Fourth Round: TLC - The Rock vs. John Cena

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The Rock lost at Mania 15 because in one on one Mania main events the face always gets the win to send the fans home happy. The only time a heel wins the main event at Mania is when there is a massive betrayal and a lot of interference. At 16 and 17 The Rock lost due to that massive amounts of interference. Without that interference both are matches he most likely would have won.

If you want to talk about big match victories, kayfabe wise there was none bigger then the 2001 Survivor Series. If team WWF lost then they'd lose control of the entire company. There is no match bigger then that. Who was chosen to lead team WWF? The Rock. Who was the sole survivor and kayfabe wise saved the entire company? The Rock. You can throw all that big match bullshit to the side because Rocky has won plenty of big matches.

You forgot to mention Angle hitting Austin with the title belt giving WWF the win. If you're going to dismiss some of my arguments because of interference, then I'm going to dismiss yours because of the same reason.

 

[Kcorthe]

I am a fan of both guys, but honestly, The Rock would win this one. John Cena has been a big star for a longer period of time, but Rock became a BIGGER star in a SHORTER amount of time. No one has ever achieved so much in so little time as The Rock. In just two or three years' time, Rock cemented himself as one of the greatest of all time. No one could say that The Rock is not at least in the Top 5 of all time in terms of overall success, and many would argue he is in the Top 3, right behind Austin and Hogan. I am so sick of reading all of the time on these forums that "Rock is nothing without Steve Austin," blah blah blah. Yeah, Stone Cold was the main guy responsible for saving the WWF in the late 1990s, but guess what? You guys act like Austin was the only thing keeping the WWF afloat, and if that was true, then his absence in 2000 would mean that the WWF would start to sink without him,m but guess what? The Rock swooped in, took over, and gave the WWF its best financial year ever up to that point.

I've explained all of the Austin/Rock stuff in greater detail before in another thread, and I don't feel like writing it all out again. Here's the link: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?p=1859050#post1859050 , it basically will tell you how The Rock is on the same level as Steve Austin. It would be ignorant to think otherwise. Now, onto Cena. Cena is great, I like the guy, but he just can't stand up to The Rock. Here's why:

Drawing Power Sure, John Cena is the biggest draw the WWE has had for a few years now, but even if that is true, Cena is not able to draw even half of the ratings that The Rock was drawing weekly. Someone mentioned it earlier above me, but The Rock was apart of the highest rated segment in WWE/F history (and guess what? IT didn't involve Stone Cold either). Rock was also apart of an era where nearly every RAW he went to was sold out, where as these days some PPVs don't even sell out.

Accomplishments Some people have given the edge to Cena in this category, and its hard for me to argue that. The only thing I could say is that The Rock was apart of the Attitude Era, in which Titles switched hands way more often that they did in 2006-2007, when Cena held the Belt for a year on RAW, and Randy Orton held it for 7 months after that. After Orton, in 2008, Triple H held the Belt for nearly 8 months. Clearly, during this time, people held the Belt for much longer. I will also point out that since Cena's year-long reign, he has had a few reigns that lasted only 3 weeks, and the longest he's held the Belt since the year-reign is 3 months. Also I will point out, again, the drawing power is during all of Cena's reigns, not a single one of them drew the kind of ratings The Rock drew as the Champion or the challenger.

The TLC Ruling I find it quite ridiculous that people say Cena has the advantage in this match because of the TLC stipulation. "Oh, but Cena beat Edge in a TLC Match before!" To that I say so what? What is a TLC Match, really, other than just a glorified ladder match, of which Rock has competed (and won) plenty. Add in chairs and tables, of which Rock has also plenty of experience. Consider also that Rock was apart of the bloodthirsty Attitude Era, which was a much more violent and weapons-oriented time period than John Cena is used to. Hell, in nearly any given Rock match you could expect at least one table or chair spot in the match. Even if Cena has wrestled for a longer time than The Rock, I believe Rock has much more gimmick match experience. Think about this: during some of Mankind's best years, in the late 90s, Rock beat him several times for the WWF Title, in SEVERAL matches that included tables, ladders, and chairs. Foley is the hardcore legend, and Rock beat him plenty of times. In fact, Rock even beat Mankind in a LADDER match. Meanwhile, John Cena lost a TABLES match to a ROOKIE named Sheamus. Hmmm....also you might ask some of Rock's rivals, such as Shamrock, Steve Austin, Triple H, and especially Mankind what Rock is able to do with a CHAIR. Rock has proven to be deadly with a steel chair in his hands, he has Rock Bottomed countless people through tables, and I am pretty sure he is more than capable of climbing a fucking ladder. The argument of "TLC favors Cena" is such bullshit its not even funny.

Kayfabe: Who was better? Its obvious that Cena has beaten the best of his era, and The Rock has beaten the best of his era. Cena's victims include: Triple H & HBK (both of which, out of prime), Orton, Batista, Edge, Big Show, JBL. Among Rock's victims are Steve Austin, Undertaker (whom Cena has never beaten), Mankind, Triple H (in his prime, IMO), Kane (in his prime), Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, Jericho, and countless others. Also on Rock's list are Flair and Hogan, and yes I realize neither of them were in their prime during their defeats, but it was STILL Flair and Hogan, who even out of their prime have to be considered a major threat (2002 in both cases). Hogan also won the World Title from Triple fucking H a month AFTER The Rock beat Hogan, so it has to count for something. Basically, Cena's list is damn impressive, but Rock's list just crushes it, in my opinion. I really fail to see how anyone could say Cena's list is more impressive. Rock has beaten bigger names than Cena, no comparison as far as I'm concerned.

