Not a popular subject: John Cena - who has he surpassed in Greatest of All Time list?
- Thread starter mizowns
- Start date
I'll explain later when I have more time. And 2007 isn't the time of Cena becoming the man (that was 2005). But June 2007 was when Benoit murdered his family. And if you look at ratings in 2007 before then, Raw was averaging a 3.9 rating (the same as 2006). After June 2007, I believe they averaged a 3.3 rating. That's a big difference and it's not a coincidence.
Look forward to reading it. I'll throw out a few figures that I base some of my judgment on now but if you have counter arguments for them I'm looking forward to seeing them.
Total PPV buys
2001 - running shows = 8,010,400 buys.
2005 - running shows = 5,280,800 buys.
2009 - running shows = 4,490,200 buys.
House show average attendance
2001 - 11,556
2005 - 4,975
2009 - 6,933
Source: http://mookieghana.livejournal.com/316157.html and claims they're taken from WWE annual reports
Total PPV buys
2001 - running shows = 8,010,400 buys.
2005 - running shows = 5,280,800 buys.
2009 - running shows = 4,490,200 buys.
House show average attendance
2001 - 11,556
2005 - 4,975
2009 - 6,933
Source: http://mookieghana.livejournal.com/316157.html and claims they're taken from WWE annual reports
Few things, I'm gonna bump the thread for Sly to respond hopefully.
Secondly, I really hate that argument that Cena is the top guy in the worst era. No one single guy saves an entire era, if so the New Generation Era would have been one of the best of all time...I mean Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart were in it. In reality the New Generation Era is just about as bad as the PG Era, you can make an argument for either way. Hogan Era had Hogan and Andre and then a slew of midcard talents who could pull the show up. Attitude Era was a time period thing and a lot of it ages poorly or in hindsight seems redundant. For instance: Austin driving the beer truck was a great moment, yet we had Austin and the Zamboni and Angle and the milk truck. Yet on a list of the best Raw moments all 3 will make the list. I'm rambling, Attitude Era had Austin and Rock.
I'm not saying Cena deserves more respect, but that argument is just plain stupid. If you gave Cena an Austin or Rock to work with over the course of his 4 prime years and said, do whatever it takes to get over, I seriously think Cena would do as well if not better. As someone else said, when Cena retires gradually he'll slide up the list of all time greats to everyone.
Secondly, I really hate that argument that Cena is the top guy in the worst era. No one single guy saves an entire era, if so the New Generation Era would have been one of the best of all time...I mean Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart were in it. In reality the New Generation Era is just about as bad as the PG Era, you can make an argument for either way. Hogan Era had Hogan and Andre and then a slew of midcard talents who could pull the show up. Attitude Era was a time period thing and a lot of it ages poorly or in hindsight seems redundant. For instance: Austin driving the beer truck was a great moment, yet we had Austin and the Zamboni and Angle and the milk truck. Yet on a list of the best Raw moments all 3 will make the list. I'm rambling, Attitude Era had Austin and Rock.
I'm not saying Cena deserves more respect, but that argument is just plain stupid. If you gave Cena an Austin or Rock to work with over the course of his 4 prime years and said, do whatever it takes to get over, I seriously think Cena would do as well if not better. As someone else said, when Cena retires gradually he'll slide up the list of all time greats to everyone.
relentless1
G.O.A.T.
Cena will end his career in the top 5 GOAT probably, behind Hogan, Austin, Flair and Sammartino
dd23beatlesfan1
Getting Noticed By Management
I think if we're talking about strictly the modern Era of pro wrestling, aka: 1984-Present, then Cena inches closer the upper echelon of all-time greats. But, honestly most people here only look at that time period with the obligatory inclusion of one "old school" wrestler like Bruno, Thesz, Gagne, etc. But when you're looking at the overall history of pro wrestling from the late 1800's to today, John Cena in the top 5 is an absolute joke. Frankly, so is having Shawn Michaels, or even the Undertaker. There is more to the overall history of pro wrestling as a sport/art-form than just WWE circa 1985 to today.
Did John Cena start the genre of pro wrestling in an entire country like Rikidozan or El Santo?
Did Cena draw huge during a catastrophe like "the Great Depression" as Jim Londos was able to do?
