Miami Region, Fifth Round: (1) Hulk Hogan vs. (3) John Cena

[Hulkamaniac]

Cena was able to make a match with JL of all people entertaining and keep the crowd going for a good twenty minutes. In fact pretty much all John Cena matches are great. Even if he wins in what people would consider Superman fashion it's still way more believable and better than any Hogan match.

I'm not going to argue that I don't find John Cena entertaining in the ring, I do. But people cared more and reacted more to Hogan in the ring. It's just a fact. But please don't bring a realism argument in favor of Cena. He no-sells throughout matches, and lets not even talk about him getting DDT'd on the concrete and STILL beating the two guys (Gabriel and Wade Barrett) minutes later, showing no ill effects. Hogan would sell constantly throughout the match, no-sell the "Hulk Up", and then sell again immediately after the "adrenaline wore off". Cena just no-sells most of the time.

EDIT: Wait, better than ANY Hogan match? Now you're just being asinine. Cena has yet to have a match that matches the spectacle and drama of Hogan-Andre, Hogan-Savage, Hogan-Warrior or Hogan-Rock. You may enjoy Cena's work more, but to make that kind of blanket statement is just being ridiculous.

 

[Stormtrooper]

This is a tale of Hulk Hogan vs. a Hulk Hogan imitator (granted Cena is the greatest Hogan imitator in wrestling history).

-They both are power wrestlers that are the face of the company and the industry.

-They both have their own limited "5 Moves of Doom" moveset (Hogan had the 3-Punches, Boot, Leg Drop combo, Cena has the Shoulder blocks, Spinning Back Suplex, 5 Knuckle Shuffle, AA/STF).

-They both have their own method of a no-sell comeback (Hogan "Hulking Up" and the so-called "SuperCena.")

Here's the difference though. Hogan was leading the company to the highest popularity level in WWE history (yes, the 80's were bigger then the Attitude Era). Cena led the company during a mediocre period, and is unable to get them back to anything near that level. Therefore Hogan is a MUCH better draw.


In terms of Kayfabe, Hogan DOESN'T lose. His only notable clean defeat was to Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania VI. His other notable losses were due to outside interference (Ric Flair in Hogans loss to Undertaker, evil Photographer in his King of the Ring loss to Yokozuna) or bribing an evil referee twin. Cena lost clean regularly during his prime.


And for the people wanting to bring backstage politics into this, fine, we'll do that too. Hogan would use backstage politics a lot in his career. Cena "didn't." Therefore, Hogan will do his politicking to get himself the win, and Cena will allow Hogan to win the match, because Cena "doesn't do the politics."

Vote Hogan, or you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[grundy]

In a fight you say? Isn't cena supposed to be a street tough fighter? In a fight the bigger stronger guy wins? Its not the size of the dog in the fight. In my experience strength is trumped by speed strength is trumped by intelligence. A strong man has one way to win. A smart man has a hundred. Cena has the gas tank has the better wrestling ability has the speed and I think is smarter then Hogan he tapped batisita down to win a last man standing match. You say the bigger stronger man. I say take a look who cm punk beat to get to the championship region. There's your theory

 

[Hulkamaniac]

In a fight you say? Isn't cena supposed to be a street tough fighter?

At one point that was his gimmick. Not any more, not in his prime.

In a fight the bigger stronger guy wins? Its not the size of the dog in the fight.

Viva los empty cliches!

In my experience strength is trumped by speed strength is trumped by intelligence.

Cena wins most of his matches on the basis of his size and strength...and he's outsized and outstrengthed. He's a fast...for his size. And Hogan was very, very smart wrestler. As I already pointed out, he was mroe than willing to bend the rules in a match.

A strong man has one way to win. A smart man has a hundred.

Hogan had one finisher. Cena had 2. That's the extent of either guys finishing repertoire, lets not pretend otherwise.

Cena has the gas tank

Where has it ever been established that Hogan didn't?

has the better wrestling ability

Not true at all.

has the speed

True.

and I think is smarter then Hogan

Arguable at best for you.

he tapped batisita down to win a last man standing match.

Hogan would have just put him down for the 10 count. It's not a plus for Cena that he was incapable of doing it, although I do applaud his ingenuity in that one instance. I'm sure I could find Hogan outsmarting people in the ring if I really wanted to look for it.

You say the bigger stronger man. I say take a look who cm punk beat to get to the championship region. There's your theory

So a travesty of justice that never actually happened is the crux of your argument? Yikes.

 

[grundy]

No im saying that size doesn't mean much in thus torny

 

[Hulkamaniac]

No im saying that size doesn't mean much in thus torny

No, but it means something in this match because both guys are power wrestlers. CM Punk, despite being unworthy of beating Andre the Giant, is a different type of skill set. Cena is a power wrestler going against a bigger, stronger power wrestler.

 

[grundy]

I jus saw him beat a bigger stronger power wrestler and get his ass kicked for a half hour and win I think he can handle a leg drop and a few bad poses

 

[Hulkamaniac]

I jus saw him beat a bigger stronger power wrestler and get his ass kicked for a half hour and win I think he can handle a leg drop and a few bad poses

I'm sorry, is he allowed to use a chain to win this match? Also that was Brock's first WWE match in, what, 9 years? And it Cena barely won with the use of a "loaded fist" after getting the piss beat out of him?

 

[shattered dreams]

I maintain that voting for someone solely on the basis of their popularity or drawing power is silly. It's a criterion, but it isn't the only criterion.

Translation: I am conveniently avoiding one of the major areas that Hogan is indisputably superior to Cena.

Cena and Hogan strike each other out in almost every way. Hogan is a big strong power wrestler. So is Cena. Cena sells tons of merch and gets crazy reactions from fans. So did Hogan. Hogan beat some of the all time greats in big time matches. So did Cena. Cena helped wrestling become mainstream relevant. So did Hogan.

This paragraph starts out reasonable but by the end it has become absurd in the way it glosses over the humongous difference between their accomplishments in the area. Hogan made wrestling mainstream relevant. Cena has been the face of the company in an era where its mainstream relevance has fallen. What has Cena done that helped wrestling become mainstream relevant? Other than lose to the Rock, another guy that actually made wrestling mainstream relevant, I can't think of anything. I suppose you will at least have some example of something but I would be shocked if it didn't clearly pale in comparison to Hulkamania.

In reading the argument that Slyfox had with Slyfox earlier, I agree with Slyfox. Cena being a nice guy is irrelevant. If "nice guy" was a worthy criterion in this tournament, then you may as well chalk up first round losses to Shawn Michaels, Vader, Randy Orton, Triple H, and Brock Lesnar right now.

At least you got something right.

First, Cena has wrestled - and defeated - a roster with more skill and more variety than Hogan did. Hogan, a power guy, had many of his biggest matches with other power guys / brawlers. Iron Sheik, King Kong Bundy, Andre the Giant, Earthquake, Roddy Piper (not a power guy but a brawler), Don Muraco, Paul Orndorff, Ultimate Warrior, Sgt. Slaughter, The Undertaker, Sid Justice, Yokozuna. Ted DiBiase and Randy Savage were two noted exceptions.

Cena has transcended the business at a time when pro wrestling is saturated with marketable and versatile guys. Edge. Orton. HHH. Michaels. Show. Punk. In back to back months, Cena carried a legend like The Rock to an excellent match at Wrestlemania, only to work an intense one-month program with Brock Lesnar during which Cena had his head busted open the hard way by a former UFC World Champion. Hell, in Hogan's first prime, if he so much as appeared on TV twice in one month it was a lot.

You aren't making any sense here. First off, you are waffling between kayfabe and non-kayfabe stuff too much. Second off, I don't even think you are right on your point. From a kayfabe point of view you claim Hogan mostly had experience against power guys / brawlers, yet this is going to be a disadvantage in a match against a power guy / brawler Cena doesn't have that same experience and it is an advantage for him From a non-kayfabe point of view you seem to have conveniently washed at least half of Hogan's career away. Hogan also transcended the business a second time at the height of competition for marketable guys in the history of prowrestling. Cena only rose to popularity after most of those guys left and the external competition was all gone.

I think the implication that Hogan could not rise above those guys you listed is completely ridiculous. A post 50 year old Hogan came in to Cena's time and still defeated Michaels, Orton and Show. In the year Cena debuted a late 40s Hogan beat HHH for the title and then defended it successfully against Regal and then Jericho in a no DQ match. Yeah, Hogan couldn't possibly rise to the top against non-brawlers or marketable guys I assume you just listed Punk to troll for IWC votes. I'll just ignore him for now, much like you did Ric Flair.

Second reason is the other layers to Cena's game. Hogan had his big moves - the hulk up, the right hand, the big boot, the body slam, the leg drop. Crowd ate it up. As he aged, however, and the competition got wise to it, they started anticipating the moveset. Warrior scouted the leg drop, moved, countered, and beat him. People could very well have done the same to Cena, but he went ahead and added the STF to his repitoire, which he has shown the ability to apply as a counter to many situations. When you think of Hogan, you don't think anything close to submission wrestling. With Cena, you have to at least respect its existence.

Cool story bro, now I might actually care if there was a chance in hell Hogan was tapping but there isn't. It is also interesting you bring up people could have done the same thing to Cena but ... Well now that I think about it the Rock just did exactly that in spite of the existence of the STF.

I get the Hogan legacy, I really do. Cena takes some of Hogan's best qualities and adds just that much more to make him just that much better. Vote Cena.

He doesn't draw more, he doesn't have more time at the top, he didn't dominate at the top for a longer period at his his best etc. etc. Cena is good but there is no way he is greater than Hulk Hogan yet or likely ever will be for that matter.

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

I've been thinking about this match for a while, but no matter how I cut it Cena is getting my vote.

In ring ability, argue what you want, "Cena's five moves of doom." Cena's ability in the ring far exceeds anything Hogan can do, or has done. Cena is far more athletic and creative in the ring. With Hogan, you'd get a side-head lock, a clothesline, big boot and a leg drop. Maybe every once and a while you'd see a greeco roman lock.

Yes, Hogan is strong, but does his strengthen really compare to Cena? He lifted Andre, how many times has Cena lifted Show or Khali? Or caught someone from off the top rope then give them an AA? My point being, anything Hogan has in the ring, Cena has as well. Plus, the ability to maintain it in longer matches.

On the mic, is this even a question? Seriously, Cena just went up against quite possibly the greatest on the mic and held his own, even beating Rock when it came to their verbal confrontations. To say Hogan is on that level is ridiculous. Yes, he's good, I'll admit that, but no where near the level of Cena or Rock.

Drawing ability, Hogan was like a god in the eighties. If he was involved, then people were going to show up. However, do not let the fact that Hogan drew 93,000 people to Mania 3 let you think he's automatically a bigger draw. Cena has been doing what for the past 7 years? Headlining Wrestlemania after Wrestlemania. He's been the face of the company, and whether you love the guy or hate the guy people come to see him. This past mania was able to get 1.9 million buys. Yes, the Rock was involved, but what Mania was Rock apart of that had that many buys? None, it was because of who he was facing. Because John Cena Draws.

When you look at the different era's I believe that Cena has been more dominate than Hogan was in his. The reason I say this is for this reason, is look at the guys he's beaten. Cena had a reign of over a year, in which he beat Edge, (Hall of Famer), Shawn Michaels, (Hall of Famer) Umaga, (Before he became watered down) Randy Orton, (Future Hall of Famer). But before that he held the title for 13 out 14 months. Defeating Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Triple H, all of which will be Hall of Famers. The reason I point this out is I feel that a lot of people look at the legends Hogan beat and automatically assume Hogan's Competition was better, which is not the case.

