics with Shawn Michaels in the current two years, and the ability to keep such a rediculous gimmick not only so current, but pretty damh good. The Undertaker has a far better repuation that John Cena, which is due also to the fact that for having been around for two decades, he is respected.
I am sure I have missed things out here, so feel free to add, debate or correct me. In conclusion I feel that this is too close to tell, becuase even throguh we should be looking at it as how it stands just now, the thought of what it will be in ten years is always looming.
This is just too close too call.
Drawing Power
John has to take it as far as drawing power goes. This is not to say The Undertaker is not a huge draw, he is a very very big draw, especially around Wrestlemania time. However in the year 2004 when Lesner decided he could not be assed with wrestling anymore, John Cena put the company on his back around a year later. Back in the ninties Undertaker had Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage, and near the end of the decade had The Rock and a certain Stone Cold Steve Austin. Not bad in all honesty compared to what John Cena has to work with(Batista,Triple H). That is no disrespect to those wrestlers, but compared to the earlier list, they cannot compare. So as far as drawing goes, John takes this catogory becuase not only has he taken the company such a long way without such a supporting cast, but also becuase he brings in a ton load of money throguh merchindice sales and so on.
Reputation
This one I will keep short, becuase we all know the current reputation that Cena holds, especially on the internet. "HE ONLY KNWZ 5 MOVES!" etc. Althroguh that statement is complete and utter bull, it is indeed what the currect fan base(again, speaking from internet perspective) think of John Cena. Where as the Undertaker has a fantastic reputation not just here, but in the whole wwe universe. Undefeated at Wrestlemania, classics with Shawn Michaels in the current two years, and the ability to keep such a rediculous gimmick not only so current, but pretty damh good. The Undertaker has a far better repuation that John Cena, which is due also to the fact that for having been around for two decades, he is respected.
I am sure I have missed things out here, so feel free to add, debate or correct me. In conclusion I feel that this is too close to tell, becuase even throguh we should be looking at it as how it stands just now, the thought of what it will be in ten years is always looming.
This is just too close too call.
Oh, come now, The Undertaker is higher up the food chain than the Carolina Panthers. I'd say maybe the Washington Redskins. Used to be good, used to be relevant, and now just a shell of what he once was.
I find it amusing people say the Undertaker because he "has a better gimmick". Really? The gimmick that was given to him as a hand-me-down because Barry Windham didn't want it is the reason the Undertaker has had a better career? I can see legitimate arguments for the Undertaker, but this isn't one of them. And neither is "numerous World titles", because John Cena has had more World titles, and held them longer. The best argument for the Undertaker is merely longevity at the top.
With that said, I think John Cena has had the better career. He's been FAR more important to the WWE than the Undertaker ever has, he's far more popular in the mainstream than the Undertaker ever has, and he's a better draw than the Undertaker ever was. He's also a better wrestler than the Undertaker, but I'm sure that will lead to a bunch of ignorant IWC keyboard warriors.
The fact is, like someone else said, there's not a single time in his 20 year history that the Undertaker can ever say he was THE top guy in the WWF/E. John Cena, on the other hand, as been the face of the WWE since 2005, and is the most popular wrestler in the WWE since Austin and the Rock left. He's the only true answer here.
Roughly 22 years. How about you? His statement about the Undertaker's streak has a lot of truth to it.
The Ministry of Darkness was during the time that Steve Austin was at the forefront of the wrestling world. Question asked and question answered.
Marky-Marc
Pre-Show Stalwart
Slyfox always puts it so elegantly. The answer is John Cena.
Not because of championships (although it helps) or longevity (if Cena does not spend his entire career with the WWE I'd be shocked) and not because of Wrestlemania streaks.
It's because John Cena is one of only a handful of people that are in an exclusive club: The I'm the Man Club!
He is the face of the WWE, has been since 2005 and will be for a very long time. He sells out arenas, unlike Taker, makes fueds more interesting, makes promos more exciting, and just sends electricity through the crowd as soon as his music hits.
If you wanna say that Taker has been on top for 20 years, i agree, and deservidly so. But Cena has been with the WWE since 2002 and Taker arrived in 1990. Who did more for the company in their first 8 years? Cena, no arguement. His championship victories have all meant something, whether it be ending a fued or a comeback tale they've all been meaningful. He also held the Title for over a year, Takers longest reign is just a few months. Cena has accomplished so much because of his career in the WWE, and it's because of his work ethic.
Taker was a bit handicapped though because of his gimmick and because he doesn't like breaking character so that hurtshis ability to grow.
But Cena's matches are more entertaining, and his character allows you to get more involved whereas Taker at this point relies on his star power. Taker is loved by all no matter what and Cena usually is 50/50.