In the end, Cena is a great wrestler and would put up a great fight, but there's just no way that The Rock would lose here. Rock has proven to be a vicious, aggressive wrestler (see Foley), and has won all kinds of gimmick matches, including Ladder matches as well as Table Matches (of which Cena lost the WWE Title to a rookie just recently). Rock is the right choice here.

Vote Rock.

 

[Coco]

I am a fan of both guys, but honestly, The Rock would win this one. John Cena has been a big star for a longer period of time, but Rock became a BIGGER star in a SHORTER amount of time. No one has ever achieved so much in so little time as The Rock. In just two or three years' time, Rock cemented himself as one of the greatest of all time. No one could say that The Rock is not at least in the Top 5 of all time in terms of overall success, and many would argue he is in the Top 3, right behind Austin and Hogan. I am so sick of reading all of the time on these forums that "Rock is nothing without Steve Austin," blah blah blah. Yeah, Stone Cold was the main guy responsible for saving the WWF in the late 1990s, but guess what? You guys act like Austin was the only thing keeping the WWF afloat, and if that was true, then his absence in 2000 would mean that the WWF would start to sink without him,m but guess what? The Rock swooped in, took over, and gave the WWF its best financial year ever up to that point.

Which he did while riding the success that Austin built for him.

Do you think Rock could have reached those heights without Austin? I sure don't. Because the WWF would still have been on death's doorstep.

Drawing Power Sure, John Cena is the biggest draw the WWE has had for a few years now, but even if that is true, Cena is not able to draw even half of the ratings that The Rock was drawing weekly. Someone mentioned it earlier above me, but The Rock was apart of the highest rated segment in WWE/F history (and guess what? IT didn't involve Stone Cold either). Rock was also apart of an era where nearly every RAW he went to was sold out, where as these days some PPVs don't even sell out.

Ratings are one thing, but to say they're a raw indication of Rock's drawing power is misleading when, as I said earlier, he rode the momentum that Austin built for his supporting cast. Cena, despite faltering ratings and attendance, brought WWE its best financial year ever as the top dog AFTER business had died. Cena brought the WWE to new heights without Steve Austin's momentum to ride. That, in my opinion, is the greater accomplishment. And if you're going to pretend Rock's great financial year is a big deal, you have to concede that Cena's is a bigger deal.

Accomplishments Some people have given the edge to Cena in this category, and its hard for me to argue that. The only thing I could say is that The Rock was apart of the Attitude Era, in which Titles switched hands way more often that they did in 2006-2007, when Cena held the Belt for a year on RAW, and Randy Orton held it for 7 months after that. After Orton, in 2008, Triple H held the Belt for nearly 8 months. Clearly, during this time, people held the Belt for much longer.

Liar. On SmackDown when Cena was the man, the belt was going from Rey to Booker to Dave to Taker to Edge to Khali and so-on while Cena dominated the scene. While Triple H had that lengthy reign, the other belt went from Taker to nobody holding it to Edge to Punk to Jericho to Batista than back to Jericho and eventually to Cena.

The fact is, belts jumping from person to person was just as fashionable as it was in the late 90s. But a few men were able to stand above the rest and be real champions. Cena was the realest.

I will also point out that since Cena's year-long reign, he has had a few reigns that lasted only 3 weeks, and the longest he's held the Belt since the year-reign is 3 months.

Until Rock has a reign like Cena's longest, this doesn't matter. At all.

Also I will point out, again, the drawing power is during all of Cena's reigns, not a single one of them drew the kind of ratings The Rock drew as the Champion or the challenger.

Yet Cena's put more money in Vince McMahon's pocket than Rock ever did. Funny how that works out.

Consider also that Rock was apart of the bloodthirsty Attitude Era, which was a much more violent and weapons-oriented time period than John Cena is used to.

Oh, good. Another person who didn't actually read the thread.

Hell, in nearly any given Rock match you could expect at least one table or chair spot in the match. Even if Cena has wrestled for a longer time than The Rock, I believe Rock has much more gimmick match experience.

Add up Cena's I Quit matches, his Last Man Standing matches, his Street Fights, his Parking Lot Brawls, his cage matches, his HIAC matches, his Elimination Chamber matches, his First Blood matches, and other general multi-man matches where there were no rules. While you do that, I'll be laughing at how ass-hatted your beliefs are.

Think about this: during some of Mankind's best years, in the late 90s, Rock beat him several times for the WWF Title, in SEVERAL matches that included tables, ladders, and chairs. Foley is the hardcore legend, and Rock beat him plenty of times. In fact, Rock even beat Mankind in a LADDER match.

Cena's also picked up a decisive win over Foley in a match with no rules. Fact is, everyone's taken three seconds worth of a ride on Mick Foley.

Meanwhile, John Cena lost a TABLES match to a ROOKIE named Sheamus.

In undecisive fashion. Rock won't be able to pin Cena after such a move.

Hmmm....also you might ask some of Rock's rivals, such as Shamrock, Steve Austin, Triple H, and especially Mankind what Rock is able to do with a CHAIR.

Do I also get to ask Steve Austin how Rock's big win over him was in his first real match in months where he had tonnes of ring rust to work through?

Do I get to ask Hunter how Rock's big win over him was in a clusterfuck of a match where he had help?

Do I get to ask Foley to explain to you how Cena's beaten him?

