**MERGED** John Cena Thread - Heel Turn, Matches, Etc. (Keep it in here!!)

[Slyfox696]

I forgot to mention selling and taking moves. I meant to say that both executing offensive moves and receiving moves and doing it smoothly without looking robotic or clumsy along with drawing money is what makes you a good or great wrestler.

And I'm saying that if you execute well, then you'll entertain the crowd. If you entertain the crowd, then you'll draw money. If you're entertaining to the point people pay money to watch you, you're a good/great wrestler.

Wrestlers don't draw if they're not entertaining. If they're not entertaining, they cannot be good. Thus, wrestlers who are not good, don't draw.

Very simple logical progression.

I do know that I saw a HHH interview where he said Cena "sucked" in the ring. It was a shoot interview outside of WWE so it wasn't a basic promo.

No, you're thinking of the King of Kings DVD, the clip of which I posted earlier in which after he said Cena sucks, he goes on to say Cena has since earned everything he's gotten.

Hogan is probably the most overrated guy in wrestling history.

Yes, he's only considered the greatest wrestler ever by every wrestler whose opinion is worth hearing about. He's only the biggest draw in wrestling history. He only revolutionized the business TWICE in his career. He was only the greatest face and the greatest heel in history.

Completely overrated.

The only story he told was that he was a closeted steroid abuser who claimed it was all natural hard work and vitamins.

Revisionist history at its finest.

Hulk Hogan admitted to doing steroids way back in the early 90s. What you have to remember, though, is that steroids weren't illegal until around 1991. So when Hogan was shooting steroids back in the 80s, it was completely legal.

And it DOES take a lot of hard work to get that big. Steroids aren't magic, you have to work to see the benefits.

The other part of the story was that he was getting his ass beat only to miraculously "Hulk Up" and do the single worst move sequence in wrestling history, followed by the worst finisher in wrestling history, a basic crappy legdrop.

It's obvious you're either a young kid or someone who didn't watch wrestling much before the Attitude Era. If you had been watching back in the 80s, you'd know how silly this statement is.

In fact I started watching occasionally in 94 when I turned 7 and really found wrestling uninteresting. It wasn't until late 97 or so when I saw Austin that I became hooked for good.

I hadn't even read this part of your post, and STILL pegged you dead on.

Also, could you please tell me what story is it that Cena is telling that is so damn interesting? The only Cena matches that I can name that were interesting to me are Cena vs Punk, Cena vs RVD, Cena vs Triple H, Cena vs Edge, and Cena vs Batista.

You just named 5 matches right there. Not only that, but Cena had a several good matches vs. Punk, several vs. Triple H, several with Edge and several with Batista. What you mentioned right there is a better body of work than anyone else in the WWE during the same time period.

But other good matches? His I Quit vs. JBL, his LMS vs. Umaga, his match at GAB with Lashley, he's had a couple of good (not great, but good) matches with Orton, and he had some good matches with Jericho and Angle. Oh, and let's not forget his two classic matches with Shawn Michaels at WM and a couple weeks later on Raw. He even had a pretty solid match with The Miz on Raw earlier this year.

In those matches there are a large variety of stories that were told. Some were the classic WWE babyface match, but others, like his matches with Trips, his matches with RVD, Punk, HBK on Raw and Lashley are all different stories.

In my opinion, even these matches were only interesting because of who he was facing.

You're right, Cena is just the luckiest wrestler in history. Because, as we all know, all of those guys had other great matches with guys who weren't very good in the ring, right?

Of course they didn't. In fact, for most of those guys, their best matches came WITH Cena. Take HBK's last 5 years in the company. Outside of his matches with Undertaker, did he have ANY other match that could touch his two with Cena? How about Punk? He's had two matches with Cena that completely outclasses anything else he's done in the WWE. RVD's best match ever came with Cena, as did guys like Barrett, Khali, Umaga, Lashley, etc. There's no doubt their best matches came with Cena.

It would help a lot if WWE would let guys create their own persona instead of being afraid of letting a guy get over while owning the rights to his persona because they're afraid he will go to TNA.

This IS John Cena's persona. This is who he wants to be.

Makes no sense unless they want to be able to treat wrestlers like shit because they know they can. If a guy gets over and draws while owning his persona, Vince can't bully him.

No, what it really means is that if a guy gets over, and the WWE doesn't have the rights to his character, that wrestler can go to another wrestling company and make money for another wrestling company because of the time the WWE put into him. You might remember the nWo angle? You can thank mid-90s WCW for the current structure of the WWE.

Plus WWE offers more publicity than TNA ever will, so guys will not leave.

Christian, Hardy, Angle, Foley, Dudleys, Anderson, etc. all disagree with you.

Gotta agree with PunkNation. Cena does not tell an interesting story. Let me elaborate.

Who is Cena? What drives him? He's supposed to be the good guy who does what's right and loves competition. What does he do to show this? Nothing, other than worry about getting the WWE championship.

You're confusing angles with the story he tells in the ring. They are completely different.

For example, take Hart vs. Austin. Hart was about standing up for the right, being the people's hero, being someone kids could look up to. However, the story of his match with Austin at WM 13 was a down and out street fight, a brawl between two guys who hated each other. In that match, you can see Hart losing part of himself in his quest to conquer the man he considers to be an affront to the good people in the world. In the match, Hart begins his slide into the dark side.