So I'm gonna say Cena for the above reasons, and I think that all of you will agree with me once Cena is on top for 20 years also.
Not because of championships (although it helps) or longevity (if Cena does not spend his entire career with the WWE I'd be shocked) and not because of Wrestlemania streaks.
It's because John Cena is one of only a handful of people that are in an exclusive club: The I'm the Man Club!
He is the face of the WWE, has been since 2005 and will be for a very long time. He sells out arenas, unlike Taker, makes fueds more interesting, makes promos more exciting, and just sends electricity through the crowd as soon as his music hits.
If you wanna say that Taker has been on top for 20 years, i agree, and deservidly so. But Cena has been with the WWE since 2002 and Taker arrived in 1990. Who did more for the company in their first 8 years? Cena, no arguement. His championship victories have all meant something, whether it be ending a fued or a comeback tale they've all been meaningful. He also held the Title for over a year, Takers longest reign is just a few months. Cena has accomplished so much because of his career in the WWE, and it's because of his work ethic.
Taker was a bit handicapped though because of his gimmick and because he doesn't like breaking character so that hurtshis ability to grow.
But Cena's matches are more entertaining, and his character allows you to get more involved whereas Taker at this point relies on his star power. Taker is loved by all no matter what and Cena usually is 50/50.
So I'm gonna say Cena for the above reasons, and I think that all of you will agree with me once Cena is on top for 20 years also.
At this point...
Undertaker wins hands down. At least to me he does. I do not need to write a novel to back up that statement.
John Cena may have had more title reigns and probably held the title longer as far as days go. But the length of Taker's career and his Wrestlemania Streak smash what Cena has done "at this moment".
Sure, it is possible for John Cena to surpass Taker. It is actually more than likely a GIVEN. But the key in the OP is "at this moment". At this moment Undertaker is a Legend and has defeated MORE legends than Cena has.
John Cena definitely has time to make this post irrelevant, but "at this moment" there is not many that has had a better career than The Undertaker, including John Cena.
As far as longevity and relevance is concerned. Undertaker has surpassed the likes of Steve Austin, The Rock, Bret Hart, and even Shawn Michaels. So, I think "at this moment" John Cena fails horribly in comparison to "The Deadman"!!!
Undertaker wins hands down. At least to me he does. I do not need to write a novel to back up that statement.
John Cena may have had more title reigns and probably held the title longer as far as days go. But the length of Taker's career and his Wrestlemania Streak smash what Cena has done "at this moment".
Sure, it is possible for John Cena to surpass Taker. It is actually more than likely a GIVEN. But the key in the OP is "at this moment". At this moment Undertaker is a Legend and has defeated MORE legends than Cena has.
John Cena definitely has time to make this post irrelevant, but "at this moment" there is not many that has had a better career than The Undertaker, including John Cena.
As far as longevity and relevance is concerned. Undertaker has surpassed the likes of Steve Austin, The Rock, Bret Hart, and even Shawn Michaels. So, I think "at this moment" John Cena fails horribly in comparison to "The Deadman"!!!
Taker has more gimmick match types created after his gimmick than most. Hell in a Cell, Buried Alive, Casket matches, Last Ride matches. He even have a wrestler (Kane) achieve success with a gimmick created just to go against him. His Wrestlemania streak will never be matched anytime soon or ever. His ability to stay relevant after so many years is helped by his yearly breaks due to injuries or to rest up.
Cena is the definition of the current era of wrestling. Not many names can say that. In the television era only Hogan, Rock/Austin can say that. Cena has headlined Wrestlemania for years in a row after he broke through to the main event. His legacy in wrestling might not appear as stellar as Taker's in terms of creating new match gimmicks but he achieved one thing that few in wrestling ever achieved and that is being recognized by the mainstream media as a legit entertainer and not a B-grade attraction. Cena broke through that barrier that only the Rock has achieved.
Both are or will be legends in the WWE but my vote goes to Cena for the same reason as this:
Cena is the definition of the current era of wrestling. Not many names can say that. In the television era only Hogan, Rock/Austin can say that. Cena has headlined Wrestlemania for years in a row after he broke through to the main event. His legacy in wrestling might not appear as stellar as Taker's in terms of creating new match gimmicks but he achieved one thing that few in wrestling ever achieved and that is being recognized by the mainstream media as a legit entertainer and not a B-grade attraction. Cena broke through that barrier that only the Rock has achieved.