Did John Cena bring wrestling to new heights in mainstream popularity like Gorgeous George, Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Stone Cold, and the Rock were able to do?
Was John Cena an innovator and revolutionary when it comes to a particular style of wrestling like the Shiek was for hardcore wrestling, like Antonino "Argentina" Rocca for high-flying wrestling, or someone like Dynamite Kid, Tiger Mask, and later Rey Mysterio for cruiserweight style wrestling? Did he revolutionize gimmicks and characters for wrestling and have a character that no one had ever seen before like Buddy Rogers, "Superstar" Billy Graham, or the Undertaker?
Was he consistently thought of of as the best in-ring worker of his era like a Lou Thesz, Ray Stevens, Nick Bockwinkel, Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, or Kurt Angle?
I think in the grand scheme of pro wrestling history, he's definitely in the top 50, maybe in the top 30. But I can't see putting him in the top 20. If we're talking strictly WWE, he's in the top 20 easily, maybe even top 10. Not top 5 though. The top 5 stars in WWE history are Bruno, Hulk, Andre, Stone Cold, and the Rock. After that it's Taker, Bret, HBK, Macho Man, and then maybe Cena.
I actually made a list of the 100 Greatest WWE Superstars about three years ago, and I had Cena at No. 17. In addition to the nine previous wrestlers, I also had Piper, Flair, Foley, Triple H, Buddy Rogers, Jericho, and Angle ahead of Cena. At this point, I would agree that he's ahead of Triple H, Rogers, Jericho, Angle, Flair, and as much as I hate to admit it Foley. I'm still on the fence of putting him ahead of Piper though. Yes, Cena was the top guy in WWE, which Piper never was, but Cena wasn't as revolutionary as Piper was, nor could he touch Piper on the mic. Piper's run as a heel from 1984-1986, is quite possibly the single greatest run by a heel, from a creative standpoint of all-time. Something I can't really say about Cena. But Cena was ultimately more successful than Piper was, so I can go with Cena being ahead.
So I guess if I were to rank a new top 20 in WWE history, it would look like this...
20. Pedro Morales
19. Eddie Guerrero
18. Bob Backlund
17. Kurt Angle
16. Chris Jericho
15. Buddy Rogers
14. Ric Flair
13. Triple H
12. Mick Foley
11. Rowdy Roddy Piper
10. John Cena
And then the next 9 with why I put them ahead of Cena
9. Macho Man Randy Savage (Macho may have always been No. 2 in the company while Cena was No. 1, but even with that being said, Cena in this era is still not as big of a mainstream star, pop culture icon as Randy Savage was in the 80's and early 90's. Not to mention he was 10X the athlete and worker that Cena was. Savage's two reigns as WWE Champion and reign as I-C champion meant more than Cena's 15 reigns as WWE Champion. Quality over Quantity
8. The Undertaker (Better in-ring athlete, more classic matches, more revolutionary with how he changed the image and in-ring workrate for larger men in the business, and the most unique gimmick in pro wrestling history. And as long as Cena's been around, Taker has doubled that. Taker has surpassed Andre and Bruno as the longest tenured wrestler at the top in WWE history. Cena's getting there too, but he's got a ways to go to match Taker)
7. Shawn Michaels (the most overrated wrestler in WWE history, in my book, but he's still one of the greatest in-ring performers ever. He wasn't the draw that Cena was true, but the list of classic matches compared to both is a joke. Shawn was at the forefront of WWE's most successful era in the Attitude Era, and his run in the 2000's was legendary, particularly his matches at Wrestlemania. If you're looking at pro wrestling as an art form, Cena is Green Day, Shawn Michaels is Led Zeppelin)
6. Bret Hart (I actually think this two are far more alike than many people care to discuss. People constantly say that Cena is the Hogan/Rock of this era. Actually he's not. He's the Bret Hart of this era. Despite WWE revisionism, Bret Hart was the "King" of the New Generation Era. Yes Vince tried to push Luger, Nash, and HBK instead, but they always went back to Bret, as he was the cornerstone of that era to the fans, and really the company. Whenever everyone else that Vince tried to push, failed to draw, he always went back to Bret. Just like Vince does with Cena today. Bret was the constant in the New Generation Era that kept everything afloat. He couldn't make wrestling bigger than Hogan had, but he kept it afloat until the next era-defining star came along (Stone Cold and later the Rock). Cena has done the same thing for the last 10 years. The PG Era has not drawn the ratings or mainstream popularity that that Attitude Era was able to do in the late 90's. It's not all Cena's fault, like many like to blame. Society is different today, television habits are different, but all of that aside, WWE and pro wrestling as a whole is just not as big today as it was in the late 90's. Cena has never been able to surpass Austin and Rock, just like Bret Hart wasn't able to surpass Hogan and to a lesser extent Savage. But like Bret, Cena has kept WWE afloat, and will continue to do so until the next major iconic figure comes along, if one ever does. The reason I put Bret ahead of Cena is simply from an artistic standpoint. Like my comparison between Cena and Shawn, Cena is Bruce Springsteen, Bret Hart is Bob Dylan. Bret is on a whole other level as an in-ring performer than Cena is. Bret is the better pro wrestler.