That match told such a fantastic story. But it was completely separate from the story of Hart's character at the time. Two different things.

They could put some actual flavor on this character by having him get involved in moral/ethic conflicts , beating up people he deems as "in the wrong"

You mean like his feud all last summer with Nexus? Or his year long off and on feud with The Rock?

Also, I don't see why someone would base their opinion of an entertainer on their sales, instead of simply looking at the content provided by said entertainer. If that's the case, why even discuss anything? We should all automatically 100% support and approve of anyone who drives profit for the current quarter. Not to mention circumstantial and behind the scenes factors that we couldn't possibly know of, such as the example I provided earlier of Rey Mysterio selling house shows in certain places because certain ethnic groups support him out of familiarity.

Fine then. I think John Cena is the greatest wrestler ever, and so because I think that, then he clearly is a better wrestler than anyone else in the world. Since I said it, it must be true, right?

Do you understand why that is a silly way to evaluate quality? I don't like Cena because he sells, I like Cena because he's fantastically entertaining. I liked Shelton Benjamin years ago because I enjoyed his aerial feats. I enjoy AJ Styles because he's exciting in the ring, and he's a fantastic dance partner for other workers.

However, I know Cena is a great wrestler because so many people are entertained by him (whether they like to cheer or boo him) they are willing to pay money to watch him. When THAT many people are entertained by someone, you know he's a good wrestler.

 

[Smiter]

when Hogan turned heel it was one of the most if not the most interesting sweve in the industry...
and today's Hogan 2.0 - Cena can make WWE alive fresh and interesting again if he turns Heel.. but seeing how much he generates as a face to revenue thru merch..i really doubt it will happen in near future.

 

[RedStar]

Yes, when I said I agreed with punknation, I mixed his point about in ring storytelling with general character storytelling. I'm talking about the big picture, not his individual matches, which on an unrelated note I don't generally enjoy.

You mean like his feud all last summer with Nexus? Or his year long off and on feud with The Rock?

Yes, I just said that Cena's promos were great during that Rock vs. Cena feud. This is my point; he CAN be good, when his character is doing something other than blatantly promoting ppv matches and talking about the WWE title. You'll usually get one of the following: "Oh, I won, great. Let's have another match for the title sometime", or "Oh I lost, damn. Let's have another match for the title."

The feud with Nexus was another refreshing change - for a short, short while. We had the uncertainty of wondering whether Cena's spirit would be broken while working for the nexus, and whether he'd lose his job. But then he completely ignored the stipulation of losing the final payoff match and proceeded to destroy the nexus, and that was that. (And damn, was the WWE so terrified of not having him in the main event that they couldn't have him off for at least a week to "sell" the firing and make everyone hate the Nexus even more?)

Fine then. I think John Cena is the greatest wrestler ever, and so because I think that, then he clearly is a better wrestler than anyone else in the world. Since I said it, it must be true, right?

People like "TheChamp" already do this, and for the sake of completeness I'll establish that anti-Cena's do this as well. But I also feel like it's better suited to actually discussing things and providing a variety of perspectives, regardless of how biased they are. Though it'd help to explain why you find him so entertaining if you were to make such claims.

Sure, Cena has succeeded at being a main eventer in terms of ratings and sales.

I'm sure Twilight did pretty well too.

 

[PunkNation26]

Christian left because he was treated like shit. Then he comes back, gets the rub from Edge, and finally wins a meaningful World Title. Then on the following Smackdown, he loses the damn thing to Randy Orton and is then made to look like a whiny bitch. Angle left because WWE wouldn't let him work part time like they let HBK. Anderson left because he kept getting injured and because Randy Orton had some sort of beef with him.

According to Anderson, Orton accused him of dropping him on his head, which Anderson says he has video proof that it didn't happen. The Dudleys left because WWE killed the tag team division. Foley left because he was tired of Vince McMahon verbally abusing him through his headset while he was doing commentary. Hell Foley is great on commentary and doesn't need Vince's crazy ass screaming in his ear.

So in my opinion the only guy out of all these that wasn't wronged by WWE was Jeff Hardy. WWE has the namesake rules not only to protect themselves, but so they can make people their bitch. Oh and you havej to admit, guys would be alot more entertaining if they could be themselves or come up with their own gimmick.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, I just said that Cena's promos were great during that Rock vs. Cena feud. This is my point; he CAN be good, when his character is doing something other than blatantly promoting ppv matches and talking about the WWE title. You'll usually get one of the following: "Oh, I won, great. Let's have another match for the title sometime", or "Oh I lost, damn. Let's have another match for the title."

But the fact those two feuds exist(ed) prove Cena isn't always in feud for the WWE title, that he does care about other reasons to have a match.

That was my point.

The feud with Nexus was another refreshing change - for a short, short while.

A short while? Nexus cost Cena the title in June at Fatal 4-Way. Cena finally defeated Barrett and Nexus at TLC in December. That's roughly a 6 month feud.

How is that a "short, short while", especially in today's wrestling climate?

People like "TheChamp" already do this, and for the sake of completeness I'll establish that anti-Cena's do this as well. But I also feel like it's better suited to actually discussing things and providing a variety of perspectives, regardless of how biased they are. Though it'd help to explain why you find him so entertaining if you were to make such claims.