Also look at how much the title is thrown around now. Since Cena won his first WWE Title 05 to now. There have been 31 title changes. Between 13 different guys. That's just the WWE Championship, not including the World Title. What's my point? Diversity. In an era that the championship is constantly changing hands. Cena held the belt for 26 months out of 30. That's insane to think about in today's wrestling world. He held the title for that long. Beating the guys that he did.

At the end of the day, it comes down what will happen in the ring, I believe Cena would come out on top, as I've already touched on he's better in the ring, and can overcome any offense Hogan could give him.

 

[Larry]

Cena was able to make a match with JL of all people entertaining and keep the crowd going for a good twenty minutes. In fact pretty much all John Cena matches are great. Even if he wins in what people would consider Superman fashion it's still way more believable and better than any Hogan match.

This is pure conjecture and opinion, nothing that hold water when this is about FACTS. So let's get to some facts shall we.

1. John Cena's matches aren't all great, or pretty much all great. Go back in his catalog of matches and they used to be abysmal, which is why he got so much hate. People resented him for being a shitty wrestler, yet still being put over everybody no matter what. That is a fact of history.

2. Cena's wins are not way more "believable" that Hogan's.

If anything I would say they are less believable because Hogan never took the punishment that Cena did because he was so dominant and hard to beat, thus he was never coming back from such a ridiculous ass beating to make it unbelievable. Cena comes back from matches where he's been thoroughly beaten down non-stop, and there is nothing believable about that. The Lensar match is a prime example, he was beat to shit the whole time, and then miraculously he lands one big shot, and we're led to believe that-that one shot is supposed to amount to more than Lesnar did that entire match, absolutely destroying Cena? No way. When Hogan came back from his beatings the "Hulk Up" made it all the more believable and that's when you knew it was all over, and that too was believable. You knew once he Hulked Up the end was near, and that's just how believable Hogan was.

3. Cena's wins are not "Better" than Hogan's either. How can you even quantify how someone's wins are better than another's? There is no criteria or basis of judgment for that so it's kind of ridiculous to try and state it as fact, which is a factual statement.


Cena has ONE count it, ONE area where you might be able to say he was better than Hogan, and that's on the mic, and I'd even argue that's highly questionable because Hogan did more with less by far and his recipe for cutting a promo captivated people in a way John Cena simply does not. You turn in to Raw, you see John Cena talking, big deal, he does a lot of talking. You tune into WWF Superstars and you see Hogan cutting a promo, you stop and listen, because Hogan didn't do nearly the same amount of talking but when he did it was important, he had something to say, and it wasn't just filler for the show, it meant something, it really had to do with something significant, it wasn't just another opportunity taken to put the face in front of the fans to kill time.

You can-not compare legacies here. Hogan has been the man not once, but twice, and even held the Undisputed title weeeeeeell past his prime in 2002, and he was on top as long or longer than Cena has been so far, both times. So for the record since LSN wanted to argue that in another thread, people DO main event and hold titles, past their primes, Hogan did it twice.

No one has ever done for the business what Hogan did, unless you want to start talking about Frank Gotch which is a different story altogether. Hogan is the reason the business reached the heights it did in his day, and those thereafter, without him taking wrestling into the mainstream and virtually every house and home in the country and around the world, wrestling never becomes what it was or what it would become.

You can't really compare drawing power or merchandise sales either, go back and watch an old WWF PPV or WrestleMania and look at all the red and yellow. Hogan sold more merchandise than anyone, possibly with acception to Steve Austin, but certainly not less than Cena. Want to talk about the bigger draw? Let's go back to WrestleMania III, still the biggest draw ever, how about WrestleMania VI another record breaker in the SkyDome, How about the first WrestleMania which drew a record gate at the time, or how about the year after year that Hogan was on top and kept large crowds coming in droves? Go look it up on Wikipedia if you'd like and you'll see where it is noted that with Hulk Hogan at the helm as the face of the company they did record PPV buy rates, he drew record house show attendances, and they also had record ratings. Hogan was also the #1 make-a-wish request, he had his own cartoon for God sake, and his 900 hotline was the most successful of it's day. What more do you need? Hogan was arguably the biggest national icon of his day, you can't say that for Cena.

You just can't compare, and that was HOGAN who was the draw, not part-time wrestlers like The Rock helping him pull in the numbers, or other highly established stars like Shawn Michaels and Triple H. Andre and Warrior were obviously the other halves of the biggest draws of his career, but if they weren't facing Hogan, it wouldn't have mattered, those wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal. The same can be said for The Rock and Cena, if Cena wasn't facing The Rock, his match as Mania wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal if you put him with anyone else in the company, so what we can surmise from all this is that Hogan was a bigger draw on his own than Cena is, and Hogan's era was by far more popular as well.

Last but certainly not least, win/loss records. I don't even need to get into this one very deep and we know that Hogan has a much better record than Cena ever dreamed of having. You can say "Well this is a different era, wins and losses are exchanged more frequently" and there might be some truth to that. The point though, is that Hogan still didn't lose nearly as much, rather rarely in fact did he ever lose as is signified by his 4 year run as champion (1,474 days)

Spoiler

only losing the title in a screw job match where the ref made the 3 count even though Hogans should was clearly up beforehand. Hogan then went on to hold the title for another year straight after winning it at WM 5 and then dropping the title to Warrior at WM 6, then won it back a year later from Sgt. Slaughter at WM 7, lost it to Undertaker and won the title back less than a week later, then finally won his last title in this run from Yokozuna at WM 9. So, bottom line here, Hogan Wins, constantly. Even as a heel in the NWO he won all the time, less than when he was "Hulk Hogan" but still more than most.

The point here is that Cena isn't unbeatable to the WWE and he isn't as big of a commodity to the WWE, they will put people over him without much thought and it's nothing, this points to him not being of as great of significance. If he were as big as Hogan, they wouldn't let him lose so frequently, if he was a bigger commodity they would protect him there and it would be imperative that he do not lose, but they just put John Lauranitis over John Cena? That would never happen to Hogan and everyone has to know that.

No matter how many ways you want to cut it, there is no way Cena beats Hogan, not in any area, not physically, not in Kayfabe, not in reality. Hulk Still Rules.

 

[grundy]

Brock is a former ufc hvyw champion Hogan is the biggest star in wrestling ever but he is not the best in ring performer by far. McMahon looked at him and saw huge guy huge arms hes a star. And without McMahon Hogan has failed miserably in wrestling dragging out nwo till it killed wcw now he does the same on impact Hogan has no mind for the biz has no passion for it. Wrestling allows him to keep his name out there and keep money comin in thats it. Lets look at their movesets Hogan - back rack, punches, big boot, shoulder tackle , and a leg drop. Cena- punches, flying leg drop, shoulder tackle, spin out powerbomb, ddt, AA, Stf. I i cud see how u came to see hogan as the better performer........... That was a lie

 

[Larry]

You clearly have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Let me show you.

Brock is a former ufc hvyw champion Hogan is the biggest star in wrestling ever but he is not the best in ring performer by far.

First of all, Brock Lesnar has what to do with this? Second, what does it matter that Hogan isn't the best in-ring performer? He never needed to be, his charisma and showmanship always made up for that, and he had an old school style of his own that was still entertaining, he just wasn't the best wrestler in the way guys like Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are considered great wrestlers.

McMahon looked at him and saw huge guy huge arms hes a star. And without McMahon Hogan has failed miserably in wrestling

It might be a little know fact to folks like yourself, but Hogan was already an international star before Hulkamania officially launched, worked for McMahon Sr. prior to that, became arguably the biggest star in Japan, a celebrity after appearing in Rocky III, and was a top face in AWA before going back to the WWF to launch Hulkamania. He didn't need McMahon to be a star, he already had the skills and charisma and became a star on his own, and there was no one else who could have been "Hulk Hogan".

dragging out nwo till it killed wcw now he does the same on impact Hogan has no mind for the biz has no passion for it.

And even if that is true what does that have to do with his ability to beat John Cena here? Nothing. I think you should think again about trying to say Hogan has no passion for the business either, as it's what he's devoted his life to for over 30 years. You don't stick to something as punishing as wrestling if you simply have no love for it. That is the only place Brock Lesnar fits into this since you mentioned him. There's an example of a guy with no passion for the business.

Wrestling allows him to keep his name out there and keep money comin in thats it.

And movies allow actors to keep their names out there and keep money coming in, and boxing matches allow pugilists to keep their names out there and keep money coming in, the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and other sporting bodies allow their athletes to keep their names out there and keep money coming in, your point????

Lets look at their movesets Hogan - back rack, punches, big boot, shoulder tackle , and a leg drop. Cena- punches, flying leg drop, shoulder tackle, spin out powerbomb, ddt, AA, Stf. I i cud see how u came to see hogan as the better performer........... That was a lie

Being a performer is about more than your move-set. There is an element of natural charisma and showmanship that is a large part of it that you can't replace with moves. There is a connection one has or makes with the crowd that moves alone can not compensate for or create. Hogan had all of that, and still has that to this day. Thanks for pointing out that Hogan didn't have an amazing move-set by the way, because it only goes to show just how entertaining he was STILL without that, as he was a major star from the late 70's on, working that style. Obviously it didn't matter, nor does it here. Just to make another point as well, when Hogan wrestled in Japan, he wrestled a much more technical and traditional wrestling style that differed greatly from the powerhouse style he used in America. It's not that he couldn't "wrestle" he very much could, but his character called for a different style, a more power based brawling style and that's what he worked, and made work for years.

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

This is pure conjecture and opinion, nothing that hold water when this is about FACTS. So let's get to some facts shall we.

This should be fun.

1. John Cena's matches aren't all great, or pretty much all great. Go back in his catalog of matches and they used to be abysmal, which is why he got so much hate. People resented him for being a shitty wrestler, yet still being put over everybody no matter what. That is a fact of history.

Yes, I recall watching a video were Trips said he sucked. Though I do recall Cena working his ass off to improve, and he has. This is about wrestlers in there prime. I would not argue that Cena was in his prime at that point in his career. To be fair though, there have been a fair amount of Hogan matches that have been utter crap.

2. Cena's wins are not way more "believable" that Hogan's.

Let me get this straight? Cena's matches aren't believable. Hogan is the master at getting the crap beat out of him, and yet hulking-up and winning.

If anything I would say they are less believable because Hogan never took the punishment that Cena did because he was so dominant and hard to beat, thus he was never coming back from such a ridiculous ass beating to make it unbelievable.

Hmm. Cena takes a beating, comes back. Hogan takes a beating and comes back. How exactly is there a difference? Watch the Hogan vs Andre at Wrestlemania. Hogan was dominated the entire match, and then comes back and wins.

Cena comes back from matches where he's been thoroughly beaten down non-stop, and there is nothing believable about that. The Lensar match is a prime example, he was beat to shit the whole time, and then miraculously he lands one big shot, and we're led to believe that-that one shot is supposed to amount to more than Lesnar did that entire match, absolutely destroying Cena? No way.

How is the Lesnar match a prime example? He got one shot with a chain that busted Lesner open and then hit an AA him on steel steps. The next night everyone was talking about how Lesnar dominated him. He admitted. That's a poor example. You're lead to believe that Cena was able to get a lucky shot in when Lesnar was showboating.