5. The Rock (The Rock is greater in every capacity, when it comes to mic-skills, # of classic matches, in-ring ability/workrate, and something even the anti-in ring workers can't deny, a much bigger draw. There's a reason that the Rock has become the biggest mainstream star the pro wrestling industry has ever produced. Cena sure as heck isn't at that level. And he never will be. Cena can't really touch the Rock on any criteria when it comes to being a great pro wrestler. The only advantage Cena has over Rock is longevity in the pro wrestling business. Still I think most would agree that the Rock's five years as one of the top stars in the business far exceeds Cena's 10-11 years as one of the top stars.
4. Andre the Giant (Andre preceded the ppv and Wrestlemania era where WWE became a global phenomenon. He was there from 85-90 when WWE was getting there, but Andre never had the advantage of weekly cable tv, ppvs, the internet, social media, the WWE Network, etc during his prime like Cena does. Obviously Cena has had a far longer career in today's world of social media and WWE being a global company compare to Andre, whose prime was in the territory days, when Vince and Co. didn't run shows past Philadelphia. Which makes what Andre achieved back then all the more remarkable. The low card guys in WWE today appear on TV shows. But back in the 70's, wrestling was a dirty word that no one outside of the industry acknowledged. Andre helped to change all of that. He was a phenomenon in the days before the internet and social media existed. And so he became quite possibly the most mythic figure in the history or pro wrestling. No one had ever seen anyone like him before, which made him a complete revolutionary. He helped to pave the way for the WWE to take over the world in the 80's, and at Wrestlemania III he helped cement the fact that WWE was here to stay. Without Andre, there is no John Cena. Basically the reason I have Andre ahead of Cena is that he was far more important to the history of pro wrestling than Cena, simple as that.
3. Bruno Sammartino (There would be no WWE, no John Cena, no Bret Hart, no Shawn Michaels, no Undertaker, no Randy Orton, no Brock Lesnar, no Andre the Giant, no Wrestlemania, no Vince McMahon Jr., without Bruno Sammartino. There might not even be a pro wrestling industry today without Bruno helping to establish the WWE, as how long would the NWA have lasted?
Anyone that doesn't put Bruno at least in the top 5 of WWE history is stuck on pro wrestling from 1990 on and completely clueless about WWE history, and pro wrestling history as a whole for that matter. Oh and there's the fact that Cena's 15 reigns as champion doesn't even equal out to Bruno second reign as champion (a 4 year run), not to mention his first reign that lasted 8 years and that no one will EVER come close to reaching again.)
2. Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steve Austin ushered in the most successful era in WWE history (not D-X like WWE likes to tell everyone today). There would be no WWE for John Cena to make his name without Austin saving the WWE in 1997/1998 like he did. Better talker, bigger draw, better worker, bigger mainstream icon. Steve Austin is as close to the total package of an all-time great wrestler that there is)
1. Hulk Hogan (do I really need to explain here).
I won't get into a list of the greatest pro wrestlers of all-time when you count Japan, Mexico, Europe, Canada, all the territories, and pre 1980 wrestling, as that's too daunting a task. I will give credit to John Cena as he is the defining figure of this era, and is one of the all-time greats in WWE and probably pro wrestling as a whole. But he doesn't even belong in the top 5 of WWE let alone all of pro wrestling. If you really think Cena is greater than any Japanese wrestler, any Mexican wrestler, any WCW wrestler, any wrestler from before 1990, then you really have a lot to learn about pro wrestling history as a whole.