I find him entertaining because he's a great wrestler. He's the best wrestler ever on the mic, in the ring, and at everything else in pro wrestling. Since I say it is so, I cannot be wrong, so Cena is the greatest ever.

Are you beginning to understand why it's silly to use personal preference to discuss objective quality?

I'm sure Twilight did pretty well too.

Books/movies are completely different from pro wrestling. The goals and ideals of pro wrestling are different from every other medium of entertainment. Trying to compare pro wrestling with anything else is a waste of time.

Christian left because he was treated like shit. Then he comes back, gets the rub from Edge, and finally wins a meaningful World Title. Then on the following Smackdown, he loses the damn thing to Randy Orton and is then made to look like a whiny bitch. Angle left because WWE wouldn't let him work part time like they let HBK. Anderson left because he kept getting injured and because Randy Orton had some sort of beef with him.

According to Anderson, Orton accused him of dropping him on his head, which Anderson says he has video proof that it didn't happen. The Dudleys left because WWE killed the tag team division. Foley left because he was tired of Vince McMahon verbally abusing him through his headset while he was doing commentary. Hell Foley is great on commentary and doesn't need Vince's crazy ass screaming in his ear.

So in my opinion the only guy out of all these that wasn't wronged by WWE was Jeff Hardy. WWE has the namesake rules not only to protect themselves, but so they can make people their bitch. Oh and you havej to admit, guys would be alot more entertaining if they could be themselves or come up with their own gimmick.

You're missing the point. The point is "did those guys go to a rival promotion?". The answer is yes, so why should TNA get to benefit off the name recognition the WWE built? That's the whole point. The WWE is no different from any other wrestling promotion in the way they treat their employees, indeed, they probably treat them better than most promotions. Wrestling promoting has always been a dirty cutthroat business, so the idea of promoters screwing over wrestling has nothing to do with owning the rights to the intellectual property of characters they create.

The whole point is the WWE doesn't want other wrestling companies to benefit from the work they did. Which makes perfect sense to any logical wrestling fan.

 

[The Harlem Heat]

Yes, he's only considered the greatest wrestler ever by every wrestler whose opinion is worth hearing about. He's only the biggest draw in wrestling history. He only revolutionized the business TWICE in his career. He was only the greatest face and the greatest heel in history.

Completely overrated.

I am surprised at your ignorance. You do realise this is a WRESTLING forum and WWE is a form of entertaining based on WRESTLING yes? Hogan was brilliant at everything in the WWE apart from wrestling, he was a fantastic entertainer which appealed to millions and made WWE what it is today. But that, does not make him a good wrestler, his poorly selling of moves was complimented by a highly limited moveset which was constantly poor executed.

You are under the illusion that a good entertainer makes someone a good wrestler, Cena is in the exact same boat. He entertains thousands of children and that is why he is where he is, not because of his wrestling abilities. When Punknation26 said Hogan was over rated, I can only assume he meant his level of wrestling, not his mic skills, storytelling, gimmick because that was all top notch. Now you have written quite a few thousand words defending John Cena, claiming "he is a great wrestler" "The best wrestler in the WWE, that's why he's the top draw" and props to you for that I guess. You have the wrong idea of what makes a "good wrestler" Daniel Bryan is technically one of the best wrestlers in the WWE, does that mean he will automatically get a push? No. Because his entertaining skills aren't up to scratch. So just because you are the top draw, does not make you a good wrestler, or visa versa.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am surprised at your ignorance.

Given your limited understanding of pro wrestling, I'm not surprised you don't understand.

You do realise this is a WRESTLING forum and WWE is a form of entertaining based on WRESTLING yes?

And do you realize that amateur wrestling and pro wrestling are COMPLETELY different in every way, and the criteria which applies to one has nothing to do with the other?

You are under the illusion that a good entertainer makes someone a good wrestler, Cena is in the exact same boat.

Yes. It's the same illusion McMahon, HBK, Bret Hart, Triple H, Ric Flair, Chris Jericho, Hulk Hogan, Mick Foley, etc. are all under as well.

He entertains thousands of children and that is why he is where he is, not because of his wrestling abilities. When Punknation26 said Hogan was over rated, I can only assume he meant his level of wrestling, not his mic skills, storytelling, gimmick because that was all top notch. Now you have written quite a few thousand words defending John Cena, claiming "he is a great wrestler" "The best wrestler in the WWE, that's why he's the top draw" and props to you for that I guess. You have the wrong idea of what makes a "good wrestler" Daniel Bryan is technically one of the best wrestlers in the WWE, does that mean he will automatically get a push? No. Because his entertaining skills aren't up to scratch. So just because you are the top draw, does not make you a good wrestler, or visa versa.

How can I make you understand that the moves you do on offense have nothing to do with being a good wrestler?

Think about it this way. What if you and I were having a match, and you put me in an Indian Deathlock, and instead of acting like it hurt, I just relaxed easily, yawned and whistled the Andy Griffith theme song? What would that do to people's opinion of your ability to wrestle? What would it do for the fans ability to suspend their disbelief of this being a "real" match? It'd absolutely destroy it, right? It would kill the illusion of reality, would it not? What if Mark Henry came out in his next match with a drop toe hold, floated over into a front facelock, and then transitioned into a leg scissor. Would that make any sense for a man who has built his character as one who injures people? Of course not.