When Hogan came back from his beatings the "Hulk Up" made it all the more believable and that's when you knew it was all over, and that too was believable. You knew once he Hulked Up the end was near, and that's just how believable Hogan was.

How exactly is a guy taking a beating and then in the middle of the match while he's taking the beating he hulks up believable? That's ridiculous. Its cartoonish at best.

3. Cena's wins are not "Better" than Hogan's either. How can you even quantify how someone's wins are better than another's? There is no criteria or basis of judgment for that so it's kind of ridiculous to try and state it as fact, which is a factual statement.

I agree, you cannot argue who's wins are better than the others.

Cena has ONE count it, ONE area where you might be able to say he was better than Hogan, and that's on the mic, and I'd even argue that's highly questionable because Hogan did more with less by far and his recipe for cutting a promo captivated people in a way John Cena simply does not. You turn in to Raw, you see John Cena talking, big deal, he does a lot of talking. You tune into WWF Superstars and you see Hogan cutting a promo, you stop and listen, because Hogan didn't do nearly the same amount of talking but when he did it was important, he had something to say, and it wasn't just filler for the show, it meant something, it really had to do with something significant, it wasn't just another opportunity taken to put the face in front of the fans to kill time.

You point out that people aren't captivated by Cena. Go back and watch the promo's before Mania. Not where the Rock was involved. Watch were it was just Cena. The audience and people on this forum seemed pretty captivated. Go back to last year before Wrestlemania and watch Cena's responses to the Rock, he's pretty captivating. You also point out a flaw in your argument. Hogan did not cut a promo as much. That is how the product was produced. Is it Cena's fault that wrestling fans are use to promo's? No, that's the product today. Hogan was able to captivate the audience because he didn't cut a promo as much. However, you go and watch his promo's in WCW after the first couple of month with the nWo. Pretty boring, and the same thing.

You can-not compare legacies here. Hogan has been the man not once, but twice, and even held the Undisputed title weeeeeeell past his prime in 2002, and he was on top as long or longer than Cena has been so far, both times. So for the record since LSN wanted to argue that in another thread, people DO main event and hold titles, past their primes, Hogan did it twice.

Isn't this about wrestler's in their prime? Anyways. I'm not going to argue the fact that Hogan's legacy is great. Though I do not believe its fair to judge legacies while one's career is still ongoing.

No one has ever done for the business what Hogan did, unless you want to start talking about Frank Gotch which is a different story altogether. Hogan is the reason the business reached the heights it did in his day, and those thereafter, without him taking wrestling into the mainstream and virtually every house and home in the country and around the world, wrestling never becomes what it was or what it would become.

Yes, Hogan did that, but without other people coming a long, wrestling would have slipped back. Anyone will agree that Wrestling between 93 and 96 had fallen back into a rut. When Hogan left WWF wrestling was not cool. Austin brought that back. Cena continues that trend today. Some people hate him, but some people hated Hogan.

Want to talk about the bigger draw? Let's go back to WrestleMania III, still the biggest draw ever, how about WrestleMania VI another record breaker in the SkyDome, How about the first WrestleMania which drew a record gate at the time, or how about the year after year that Hogan was on top and kept large crowds coming in droves? Go look it up on Wikipedia if you'd like and you'll see where it is noted that with Hulk Hogan at the helm as the face of the company they did record PPV buy rates, he drew record house show attendances, and they also had record ratings.

Did your really just use wikipedia as a source? Hogan was a great draw. I said that in my post, "if he was involved with something people were there." The thing is, people buy tickets to hate on Cena, and people buy tickets to cheer him. People even buy shirts that say Cena sucks. You cannot argue that.

You just can't compare, and that was HOGAN who was the draw, not part-time wrestlers like The Rock helping him pull in the numbers, or other highly established stars like Shawn Michaels and Triple H. Andre and Warrior were obviously the other halves of the biggest draws of his career, but if they weren't facing Hogan, it wouldn't have mattered, those wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal.

Yes, Hogan drew, I get that. Once again you point out the flaw in your argument. There's another side to the match. Wrestlemania III is huge because of the match up of Hogan vs Andre. Andre was one of the biggest draws in the 70s and 80s because of his size and there was no one like him. No one drew like Andre. So as much as Hogan drew, Andre made it that much bigger.

The same can be said for The Rock and Cena, if Cena wasn't facing The Rock, his match as Mania wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal if you put him with anyone else in the company, so what we can surmise from all this is that Hogan was a bigger draw on his own than Cena is, and Hogan's era was by far more popular as well.

Really? Because I recall Rock vs Hogan did not draw near as much as Rock vs Cena. To argue that Wrestlemania 28 drew solely because of Rock is ridiculous. If that is the case why did Survivor Series this pass year which was Rock's first match in 7 years have a lower buy rate then the previous 3 years? It was the match of Rock vs Cena. Just as it was the match up between Andre and Hogan.

Last but certainly not least, win/loss records. I don't even need to get into this one very deep and we know that Hogan has a much better record than Cena ever dreamed of having.

Actually, Cena has a better win lose record than Hogan. Go do your research before making claims.

Here you go, http://www.profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-win-percentages.html

You can say "Well this is a different era, wins and losses are exchanged more frequently" and there might be some truth to that. The point though, is that Hogan still didn't lose nearly as much, rather rarely in fact did he ever lose as is signified by his 4 year run as champion (1,474 days)

Spoiler

only losing the title in a screw job match where the ref made the 3 count even though Hogans should was clearly up beforehand.

Spoiler

Even in this "different era" Cena has a better win lose record than Hogan.
How many times was Cena defeated cleanly in his year long reign which is unheard of in today's era? Not much. He held on to the title 26 out of 30 months in an era where the title is thrown around like a hot potato.

Hogan then went on to hold the title for another year straight after winning it at WM 5 and then dropping the title to Warrior at WM 6, then won it back a year later from Sgt. Slaughter at WM 7, lost it to Undertaker and won the title back less than a week later, then finally won his last title in this run from Yokozuna at WM 9. So, bottom line here, Hogan Wins, constantly. Even as a heel in the NWO he won all the time, less than when he was "Hulk Hogan" but still more than most.

Yeah, I got it. I already pointed out how Cena has a better win/loss record than Hogan. A lot of his matches in WCW he won with interference from the NWO, but even with that he lost more than Cena has.

The point here is that Cena isn't unbeatable to the WWE and he isn't as big of a commodity to the WWE, they will put people over him without much thought and it's nothing, this points to him not being of as great of significance.

How can you even make that argument? WWE is centered around Cena. CM Punk is the champion and has not been the main event when Cena's on the card. Even when Cena is not going after the title he's the main event. He's the reason that people tune in.

If he were as big as Hogan, they wouldn't let him lose so frequently, if he was a bigger commodity they would protect him there and it would be imperative that he do not lose, but they just put John Lauranitis over John Cena? That would never happen to Hogan and everyone has to know that.

He's big enough of a star for the company to realize that he does not have to win every single match in order to remain relevant to the fans. He matters wheather he's chasing the title, I point you to the lead up to wrestlemania 25, 26, and 27. He's relevant when he's holding the title, Wrestlemania 22 and 23, last year when he's holding the title against Punk. He's relevant when he's not holding the title and even in the title hunt. His feud with Rock, Lesnar the angle with Nexus. Cena has reached the level that he does not need to be winning all the time to be relevant. Hogan needed to win to remain relevant and be on top.

No matter how many ways you want to cut it, there is no way Cena beats Hogan, not in any area, not physically, not in Kayfabe, not in reality. Hulk Still Rules.

That's your opinion.

 

[steve_smith]

In his prime, Hulk Hogan was always the #1 guy at every ppv. Hogan was the top draw. The current product (led by Cena) is weak in comparison - explaining why the Rock was brought back for several ppvs to improve weak buyrates and lower ratings. And wrestling was way more mainstream back then. EVERYONE knew who Hulk Hogan was. Hogan was a reference point in popular culture. Most people today have no idea who John Cena is.

John Cena, in almost every way, is Hulk Hogan light. Too bad the posters in this thread are too young to know any better.

 

[Willie Lump Lump]

I have to point out that the source you used to say Cena has a better w/l % also has Andre the Giant as having only 190 matches and Roddy Piper as having 118. I believe they didnt track a lot of the older contests. Hulk Hogan having a 62 winning % is not credible. Early in his career Hogan rarely lost and that's going all the way back to his AWA days.

 

[Larry]

The Sacrificial Lamb steps to the plate. Ok, here we go.

This should be fun.

I agree.

Yes, I recall watching a video were Trips said he sucked. Though I do recall Cena working his ass off to improve, and he has. This is about wrestlers in there prime. I would not argue that Cena was in his prime at that point in his career. To be fair though, there have been a fair amount of Hogan matches that have been utter crap.

I never said Cena hasn't improved, I've duly noted before that he has indeed improved but it also can not be overlooked how horrible he was even while being touted as the champion and enjoying long reigns. I think it's same to call his prime anywhere from his time of first becoming champion to the present day, and we can easily say that for at least half of that time he's been pretty horrible in the ring. I would say his real improvement has come since around 08-09 which only accounts for part of his quote un-quote "prime". Hogan was solid from day one and had already been a success with his style elsewhere, so it wasn't just the WWE machine, Terry Bollea was simply gifted for his size and charismatic to no end.

Let me get this straight? Cena's matches aren't believable. Hogan is the master at getting the crap beat out of him, and yet hulking-up and winning.

In comparison no they aren't as believable. There's a difference between being dominated in the fashion we see Cena encounter, and the momentum swings that Hogan encountered. He'd always start off being dominant, then the momentum would turn where it looked like the other guy was going to win, but then Hogan would Hulk Up and it was over. He wasn't dominated from bell to bell and never had the floor wiped with him the way we've seen Cena get dealt with. It was also a bit more believable with Hogan because he was so much bigger. This is a guy who got the name "Hulk" because he was bigger than Lou Ferrigno, the guy who actually played The Hulk. It was a bit more believable to see a guy of Hogan's stature come back, hulk up, and start wailing on people to come out with the win then it is to watch John Cena be thoroughly dealt with and then go all Super-Cena when all logic points to him being down and out with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Hmm. Cena takes a beating, comes back. Hogan takes a beating and comes back. How exactly is there a difference? Watch the Hogan vs Andre at Wrestlemania. Hogan was dominated the entire match, and then comes back and wins.

I addressed that above. Hogan was also a legit 6'8'' and 300 pounds, it wasn't so far fetched for him to be able to come back against Andre, but if you had Cena next to him your eyes wouldn't be lying when you saw him and said to yourself "No Fucking Way This Guy Wins" It wasn't believable when Cena won the U.S. title from Big Show, and it wouldn't be any more believable in this situation.

How is the Lesnar match a prime example? He got one shot with a chain that busted Lesner open and then hit an AA him on steel steps. The next night everyone was talking about how Lesnar dominated him. He admitted. That's a poor example. You're lead to believe that Cena was able to get a lucky shot in when Lesnar was showboating.

Did I not explain that clear enough? He was thoroughly dominated, beaten from pillar to post. It couldn't have been any better illustrated that he dead to rights from the get-go. However, in true Cena fashion, out of nowhere, he gets ONE shot in and that's supposed to end it after he was just beaten nonstop for the duration of the match to that point? No way. Chain or no chain, luck or no luck, there's nothing believable about one shot from John Cena being more devastating than all the abuse Brock Lesnar put on him through the match. It was a perfect example because that is generally the case in a lot of his matches. He gets brutalized, but then his quick spurt of offense is just insurmountable, equalizing everything his opponent has done to him? No way.