Both are or will be legends in the WWE but my vote goes to Cena for the same reason as this:
Marky-Marc said:
MattMorrison
Dark Match Winner
Is this a joke? I don't mean any disrespect to the person who created this poll, but Cena's career is far from being over. The Undertaker has ruled the WWE for twenty years now and has proven that he is one of the greatest superstars that the business will ever have the privilege of seeing. If this discussion was taking place in approximately five years, then maybe there would be more ground to argue for John Cena. I believe Cena is the most talented and charismatic entertainer in the WWE today, but he needs time to become what he is capable of doing.
mrbrownstone
Fucking Hostile
It's close but Cena should get it here. He is the face of his generation and has been for years, a feat The Undertaker has never been able to lay claim to in his 20 plus year main event run. Taker has always been consistently in the main event getting good pops/heat but he has never been the guy which is kind of sad when you think about it, he has been around so long but WWE never showed enough faith in him to rest the company completely on him.
Cena on the other hand is the guy in the WWE, the undisputed top draw and this will be the case for the foreseeable future. He has had 9 title reigns in just five years, including a year long title reign, he has been in title matches at the last 7 Wrestlemania's winning six of them. He has had amazing feuds, matches and promos and has accomplished more in a five year span than Taker has in his entire career. When it comes down to it this is similar to comparing Hogan to Savage or Austin to The Rock, they are both great superstars but one was just that much better, this is the same thing.
Cena on the other hand is the guy in the WWE, the undisputed top draw and this will be the case for the foreseeable future. He has had 9 title reigns in just five years, including a year long title reign, he has been in title matches at the last 7 Wrestlemania's winning six of them. He has had amazing feuds, matches and promos and has accomplished more in a five year span than Taker has in his entire career. When it comes down to it this is similar to comparing Hogan to Savage or Austin to The Rock, they are both great superstars but one was just that much better, this is the same thing.
Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
It's an interesting question and I think it depends on a lot of things.
John Cena is the overall face of pro wrestling in America right now. Hate on the guy all you want, but it's the rock hard truth. Cena has definitely been more of a force in getting out there and pushing the WWE than The Undertaker has. Cena is a far more family friendly sort of character than Taker, Cena gets tapped to work lots of charities, Cena goes on all the talk shows, goes on the radio a lot, grants tons of wishes for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Basically, John Cena is the Hulk Hogan of the new millenium.
The Undertaker is and always will be just a wrestling guy. He's never really been interested in doing movies or being on tv shows. I've never really seen any footage of Taker being at any autograph signings, charitable events or any of that stuff. One huge reason is because it just simply doesn't fit his character. The WWE has done more to protect the image of Taker as a character than they have for any other wrestler on their roster probably since Hulk Hogan. Taker is a wrestler and I believe that a lot of fans do really just respect that.
For me, I'm gonna have to go with The Undertaker just because of sheer personal preference. He's been a huge star in the WWE for 20 years now and has had the kind of longevity as part of a huge wrestling company that most other wrestlers can only dream about. When I think of The Undertaker, I think of a true staple of wrestling. Somebody that's been against every huge, major name star in America for over 20 years. He's basically done it all with everybody that's mattered.
I can't blame anyone for going with Cena, but I just simply like Taker more.
John Cena is the overall face of pro wrestling in America right now. Hate on the guy all you want, but it's the rock hard truth. Cena has definitely been more of a force in getting out there and pushing the WWE than The Undertaker has. Cena is a far more family friendly sort of character than Taker, Cena gets tapped to work lots of charities, Cena goes on all the talk shows, goes on the radio a lot, grants tons of wishes for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Basically, John Cena is the Hulk Hogan of the new millenium.
The Undertaker is and always will be just a wrestling guy. He's never really been interested in doing movies or being on tv shows. I've never really seen any footage of Taker being at any autograph signings, charitable events or any of that stuff. One huge reason is because it just simply doesn't fit his character. The WWE has done more to protect the image of Taker as a character than they have for any other wrestler on their roster probably since Hulk Hogan. Taker is a wrestler and I believe that a lot of fans do really just respect that.
For me, I'm gonna have to go with The Undertaker just because of sheer personal preference. He's been a huge star in the WWE for 20 years now and has had the kind of longevity as part of a huge wrestling company that most other wrestlers can only dream about. When I think of The Undertaker, I think of a true staple of wrestling. Somebody that's been against every huge, major name star in America for over 20 years. He's basically done it all with everybody that's mattered.
I can't blame anyone for going with Cena, but I just simply like Taker more.
Its got to be the undertaker, there are not many people who dislike the undertaker or have got bored of him in his many years in the company, John cena has been in WWE for what? 8 years? and most people apart from little kids who didn't watch older wrestling have got tired of him.