What if, like we saw on ROH's show today, you and I just did a bunch of random moves, without bothering to think about why or how it advanced the purpose of the match. Would that makes us good wrestlers because we can arbitrarily do different types of wrestling moves? And if so, then how come people don't come watch me perform wrestling moves on my brother in the backyard?

When you're talking about "wrestling ability", you're mistakenly looking simply at the offensive style a wrestler uses. That is a completely inaccurate way of determining quality. Pro wrestling ability is the ability to make fans suspend their disbelief, to draw them into the excitement of the match, to make the fans puppets with you holding the strings. You want them to be emotionally invested in what you do, and whether your character is successful.


The wrestlers who do that ARE the good wrestlers. Anyone can do a bunch of wrestling moves, without worrying about why they're doing them. The truly great workers make people care about them. Anyone can do a bunch of random moves, but not everyone can make people want to pay to watch it.

 

[PunkNation26]

People also used to write using feathers. Sure you can dip a feather in ink and write on a piece of paper, but wouldn't you rather use a pen, a pencil, some markers and a crayon? The point is that you can tell a story while also being a great in ring wrestler with a big offensive arsenal. I'm sick of hearing that just because Cena's big it makes sense for him to be big and clumsy, and use untechnical power moves. Brock Lesnar was quite a bit bigger than Cena and still used a lot of different technical moves along with power moves. His matches were also very entertaining.

 

[Slyfox696]

People also used to write using feathers. Sure you can dip a feather in ink and write on a piece of paper, but wouldn't you rather use a pen, a pencil, some markers and a crayon? The point is that you can tell a story while also being a great in ring wrestler with a big offensive arsenal.

No...the point is that telling a story is PART of what makes you a good in-ring wrestler. And sure you CAN use a bunch of offensive moves, but you don't HAVE to.

Do you ever actually read my posts and take the time to comprehend them, or do you just skim them so you can post again? Go back and read my last post to Harlem Heat, and see why just talking about offensive moves is silly.

I'm sick of hearing that just because Cena's big it makes sense for him to be big and clumsy, and use untechnical power moves.

I don't care, it doesn't make it any less true.

Brock Lesnar was quite a bit bigger than Cena and still used a lot of different technical moves along with power moves. His matches were also very entertaining.

Brock Lesnar was a NCAA wrestling champion. His gimmick was as a former wrestling champion. In his case, it made sense to use amateur wrestling moves, because his gimmick was of a former amateur wrestler.

Cena's gimmick is not of an amateur wrestler. Why are you struggling with such simple concepts? When was the last time you saw the Undertaker wrestle a technical match? Or Big Show? How about "never"? Why? Because it doesn't fit with their gimmick.

For you to sit there and try to determine who is a good wrestler simply by the offensive style of wrestling they use is asinine. Do yourself a favor and actually read/comprehend the posts I make, instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum.

 

[The Champ]

I am surprised at your ignorance. You do realise this is a WRESTLING forum and WWE is a form of entertaining based on WRESTLING yes? Hogan was brilliant at everything in the WWE apart from wrestling, he was a fantastic entertainer which appealed to millions and made WWE what it is today. But that, does not make him a good wrestler, his poorly selling of moves was complimented by a highly limited moveset which was constantly poor executed.

You are under the illusion that a good entertainer makes someone a good wrestler, Cena is in the exact same boat. He entertains thousands of children and that is why he is where he is, not because of his wrestling abilities. When Punknation26 said Hogan was over rated, I can only assume he meant his level of wrestling, not his mic skills, storytelling, gimmick because that was all top notch. Now you have written quite a few thousand words defending John Cena, claiming "he is a great wrestler" "The best wrestler in the WWE, that's why he's the top draw" and props to you for that I guess. You have the wrong idea of what makes a "good wrestler" Daniel Bryan is technically one of the best wrestlers in the WWE, does that mean he will automatically get a push? No. Because his entertaining skills aren't up to scratch. So just because you are the top draw, does not make you a good wrestler, or visa versa.

This is the problem with the internet, and how they view wrestling skill. You guys don't get it. Wrestling skills, charisma, storytelling, it all goes hand in hand. You can't separate it as much as you like to think. Because you need charisma and storytelling to be a good wrestler. Tell me this. If you're putting on what the internet perceives to be a "five star classic," and the general audience is falling asleep or going to the concession stands, what does that say about your wrestling ability? And don't tell me that fans are ignorant or any kind of garbage like that. Because the best wrestlers can draw in even the MOST ignorant of fans. Cena is one of them.

 

[PunkNation26]

I'm NOT saying that your offensive arsenal is all that matters in being a great wrestler. Obviously the way you sell matters just as much. And sure, you don't have to use a bunch of moves to tell a story in a match, but in my opinion, having a big arsenal while teling a story makes for a much more entertaining match. Undertaker has been wrestling technical style matches for like the last 6 years.

Hell, he's been using quite a few submissions. Oh, and just go back and watch his matches with Kurt Angle. They were technical gold in my opinion. Oh, and scripted or not, I don't find Cena to be a credible Champion in today's wrestling world simply because of the moves he uses and the way he delivers them. He doesn't do anything or show any technical prowess that makes me believe that he can actually beat everyone on the roster.