Did John Cena start the genre of pro wrestling in an entire country like Rikidozan or El Santo?
Did Cena draw huge during a catastrophe like "the Great Depression" as Jim Londos was able to do?
Did John Cena bring wrestling to new heights in mainstream popularity like Gorgeous George, Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Stone Cold, and the Rock were able to do?
Was John Cena an innovator and revolutionary when it comes to a particular style of wrestling like the Shiek was for hardcore wrestling, like Antonino "Argentina" Rocca for high-flying wrestling, or someone like Dynamite Kid, Tiger Mask, and later Rey Mysterio for cruiserweight style wrestling? Did he revolutionize gimmicks and characters for wrestling and have a character that no one had ever seen before like Buddy Rogers, "Superstar" Billy Graham, or the Undertaker?
Was he consistently thought of of as the best in-ring worker of his era like a Lou Thesz, Ray Stevens, Nick Bockwinkel, Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, or Kurt Angle?
I think in the grand scheme of pro wrestling history, he's definitely in the top 50, maybe in the top 30. But I can't see putting him in the top 20. If we're talking strictly WWE, he's in the top 20 easily, maybe even top 10. Not top 5 though. The top 5 stars in WWE history are Bruno, Hulk, Andre, Stone Cold, and the Rock. After that it's Taker, Bret, HBK, Macho Man, and then maybe Cena.
I actually made a list of the 100 Greatest WWE Superstars about three years ago, and I had Cena at No. 17. In addition to the nine previous wrestlers, I also had Piper, Flair, Foley, Triple H, Buddy Rogers, Jericho, and Angle ahead of Cena. At this point, I would agree that he's ahead of Triple H, Rogers, Jericho, Angle, Flair, and as much as I hate to admit it Foley. I'm still on the fence of putting him ahead of Piper though. Yes, Cena was the top guy in WWE, which Piper never was, but Cena wasn't as revolutionary as Piper was, nor could he touch Piper on the mic. Piper's run as a heel from 1984-1986, is quite possibly the single greatest run by a heel, from a creative standpoint of all-time. Something I can't really say about Cena. But Cena was ultimately more successful than Piper was, so I can go with Cena being ahead.
So I guess if I were to rank a new top 20 in WWE history, it would look like this...
20. Pedro Morales
19. Eddie Guerrero
18. Bob Backlund
17. Kurt Angle
16. Chris Jericho
15. Buddy Rogers
14. Ric Flair
13. Triple H
12. Mick Foley
11. Rowdy Roddy Piper
10. John Cena
And then the next 9 with why I put them ahead of Cena
9. Macho Man Randy Savage (Macho may have always been No. 2 in the company while Cena was No. 1, but even with that being said, Cena in this era is still not as big of a mainstream star, pop culture icon as Randy Savage was in the 80's and early 90's. Not to mention he was 10X the athlete and worker that Cena was. Savage's two reigns as WWE Champion and reign as I-C champion meant more than Cena's 15 reigns as WWE Champion. Quality over Quantity
8. The Undertaker (Better in-ring athlete, more classic matches, more revolutionary with how he changed the image and in-ring workrate for larger men in the business, and the most unique gimmick in pro wrestling history. And as long as Cena's been around, Taker has doubled that. Taker has surpassed Andre and Bruno as the longest tenured wrestler at the top in WWE history. Cena's getting there too, but he's got a ways to go to match Taker)
7. Shawn Michaels (the most overrated wrestler in WWE history, in my book, but he's still one of the greatest in-ring performers ever. He wasn't the draw that Cena was true, but the list of classic matches compared to both is a joke. Shawn was at the forefront of WWE's most successful era in the Attitude Era, and his run in the 2000's was legendary, particularly his matches at Wrestlemania. If you're looking at pro wrestling as an art form, Cena is Green Day, Shawn Michaels is Led Zeppelin)