Tired0FthePeople
Defender of the Universe
Im going to leave title reigns out of it because that has nothing to do with who’s had the better career between these two. Takers character isn’t crafted for title reigns in the same way that, say, Rock’s character is. Undertake has never been THE face because Stone Cold, Rock and (to a lesser extent but still there) HBK were there.
Id be interested to see how John Cena’s career would have evolved if he’d come up during the same era Taker did. But, there is no way to know.
Since Cena won his first world title 6 years ago, he’s main evented every wrestlemania since: either as the champion or chasing it. Not a single other superstar has main evented (for a title) 6 straight Manias in this time frame. Now…what does this mean? That’s what everyone has to ask themselves, what does this say to you? Does it mean that he MUST be better than Taker because Taker’s 18 straight Wrestlemanias have been often times lower on the card? All I know is, in the middle of headlining all those Mania’s Cena started to get booed out of arena’s. (and wasn’t even a heel) But, he doesn’t get booed nearly as much now.
Most everything in wrestling is scripted and I think its obvious Cena has had the better scripted career over his first 8 years. He’s been scripted to beat the other superstars of his error. He’s been scripted to hold championship multiple times. Again, he’s always in the main event match at wrestlemania. Often times the general public (for the most part) hated the site of him, other times he was cheered for quite admirably.
But if you asked Cena if his career has been better than Takers, what do you think Cena would say? And Im not talking about some humble shit, I mean what do you think his honest feelings would be of that question?
In another 10 years there is a very good chance we (by ‘we’ I mean the people who voted for taker) could look back and say Cena has had the better career. Undertaker right now just epitomizes legacy and pro wrestling legend right now. Someone used a Stan Staziack comparison . But Staziack is no Undertaker and its silly to use Staziack to try to make a point about Undertaker.
Id be interested to see how John Cena’s career would have evolved if he’d come up during the same era Taker did. But, there is no way to know.
Since Cena won his first world title 6 years ago, he’s main evented every wrestlemania since: either as the champion or chasing it. Not a single other superstar has main evented (for a title) 6 straight Manias in this time frame. Now…what does this mean? That’s what everyone has to ask themselves, what does this say to you? Does it mean that he MUST be better than Taker because Taker’s 18 straight Wrestlemanias have been often times lower on the card? All I know is, in the middle of headlining all those Mania’s Cena started to get booed out of arena’s. (and wasn’t even a heel) But, he doesn’t get booed nearly as much now.
Most everything in wrestling is scripted and I think its obvious Cena has had the better scripted career over his first 8 years. He’s been scripted to beat the other superstars of his error. He’s been scripted to hold championship multiple times. Again, he’s always in the main event match at wrestlemania. Often times the general public (for the most part) hated the site of him, other times he was cheered for quite admirably.
But if you asked Cena if his career has been better than Takers, what do you think Cena would say? And Im not talking about some humble shit, I mean what do you think his honest feelings would be of that question?
In another 10 years there is a very good chance we (by ‘we’ I mean the people who voted for taker) could look back and say Cena has had the better career. Undertaker right now just epitomizes legacy and pro wrestling legend right now. Someone used a Stan Staziack comparison . But Staziack is no Undertaker and its silly to use Staziack to try to make a point about Undertaker.
BK Styles
Certified Nerd
It depends. On drawing power, I would say Cena is on another level. Not just to Taker, but to anyone.
But Taker has earned something through his career that Cena can only dream of. Respect. Whether you love him, hate him, think the gimmick is cheesy or that he's only around for the streak now, everyone respects who Taker is. Sure, people respect Cena and how hard he works for the company, but nowhere near in the same way as the Dead Man. WWE have shown how much they respect him by allowing him to have the reduced schedule he has, and how he is THE MAN at Wrestlemania. They wouldn't do that for many people. Hell, HHH has a very mixed record at WM, with around 8 wins to 4 losses.
Like I said, it depends; it depends on how you value it. Personally, all the millions in the world that Cena has generated comes nowhere to the amount of respect and popularity that Mark Callaway has earned over the years. So for me, its Taker.
But Taker has earned something through his career that Cena can only dream of. Respect. Whether you love him, hate him, think the gimmick is cheesy or that he's only around for the streak now, everyone respects who Taker is. Sure, people respect Cena and how hard he works for the company, but nowhere near in the same way as the Dead Man. WWE have shown how much they respect him by allowing him to have the reduced schedule he has, and how he is THE MAN at Wrestlemania. They wouldn't do that for many people. Hell, HHH has a very mixed record at WM, with around 8 wins to 4 losses.
Like I said, it depends; it depends on how you value it. Personally, all the millions in the world that Cena has generated comes nowhere to the amount of respect and popularity that Mark Callaway has earned over the years. So for me, its Taker.
Similar threads
- Poll