Now I say this because Cena isn't big enough to just overpower everyone like a monster heel would (ex. Mark Henry). So I just can't intelligently suspend disbelief and belief that Cena can actually beat the guys he beats the way he does. I also don't find him intimidating enough that a guy with Del Rio's real life credentials in MMA, would have to lock him outside of a Cell in order to win the WWE Title. I mean, Cena is NOWHERE near as kayfabe scary as Goldberg or Brock Lesnar, or hell, I'll even say Batista. Look at Goldberg, he would break you in half with a spear, and rattle your spine with a JackHammer.

Lesnar could rip your limbs off and snap you in half like a twig. To a lesser extent, Batista could mess you up internally with his spear and Powerbomb. I'm speaking in kayfabe of course but you get my point. What can Cena do? He will Fireman's Carry slam you which has less impact than a back body drop. Then he will lock on an STF where he doesn't even choke you with it. He V's his arms around your head and makes "taking a shit" faces. I'm just saying that in my opinion, Cena makes it obvious that wrestling is scripted.

 

[Headman]

I'm NOT saying that your offensive arsenal is all that matters in being a great wrestler. Obviously the way you sell matters just as much. And sure, you don't have to use a bunch of moves to tell a story in a match, but in my opinion, having a big arsenal while teling a story makes for a much more entertaining match. Undertaker has been wrestling technical style matches for like the last 6 years.

Hell, he's been using quite a few submissions. Oh, and just go back and watch his matches with Kurt Angle. They were technical gold in my opinion. Oh, and scripted or not, I don't find Cena to be a credible Champion in today's wrestling world simply because of the moves he uses and the way he delivers them. He doesn't do anything or show any technical prowess that makes me believe that he can actually beat everyone on the roster.

Now I say this because Cena isn't big enough to just overpower everyone like a monster heel would (ex. Mark Henry). So I just can't intelligently suspend disbelief and belief that Cena can actually beat the guys he beats the way he does. I also don't find him intimidating enough that a guy with Del Rio's real life credentials in MMA, would have to lock him outside of a Cell in order to win the WWE Title. I mean, Cena is NOWHERE near as kayfabe scary as Goldberg or Brock Lesnar, or hell, I'll even say Batista. Look at Goldberg, he would break you in half with a spear, and rattle your spine with a JackHammer.

Lesnar could rip your limbs off and snap you in half like a twig. To a lesser extent, Batista could mess you up internally with his spear and Powerbomb. I'm speaking in kayfabe of course but you get my point. What can Cena do? He will Fireman's Carry slam you which has less impact than a back body drop. Then he will lock on an STF where he doesn't even choke you with it. He V's his arms around your head and makes "taking a shit" faces. I'm just saying that in my opinion, Cena makes it obvious that wrestling is scripted.

The STF isn't a choke, it's a front face lock with a toe hold. And there is a reason Cena isn't scary. That's not his character. I'm not sure why you have to be a bearded bald man to work a power gimmick, but to each his own I guess. I find Cena's moveset to be quite believable. Look no further than his matches with the Great Khali, Big Show and Umaga for proof that Cena works big men differently than smaller guys. It just seems like you don't like the guy and will find any reason to back it up, when you don't really need a reason to begin with.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm NOT saying that your offensive arsenal is all that matters in being a great wrestler. Obviously the way you sell matters just as much. And sure, you don't have to use a bunch of moves to tell a story in a match, but in my opinion, having a big arsenal while teling a story makes for a much more entertaining match.

That's fine if you're entertained more by more moves. That doesn't change the fact it has nothing to do with what makes someone a good wrestler.

Undertaker has been wrestling technical style matches for like the last 6 years.

Surely you jest...

Hell, he's been using quite a few submissions.

Using a submission at the end of the match, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the match does not make one a technical wrestler.

Oh, and scripted or not, I don't find Cena to be a credible Champion in today's wrestling world simply because of the moves he uses and the way he delivers them. He doesn't do anything or show any technical prowess that makes me believe that he can actually beat everyone on the roster.

Then you're not very smart. If you think getting punched and thrown around by a guy as strong as Cena wouldn't hurt, you're not very smart.

So I just can't intelligently suspend disbelief and belief that Cena can actually beat the guys he beats the way he does. I also don't find him intimidating enough that a guy with Del Rio's real life credentials in MMA, would have to lock him outside of a Cell in order to win the WWE Title. I mean, Cena is NOWHERE near as kayfabe scary as Goldberg or Brock Lesnar, or hell, I'll even say Batista. Look at Goldberg, he would break you in half with a spear, and rattle your spine with a JackHammer.

And yet, Cena is every bit as powerful as those guys you named. So now, because he doesn't LOOK scary he can't work a brawling style of match? Do you see how far you have to go in order to justify your wrongful opinion of Cena's abilities?

Then he will lock on an STF where he doesn't even choke you with it.

Do you think the reason for that, perhaps, is the fact an STF isn't a choke? STF=Stepover Toehold Facelock. Facelock...not choke.

Again, I point to your limited understanding of pro wrestling.

 

[nachoman13]

Great post. Cena sucks. He is a wrestler who's gimmick only appeals to children and has a limited move set, almost rivaling The Great Khali.