6. Bret Hart (I actually think this two are far more alike than many people care to discuss. People constantly say that Cena is the Hogan/Rock of this era. Actually he's not. He's the Bret Hart of this era. Despite WWE revisionism, Bret Hart was the "King" of the New Generation Era. Yes Vince tried to push Luger, Nash, and HBK instead, but they always went back to Bret, as he was the cornerstone of that era to the fans, and really the company. Whenever everyone else that Vince tried to push, failed to draw, he always went back to Bret. Just like Vince does with Cena today. Bret was the constant in the New Generation Era that kept everything afloat. He couldn't make wrestling bigger than Hogan had, but he kept it afloat until the next era-defining star came along (Stone Cold and later the Rock). Cena has done the same thing for the last 10 years. The PG Era has not drawn the ratings or mainstream popularity that that Attitude Era was able to do in the late 90's. It's not all Cena's fault, like many like to blame. Society is different today, television habits are different, but all of that aside, WWE and pro wrestling as a whole is just not as big today as it was in the late 90's. Cena has never been able to surpass Austin and Rock, just like Bret Hart wasn't able to surpass Hogan and to a lesser extent Savage. But like Bret, Cena has kept WWE afloat, and will continue to do so until the next major iconic figure comes along, if one ever does. The reason I put Bret ahead of Cena is simply from an artistic standpoint. Like my comparison between Cena and Shawn, Cena is Bruce Springsteen, Bret Hart is Bob Dylan. Bret is on a whole other level as an in-ring performer than Cena is. Bret is the better pro wrestler.
5. The Rock (The Rock is greater in every capacity, when it comes to mic-skills, # of classic matches, in-ring ability/workrate, and something even the anti-in ring workers can't deny, a much bigger draw. There's a reason that the Rock has become the biggest mainstream star the pro wrestling industry has ever produced. Cena sure as heck isn't at that level. And he never will be. Cena can't really touch the Rock on any criteria when it comes to being a great pro wrestler. The only advantage Cena has over Rock is longevity in the pro wrestling business. Still I think most would agree that the Rock's five years as one of the top stars in the business far exceeds Cena's 10-11 years as one of the top stars.
4. Andre the Giant (Andre preceded the ppv and Wrestlemania era where WWE became a global phenomenon. He was there from 85-90 when WWE was getting there, but Andre never had the advantage of weekly cable tv, ppvs, the internet, social media, the WWE Network, etc during his prime like Cena does. Obviously Cena has had a far longer career in today's world of social media and WWE being a global company compare to Andre, whose prime was in the territory days, when Vince and Co. didn't run shows past Philadelphia. Which makes what Andre achieved back then all the more remarkable. The low card guys in WWE today appear on TV shows. But back in the 70's, wrestling was a dirty word that no one outside of the industry acknowledged. Andre helped to change all of that. He was a phenomenon in the days before the internet and social media existed. And so he became quite possibly the most mythic figure in the history or pro wrestling. No one had ever seen anyone like him before, which made him a complete revolutionary. He helped to pave the way for the WWE to take over the world in the 80's, and at Wrestlemania III he helped cement the fact that WWE was here to stay. Without Andre, there is no John Cena. Basically the reason I have Andre ahead of Cena is that he was far more important to the history of pro wrestling than Cena, simple as that.
3. Bruno Sammartino (There would be no WWE, no John Cena, no Bret Hart, no Shawn Michaels, no Undertaker, no Randy Orton, no Brock Lesnar, no Andre the Giant, no Wrestlemania, no Vince McMahon Jr., without Bruno Sammartino. There might not even be a pro wrestling industry today without Bruno helping to establish the WWE, as how long would the NWA have lasted?
Anyone that doesn't put Bruno at least in the top 5 of WWE history is stuck on pro wrestling from 1990 on and completely clueless about WWE history, and pro wrestling history as a whole for that matter. Oh and there's the fact that Cena's 15 reigns as champion doesn't even equal out to Bruno second reign as champion (a 4 year run), not to mention his first reign that lasted 8 years and that no one will EVER come close to reaching again.)
2. Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steve Austin ushered in the most successful era in WWE history (not D-X like WWE likes to tell everyone today). There would be no WWE for John Cena to make his name without Austin saving the WWE in 1997/1998 like he did. Better talker, bigger draw, better worker, bigger mainstream icon. Steve Austin is as close to the total package of an all-time great wrestler that there is)
1. Hulk Hogan (do I really need to explain here).
I won't get into a list of the greatest pro wrestlers of all-time when you count Japan, Mexico, Europe, Canada, all the territories, and pre 1980 wrestling, as that's too daunting a task. I will give credit to John Cena as he is the defining figure of this era, and is one of the all-time greats in WWE and probably pro wrestling as a whole. But he doesn't even belong in the top 5 of WWE let alone all of pro wrestling. If you really think Cena is greater than any Japanese wrestler, any Mexican wrestler, any WCW wrestler, any wrestler from before 1990, then you really have a lot to learn about pro wrestling history as a whole.
The WWF in the Attitude Era was wildly successful, no one will ever deny it. But there are several factors you have to understand. First of all, the Attitude Era existed because of the nWo (and not ECW, the people who claim that are being ridiculous). The Attitude Era simply piggybacked off the success the WCW had and then lost because they were terribly run. But having a rival organization on TV at the exact same time of night was incredibly important to the success of the WWF, because it allowed fans to turn off the WWF during the terrible segments (and there were many), but still be into watching wrestling. These days when a terrible segment happens, people turn off the TV and are much less likely to turn back.
Second of all, the WWF did not have nearly the mainstream appeal today's WWE has. You can find references to the WWE everywhere, regardless of the medium. They talk about it on the radio, ESPN.com regularly has articles about it, they make CNN news, etc. Even with the popularity of the Attitude Era, they did not experience the mainstream acceptance today's WWE has.
Third of all, the success of the Attitude was much less about wrestling and much more about the Jerry Springer experience. It was the over the top angles, the sexual innuendo, the swearing, etc. which propelled the WWF. But it wasn't the WRESTLING which propelled the WWF and when the shock value of what the Attitude Era was doing wore off (and it had to wear off, there are limits to what the human body can do), you see a sharp drop in viewer interest.
Fourth, TV ratings cannot be compared, for reasons I've already mentioned.
Fifth, you posted PPV buys from 2001 (which, by the way, the numbers I've seen place the total number of buys south of 650,000, not north of 800,000), but you posted them absent the UFC. The UFC averaged about 67,000 buys in 2001 and averaged over 626,000 buys in 2009. That's a huge increase from the UFC and, as last night's Wrestlemania crowd only proved, there is quite a bit of crossover between wrestling fans and MMA fans. The WWE still generated nearly $183 million in PPV revenue in 2009, even with higher PPV prices, a terrible economic recession and very strong competition from the UFC.
Finally, with regards to live event attendance, you have to consider the times we live in. There's a reason why attendance is down in the NFL, even as it is arguably the most popular sport in American pro sports history. Television technology is so great today, why would someone want to go watch a watered down production of wrestling, when they can watch wrestling every day if they wish? They can watch Raw, they can watch Smackdown, they can watch TNA, they can watch ROH, they can watch WWE Network, they can download wrestling from all over the world. Why spend lots of money to go watch a show without the production values? Most people WANT the flair with today's wrestling (even though I personally don't care).
The WWE today is very popular. Is it MORE popular than the Attitude Era? Well, that's a difficult question, especially since most people don't even agree what years the Attitude Era spans. But to say it's not even debatable is just not true. The WWE today has more programming, more mainstream acceptance and still makes great money (when you exclude startups like WWE Films and WWE Network, much like you would exclude XFL), even during modern times where there are far more TV channels, more ways to illegally acquire, more possibility for spoilers and more competition.
Not really, unless you think being a regional draw is more impressive than being a worldwide draw.
I did skim the rest of your post, but when I read that you said Macho Man was 10x the worker Cena is (which is utterly false, regardless of how great Savage was) and then still put Savage behind Undertaker, it made it hard to take most of what you said seriously.
Ah come on man, you said you'd argued this before and all I'm seeing is a bunch of excuses as to why live shows have almost halved and some dismissals of Steve Austin and The Rock's appeal. The nWo may have started the Attitude Era (though I'd argue Diesel really started it in the WWF) but Austin and Rock skyrocketed it. The Attitude Era was far more about those two than it ever was about Sable and swears too.