Kayfabe: Who was better? Its obvious that Cena has beaten the nest of his era, and The Rock has beaten the best of his era.

He beat Steve Austin at his peak? Without help?

I must have missed Raw that week.

Cena's victims include: Triple H & HBK (both of which, out of prime),

Shawn was still knocking people off like he was the champ and Triple H had Hogan-like protection. Far superior to the Hunter that Rock beat years earlier from a kayfabe perspective.

Orton, Batista, Edge, Big Show, JBL.

And Jericho (in his kayfabe peak, which Rock didn't), and Angle (in his kayfabe peak, which Rock didn't), and Benoit (clean in five minutes), and CM Punk, and Jack Swagger, and the damn near undefeatable trio of Lashley/Umaga/Khali (while Rock couldn't beat an over the hill Goldberg, showing Cena has more success against undefeatable and near-undefeatable monsters than Rock), and the ever hardcore Sabu, and Mick Foley, and on and on. You also fail to mention that Dave is the most dominant wrestler of the last five years and more dominant at his peak than Rock was. Or that Cena's one of two men with clean wins over Dave in the last five years.

Among Rock's victims are Steve Austin,

Austin's only real match in 2003. Can you say ring rust? I can.

Undertaker (whom Cena has never beaten),

Cena's never lost in his peak to Taker.

Mankind,

Everyone's beaten him.

Triple H (in his prime, IMO),

No his kayfabe prime.

Chris Benoit,

Cena defeated a much more season Benoit with more main event experience in a more decisive fashion than Rock ever did.

Kurt Angle,

Rock needed a clusterfuck to get his belt back from young Angle. Cena beat Angle in his peak cleaner than Rock ever did.

Jericho,

Jericho's kayfabe peak came when he won his titles in 2008, after his feud with HBK.

Cena beat him.

And beat him again.

And again.

Losing to Cena is Jericho's favorite passtime.

Also on Rock's list are Flair and Hogan, and yes I realize neither of them were in their prime during their defeats, but it was STILL Flair and Hogan, who even out of their prime have to be considered a major threat (2002 in both cases).

Flair wasn't a threat though. He wasn't beating anyone major at that time and was rusty as shit. This is also pretty weak if you think DX wasn't in their prime when Cena beat them. At least DX was still getting prime booking when Cena beat them.

Get a clue.

Hogan also won the World Title from Triple fucking H a month AFTER The Rock beat Hogan, so it has to count for something.

When Hogan needed help to beat Triple H and was suffering from ring rust when he took Rock on, not really.

Basically, Cena's list is damn impressive, but Rock's list just crushes it, in my opinion.

Yes, when you give us a quarter of Cena's list while not acknowledging how consistently he's beaten everyone's ass for years and then go on to pretend Rock is a clean win machine who beat everyone who ever worked with him in their prime and is more hardcore than Cena is and that his wins over Hogan and Flair matter... Rock sure does sound good after all of that.

But when you look at facts, Cena's in a league Rock will never be good enough to touch.

VOTE CENA.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Just to get this out of the way, Cena beat Undertaker in 2003 before Backlash. Rock beating Austin was at a time where nobody cared about both. The Rock is a product of the overrated Attitude Era where most of the great matches were from midcard talent. Cena doesn't have that problem.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

As much as I really don't want to, I think I'm gonna have to vote for Cena on this one. Personally, I think The Rock is as much better wrestler overall, but Cena has been in so many different gimmick matches in his career that his experience in such a setting is something that can't be ignored. Another thing that can't be ignored is Cena defeating one of the innovators of the TLC match, Edge, in such a match in Edge's hometown.

Cena has made a career out of wrestling in matches against opponents that, on the surface, he doesn't look like he'd be able to win but usually does. While The Rock has always entertained me tons more than John Cena ever has, I think Cena will walk away with a win in this one. Cena's got the experience, he's freakishly strong and can be deceptively vicious when he has to be.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Find me massive betrayal or interference in Jericho's win this year and Orton's win in 2008.

And don't pretend those aren't main events.

He said one on one, and Orton won a Triple Threat.

Edge-Jericho was not a main event. Didn't even have to pretend.

Completely hypothetical. WM17, at the very least, was on even footing. Rock "likely would have won" is just you talking when there was no clear indication of that.

How was that on even footing? Did the Rock have Vince McMahon aligned with him? No. Austin would have lost without McMahon's interference.

 

[TwistofRKO]

During Cena's longest reign as champion, WWE reached new financial peaks.

You catch that?

So exactly what is pathetic about this era? People are clearly paying to see John Cena.

Ignorant ****. I don't care about the finances, I care about the quality of the wrestling. Cena feuded with crap during his reign, and didn't defend the belt at any of the first 4 PPVs after winning it, only then did he against Umaga. Wow. Good job John. It was you, and only you that brought the money in.

Cena and the current WWE would be nothing now without the talent in the previous era. He's the star of the crappy sequel. The current WWE is The Departed II. It'll garner attention due to its name, but won't be as good.

Popularity does not equal quality. If that was so Nickelback and the Jonas Brothers would be some of the world's greatest musicians.

The Rock was as successful in the midst of far great talent. He also was a focal point during those 5.1+ ratings days, while Cena's reign struggled to get 4s.

Cena's champ right now and he's not even pulling 3.3s down consistently.

You go on to mention that Rock's beaten more hardcore wrestlers than Cena can imagine. Interesting notion, but false. Rock's beaten Foley, but everyone's had a turn on that ride.

Stone Cold, The Undertaker, Triple H, Kane... all tougher then, and in multiple stipulations.