 

[PunkNation26]

The STF might as well be a choke. I know it's not intended to be a choke but you know what I meant. Cena doesn't even apply pressure to the damn hold ( or atleast make it look like he's applying pressure). And no, Cena's not intimidating. There's no reason Del Rio should be "shit in his pants" terrified of Cena and lock him out of a cell in order to win a match where he was ALLOWED to use weapons. You add the fact that he could use weapons to his legitimate technical skills, and it makes 0 sense that Del Rio should be that afraid of Cena or that unable to beat him in that type of enviroment.

I also think that I've made some legitimate reasons of why I don't like Cena. Also, by your logic Sly, Adam Sandler is a great actor because he's had very successful movies at the box office. Acting is a performance art that you can't use to compete with someone, and by your logic the only way to measure success is by how much your movies make. However, a guy who's movies don't make much money can be a fantastic actor, while a guy like Adam Sander can make millions.

In my opinion, you can be a great wrestler who doesn't draw a whole lot of casual marks, and you can be a shitty wrestler who sells out arenas. The two are mutually exclusive in my opinion. However if a guy can do both, THEN he's the"total package." No pun intended. Obviously in wrestling, money is what matters for the PROMOTER and the business. But if you were to put Cena into a vaccum and into a ring with another wrestler, it would be obvious how Cena's wrestling ability isn't "great". I've also said that the interest Cena creates is due to his CeNation loving him for non wrestling reasons and the adult male "Millions" hating him because of this. This fact leads to the huge reactions Cena matches generate.

Basically, Cena is cheered by the women and kids, and gets XPAC-Heat from the teenage and adult males. Now, I'm gonna state that I can't prove 100 percent anything I've said, but I'll stand by it as my opinion.

 

[The Crock]

Great post. Cena sucks. He is a wrestler who's gimmick only appeals to children and has a limited move set, almost rivaling The Great Khali.

You're a moron. His gimmick clearly doesn't only appeal to children as Sly, DirtyJose, The Champ, Hamler, and myself are all not children and are stringently defending him.

There's also nothing wrong with a smaller move-set, all that matters is how you use your move-set and if you know when to use a certain move. Cena knows how to do that. You don't see him doing random spots in the middle of the match that have no point or connection to any of it, there's some wrestling out there that does that though, I'm sure it appeals to you.

The STF might as well be a choke. I know it's not intended to be a choke but you know what I meant. Cena doesn't even apply pressure to the damn hold ( or atleast make it look like he's applying pressure). And no, Cena's not intimidating. There's no reason Del Rio should be "shit in his pants" terrified of Cena and lock him out of a cell in order to win a match where he was ALLOWED to use weapons. You add the fact that he could use weapons to his legitimate technical skills, and it makes 0 sense that Del Rio should be that afraid of Cena or that unable to beat him in that type of enviroment.

Have you ever actually thought that any of that comes from Del Rio's character? His gimmick doesn't exactly make him a guy that's willing to go toe-to-toe with Cena. Instead, he'll be the one to screw him out of a match. Storyline-wise, Alberto Del Rio has every reason to be afraid of Cena. Cena's the best, Cena took it to Del Rio in a one-on-one contest, and Del Rio's a coward. It's really simple.

I also think that I've made some legitimate reasons of why I don't like Cena. Also, by your logic Sly, Adam Sandler is a great actor because he's had very successful movies at the box office. Acting is a performance art that you can't use to compete with someone, and by your logic the only way to measure success is by how much your movies make. However, a guy who's movies don't make much money can be a fantastic actor, while a guy like Adam Sander can make millions.

Adam Sandler can tell a story, but he can't tell the same story Marlon Brando can. The same goes for a guy like Jack Swagger when compared to John Cena. If your movie sells, there's something about it that appeals to the public. They won't go and see it unless they're drawn in. Cena draws fans because they know they'll see something good, I'd argue the same can be said for a successful actor.

In my opinion, you can be a great wrestler who doesn't draw a whole lot of casual marks, and you can be a shitty wrestler who sells out arenas. The two are mutually exclusive in my opinion. However if a guy can do both, THEN he's the"total package." No pun intended. Obviously in wrestling, money is what matters for the PROMOTER and the business. But if you were to put Cena into a vaccum and into a ring with another wrestler, it would be obvious how Cena's wrestling ability isn't "great". I've also said that the interest Cena creates is due to his CeNation loving him for non wrestling reasons and the adult male "Millions" hating him because of this. This fact leads to the huge reactions Cena matches generate.

You're so wrong about adult males hating Cena that it's not even funny.

Cena can drag good matches out of most. He pulled some damn good matches out of Bobby Lashley, Umaga, JBL, Khali, the list goes on and on. Here we go again; it doesn't matter about your technical ability. What matters is that you can use your move-set, however small, to tell a story. Cena could very well tell a story with a vacuum, he's just that good.

Cena understands things that very few wrestlers do. He knows how to work a crowd, understands psychology, etc. That's what makes him a great wrestler. I'm obviously not watching Cena because 12 Rounds was a good movie, I'm watching because he's a great wrestler.

Basically, Cena is cheered by the women and kids, and gets XPAC-Heat from the teenage and adult males. Now, I'm gonna state that I can't prove 100 percent anything I've said, but I'll stand by it as my opinion.

I cheer Cena, as do all the others defending him in this thread. We're adult/teenage males. That disproves your theory. Oh, and I'm fairly certain that a minority of the crowd boos Cena, which would mean that he's not getting X-Pac heat. Most of the crowd cheers for Cena, there's only a small portion of morons (very vocal ones at that) who boo him.