How exactly is a guy taking a beating and then in the middle of the match while he's taking the beating he hulks up believable? That's ridiculous. Its cartoonish at best

.

First of all, it was always at the end of the match because that was his finish. Second, it was believable because he was Hulk Hogan, and he was always "feeding off of the energy of the Hulkamaniacs", it was not that HE was so great even, but that the fans could urge him on so that he could Hulk Up, and fight his way to victory. It wasn't made to be like he was just so great that he could endure anything and win regardless, it always came down to being about something greater than him, the fans, and that something deep down in a person that wills them on. It wasn't even that it was so much more believable, but Hogan could make you believe. It was apart of the story that he was able to tell so well in the ring, and because the story was told so well, you were going along with it without even realizing that you were already sucked in and bought into it. It wasn't just "Well, it's time for the finish, Cena Wins against all odds and logic".

You point out that people aren't captivated by Cena. Go back and watch the promo's before Mania. Not where the Rock was involved. Watch were it was just Cena. The audience and people on this forum seemed pretty captivated. Go back to last year before Wrestlemania and watch Cena's responses to the Rock, he's pretty captivating.

And why was that? Because he was getting burnt so bad by The Rock people had to see how he would respond, once again, it goes back to the other guy spawning interest in him. If The Rock wasn't laying waste to him in every promo, people wouldn't have been nearly as interested in how he would be responding.

You also point out a flaw in your argument. Hogan did not cut a promo as much. That is how the product was produced. Is it Cena's fault that wrestling fans are use to promo's? No, that's the product today.

Promo's were just as important then as they are today, they just didn't come as frequently. This still goes to my point. Hogan had fewer, but was able to do more with them than John Cena on TV every week putting his best stuff out there. With Hogan it's the same thing as with Elvis. People will say Elvis made a ton of shitty movies and albums, but it didn't matter, they all sold like crazy because it was Elvis and he was a God amongst men. People didn't care if they were considered epic movie classics or award worthy albums, they just wanted to see and hear the King of Rock and Roll doing whatever he was going to do because he was entertaining while doing it. The same goes for Hogan, you can say his promos were shit if you want, which they weren't, but it didn't matter, they still captivated people, being used in far less frequency, and in that far less frequency he was able to draw record ppv buyrates, record house show attendances, record ratings, records merchandise sales, etc.....

Hogan was able to captivate the audience because he didn't cut a promo as much. However, you go and watch his promo's in WCW after the first couple of month with the nWo. Pretty boring, and the same thing.

Really? Because the ratings at the time would say differently. Besides, that's not the area of his career we are observing here, that wasn't his true prime, his true prime was during the heydays of Hulkamania and in those days Hulk Hogan could have been explaining how to make a pineapple upside down cake in a promo and the people would have been on the edge of their seats listening or waiting to hear it.

Isn't this about wrestler's in their prime? Anyways. I'm not going to argue the fact that Hogan's legacy is great. Though I do not believe its fair to judge legacies while one's career is still ongoing.

Okay, than what do we do? Wait until Cena is retired so we can have a better verdict? No, we have to go off of the body of work we have, and with the body of work we have, Cena is still a long ways away from the legacy of a Hulk Hogan.

Yes, Hogan did that, but without other people coming a long, wrestling would have slipped back. Anyone will agree that Wrestling between 93 and 96 had fallen back into a rut. When Hogan left WWF wrestling was not cool. Austin brought that back. Cena continues that trend today. Some people hate him, but some people hated Hogan.

Wrestling did slip back anyways as you noted, and it was also Hogan and the NWO, along with Austin-McMahon that brought it back to prominence. Now we are back into that low period where we've watched the ratings and buy rates plummet year after year with Cena as the face of the company. Apparently he's not the draw or the face that the company needs to reach the kind of prominence it once enjoyed under Hogan and Austin, and BTW the Hogan era lasted longer than the Austin Era, and while I'll admit I am stretching the dates just a little bit, you can say without much fret that the Hogan era ran from 84-94 when he left and went to WCW, a solid decade of dominance.

Did your really just use wikipedia as a source? Hogan was a great draw. I said that in my post, "if he was involved with something people were there." The thing is, people buy tickets to hate on Cena, and people buy tickets to cheer him. People even buy shirts that say Cena sucks. You cannot argue that.

Yes I used wikipedia as a source, the information is accurate so what does it matter? Everyone uses wikipedia. You are right, I can not argue that Cena has a split audience. People can try to spin it into a positive saying "Either way, everyone has an opinion" Well, as the main face of the company your supposed to get the people to cheer for you, and he doesn't, they are split with an audible half or even majority booing him to no end, so how good is he as the face of the company again? Hogan did that, everybody cheered Hogan, and he was an American Icon/Hero, something Cena likely covets. He wants to be beloved like Hogan was, but he isn't.

Yes, Hogan drew, I get that. Once again you point out the flaw in your argument. There's another side to the match. Wrestlemania III is huge because of the match up of Hogan vs Andre. Andre was one of the biggest draws in the 70s and 80s because of his size and there was no one like him. No one drew like Andre. So as much as Hogan drew, Andre made it that much bigger.

Well, Andre also had a feud with Big John Stud that wasn't of any significance next to his feud with Hogan, so what's your point? Hogan drew with everybody. It was only when Andre feuded with Hogan that he was able to get that big of a turn out at the time.

Really? Because I recall Rock vs Hogan did not draw near as much as Rock vs Cena.

And do you recall who the fans were cheering for that night? It was Hogan. Well removed from his prime against one of the top faces of the company, and they cheered Hogan over The Rock, turning Hogan face again. Name me anyone else with that kind of fanfare and love from the audience? You can't. And so what WM18 didn't draw as much as 28? That means no one else on the card drew as much either and that was while the Attitude Era was still hot.

To argue that Wrestlemania 28 drew solely because of Rock is ridiculous. If that is the case why did Survivor Series this pass year which was Rock's first match in 7 years have a lower buy rate then the previous 3 years?

Well actually 27 and 28 enjoyed higher buys and rating because of The Rock, and that's a fact. Who else was Cena going to feud with to draw that crowd? Who else if not The Rock, could they have scheduled a match, one year in advance with, and drawn that kind of crowd? It was only in The Rock's home town too so you mean to say that didn't have anything to do with it either? Don't forget that there were other matches on the card like, oooohhhh, Undertaker vs Triple H HIAC w/ Shawn Michaels as the guest referee that obviously helped sell the whole thing too. The point is it wasn't just because it was John Cena against "insert opponent", it was because he was facing The Rock, that's why people cared.

Survivor Series didn't draw because it wasn't WrestleMania, that's why. Everyone knew The Rock wasn't going to be in action very much, and he and Cena weren't feuding against anyone that people cared about seeing them beat (Miz and Truth). As a matter of fact, the WWE felt that it was The Miz's fault that Survivor Series wasn't as big a success because he wasn't a draw against Cena and The Rock, so there's your answer straight from the WWE.

It was the match of Rock vs Cena. Just as it was the match up between Andre and Hogan.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a two way street at all, but the point remains Cena doesn't draw shit in comparison without The Rock. The Rock draws just by showing up, and Hogan draws more than both of them no matter who he is against.

Actually, Cena has a better win lose record than Hogan. Go do your research before making claims.

Here you go, http://www.profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-win-percentages.html

I've already been there plenty of times and never used it because their credibility is dick and their information is inaccurate. That website is highly flawed in their numbers, just looking at the list should have told you that.

Even in this "different era" Cena has a better win lose record than Hogan.

Debunked, and in Hogans prime his win/loss record is far better than Cena's. You can count on one hand how many losses Hogan had in his whole prime. I can also count on one hand how many losses Cena has had in the last 6 months which obviously doesn't stand to Hogans whole prime.

How many times was Cena defeated cleanly in his year long reign which is unheard of in today's era? Not much. He held on to the title 26 out of 30 months in an era where the title is thrown around like a hot potato.

And that's one thing to his credit, Hogan held the title for 1,474 days in one shot regardless of era, your point?

Yeah, I got it. I already pointed out how Cena has a better win/loss record than Hogan. A lot of his matches in WCW he won with interference from the NWO, but even with that he lost more than Cena has.

I already pointed out that you were dead wrong on the win/loss record, and even in WCW Hogan won a lot more than he lost regardless of HOW, and held the World Heavyweight Championship 6 times. Again, this is not during his prime which is a vital piece of information here because that is the time we must judge.

How can you even make that argument? WWE is centered around Cena. CM Punk is the champion and has not been the main event when Cena's on the card. Even when Cena is not going after the title he's the main event. He's the reason that people tune in.

Simple, I just did. Cena loses frequently where Hogan did on seldom occasions, it's simple as that. If he was of as great of significance as Hogan was, he wouldn't be allowed to lose so frequently because they would be more dependent on him as they were Hogan. However, they aren't. They have a whole other roster of guys to draw a crowd and get the ratings and buy rates in and they know that they can put anyone over Cena at any time and it doesn't hurt them, i.e. he isn't as important to the company as you and others would have folks believe.

He's big enough of a star for the company to realize that he does not have to win every single match in order to remain relevant to the fans. He matters wheather he's chasing the title, I point you to the lead up to wrestlemania 25, 26, and 27. He's relevant when he's holding the title, Wrestlemania 22 and 23, last year when he's holding the title against Punk. He's relevant when he's not holding the title and even in the title hunt. His feud with Rock, Lesnar the angle with Nexus. Cena has reached the level that he does not need to be winning all the time to be relevant. Hogan needed to win to remain relevant and be on top.

I think it's more a matter of, they've realized that they can MAKE him relevant no matter how much he loses. The WWE has a lot more power over the audience now than they did back in Hogan's day simply because they had real competition back then. Now, they don't, and they know they can knock Cena down all they want to put whoever over, and regardless of that put him right back on top if they so choose because folks like yourself will simply accept it, and there's no one to call them on it or make them pay for it since they don't have any real competition anymore.

And still yet, they constantly build him up and make him the champion, then remove him from the title picture, keep him involved in relevant feuds simply to keep him relevant, and then put him back in the title picture to make sure you don't forget that they can make him the champion any time they want to and show who really has the power here. Notice that before? They handle him with delicate care and make him lose so that people don't get completely sick of him the way they did some time ago for winning so often. They know that people get burnt out on Super-Cena so they've made sure to humanize him from time to time to calm hostilities and make sure that he doesn't get stale because it's already shown that he has a shelf life that gets close to expiration from time to time when they really push it with him.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Translation: I am conveniently avoiding one of the major areas that Hogan is indisputably superior to Cena.

I've made it quite clear in a number of these debates that I don't think drawing power in a tournament of this type should be a major criterion, and I'm free to think that way. It's not like I suddenly decided to apply that opinion to just this one match. Besides, while you are right that Hogan is probably the all time undisputed king of drawing power, it's not like John Cena can't hold a candle to him in this regard, because Cena can.

This paragraph starts out reasonable but by the end it has become absurd in the way it glosses over the humongous difference between their accomplishments in the area. Hogan made wrestling mainstream relevant. Cena has been the face of the company in an era where its mainstream relevance has fallen. What has Cena done that helped wrestling become mainstream relevant? Other than lose to the Rock, another guy that actually made wrestling mainstream relevant, I can't think of anything. I suppose you will at least have some example of something but I would be shocked if it didn't clearly pale in comparison to Hulkamania.