Cena's also beaten Foley in a match with no rules. He's also won many an I Quit and Last Man Standing match against tough, tough men. He won a TLC against the master of that match. So Where is Cena's inability to beat tough men in tough matches?

Tough, tough men? Who are these tough, tough men?

He beat a very old Foley. The Rock beat the best of Foley. Of course, we'll count Foley for Cena, but the Rock beating Hogan is irrelevant because he was old.

Edge was billed as the master of the match. The only TLC match he won in a singles match was against an AARP member.

Also, he's beaten Sabu. Hardcore enough for you?

Wow, he beat an old botchful idiot who never accomplished anything in the WWE.

He's defeat Triple H (a stronger Triple H than Rock beat), Shawn Michaels, Edge, Big Show (twice), Batista, and JBL at Mania. All while getting booed.

That is not a stronger Triple H. His record may be better now, but he's going against very little talent.

Fucking hell. Is amateur hour over yet?

No, your mom gets off at 10. Hurry.

 

[Coco]

Ignorant ****.

You rang?

How was that on even footing? Did the Rock have Vince McMahon aligned with him? No. Austin would have lost without McMahon's interference.

Pre-Vince, it was an even match. You don't know what would have happened. There was no clear indication.

I don't care about the finances, I care about the quality of the wrestling.

Great.

The Attitude Era coasted on stunt booking and overbooked nonsense. The main event level matches in this time, for the most part, were a testament to how little quality work mattered during this time. The real talent was in the midcard in Benoit, Jericho, Angle, etc., and didn't come around until part way into the era. A lot of the time during Rock's rise to the top and early run at the top is marked by some of the poorest quality the WWF ever saw.

How's that for quality?

I mean it's not how I'd judge this contest, but you asked for it.

Cena feuded with crap during his reign, and didn't defend the belt at any of the first 4 PPVs after winning it, only then did he against Umaga.

He defended the belt on Raw during that time, even in a cage match against former champions. But let's pretend PPVs are all that matter.

Cena defeated Umaga, undefeated at that point. Rock sucks against the undefeated. (Point: Cena) Cena then choked Umaga damn near to death. He followed up that by putting Shawn Michaels down by SUBMISSION (Shawn is ultra protected, so this is a huge accomplishment). He then defeated Shawn and two former champions at Backlash, handed Khali his first regular loss at Judgement Day, handed him another loss at ONS, beat Foley, beat the ULTRA-HOT Lashley, beat the ULTRA-HOT Orton... Yeah, Cena's reign sure blew, right?

Kindly off if you're not smart enough to see how great that streak is or refuse to acknowledge the things the new school does well while voting for Rock based on nothing more than a mindless nostalgia trip.

Cena and the current WWE would be nothing now without the talent in the previous era.

Wrong. They'd be nothing if Austin hadn't kept the money coming in. It's not a thing to do with talent, because the talent didn't rise to the top until deep within that era.

He's the star of the crappy sequel. The current WWE is The Departed II. It'll garner attention due to its name, but won't be as good.

First of all, there's going to be a second Departed? Why?

Second of all, the crappy sequal was from 2002 until WM21. Business started going in a positive direction when Cena took the wheel. So you're analogy kinda sucks.

Popularity does not equal quality. If that was so Nickelback and the Jonas Brothers would be some of the world's greatest musicians.

You're going to tout the ratings Rock got in one line. Just wait.

The Rock was as successful in the midst of far great talent. He also was a focal point during those 5.1+ ratings days, while Cena's reign struggled to get 4s.

HAHA. Love it when I'm right.

Either popularity matters or it doesn't. You don't get it both ways.

Also, there've been more main eventers during Cena's time, which means more VIABLE talent, and Cena's still reigned longer than Rock ever has. That doesn't reflect negatively on Cena.

Cena's champ right now and he's not even pulling 3.3s down consistently.

I'm not surprised when Orton's the focus of the show right now and Cena's been marginalized in the midcard after Mania for the last two years. If they won't book Cena properly, they'll suffer.

Stone Cold, The Undertaker, Triple H, Kane... all tougher then, and in multiple stipulations.

Rock's never gotten strong wins over most of his competition like Cena does, and Rock was Stone Cold's bitch until the last night of Austin's career (the night where he worked his first real match in almost a year). So it's not like Rock steam rolls competition like Cena does. And if you haven't figured out yet how strong Cena's competition is, you're just being ignorant.

He beat a very old Foley. The Rock beat the best of Foley. Of course, we'll count Foley for Cena, but the Rock beating Hogan is irrelevant because he was old.

Hogan was old. Middle aged Foley lost just as consistently as Foley did in any other big spot while Hogan was coming off of a long lay-off when he took on Rock and wasn't in prime condition. Foley was as good as he's ever been: And he was a loser, like usual.

Edge was billed as the master of the match. The only TLC match he won in a singles match was against an AARP member.

And The Undertaker.

Also, singles ladder matches are similar and Edge has won plenty of them. Don't make like Edge was some slouch.

Wow, he beat an old botchful idiot who never accomplished anything in the WWE.

People wanna talk hardcore, let's talk. Sabu has a reputation and was coming off of a Heavyweight Championship match where he wrestled the champ to a draw. It was no small accomplishment at the time when a tonne of effort was going into giving the ECW brand momentum.

That is not a stronger Triple H. His record may be better now, but he's going against very little talent.

Yep. Undertaker, Edge, Cena, Orton, Batista, Hardy, and so-on aren't threats AT ALL. Right.