 

[Slyfox696]

The STF might as well be a choke. I know it's not intended to be a choke but you know what I meant. Cena doesn't even apply pressure to the damn hold ( or atleast make it look like he's applying pressure). And no, Cena's not intimidating. There's no reason Del Rio should be "shit in his pants" terrified of Cena and lock him out of a cell in order to win a match where he was ALLOWED to use weapons. You add the fact that he could use weapons to his legitimate technical skills, and it makes 0 sense that Del Rio should be that afraid of Cena or that unable to beat him in that type of enviroment.

Notice a difference? And what you're talking about is hardly unique to Cena. Heels are always "terrified" of faces, and there's no faces that are more intimidating than Cena.

I also think that I've made some legitimate reasons of why I don't like Cena.

I don't care whether you like him or not. I'm talking about when you're trying to say he's not good. Like or dislike all you want, but when you begin making comments about quality, then your statements don't hold up.

Also, by your logic Sly, Adam Sandler is a great actor because he's had very successful movies at the box office.

Books/movies are completely different from pro wrestling. The goals and ideals of pro wrestling are different from every other medium of entertainment. Trying to compare pro wrestling with anything else is a waste of time.

In my opinion, you can be a great wrestler who doesn't draw a whole lot of casual marks

How can you be a great wrestler if no one is entertained by you? If you're not entertaining, you cannot be good.

and you can be a shitty wrestler who sells out arenas.

If you're shitty, then you won't be entertaining. And if you're not entertaining, no one will pay to watch you, so you won't be selling out arenas.

The two are mutually exclusive in my opinion. However if a guy can do both, THEN he's the"total package."

Cena's a great wrestler and sells out arenas. He's the total package.

But if you were to put Cena into a vaccum and into a ring with another wrestler, it would be obvious how Cena's wrestling ability isn't "great".

That doesn't make any sense. Why would you wrestle if no one is watching?

Pro wrestling is not sports. Pro wrestling exists solely on the idea of entertaining fans. Removing fans from the match is ridiculous, because the fans are the only reason the match exists in the first place, and everything that happens in the ring is for the entertainment of the fans.

Basically, Cena is cheered by the women and kids, and gets XPAC-Heat from the teenage and adult males. Now, I'm gonna state that I can't prove 100 percent anything I've said, but I'll stand by it as my opinion.

Heat is heat. And if people are paying to watch you wrestle, whether they boo you or cheer you doesn't matter. They're still paying to watch you, and the WWE doesn't give a damn whether you like him or not.

Your arguments are getting better, and you're making a little more sense, but your understanding of pro wrestling doesn't seem to be getting any better.

 

[D-Man]

Great post. Cena sucks. He is a wrestler who's gimmick only appeals to children and has a limited move set, almost rivaling The Great Khali.

Holy ignorance. I'm so sick of all you morons who say CENA HAZ FIVE MOVS. Check out this video:


This doesn't even showcase his entire moveset. And it's pathetic that all of you need to sit at home with a calculator and five fingers on your right hand to try and actually COUNT his moves, thinking it gives some kind of valid argument about why he's a "bad wrestler."

I may personally dislike the fact that he's showcased at the top dog all the time but, then again, I'm always craving something new in professional wrestling. However, I'm not going to sit here and say blatent lies and bullshit like "he can't wrestle", "he has no moves", or "he only appeals to children." If all of you ignorant fucks would take two seconds to think outside of the box, you'd realize that he's a hero to our armed forces. For the record, you need to be over 18 to join the service. So, right there, that's thousands upon thousands of fans that are considered to be adults.

Get off your soapboxes, everyone, and find a real argument against the guy.

 

[PunkNation26]

Well a great wrestler may not draw ratings perhaps because the promoter won't push him because he's a self made guy (ex. Daniel Bryan). It's PATHETIC that he was made to tap to his OWN hold. I'm not against faces tapping out, but I'm against great wrestlers not getting pushed just because they don't weigh 250 pounds and wear purple shirts. Oh and I thought that WWE's goal and Hollywood's goal was the same, to make money.

Seriously though, a lot of where a guy is on the card depends on his push. Some horribly shitty wrestlers have been in main events over the years. Kissing the right people's ass seems to help too. Now I'm not going to say that I know for a fact that Cena is an asskisser, but CM Punk did say he was in his worked shoot. I'd honestly believe it.

Why would Cena be the troop's hero? Are they that big of a mark? Cena is a right wing nut job republican's dream. And I honestly doubt that every soldier is a Cena fan. Only the ones that follow the crowd.

 

[The Crock]

Well a great wrestler may not draw ratings perhaps because the promoter won't push him because he's a self made guy (ex. Daniel Bryan). It's PATHETIC that he was made to tap to his OWN hold. I'm not against faces tapping out, but I'm against great wrestlers not getting pushed just because they don't weigh 250 pounds and wear purple shirts. Oh and I thought that WWE's goal and Hollywood's goal was the same, to make money.

Yeah, Daniel Bryan's getting no push. Fuck that whole "Money in the Bank" thing, right? Do you actually read the shit you say? Bryan's working an angle and getting a push. If they wanted to hold him back they never would have given him a World Title shot.

Jeff Hardy, Shawn Michaels, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Christian, all those guys got pushes and didn't fit the mold you're trying to push here. You're wrong. The WWE does want to make money and they do that by pushing whoever entertains and interests the crowd.