Valid question. Maybe nothing outside of what Austin did will ever compare to Hulk-a-Mania. Or maybe it's just harder for us to see since Hulk-a-Mania occured while we were growing up. What I do know is that Mrs. IC25 is a 1st grade teacher, and she keeps telling me how many kids at her school alone have Cena t-shirts, Cena backpacks, Cena lunchboxes, etc. (One day she did the "you can't see me" face wave to one of them and the whole class went ape shit.) Hogan did it first, but John Cena has damn sure done it, too.

At least you got something right.

Oh good, I was getting worried.

You aren't making any sense here. First off, you are waffling between kayfabe and non-kayfabe stuff too much. Second off, I don't even think you are right on your point. From a kayfabe point of view you claim Hogan mostly had experience against power guys / brawlers, yet this is going to be a disadvantage in a match against a power guy / brawler Cena doesn't have that same experience and it is an advantage for him From a non-kayfabe point of view you seem to have conveniently washed at least half of Hogan's career away. Hogan also transcended the business a second time at the height of competition for marketable guys in the history of prowrestling. Cena only rose to popularity after most of those guys left and the external competition was all gone.

I'm not trying to waffle, I'm trying to balance. And while you're right, Cena is a power guy and that is right in Hogan's wheelhouse, my point is that Cena is vastly more versatile than Hogan is or was.

You're also right about Hogan's 2nd coming in WCW in the 90's. At the same time, though, Hogan also played a role in the fall of WCW just as much as the rise of it. Cena's been fairly consistent at a time when Pro Wrestling doesn't have the "it" factor as much and at a time when there is more external competition to professional wrestling, such as MMA.

I think the implication that Hogan could not rise above those guys you listed is completely ridiculous. A post 50 year old Hogan came in to Cena's time and still defeated Michaels, Orton and Show. In the year Cena debuted a late 40s Hogan beat HHH for the title and then defended it successfully against Regal and then Jericho in a no DQ match. Yeah, Hogan couldn't possibly rise to the top against non-brawlers or marketable guys I assume you just listed Punk to troll for IWC votes. I'll just ignore him for now, much like you did Ric Flair.

I never meant to make such an implication, and I think that you suggesting I did is borderline putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying Hogan couldn't potentially rise above some of the names I listed. All I was saying is that Cena HAS been a #1 guy at a time when the WWE roster has all of that depth. And adding Punk has ZERO to do with "trying to get IWC votes." Implying that is just irresponsible on your part. Punk has been a major, legit feud for Cena on two separate occasions in the past 4 years now.

Cool story bro, now I might actually care if there was a chance in hell Hogan was tapping but there isn't. It is also interesting you bring up people could have done the same thing to Cena but ... Well now that I think about it the Rock just did exactly that in spite of the existence of the STF.

Really? Hogan tapped to the torture rack vs Luger on Nitro.

He doesn't draw more, he doesn't have more time at the top, he didn't dominate at the top for a longer period at his his best etc. etc. Cena is good but there is no way he is greater than Hulk Hogan yet or likely ever will be for that matter.

If you're basing your opinion solely on drawing power, then you're right. Then again, if you want to base your vote solely on drawing power, then this annual tournament should just be a 8-man debate on Hogan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Flair, Rogers, Thesz, Sammartino. That'd get pretty boring, pretty fast.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I voted for Hogan and let me tell you why.

It's simple really, as great as Cena is and what Cena has done Hogan is simply greater. Hogan is a bigger draw than Cena, just as good in the ring and people will still remember Hulk Hogan when the guy is 100 years old and that's a fact. He could come out in a wheelchair and get cheered.

Cena never got to Hogan's heights, never surpassed him and as great as Cena is, at the end of the day he will never be at the level of Hogan, EVER. If Warrior fought Hogan in his prime he wouldn't have won and neither would Cena. Is Cena a draw? Yes. Is he great? Yes. Is he at the level of Hogan? No. Will he ever be? I doubt it. Will he ever be as recognizable as Hulk Hogan in the 80's? Not a chance.

If Cena fought Hogan today he may be doing the job although I assume he would win. If we are talking about a 32 year old, World Champion Hogan there is NO WAY Cena would win this match.

 

[Punkanomics]

Man this is tough, I think Hogan is one the greatest wrestlers of all time. I can't really even say Cena's in the top 5. But......if I had to pick a guy for one match, it would be Cena (or Austin, but thats off topic).

Firstly,Cena is a better wrestler than Hogan. Also, I think Cena is a bigger (dare I say it) draw than Hogan was.

Maybe if we would have a stip in here my vote would change but for now......

Vote Cena

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

The Sacrificial Lamb steps to the plate. Ok, here we go.

Nice pun.

I never said Cena hasn't improved, I've duly noted before that he has indeed improved but it also can not be overlooked how horrible he was even while being touted as the champion and enjoying long reigns. I think it's same to call his prime anywhere from his time of first becoming champion to the present day, and we can easily say that for at least half of that time he's been pretty horrible in the ring. I would say his real improvement has come since around 08-09 which only accounts for part of his quote un-quote "prime". Hogan was solid from day one and had already been a success with his style elsewhere, so it wasn't just the WWE machine, Terry Bollea was simply gifted for his size and charismatic to no end.

I'll agree with you that Hogan was good. However, if we are taking their "prime" would that not be when Cena was at the peak of his game? Meaning that he did not enter into "prime" Until he reached the highest level of his ability, which would be after he was crap in the ring. Titles does not mean he was in his prime, as I believe someone pointed out with Hogan winning the title far beyond his prime. (I believe that was you.)

In comparison no they aren't as believable. There's a difference between being dominated in the fashion we see Cena encounter, and the momentum swings that Hogan encountered.

I do recall seeing a momentum swing in every Cena match.

He'd always start off being dominant, then the momentum would turn where it looked like the other guy was going to win, but then Hogan would Hulk Up and it was over.

That's interesting, because you just pointed out the same thing John Cena does. Other than the "Hulking up" aspect of it. Do not believe me? Watch Cena's matches with HBK, Triple h, Batista. Cena looked out of it and came back to win.

He wasn't dominated from bell to bell and never had the floor wiped with him the way we've seen Cena get dealt with.

There is only one match where Cena was beaten from bell to bell, and that was against Lesner. You also ignored Hogan's match against Andre.

It was also a bit more believable with Hogan because he was so much bigger. This is a guy who got the name "Hulk" because he was bigger than Lou Ferrigno, the guy who actually played The Hulk.

So it is more realistic for a guy who's one of the biggest guys in the business to get the crap beat out of him and then come back. Okay, why is the bigger guy getting beat on by smaller guys? If he's 6'8" 300 pounds (as you point out later.) why is he being dominated by opponents that are inferrer in size to him? Because that's realistic.

It was a bit more believable to see a guy of Hogan's stature come back, hulk up, and start wailing on people to come out with the win then it is to watch John Cena be thoroughly dealt with and then go all Super-Cena when all logic points to him being down and out with no light at the end of the tunnel.

So let me make sure I get this. Because Hogan was bigger, it made sense for him to get beat up and come back. Once again if that's the case I ask why is he getting beat on in the first place if he's such a force in the ring. Look, its a constant thing in wrestling, the face, no matter size, is beat on by the heel. Your argument falls a part when you reverse it. When anyone larger is the heel it is not believable for the face to come back.

I addressed that above. Hogan was also a legit 6'8'' and 300 pounds, it wasn't so far fetched for him to be able to come back against Andre, but if you had Cena next to him your eyes wouldn't be lying when you saw him and said to yourself "No Fucking Way This Guy Wins" It wasn't believable when Cena won the U.S. title from Big Show, and it wouldn't be any more believable in this situation.

Look above.

Did I not explain that clear enough? He was thoroughly dominated, beaten from pillar to post. It couldn't have been any better illustrated that he dead to rights from the get-go. However, in true Cena fashion, out of nowhere, he gets ONE shot in and that's supposed to end it after he was just beaten nonstop for the duration of the match to that point? No way.

Funny, actually it really is. Because you missed the entire point. The whole match, and after the match was to make Cena look like he got lucky. He got one lucky shot in. Yes, Lesner beat the hell out of Cena. That was the point, but Cena was able to get one shot that busted Lesnar open and then capitalized on it. It was a mirror of Lesnar's first match in UFC. He was beating Mir and then Mir caught him.

Chain or no chain, luck or no luck, there's nothing believable about one shot from John Cena being more devastating than all the abuse Brock Lesnar put on him through the match. It was a perfect example because that is generally the case in a lot of his matches. He gets brutalized, but then his quick spurt of offense is just insurmountable, equalizing everything his opponent has done to him? No way.

Look at what his offense was. It was a shot with a chain and then an AA on to steal steps. Guys have fallen to much less before.

First of all, it was always at the end of the match because that was his finish.

Sorry.

Second, it was believable because he was Hulk Hogan, and he was always "feeding off of the energy of the Hulkamaniacs", it was not that HE was so great even, but that the fans could urge him on so that he could Hulk Up, and fight his way to victory.

So it was the fans that gave him super powers to come back. Gotcha.

It wasn't made to be like he was just so great that he could endure anything and win regardless, it always came down to being about something greater than him, the fans, and that something deep down in a person that wills them on.

Hmmm. I believe Cena fights for those who support him. Because he wants to entertain them and give them the best he can, and that's winning.

It wasn't even that it was so much more believable, but Hogan could make you believe. It was apart of the story that he was able to tell so well in the ring, and because the story was told so well, you were going along with it without even realizing that you were already sucked in and bought into it. It wasn't just "Well, it's time for the finish, Cena Wins against all odds and logic".

You're entire argument up into this point has been on believability and you just threw that out the window. Now you say Hogan wasn't believable. Cena is doing the exact same thing for the kids now that Hogan did for you as a kid. Cena takes advantage of an opening, which happens to be far more realistic. Overcoming the odds.

And why was that? Because he was getting burnt so bad by The Rock people had to see how he would respond, once again, it goes back to the other guy spawning interest in him. If The Rock wasn't laying waste to him in every promo, people wouldn't have been nearly as interested in how he would be responding.

So, people were not interested in him when he walked out and laid waste to him in cutting a promo about whoever he was facing from 03 to 04? When people were on edge of their seats to see what he was going to say? When he was mocking his number one contenders in 05? Or cutting down Orton in 07? Or dealing with Nexus. Yeah, it was only because the Rock was there that he captivated an audience. Its called episodic television you give the viewer something to tune into next week to draw them back.

Promo's were just as important then as they are today, they just didn't come as frequently. This still goes to my point. Hogan had fewer, but was able to do more with them than John Cena on TV every week putting his best stuff out there. With Hogan it's the same thing as with Elvis. People will say Elvis made a ton of shitty movies and albums, but it didn't matter, they all sold like crazy because it was Elvis and he was a God amongst men.

So just because its Hogan we have to accept it as greatness? Come on, that's the biggest piece of crap you've said this entire debate. Hogan did it far less, so it was more likely people were going to listen to it because they hadn't heard a promo in two months.

Besides, that's not the area of his career we are observing here, that wasn't his true prime, his true prime was during the heydays of Hulkamania and in those days Hulk Hogan could have been explaining how to make a pineapple upside down cake in a promo and the people would have been on the edge of their seats listening or waiting to hear it.