If you want to argue, at least come prepared. This is bush league stuff that I'd expect from any average noob.

Of course I'm sure you'll belittle today's wrestlers on some imaginary basis that the late '90s was superior in some way while in the next breath telling me popularity means nothing. That'll show me.

VOTE CENA.

 

[TwistofRKO]

You rang?


Pre-Vince, it was an even match. You don't know what would have happened. There was no clear indication.

The Rock had just given Stone Cold a stunner when McMahon came out. The Rock was pinning Austin when McMahon pulled him off.

Obviously you need to watch again.

Great.

The Attitude Era coasted on stunt booking and overbooked nonsense. The main event level matches in this time, for the most part, were a testament to how little quality work mattered during this time. The real talent was in the midcard in Benoit, Jericho, Angle, etc., and didn't come around until part way into the era. A lot of the time during Rock's rise to the top and early run at the top is marked by some of the poorest quality the WWF ever saw.

How's that for quality?

I mean it's not how I'd judge this contest, but you asked for it.

Looks like you're the type that defines quality as technical snooze-fests. To each their own.

What is obvious in comparing the two is the excitement all over the arena during Attitude, and the unique finishes. The storylines were far better, and no, they didn't all revolve solely around boobs.

He defended the belt on Raw during that time, even in a cage match against former champions. But let's pretend PPVs are all that matter.

Considering it garnered no additional interest in Raw.

Cena's most notable feud was with Kevin Federline, and wasn't even the best champion during that run. King Booker beat him for that distinction.

King. Booker.

Cena defeated Umaga, undefeated at that point. Rock sucks against the undefeated. (Point: Cena) Cena then choked Umaga damn near to death. He followed up that by putting Shawn Michaels down by SUBMISSION (Shawn is ultra protected, so this is a huge accomplishment). He then defeated Shawn and two former champions at Backlash, handed Khali his first regular loss at Judgement Day, handed him another loss at ONS, beat Foley, beat the ULTRA-HOT Lashley, beat the ULTRA-HOT Orton... Yeah, Cena's reign sure blew, right?

Umaga beat Cena during that elusive streak of his, the one that lasted less than a year...kind of like a Kozlov streak. Wow.

HBK tapped to Legacy. He taps.

Kindly off if you're not smart enough to see how great that streak is or refuse to acknowledge the things the new school does well while voting for Rock based on nothing more than a mindless nostalgia trip.

He wasn't as dominant as you make it out to be. It was sort of entertaining, but very overrated.

Wrong. They'd be nothing if Austin hadn't kept the money coming in. It's not a thing to do with talent, because the talent didn't rise to the top until deep within that era.

Talent does not equal chain reversals and rest holds.

First of all, there's going to be a second Departed? Why?

Probably not, thankfully. And exactly.

Second of all, the crappy sequal was from 2002 until WM21. Business started going in a positive direction when Cena took the wheel. So you're analogy kinda sucks.

No, you're taking the same series and replacing the entire cast. The name alone is enough to sell.

You're going to tout the ratings Rock got in one line. Just wait.


HAHA. Love it when I'm right.

That's what reading does. You're going to be hypocritical in the next line...

Either popularity matters or it doesn't. You don't get it both ways.

I was right!

So the ratings don't go in the Rock's favor, but more expensive ticket prices, higher PPV prices, and name recognition count for Cena?

You don't get both. In fact, you got neither.

Also, there've been more main eventers during Cena's time, which means more VIABLE talent, and Cena's still reigned longer than Rock ever has. That doesn't reflect negatively on Cena.

There has been old talent. Its not Cena's fault, but he doesn't get points for it either.

I'm not surprised when Orton's the focus of the show right now and Cena's been marginalized in the midcard after Mania for the last two years. If they won't book Cena properly, they'll suffer.

When Orton was the true focus last year they had better ratings than they do with this Cena-Batista crap.

Really? Because Cena has main-evented every PPV since.

And you're breaking kayfabe as well. Unless you want to count it against Cena for him being knocked down to the mid-card. I don't see it, but if you volunteer the point..

Rock's never gotten strong wins over most of his competition like Cena does, and Rock was Stone Cold's bitch until the last night of Austin's career (the night where he worked his first real match in almost a year). So it's not like Rock steam rolls competition like Cena does. And if you haven't figured out yet how strong Cena's competition is, you're just being ignorant.

It isn't strong. I love Orton and Edge, but they aren't strong, at least not for most of the past 5 years. Triple H is off of two injuries and isn't as good as he used to be. Its really not close, the talent level was far superior a decade ago.

Hogan was old. Middle aged Foley lost just as consistently as Foley did in any other big spot while Hogan was coming off of a long lay-off when he took on Rock and wasn't in prime condition. Foley was as good as he's ever been: And he was a loser, like usual.

This did nothing but confirm what I said. So you agree Cena shouldn't get credit for a win over an old Foley. Great.

And The Undertaker.

That was 2 years after.

Also, singles ladder matches are similar and Edge has won plenty of them. Don't make like Edge was some slouch.

Not really. Christian was just as crucial in the legendary tag matches.

I'm not. Although its something you like to do to Edge anytime he's not convenient for an argument.

People wanna talk hardcore, let's talk. Sabu has a reputation and was coming off of a Heavyweight Championship match where he wrestled the champ to a draw. It was no small accomplishment at the time when a tonne of effort was going into giving the ECW brand momentum.

Cena is better than Rey Mysterio. True. That's about all I seen in this paragraph.