Seriously though, a lot of where a guy is on the card depends on his push. Some horribly shitty wrestlers have been in main events over the years. Kissing the right people's ass seems to help to. Now I'm not going to say that I know for a fact that Cena is an asskisser, but CM Punk did say he was in his worked shoot. I'd honestly believe it.

Hook, line, and sinker -- Punk got you. He was saying things to get a reaction out of the crowd.

Sure, people have gotten pushes and completely sucked (Ultimate Warrior) but the fans were behind him. He was still entertaining. You don't get a push unless you're either entertaining or have a crowd connection.

 

[PunkNation26]

But a crowd reaction has nothing to do with wrestling ability. They are two different things. The Ultimate Warrior proves it. By Sly's logic, Warrior was a GREAT WRESTLER. We all know that's bullshit. There was a South Park episode a few years back dealing with this very issue.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well a great wrestler may not draw ratings perhaps because the promoter won't push him because he's a self made guy (ex. Daniel Bryan).

That doesn't make sense. Why would Vince McMahon care who is making him money, as long as they are making him money?

I'm not against faces tapping out, but I'm against great wrestlers not getting pushed just because they don't weigh 250 pounds and wear purple shirts.

And here you go back to not making sense. Throw one minor compliment your way, and you start talking foolishly again.

Ignoring the fact Bryan is the current MITB holder, an honor which has yet to fail to earn a World title, McMahon doesn't give a fuck who makes him money, as long as someone does. Those who make him money, move up the card. It's pro wrestling 101.

Oh and I thought that WWE's goal and Hollywood's goal was the same, to make money.

Of course not. Movies get made all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Are some movies made just to rake in a profit? Sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't many movies out there which are created for other reasons.

In pro wrestling, the promoter wants to make money, and he hires wrestlers to make him money. There is no other motive.

Seriously though, a lot of where a guy is on the card depends on his push.

No, where a guy is on the card is dependent upon how much money he does/might make the company.

Some horribly shitty wrestlers have been in main events over the years.

If they've consistently spent time in the main-event, then they were entertaining to the point they made money. Which means they did their job well.

Kissing the right people's ass seems to help too. Now I'm not going to say that I know for a fact that Cena is an asskisser, but CM Punk did say he was in his worked shoot. I'd honestly believe it.

People who have worked with McMahon for years have said repeatedly McMahon isn't fooled by ass kissers. The idea ass kissers get ahead in the company is just silly. The guys who get ahead in the company are the guys who make the money. Cena was the most profitable superstar McMahon had back in 2004, before he ever won his first World title. This comes straight from the WWE itself.

Since Cena walked into the main-event, the economy has done nothing but get worse, more people have lost jobs, and the WWE has done nothing but make more money. In a terrible economy, the WWE is making some of their best profits. To think Cena is not a major reason for this is just deluding yourself.

The fact is Cena is great at what he does. We know he's great, because we know he's entertaining, which is the job of pro wrestlers. You don't have to like him, but you cannot deny how good he is.

Cena is a right wing nut job republican's dream. And I honestly doubt that every soldier is a Cena fan. Only the ones that follow the crowd.

Wow...that is some of the most ignorant nonsense I have ever read.

 

[The Crock]

But a crowd reaction has nothing to do with wrestling ability. They are two different things. The Ultimate Warrior proves it. By Sly's logic, Warrior was a GREAT WRESTLER. We all know that's bullshit. There was a South Park episode a few years back dealing with this very issue.

Ultimate Warrior was a great PRO WRESTLER. It has NOTHING to do with technical ability. He may have been a piss poor technician and mic man, but anybody that can get a reaction that rivals Hogan's is doing something right. People irrationally hate Warrior, but the guy is one of the biggest wrestlers of all time.

You can't seem to differentiate between what a good superstar is and what a good technician is.

 

[Slyfox696]

But a crowd reaction has nothing to do with wrestling ability.

Of course it does. The ability to make the crowd invest emotionally in your character is the entire point of the match! You want the crowd to care about you, and whether you win or lose. You want them to be on the edge of their seat, cheering or booing their lungs out. The wrestlers who can make the fans care about them (not moves, but them) are the ones who are the best wrestlers.

The Ultimate Warrior proves it. By Sly's logic, Warrior was a GREAT WRESTLER.

Damn right he was. I don't know about "great", and he never proved longevity, but Warrior has two of the greatest matches in Wrestlemania history, and did it in back to back years. Warrior also has several other decent matches to his name, in an era where he wouldn't wrestle a televised match 10 times a year.

Warrior was a damn fine wrestler, for what we saw of him. He's crazy, but he was good at what he did.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I think I've figured out PunkNation. Now he claims that wrestling ability and crowd reaction are two different things when it comes to how good a wrestler is when we all know that's false. I don't know if he's said this for sure but he's a Cena hater so this probably applies: "Only women and children cheer for Cena." Sly and some of the other veterans can help me out on this one because I'm not certain. Is there a significant increase in the number of women attending wrestling events in Cena's era then there was in Hogan's era?

I smell a scent of misogyny in this PunkNation dude because I believe he doesn't think that women can grasp the concept of pro wrestling and what makes a great wrestler like he thinks he can. Using South Park as a validation for your post is a rookie mistake. Hell, a mistake all around.