I usually don't bash postings or threads, but the notion of this one is really ridiculous. Sure, John Cena is the biggest wrestling star of today. But to even consider him on par with Hulk Hogan is a notion that cannot be taking seriously.
Hogan is, without a doubt, the biggest pro wrestling icon of all time. He put the WWF on the map back in the 80ies, he revolutionized wrestling in the 90ies by reinventing himself a solid 10 years past his prime as "Hollywood Hulk Hogan", ushering in the biggest book period that wrestling has ever seen.
The only other star who has at times been considered on par or bigger than Hogan is Steve Austin, and I tend to disagree on that for the mere reason that compared to Hogan, even Steve Austin was just a flash in the pan.
Sure, he was the spearhead of the most successful boom period of wrestling with the Attitude era, but that era could never have happened without the groundwork of Hulk Hogan (especially with the nWo paving the way to a more "raunchy" direction of the wrestling product). Also, Steve Austin was on top of the business only for a relatively short period of time - it was a brightly burning flame, but it also burned out fast. Austin was on top from 1996 - 2003 basically, with some absences in between for well-known reasons; that's pretty short compared to Hogan's 20 years on top, and even Cena's 10 now. But I digress.
For even so, Cena's popularity has not reached the levels of either Hogan or Austin's, and I would also go so far as to say that The Rock might surpass (or probably has surpassed) both men in terms of overall star power. Perhaps not if we're looking only at wrestling - from that perspective, The Rock's "high time" was also very condensed and rather short. But with his movie career really taking off, he has become a bigger "overall" entertainment star than Steve Austin and John Cena, and is giving Hulk Hogan a definite run for his money.
The argument of world titles wins is obviously ridiculous too - to ignore the fact that the booking has changed so much from the 1980ies to today is merely showing a lack of understanding in how the business works. Back in Hogan's heyday, the world champion was THE man. And he was portrayed as THE man. That was accomplished by putting the title on him - and KEEPING it on him. The champ was the champ because he was THE BEST and because HE COULD NOT BE BEATEN. So title reigns in those days were just infinitely longer than they are today; it was not until the late 90ies that title changes started to occur more often, and only in the last decade that the oft-critiqued "hot-potatoing" of titles started. So in my opinion, every single Hogan title reign is worth at least 3 of Cena's, if not more.
So those four names mentioned - Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena - I would consider the biggest US wrestling stars of the past 30-35 years, with Hogan being the biggest, simply for his unbelievable status in the eighties, his importance for ushering into a "new" era of wrestling in the nineties, his staying power and longevity.
I'd consider Steve Austin #2 for being THE biggest star of THE biggest and arguably best boom period and The Rock a very close #3, ultimately followed by John Cena on #4.
Again, this is just by looking at the "wrestling-focus". If we're talking overall media-crossovers, The Rock is definitely #2 and probably closer to #1 now than Hogan - and he's far from done, so who knows to what heights he might still go.
So in closing, and in repeating myself - to say Cena is bigger than Hogan is just plain wrong. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of anybody, no matter if it's John Cena or Hulk Hogan; but to think that John Cena is in any way a bigger star than Hogan just makes it very clear that the OP does not have much of a clue about the wrestling business and its history.