See above.

Okay, than what do we do? Wait until Cena is retired so we can have a better verdict? No, we have to go off of the body of work we have, and with the body of work we have, Cena is still a long ways away from the legacy of a Hulk Hogan.

I'm not saying you have to. I'm simply saying to judge Cena's legacy to Hogan's is unfair because Cena is still working on his.

Wrestling did slip back anyways as you noted, and it was also Hogan and the NWO, along with Austin-McMahon that brought it back to prominence. Now we are back into that low period where we've watched the ratings and buy rates plummet year after year with Cena as the face of the company. Apparently he's not the draw or the face that the company needs to reach the kind of prominence it once enjoyed under Hogan and Austin, and BTW the Hogan era lasted longer than the Austin Era, and while I'll admit I am stretching the dates just a little bit, you can say without much fret that the Hogan era ran from 84-94 when he left and went to WCW, a solid decade of dominance.

I'm not denying that Hogan wasn't dominate. Did you ever see me saying that? What I am saying is, that during Cena's time on top there have been more guys revolving around the title and top. Hogan did not have to deal with guys always in the title mix. Maybe there were four or five, but not ten or twelve whoa are all deserving to wear the belt.

Yes I used wikipedia as a source, the information is accurate so what does it matter? Everyone uses wikipedia.

Accurate? Yeah, well I just went and changed the Hogan page to say that he had 100 title reigns. Then hopped on Bret Hart's page and changed his in ring name to HBK.

You are right, I can not argue that Cena has a split audience. People can try to spin it into a positive saying "Either way, everyone has an opinion" Well, as the main face of the company your supposed to get the people to cheer for you, and he doesn't, they are split with an audible half or even majority booing him to no end, so how good is he as the face of the company again? Hogan did that, everybody cheered Hogan, and he was an American Icon/Hero, something Cena likely covets. He wants to be beloved like Hogan was, but he isn't.

You're missing the point. John Cena is the most polarizing character in WWE and has been for some time, and possibly ever. That's the point people are investing into his character. Either way you cut it, people are buying tickets to see Cena in some fashion.

Well, Andre also had a feud with Big John Stud that wasn't of any significance next to his feud with Hogan, so what's your point? Hogan drew with everybody. It was only when Andre feuded with Hogan that he was able to get that big of a turn out at the time.

Bull. Andre was one of the biggest draws anywhere he went.

And do you recall who the fans were cheering for that night? It was Hogan. Well removed from his prime against one of the top faces of the company, and they cheered Hogan over The Rock, turning Hogan face again. Name me anyone else with that kind of fanfare and love from the audience? You can't. And so what WM18 didn't draw as much as 28? That means no one else on the card drew as much either and that was while the Attitude Era was still hot.

Did I mention the audience cheering? At all? Nope, so what exactly is your point. I was pointing out that Hogan was in the match up everyone wanted to see that year at Mania, and it doesn't come close to the numbers Cena v Rock pulled.

Well actually 27 and 28 enjoyed higher buys and rating because of The Rock, and that's a fact. Who else was Cena going to feud with to draw that crowd? Who else if not The Rock, could they have scheduled a match, one year in advance with, and drawn that kind of crowd? It was only in The Rock's home town too so you mean to say that didn't have anything to do with it either? Don't forget that there were other matches on the card like, oooohhhh, Undertaker vs Triple H HIAC w/ Shawn Michaels as the guest referee that obviously helped sell the whole thing too.

Can you make your mind up? Please? Either it was solely because of the Rock or it was because of other names on the card. You cannot argue both and say that it was because The Rock was there to help the buy rates and that's a fact, which you just did. Do you not see the idiocy of that? Let's see, Rock was there last year, but so was Triple H vs Taker. Funny, didn't bring in as much.

The point is it wasn't just because it was John Cena against "insert opponent", it was because he was facing The Rock, that's why people cared.

Let me make this simple. Hogan, possibly the greatest professional wrestler ever faced the Rock at Mania 18. A Mania that did not draw as much as Cena did against the Rock. One guy faced both men, and the latter drew more with him.

Survivor Series didn't draw because it wasn't WrestleMania, that's why. Everyone knew The Rock wasn't going to be in action very much, and he and Cena weren't feuding against anyone that people cared about seeing them beat (Miz and Truth). As a matter of fact, the WWE felt that it was The Miz's fault that Survivor Series wasn't as big a success because he wasn't a draw against Cena and The Rock, so there's your answer straight from the WWE.

My point being Cena played a huge role in the match up. People can sit here and argue drawing power all day long, but at the end of the day it is the match up that people want to see.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a two way street at all, but the point remains Cena doesn't draw shit in comparison without The Rock. The Rock draws just by showing up, and Hogan draws more than both of them no matter who he is against.

Wrestlemania 18 proves you're wrong. Also, you're last answer proves you're wrong. If Rock drew by just showing up then why didn't Survivor Series draw more than it did the past to years.

I've already been there plenty of times and never used it because their credibility is dick and their information is inaccurate. That website is highly flawed in their numbers, just looking at the list should have told you that.

I would say it's far more reliable than wikipedia, which anyone with a blog can change. I'm not going to argue that it is the end all of wrestling knowledge.

And that's one thing to his credit, Hogan held the title for 1,474 days in one shot regardless of era, your point?

Who was going to hold the title besides Hogan at that point? I'll give you Savage, Andre and Slaughter, but who else? Who, realistically could hold the title. Or better yet, who was Vince going to let hold the title? Today's WWE has more top tear talent than Hogan's day. While, I'll believe some should stick with Mid-Card, the fact remains Hogan did not face an industry where the Title was changing hands as much.

Simple, I just did. Cena loses frequently where Hogan did on seldom occasions, it's simple as that. If he was of as great of significance as Hogan was, he wouldn't be allowed to lose so frequently because they would be more dependent on him as they were Hogan. However, they aren't. They have a whole other roster of guys to draw a crowd and get the ratings and buy rates in and they know that they can put anyone over Cena at any time and it doesn't hurt them, i.e. he isn't as important to the company as you and others would have folks believe.

Okay, question? Take Cena away, who keeps everyone's interest? I'm not talking about IWC. I'm talking the lay person? Orton? Punk? Come on. It would be the same thing if you remove Hogan from WWF of the late eighties.

I think it's more a matter of, they've realized that they can MAKE him relevant no matter how much he loses. The WWE has a lot more power over the audience now than they did back in Hogan's day simply because they had real competition back then.

WHAT? WWE in no ways hold's more power over their audience now than they did then. Why was Orton turned face? Because the crowd turned him face when they cheered him as a heel. Why did Rock turn heel? Because the crowd hated him, then went back to face because they loved him. The crowd influences the product far more than it did in the eighties. Who exactly was WWF's competition in the eighties?

Now, they don't, and they know they can knock Cena down all they want to put whoever over, and regardless of that put him right back on top if they so choose because folks like yourself will simply accept it, and there's no one to call them on it or make them pay for it since they don't have any real competition anymore.

Who exactly was WWF's competition in 80's. Do tell me? If WWF had major competition in the eighties then WWF would have changed. They did not have to, so they stuck with Hogan. They kept the same mantra up until WCW changed tactics.

And still yet, they constantly build him up and make him the champion, then remove him from the title picture, keep him involved in relevant feuds simply to keep him relevant, and then put him back in the title picture to make sure you don't forget that they can make him the champion any time they want to and show who really has the power here. Notice that before?

Notice that Hogan was given the Championship? The argument can go both ways. if Vince did not give Hogan the chance to be as big as was and as relevant as he was. Sorry, but that argument hold no weight.

They handle him with delicate care and make him lose so that people don't get completely sick of him the way they did some time ago for winning so often. They know that people get burnt out on Super-Cena so they've made sure to humanize him from time to time to calm hostilities and make sure that he doesn't get stale because it's already shown that he has a shelf life that gets close to expiration from time to time when they really push it with him.

If you remember Hogan was getting stale towards the end of his time in WWF. He was stale in his first few years in WCW. So he was repackaged in the NWO. Hogan admits he had to do something different. The difference with Cena is as much as a lot of us would like to see him as a Heel. They would lose a lot of the fanfare around him. Right now, WWE is able to sell merchandise that says Cena Sucks. They are able to catered to all of the audience without having to change him. If you and I were talking about this in Hogan's day, with how critical we are of the current product we would be saying the same thing about Hogan.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Man this is tough, I think Hogan is one the greatest wrestlers of all time. I can't really even say Cena's in the top 5. But......if I had to pick a guy for one match, it would be Cena (or Austin, but thats off topic).

Firstly,Cena is a better wrestler than Hogan. Also, I think Cena is a bigger (dare I say it) draw than Hogan was.

Maybe if we would have a stip in here my vote would change but for now......

Vote Cena

Look, I apparently can't stop the travesty that is unfolding in the voting here, but I absolutely will not let you spew this kind of ridiculousness. Cena is not a bigger draw than Hogan. Cena is not close to a bigger draw then Hogan. Hogan is arguably the biggest draw ever, his ONLY competition being Stone Cold, who did it over a much shorter period of time. Hogan is responsible for the TWO biggest boom periods in wrestling history. Cena is currently the face of the company in a down period.

It is abundantly clear that Cena is not a crossover star in the vein of Hogan, Rock or Austin. The WWE has tried, but he doesn't have that appeal. He's not a pop cultural touchstone like those guys. The WWE is still looking for that guy. Do you think Hogan would ever have lost at Mania to a guy who wasn't on the full-time roster? No.

1. Because Hogan was the draw, they wouldn't need to bring in people to wrestle the Main Event to up buy rates.

2. Because, if a guy is that valuable, you don't have him job out (clean!) to a guy who isn't even on your roster.

So, make all the ridiculous votes you want where people want to pretend that what they're watching now is DEFINITELY better than what has come before, I can't stop you there, but I will most definitely not allow this to stand.

 

[The Brain]

I see there is a lot of long debating going on here. That’s great but I don’t think I’m going to participate it. I’ll see if anyone responds directly to this but I don’t see myself caring enough about the outcome of this match to get into a lengthy debate. That might sound like a negative but it’s not. Just the opposite. Both are more than worthy of moving on to the final four and beyond in this tournament.

My vote goes to Hogan. For as great as John Cena has been over the years I just think Hogan’s been a little better in just about every way. For 15 years if Hogan was on the roster he was the undisputed top guy and it wasn’t even close. Savage got a run on top while Hogan filmed No Holds Barred. Warrior got a run on top when Hogan filmed Suburban Commando. When Hogan’s schedule and focus was on wrestling he was unquestionably THE number one guy. I can say the same thing for Cena but I feel Cena had a much stronger supporting cast. Even though Cena has been the number one guy he’s had Triple H, Batista, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Edge to help carry the load. There was a lot of great talent on the roster during Hulkamania too but unless they were working with Hogan they were far behind him in the pecking order.

I know Hulkamaniac already addressed this but I just want to weigh in a bit.

Cena has also carried the WWE for a long time and he did it when it wasn't so cool to be a wrestler. He also did it when he was constantly booed. Cena being the face of the company now isn't his fault and it shouldn't be. It could have been anybody else in his position and he would have gotten the same backlash from the fans.

Carrying a company when it isn't cool to be a wrestling fan is not as impressive as carrying a company and making it cool to be a wrestling fan.