Yep. Undertaker, Edge, Cena, Orton, Batista, Hardy, and so-on aren't threats AT ALL. Right.

Jeff Hardy never threatened Cena's belt, he never really faces the Undertaker (but gets owned every time he does), and you like to bury Orton and Edge elsewhere, so I don't see why you'd use them here. Kayfabe, neither are booked very strongly. Most entertaining guys, but not strong.

Of course I'm sure you'll belittle today's wrestlers on some imaginary basis that the late '90s was superior in some way while in the next breath telling me popularity means nothing. That'll show me.

VOTE CENA.

The late 90s had two shows worth of main event talent, while now they can't fill both. This is a wannabe era.

 

[Big Sexy]

Find me massive betrayal or interference in Jericho's win this year and Orton's win in 2008.

And don't pretend those aren't main events.

They weren't main events. Just because something is a title match it isn't automatically a main event. Don't act like Mania 26 had three main events. The main event is the main attraction, the thing that people are paying to see the most.

Completely hypothetical. WM17, at the very least, was on even footing. Rock "likely would have won" is just you talking when there was no clear indication of that.

"RVD likely would have won at Vengeance 2002" is supported by the facts. You're just saying stuff in your example.

Did you watch the Mania 17 match? The Rock was in control and had the match won until Vince pulled the ref out of the ring. It may be hypothetical but still very likely that he would have won.

It's not like he won this match because of Angle BETRAYING Austin while INTERFERING. Oh, wait. That's exactly what it's like.

Again did you not watch the match? The Rock had the match won with a stunner until Nick Patrick came down and pulled out the WWF ref while he was counting. Yes Angle interfered a couple minutes later but the match should have already been over. The fact remains that in the kayfabe biggest match in the WWF's history The Rock came out as the SOLE survivor. The "he loses big matches" argument is bullshit.

But it's Rock, so the logic you established earlier in this post about victories not mattering as much in the event of interference or betrayals doesn't count when Rock wins. Right? Right.

People said The Rock doesn't win big matches. I proved otherwise. I also showed The Rock had that 2001 Survivor Series match won well before the interference from Angle. My logic is fine.

.because Big Sexy fails at using consistent logic.

You of all people saying this is a huge fucking joke. You show some of the least amount of logic in your posts out of any poster on here that can form complete sentences. You have failed miserably time and again in this tournament to make anything close to an argument that could be seen as logical and helpful to whomever you are supporting.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The Rock had just given Stone Cold a stunner when McMahon came out. The Rock was pinning Austin when McMahon pulled him off.

Obviously you need to watch again.


Looks like you're the type that defines quality as technical snooze-fests. To each their own.

What is obvious in comparing the two is the excitement all over the arena during Attitude, and the unique finishes. The storylines were far better, and no, they didn't all revolve solely around boobs.



Considering it garnered no additional interest in Raw.

Cena's most notable feud was with Kevin Federline, and wasn't even the best champion during that run. King Booker beat him for that distinction.

King. Booker.



Umaga beat Cena during that elusive streak of his, the one that lasted less than a year...kind of like a Kozlov streak. Wow.

HBK tapped to Legacy. He taps.



He wasn't as dominant as you make it out to be. It was sort of entertaining, but very overrated.



Talent does not equal chain reversals and rest holds.




Probably not, thankfully. And exactly.



No, you're taking the same series and replacing the entire cast. The name alone is enough to sell.



That's what reading does. You're going to be hypocritical in the next line...



I was right!

So the ratings don't go in the Rock's favor, but more expensive ticket prices, higher PPV prices, and name recognition count for Cena?

You don't get both. In fact, you got neither.



There has been old talent. Its not Cena's fault, but he doesn't get points for it either.



When Orton was the true focus last year they had better ratings than they do with this Cena-Batista crap.

Really? Because Cena has main-evented every PPV since.

And you're breaking kayfabe as well. Unless you want to count it against Cena for him being knocked down to the mid-card. I don't see it, but if you volunteer the point..



It isn't strong. I love Orton and Edge, but they aren't strong, at least not for most of the past 5 years. Triple H is off of two injuries and isn't as good as he used to be. Its really not close, the talent level was far superior a decade ago.



This did nothing but confirm what I said. So you agree Cena shouldn't get credit for a win over an old Foley. Great.



That was 2 years after.



Not really. Christian was just as crucial in the legendary tag matches.

I'm not. Although its something you like to do to Edge anytime he's not convenient for an argument.



Cena is better than Rey Mysterio. True. That's about all I seen in this paragraph.



Jeff Hardy never threatened Cena's belt, he never really faces the Undertaker (but gets owned every time he does), and you like to bury Orton and Edge elsewhere, so I don't see why you'd use them here. Kayfabe, neither are booked very strongly. Most entertaining guys, but not strong.



The late 90s had two shows worth of main event talent, while now they can't fill both. This is a wannabe era.

Please tell me you are not comparing Booker's title reign to Cena's. Here is the summation of Booker's reign: DQ against Batista, retained in a fatal-four way, retained at Cyber Sunday thanks to Federline, and lost to Batista at Survivor Series. Booker's reign was just the WWE buying time until Batista came back from injury .

The talent level wasn't as superior a decade ago. You had Austin, Rock, HHH, and everyone else. Foley lost a lot, Undertaker and Kane had mediocre years, and Angle didn't really get into his groove until after the Attitude Era.

 

[Supernova]

I'm sorry that's ridiculous. Talent level is defined by how popular the industry was. Hogan/Savage/Warrior etc era was better than Hart's even though him and HBK were better athletes or whatever, because they couldn't draw shit. Austin/Rock/HHH are more talented than the new group BECAUSE they drew. Why is this hard for you to understand?

 

[Coco]

I'm sorry that's ridiculous. Talent level is defined by how popular the industry was. Hogan/Savage/Warrior etc era was better than Hart's even though him and HBK were better athletes or whatever, because they couldn't draw shit. Austin/Rock/HHH are more talented than the new group BECAUSE they drew. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Probably because you're talking absolute shit.

There're several ways this tournament is decided, which lead to several different definitions of talent.

Rock drew with his cast of characters that were bigger than him and surrounded him. He was another guy getting by on the brand of Austin's chaotic WWF.

Cena was the top guy who brought the WWE to new heights after Triple H killed the brand from 2002 to WM21 and became a star on his own merits, no overbooking and silly storylines to protect him. Cena went out and worked passion fueled, well executed, occasionally blood soaked main event epics and earned his spot and his reputation on his merits. Rock went out there every night and got to fall back on his era's already sterling reputation and have disjointed, repetitive, sloppy, overbooked clusterfucks in a time where quality work wasn't an issue.

In some eyes, that makes Cena the more talented of the two.

But making this a black and white issue when it clearly isn't is an intellectual injustice.

VOTE CENA.

I had a response rolling to Sexy and Twist but my IE froze. I'll get to it soon. No worries. They're still as wrong as ever.

 

[Ferbian]

I'm sorry that's ridiculous. Talent level is defined by how popular the industry was. Hogan/Savage/Warrior etc era was better than Hart's even though him and HBK were better athletes or whatever, because they couldn't draw shit. Austin/Rock/HHH are more talented than the new group BECAUSE they drew. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Just because they drew doesn't make them any more likely to win a match, as I said before, we've seen people who drew like shit, defeating people that were the top draws, for the sake of putting over talent, or for the sake of furthering a storyline, or because someone needed to be given the belt, Carlito defeated John Cena for his first championship, does that make Carlito a better draw, because he defeated the top draw, and therefore must be better?

The ability to draw is always a good thing, but it doesn't define talent, Hulk Hogan was a good talent for being able to draw, but he sure as hell isn't the biggest talent of the business, because he couldn't wrestle for shit.

In my opinion, defining a great talent, is the ability to put on great matches, draw, talk etc. not just one of them.

John Cena can do the same, and John has defeated big names, so has The Rock, but John has quite an upper hand in hardcore matches, John wins 90% of his hardcore matches as far as I recall, The Rock doesn't.

Seeing as this is a hardcore kind of match, John should win this one.

 

[Tastycles]

Both of these men have a history of unlikely gimmick match wins so I don't think the stip is too much of a eciding factor here. In terms of accomplishments, Cena has more but he's wrestled in an era when Edge and RRandy Orton have been probably his biggest nemises whereas the Rock acheived a similar amount when he had bigger and better opponents.

Cena is probably responsible for a greater percentage of his audience than The Rock was, but The Rock probably drew more people in raw figures. I like Cena a lot, but I'm going against him here for the soul fact that in any match I'd anticipate these two actually having, I cannot imagine any other outcome, and that is probably because of the Rock's mainstream appeal and nothing else, which seems a shit reason to vote for, but probably the right one nonetheless.

 

[Supernova]

Can I also point out to all the Cena lovers bleating on about The Rock being #2 to Austin, where do you think Cena would be if he wrestled in that era? I doubt he'd have been able to capitalize on the zeitgeist and become his own star in the way The Rock did. If The Rock and Cena were in the same company, in their primes, who do you think they'd push as the top guy? Trying to justify that Cena is the better wrestler BECAUSE he wrestles in a weaker era is pathetic.

 

[Coco]

Can I also point out to all the Cena lovers bleating on about The Rock being #2 to Austin, where do you think Cena would be if he wrestled in that era? I doubt he'd have been able to capitalize on the zeitgeist and become his own star in the way The Rock did. If The Rock and Cena were in the same company, in their primes, who do you think they'd push as the top guy? Trying to justify that Cena is the better wrestler BECAUSE he wrestles in a weaker era is pathetic.

And you refusing to take into account their relative merits is pathetic. Of course such logic is probably beyong your understanding, so I'm asking too much.

Also parthic is you assuming where Cena would be in the AEra when you have no basis for your assumption. At least I back my claims up. You're just spouting off for the sake of it.

Also, considering more talent break through in Cena's era, meaning there is a greater talent pool at the top of the card, and Cena has risen head and shoulders above them all, exactly how is Cena's era weak?

VOTE CENA.

 

[Mr. Truth]

Can I also point out to all the Cena lovers bleating on about The Rock being #2 to Austin, where do you think Cena would be if he wrestled in that era?

He'd probably still be rapping. The current Cena wouldn't exist in the Attitude Era, and I'm sick of trying to compare apples to grapes.

I doubt he'd have been able to capitalize on the zeitgeist and become his own star in the way The Rock did.

Without Austin, there's no Rock. Hardly his own.

If The Rock and Cena were in the same company, in their primes, who do you think they'd push as the top guy? Trying to justify that Cena is the better wrestler BECAUSE he wrestles in a weaker era is pathetic.

Let's just take out our crystal balls and try to figure this out. Oh wait, we can't because psychics don't exist. You can only compare who would be the top dog in a company to another guy from his era. But since you're forcing me to, I think Cena would be because he brings in more money than The Rock. Cena is a better champion, The Rock is a better challenger. Sure The Rock has his little catch phrases, but Cena is in an era where they don't get used much.