Yeah, multiple interviews on various talk shows, magazine covers like muscle magazine, even his movies as bad as some of them were, exposure on television shows and his merchandise say otherwise.

As mentioned earlier Hogan's mainstream attention during his prime were on more widely recognized forums than Cena's today. There weren't nearly as many networks or talk shows in Hogan's day as there are today. Hogan was on Johnny Carson. That was the mecca of talk shows. Now there are a bunch of talk shows on a bunch of networks but none compare to Johnny. Sports Illustrated in the 80s was about a million times better than random fitness magazine of today. Hulkamania was pretty much the reason merchandising existed in wrestling. Cena may technically have more merchandise sales over the years but people didn't have wwe.com to buy Hulk merchandise. If you wanted a Hogan t shirt you had to go to the arena when they came to town. I could by a Cena t shirt in about a minute from my couch if I wanted to. Nobody will accusse Hogan of starring in any great movies but Cena's movie resume isn't exactly impressive either. The difference is movie studios outside WWE films have wanted Hogan. Cena gets WWE films roles and they usually end up in the discount bin after a weekend in the theatre. I'm not trying to insult Cena. I just think everything he's done Hogan has done at a higher level.

 

[Davi323]

Hulk Hogan helped build the company that Cena is carrying now. Brain does an excellent job dissecting the differences between Cena and Hogan. Personally, I think it will be a shame that Cena probably goes over Hogan in his tournament, for many of the same reasons others have already listed. Everything that John Cena is, Hogan was first. Hogan didn't have the same media outlets that Cena enjoys now. There was no Twitter, no Facebook, no WWE.com, none of it. Yet, somehow, Hulk Hogan made himself one of the most recognizable men on the entire face of the Earth.

Hulk Hogan is what John Cena strives to be, and doesn't quite reach.

 

[Larry]

Nice pun.

Thank you sir.

I'll agree with you that Hogan was good. However, if we are taking their "prime" would that not be when Cena was at the peak of his game? Meaning that he did not enter into "prime" Until he reached the highest level of his ability, which would be after he was crap in the ring. Titles does not mean he was in his prime, as I believe someone pointed out with Hogan winning the title far beyond his prime. (I believe that was you.)

You're reeeaaally stretching here though now aren't you? So even if we only say Cena's prime is from 08 to now, that's barely 4 years of being not even "Good" per say, but just good enough that people quit saying you're completely crap in the ring. That's none too flattering, or worth trying to bolster versus Hogan.

I do recall seeing a momentum swing in every Cena match.

Ok look, first of all that statement isn't even correct because that completely overlooks the absolute squashes he's had time and time again against guys like Otunga and most of the other members of Nexus when I come to think about it. I'm not saying that John Cena's matches are unlike any other persons matches and this is some phenomenon/anomaly that only occurs in his matches. It's wrestling, there will be momentum shifts, but I guess what I am trying to impress, put as simply as possible, is the way that their matches are crafted. They are different, because the two men are so very different.

Hogan had a certain craft about the way he went through these matches and how he would ultimately come back from his opponents attacks. It was very methodical and well paced, the whole time the story is being told in a way that everyone can understand and grasp. And, as I've mentioned before there's this degree of showmanship and really involving the audience in the whole thing so that they aren't just watching you get your ass beat at come back, they are emotionally going through the battle with you. It's overlooked yet obvious things like this that put Hogan on another level in the ring and as a performer. You can say "Well people are emotionally invested in John Cena's matches like that as well" and while that may be true to some extent because this is wrestling, he is a major polarizing figure, he's no slouch in his own right, the point is that it's not to the same degree by a mile. Hogan was a complete package of a performer and in ring competitor.

As I said before, Hogan was never obliterated like Cena in his matches, and even against Andre, tell me that's nearly the same as Big Show throwing him through a spot light on the stage, or all the shit JBL did to him, or Brock Lesnar, or the list of people he's faced who have regularly beat the crap out him. No one ever did that kind of shit to Hogan, so it was never like he was coming back from such an ass beating that is was unbelievable. It was never like he was taking an ass beating, it was more like he was fading in and out through 2nd, 3rd, and 4th winds. It wasn't just "cut to finish" John Cena wins like we routinely see.

That's interesting, because you just pointed out the same thing John Cena does. Other than the "Hulking up" aspect of it. Do not believe me? Watch Cena's matches with HBK, Triple h, Batista. Cena looked out of it and came back to win.

I addressed this above in case you didn't catch it.

There is only one match where Cena was beaten from bell to bell, and that was against Lesner. You also ignored Hogan's match against Andre.

I addressed the Andre-Hogan match, and Cena's been handled bell to bell plenty of times in plenty of matches. Triple H and Shawn Michaels both owned him before ultimately tapping out in one of Cena's ridiculous comebacks, I also tapped into this a bit earlier.

So it is more realistic for a guy who's one of the biggest guys in the business to get the crap beat out of him and then come back. Okay, why is the bigger guy getting beat on by smaller guys? If he's 6'8" 300 pounds (as you point out later.) why is he being dominated by opponents that are inferrer in size to him? Because that's realistic.

He wasn't dominated by opponents inferior in size to him. They always put him against big monsters like Andre, King Kong Bundy, Earthquake, Abdullah The Butcher, Anotnio Inoki, Don Muraco, Paul Orndorff, Hercules, Zeus, Ultimate Warrior, etc.... They put him against tons of big guys and it was believable for them to be a legit threat to Hogan as well as it was believable for Hogan to be able to come back and win, being of great stature himself. Add to it all of the intangibles that Hogan possessed and you have success personified.

So let me make sure I get this. Because Hogan was bigger, it made sense for him to get beat up and come back. Once again if that's the case I ask why is he getting beat on in the first place if he's such a force in the ring. Look, its a constant thing in wrestling, the face, no matter size, is beat on by the heel. Your argument falls a part when you reverse it. When anyone larger is the heel it is not believable for the face to come back.

I'm just saying, because Cena isn't a really big guy and he's not Hulk Hogan by quite a stretch, his comebacks are not as believable. He takes a lot more punishment than Hogan ever did, and it wouldn't have been nearly as believable if Hogan took that amount of damage either. It's just too far of a stretch, at least with Hogan, he WAS big as a house, so it wasn't all that hard to imagine him coming back and powering through everything. With Cena, it's just more than you'd think anyone could bear, especially a guy like John Cena, and that makes it ridiculous.

Funny, actually it really is. Because you missed the entire point. The whole match, and after the match was to make Cena look like he got lucky. He got one lucky shot in. Yes, Lesner beat the hell out of Cena. That was the point, but Cena was able to get one shot that busted Lesnar open and then capitalized on it. It was a mirror of Lesnar's first match in UFC. He was beating Mir and then Mir caught him.

No I got that quite clearly, the point is it was ridiculous after the amount of punishment he took, and it's emblematic of most of his career. He gets FUBAR'd and then, bang, one lucky shot, one come back, one AA, whatever it is, and he goes over regardless of all suspension of disbelief being completely shattered.

Look at what his offense was. It was a shot with a chain and then an AA on to steal steps. Guys have fallen to much less before.

Not Brock Lesnar, and certainly not after delivering such a beating to one of his opponents, and he's beat better than Cena. As a matter of fact he beat The Rock, who clearly beat Cena. He also beat The Undertaker, Hogan, Big Show who we just recently saw KO Cena with one shot, Kurt Angle, and the list goes on.

So it was the fans that gave him super powers to come back. Gotcha.

Kind of yes, and you may laugh at that but it was very entertaining and got the fans involved because in a way, they were his strength. With the support of all the Hulkamaniacs there were no odds, no challenger, no feat that Hulk Hogan couldn't overcome, and he made you believe it.

Hmmm. I believe Cena fights for those who support him. Because he wants to entertain them and give them the best he can, and that's winning.

Not in the way of a Hulk Hogan who made it instrumental in his persona, his gimmick, and his matches. The point is that people try, Cena tries, but no one was as good at it as Hulk Hogan with acception possibly to Ultimate Warrior who was similar in that way.

You're entire argument up into this point has been on believability and you just threw that out the window. Now you say Hogan wasn't believable.

That's because I can do that and still be right. You can throw the actual believability of it out the window if you want and it still comes down to Hogan being a better performer. Whether he was more believable period, or he was just good enough as he was to make you believe, he did, and you bought into it, he had whatever magic it was that it took to capture the imaginations and adoration of the fans in a way that no one else ever has.

Cena is doing the exact same thing for the kids now that Hogan did for you as a kid. Cena takes advantage of an opening, which happens to be far more realistic. Overcoming the odds.

In retrospect, sure he is, but he's still no Hulk Hogan. There have been many pretenders and imitators who have tried to use the same recipe, but no one got it right like Hogan.

So, people were not interested in him when he walked out and laid waste to him in cutting a promo about whoever he was facing from 03 to 04? When people were on edge of their seats to see what he was going to say? When he was mocking his number one contenders in 05? Or cutting down Orton in 07? Or dealing with Nexus. Yeah, it was only because the Rock was there that he captivated an audience. Its called episodic television you give the viewer something to tune into next week to draw them back.

Actually, No they weren't more often than not, but what option did we have? They parade him out there, so you're going to listen either way, unless you just stop watching, which ratings show, many have. Just yesterday a news article was released showing that the WWE has hit a yearly low for ratings, and that's with Cena as the centerpiece of it all. How much more evidence needs to be put forth before people will simply admit that while Cena is the main guy, that he does sell plenty of merchandise, he is not the draw that everyone tries to say he is? Are you going to just stare the numbers over the last 7-8 years that have steadily declined in the Cena era, in the face and try to deny what they say?

So just because its Hogan we have to accept it as greatness? Come on, that's the biggest piece of crap you've said this entire debate. Hogan did it far less, so it was more likely people were going to listen to it because they hadn't heard a promo in two months.

No that's not the point, the point was that he was just such a big deal and he was so great that people were enamored with everything he did. He could cut a promo and the people loved it, he could have a match with King Kong Bundy and it was a roaring success, everything he did at the time was money, it was like he had the Midas touch, and part of that was because he was so good at what he did, he really understood the character, how to embody it, how to portray it in promo's and interviews, how to conduct a match the right way with his character, etc....

I'm not saying you have to. I'm simply saying to judge Cena's legacy to Hogan's is unfair because Cena is still working on his.

He's in the tournament and made it this far, it's completely fair and it's obviously what people have been doing the whole time. The rules and what's fair doesn't suddenly change because he's up against a guy whose career he simply doesn't hold a candle to in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not denying that Hogan wasn't dominate. Did you ever see me saying that? What I am saying is, that during Cena's time on top there have been more guys revolving around the title and top. Hogan did not have to deal with guys always in the title mix. Maybe there were four or five, but not ten or twelve whoa are all deserving to wear the belt.

Are you kidding me? Someone was ALWAYS trying to get the best of Hogan and take his title, as big of a star as he was, he was also that big of a target. For Christ's sake, He had "The Heenan Family", a stable almost singularly devoted to defeating him on his ass all the time. Then he had all the monster heels like Bundy, Earthquake, etc... and many contenders at the top like Piper, Orndorff, Muraco, Hercules, etc....and there was plenty of talent that was definitely DESERVING of wearing the belt as well, but Hogan was far and away such a huge star it would have been committing corporate suicide to have anyone else as champion at the time. That's the difference, Hogan was indispensable as champion, Cena is very dispensable as champion and the record proves it as aaaaallll these other guys have got a turn with the title around him. Hogan was rarely without the title, and always got it back until the day he left the WWF for WCW.