 

[Supernova]

Oh right, you honestly believe Cena would be booked better than The Rock?

Cena can't get any reaction. Not only can he not get a decent reaction for himself but he can't even get the crowd to properly boo heels he's facing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDa4A7v3-z0

The Rock - out of his prime - working a crowd better than Cena ever has. But sure, believe Cena would ever be in the Rock's league Funny how HHH never got that reaction when facing Cena. Oh right, because no one gives a shit about him.

 

[D-Man]

Seriously, all of you haters need to put that to the side for this match. Why? Because the Rock CAN'T win here. (Notice how I didn't say won't... I said can't.)

Even in the Rock's heyday, he was losing as many matches as he won. Especially gimmick matches like the TLC. He lost in his HIAC 6-pack challenge match, lost a ladder match against Triple H for the IC title, and other notable losses.

On the other hand, Cena is as close to being this generation's Hulk Hogan than anyone. The guy has never quit in a match, has been victorious in the majority of his matches, and most of them were gimmick-related.

Seriously guys... clean the hat-er-aid out of your systems and vote based on who SHOULD win this match. That person is John Cena... EASILY.

 

[Big Sexy]

Even in the Rock's heyday, he was losing as many matches as he won. Especially gimmick matches like the TLC. He lost in his HIAC 6-pack challenge match, lost a ladder match against Triple H for the IC title, and other notable losses.

He also won I Quit and ladder matches against Mankind, and he won multiple no dq triple threat matches against the likes of Kurt Angle, Triple H, Undertaker, Kane, and Chris Benoit. The TLC match combines three things the Rock knows very well.

On the other hand, Cena is as close to being this generation's Hulk Hogan than anyone. The guy has never quit in a match, has been victorious in the majority of his matches, and most of them were gimmick-related.

If this were an I Quit or Last Man Standing match then Cena would probably have the edge, but it isn't. All The Rock has to do is keep Cena down for a three count. If JBL can do it in a street fight against Cena then I'm sure The Rock could do it in a TLC match.

Seriously guys... clean the hat-er-aid out of your systems and vote based on who SHOULD win this match. That person is John Cena
... EASILY.

No haterade is being sipped. I like Cena and would only vote a handful of guys over him. The Rock just happens to be one of those guys.

 

[Big Sexy]

Without Austin, there's no Rock. Hardly his own.

Bull fucking shit. People always say Cena never gets enough credit but you are completely disregarding what The Rock did. Steve Austin was not Jesus. He didn't make everyone around him. If Austin never existed The Rock would still have gotten over. Rocky started getting an amazing reaction as a heel because of his promos and personality before he even feuded with Austin. The Rock made himself. Like Austin, the Rock started as a heel that the fans made a face. He was already a three time champion before he feuded with Austin. Get out of here with your completely false bull shit.

Let's just take out our crystal balls and try to figure this out. Oh wait, we can't because psychics don't exist. You can only compare who would be the top dog in a company to another guy from his era.

In some instances maybe not, but here you can. Austin and Hogan are one and two all time in terms of being the top guy no matter how you look at it. That puts Cena behind Austin if he was in that era. And for my money The Rock is most definitely ahead of him as well.

 

[D-Man]

He also won I Quit and ladder matches against Mankind, and he won multiple no dq triple threat matches against the likes of Kurt Angle, Triple H, Undertaker, Kane, and Chris Benoit. The TLC match combines three things the Rock knows very well.

You honestly want to compare Mankind to John Cena? Seriously? and what do no dq triple threat matches have to do with a ladder match? Because they don't have many rules? It's a completely different kind of match, bro.

If this were an I Quit or Last Man Standing match then Cena would probably have the edge, but it isn't. All The Rock has to do is keep Cena down for a three count. If JBL can do it in a street fight against Cena then I'm sure The Rock could do it in a TLC match.

The same could be said about Cena. All he has to do is keep the Rock down for a three count. And the Rock lost a street fight against Shane McMahon on Raw once. So I guess that makes this an easy win for Cena, right?

This logic is very skewed. A primed Hulk Hogan-like Cena is superior over a primed 50% winning percentage, primed Rock.

No haterade is being sipped. I like Cena and would only vote a handful of guys over him. The Rock just happens to be one of those guys.

I wasn't speaking directly to you, brother. That statement was for the masses.

 

[Supernova]

The point is that Mick Foley is a dude who likes pain. The Rock BEAT a "glorified stuntman" who MADE HIS NAME on taking pain in his prime in an I Quit match. If he can do that kind of damage to Mankind, Cena doesn't stand a chance.

 

[D-Man]

The point is that Mick Foley is a dude who likes pain. The Rock BEAT a "glorified stuntman" who MADE HIS NAME on taking pain in his prime in an I Quit match. If he can do that kind of damage to Mankind, Cena doesn't stand a chance.

Are you fucking kidding me? That is the worst logic I've ever heard. Especially because the Rock's win over Mankind is just as cheesy as Cena's LMS win over Batista. The Rock played a fucking AUDIO TAPE of Mankind saying "I Quit" from an interview earlier that afternoon... Cena duck-taped Batista's legs to the ringpost.

So basically what you're saying is that both men have grabbed "intelligent" wins without actually BEATING their opponents. Ok, got it. But you still didn't even come close to proving that the Rock can defeat Cena here. Thank you... try again.