Accurate? Yeah, well I just went and changed the Hogan page to say that he had 100 title reigns. Then hopped on Bret Hart's page and changed his in ring name to HBK.

And you'd be wrong for putting misinformation on those pages. Sure they can be edited, but the information on there by and large is accurate, specifically when you're looking at all the stuff regarding wrestling. I've yet to find a legit error on there surrounding wrestling itself or a particular wrestler. Come to think of it, I've personally never come across misinformation on there period.

You're missing the point. John Cena is the most polarizing character in WWE and has been for some time, and possibly ever. That's the point people are investing into his character. Either way you cut it, people are buying tickets to see Cena in some fashion.

Dime a dozen sir. There have been polarizing figures in wrestling since the early 1900's. Buddy Rogers is a good example, Gorgeous George is a good example, Ric Flair is a good example, Superstar Billy Graham is an example, and another example that should be made here is that these guys were all heels and it was their job to be polarizing. Cena is a face and his job is to be a fan favorite, but there is so much legitimate heat out there for him it's become impossible so the WWE has thrown their hands up in the air and tried to make the best of a failed venture to create a new Hulk Hogan.

You can't really say people are buying tickets to see John Cena either. I've been to more shows than I can count and I never once paid to see John Cena, nor has virtually anybody I know. People pay for the show and to see their favorite wrestler. While Cena may be a favorite to some, the entire crowd isn't just there to either cheer or boo John Cena, don't kid yourself, he's not THAT important to people.

Bull. Andre was one of the biggest draws anywhere he went.

But he never drew like he did with Hogan, and my statements were 100% accurate about his feud with Big John Studd. It was insignificant next to WMIII and even though Andre was involved it wasn't the main attraction. Hogan was.

Did I mention the audience cheering? At all? Nope, so what exactly is your point. I was pointing out that Hogan was in the match up everyone wanted to see that year at Mania, and it doesn't come close to the numbers Cena v Rock pulled.

The point is that regardless of numbers, Hogan was the favorite in that match to such a degree he was turned face instantly while he was supposed to be there as a major heel to kill the WWE with the NWO per the wishes of Vince McMahon. Even well past his prime he was chosen over the face of the company at the time, The Rock. Cena vs Rock also had a full year to build whereas Hogan-Rock did not which makes a pretty big difference obviously. And, do you think for one second that people didn't want to see that so badly because they wanted to see The Rock beat John Cena? I can assure you, and the tape will show you that-that was the overwhelming case. It aaaaaall came back to The Rock in that scenario. His return, him beating Cena, and him being back in the WWE. Without The Rock, who else was Cena going to draw that big with? You still haven't been able to answer that one.

Can you make your mind up? Please? Either it was solely because of the Rock or it was because of other names on the card. You cannot argue both and say that it was because The Rock was there to help the buy rates and that's a fact, which you just did. Do you not see the idiocy of that?

No I can argue both, because both go to the same point, that it wasn't John Cena being the top drawing factor by a long shot.

Let's see, Rock was there last year, but so was Triple H vs Taker. Funny, didn't bring in as much.

But The Rock was only there to host the event, and even that helped draw because he was simply there, and people knew he was going to be involved in a greater capacity at some point in the night which he was. If his presence wasn't going to raise the gate and buyrate than why did they bother making it such a big focal point? It was a highly anticipated return of one of the most beloved faced in company history, a guy that people prefer by and large more than John Cena, and a guy that most of the viewing public wanted to see BEAT John Cena which he did.

Let me make this simple. Hogan, possibly the greatest professional wrestler ever faced the Rock at Mania 18. A Mania that did not draw as much as Cena did against the Rock. One guy faced both men, and the latter drew more with him.

Already addressed.

My point being Cena played a huge role in the match up. People can sit here and argue drawing power all day long, but at the end of the day it is the match up that people want to see.

Addressed this too.

Wrestlemania 18 proves you're wrong. Also, you're last answer proves you're wrong. If Rock drew by just showing up then why didn't Survivor Series draw more than it did the past to years.

I covered that in the last post which you conveniently seemed to ignore.

I would say it's far more reliable than wikipedia, which anyone with a blog can change. I'm not going to argue that it is the end all of wrestling knowledge.

And someone else already noted how horribly inaccurate that site is.

Who was going to hold the title besides Hogan at that point? I'll give you Savage, Andre and Slaughter, but who else? Who, realistically could hold the title. Or better yet, who was Vince going to let hold the title? Today's WWE has more top tear talent than Hogan's day. While, I'll believe some should stick with Mid-Card, the fact remains Hogan did not face an industry where the Title was changing hands as much.

I already covered this too. There were TONS of guys, and Vince at one time or another had every big talent that there was so I say "take your pick" at who else besides Hogan could have held the title. The point is, no one was going to because no one was nearly as big a deal or as big a draw as Hogan. Today's WWE doesn't necessarily have more of top tier than in Hogan's day, they are just on a more level playing field because there isn't a Hulk Hogan around who is so far and away above the rest of the competition. The titles may not have changed hands as much back then, but that's irrelevant to the case of Hulk Hogan vs John Cena. The same situation can be reversed on you by saying that Cena wouldn't have nearly the number of accomplishments or title reigns he has in this era where the titles switch hands so frequently as he would have competing back in Hogan's day, and IN Hogans day, it's arguable as to whether or not a John Cena would have even made it.

Okay, question? Take Cena away, who keeps everyone's interest? I'm not talking about IWC. I'm talking the lay person? Orton? Punk? Come on. It would be the same thing if you remove Hogan from WWF of the late eighties.

Take your pick. They've done it many times whether Cena was out with injury, doing a movie, or what have you. Some of the guys who would fill that role now are gone like Batista, Edge, Jeff Hardy, JBL, and RVD who all DID keep everyone's interest. You also had Shawn and Triple H feuding at the top and Triple H holding the title a few times, which obviously wouldn't be the case today, and then what you have left right now is Jericho for the time being, Orton, Punk, Lesnar and The Rock part time, Daniel Bryan has now entered the top tier, Sheamus is the WHC, Big Show is always capable of holding the title or feuding for it, and there are a handful of guys like Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, The Miz, Cody Rhodes, Christian, etc... who can be placed in main event feuds and do well. Don't forget that Rey Mysterio should be coming back anytime now, they're building Ryback at the moment for something big possible, Lord Tensai is obviously a guy they want to do big things with, Matt Morgan is likely coming back to the WWE, there is this "Revolution" coming as well, and the list goes on and on. Cena would not be so greatly missed as you seem to think. Never had been, and likely never will be.

WHAT? WWE in no ways hold's more power over their audience now than they did then. Why was Orton turned face? Because the crowd turned him face when they cheered him as a heel. Why did Rock turn heel? Because the crowd hated him, then went back to face because they loved him. The crowd influences the product far more than it did in the eighties. Who exactly was WWF's competition in the eighties?

Oh I beg to differ. You see back then the audience wasn't nearly so smart about the business, and there weren't nearly as many media outlets for them to be involved in the product like there is now, and there wasn't nearly as much of the product to consume. That meant you had a lot fewer ways to satisfy the audience, a lot fewer chances, and you had to get it right every time because the people could simply go back to watching some one elses product.

That's not the case today, the WWE has a virtual monopoly on the business and as the main product of the industry they hold a lot of power over everyone because there aren't any other options out there to serve as a legit alternative to them. This puts them in a higher position of power than they once had, and the social media helps them have a greater power as well since they can really get a more accurate gauge on their audience, what they like, what they don't like, what they do and don't want to see, etc.... Add into that, they'e got 2 hours on Monday, 2 hours on Friday, NXT online, and at least one PPV a month, and they have a lot more room to make the moves THEY want to make and don't have to worry as much now days whether or not the audience approves or doesn't approve, and they show all the time that they don't care one way or the other with a lot of lazy booking and ignoring much of what the audience is actually clamoring for because "They know what's best for business".

Well, on the contrary, what's best for business is whatever the audience wants. If you don't please them, you don't make any money, your ratings drop, you start getting desperate for stars and shoving guys down the audiences throats they never asked for or wanted, make them the centerpiece of your company against the will and wishes of most of your fans, and continue to watch TV ratings and PPV buy rates plummet while you continue to try and tell the fans you know what entertains them better than they do.

Who exactly was WWF's competition in 80's. Do tell me? If WWF had major competition in the eighties then WWF would have changed. They did not have to, so they stuck with Hogan. They kept the same mantra up until WCW changed tactics.

The NWA was still going strong through most of the 80's, then you had the AWA which was a major national promotion run by the Gange family, WCW which was part of the NWA but still a bigger promotion than a lot of the other territories, and then ALL THE TERRITORIES that went out of business because they eventually couldn't compete. I won't both going through and naming the numerous territorial promotions that were still around, but there was a lot of competition out there regardless, and the business was still in a transitional phase from the days of the old school territory system dominated by the NWA and what would become a business consisting mostly of one major entity, the WWF.

Notice that Hogan was given the Championship? The argument can go both ways. if Vince did not give Hogan the chance to be as big as was and as relevant as he was. Sorry, but that argument hold no weight.

It wasn't handed over to him, he won it from Iron Sheik, and if you're talking outside of kayfabe, the title was far from handed to him. The fans were desperate to see Hogan as champion already. Remember in our last lesson when I taught you about how Hogan was an international star well before Hulkamania? That's right, Vince wasn't in the position of simply "giving him a chance" he already knew it would be a success because Hogan was already a success.

If you remember Hogan was getting stale towards the end of his time in WWF. He was stale in his first few years in WCW. So he was repackaged in the NWO. Hogan admits he had to do something different.

Yes, which is where we exit Hogans prime which is the focal point of this match in the tournament, rendering all that irrelevant as to who would win in a Hogan vs Cena match up and who is better all-around, all-time. That answer is easily Hogan.

The difference with Cena is as much as a lot of us would like to see him as a Heel. They would lose a lot of the fanfare around him. Right now, WWE is able to sell merchandise that says Cena Sucks. They are able to catered to all of the audience without having to change him. If you and I were talking about this in Hogan's day, with how critical we are of the current product we would be saying the same thing about Hogan.

What you're failing to acknowledge here is that by Hogan going heel, he also became every bit as relevant and popular as he had been before, and eventually most people came around to being a fan of Hogan again as virtually everyone was on the nWo bandwagon as well. You also ignore that fact that Cena HAS changed a bit over time. Do you not remember his original gimmick, the "Doctor of Thuganomics" where he originally rose as a heel and then a fan favorite? That wasn't going to last forever and it got stale quick. That's when they decided, "Let's make him a pure baby face do-gooder and push him to the moon regardless of how much the fans eventually revolt and turn against him".

Also if we were discussing this back then it wouldn't be anything like this conversation because we wouldn't be nearly as smart about the business or know nearly as much about all of it to be able to analyze everything like this.

Bottom line, Cena is no Hogan and he is not as good as Hogan was on virtually any level. If Hogan in his prime faced Cena, Cena would lose beyond a shadow of a doubt. You may have your preferences, you may see it a different way, but Hogan would not lose in his prime to a John Cena. It's been said, Cena is guy trying to do what Hogan already did before him, but isn't good enough to do it as well, or pull off what Hogan did in taking the business to another level. The only level Cena has taken the WWE is to a lower level as the ratings and slipping PPV numbers (WM aside) indicate.