I posted the source for the 8m+ PPV buys too, all gathered from various WWE reports according to the writer so I'm sure they can be checked out. I don't hold much truck with UFC taking from WWE buys either, it's just another excuse and isn't a decent argument. You could also say the rise of HBO shows have taken from the total buys and there would be no way of backing it up or shooting it down.
Now on to you saying the WWE today has more mainstream appeal and attention. That's very much true but do you not think it is a coincidence that it has held more mainstream appeal since the Attitude Era? I mean the Attitude Era is what propelled it back in to pop culture and it has stayed there ever since. You just have to look at the average Wrestlemania buyrate before, during and after the Attitude Era to see the effect it had.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2vipcaa.jpg
But you haven't provided any counter argument here that Cena should be ranked ahead of Austin, Rock and/or Hogan, just some excuses as to why it might be that attendances and buyrates are down.
I posted the source for the 8m+ PPV buys too, all gathered from various WWE reports according to the writer so I'm sure they can be checked out. I don't hold much truck with UFC taking from WWE buys either, it's just another excuse and isn't a decent argument. You could also say the rise of HBO shows have taken from the total buys and there would be no way of backing it up or shooting it down.
Now on to you saying the WWE today has more mainstream appeal and attention. That's very much true but do you not think it is a coincidence that it has held more mainstream appeal since the Attitude Era? I mean the Attitude Era is what propelled it back in to pop culture and it has stayed there ever since. You just have to look at the average Wrestlemania buyrate before, during and after the Attitude Era to see the effect it had.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2vipcaa.jpg
But you haven't provided any counter argument here that Cena should be ranked ahead of Austin, Rock and/or Hogan, just some excuses as to why it might be that attendances and buyrates are down.
The fact you think legitimate reasons are "excuses" seems a little ridiculous.
Not dismissing their appeal at all. I'm not sure where you got that from. But you're deluding yourself if you think what made the Attitude Era as popular as it was wasn't related to shock value.
Nonsense, the Attitude Era was about shock value and Jerry Springer. Rock and Austin were still around after 2001, but the popularity of the product declined rapidly. And why? Because the shock value wore off.
No one is dismissing the greatness of Austin and Rock. They are/were incredible. But it wasn't their wrestling which brought fans to the shows, it was their cussing and sticking things up rectums and driving beer trucks. The fact they were great workers just means they were able to make the Jerry Springer aspect work.
And I can provide you with numbers provided from Dave Meltzer. And while I'm far from a Meltzer fan, he at least is more credible than some random writer.
Then you're just sticking your head in the sand. If you don't think the UFC's rapid rise in interest didn't steal buys from the WWE, you're just being silly.
The difference being, of course, UFC and the WWE compete for many of the same fans and both companies have PPV shows competing for a fan's dollar.
Are you saying today's mainstream appeal is due to a time where they didn't have as much mainstream appeal?
Your argument doesn't make sense.
Wrestling has always been part of popular culture, to varying degrees. And, again, it wasn't the Attitude Era which propelled wrestling to regain its status in pop culture, it was the nWo. The WWF just did it better than WCW did, for a multitude of reasons.
It seems to me you're trying to argue the modern era isn't as popular as the Attitude Era, because the Attitude Era was more popular than the "New Generation" era. Which, as any sane person knows, doesn't make any sense at all.
Because I did that long ago.
I'm sorry I didn't repeat myself on a topic unrelated to what we were discussing, though given the fact you think proving the modern era isn't as popular as the Attitude Era because the Attitude Era was more popular than the New Generation era suggests logic isn't exactly your strong suit.
You can go on making New Generation arguments in your head to argue with yourself all you want, pretty clear what I was saying in regards to the Attitude Era being the catalyst for today's sustained mainstream appeal, something that has been sustained since....the Attitude Era.
And your one argument for Cena being a bigger star than Rock or Austin is that he has been around longer? Really? Big Show must transcend the sport in that case.
And your one argument for Cena being a bigger star than Rock or Austin is that he has been around longer? Really? Big Show must transcend the sport in that case.
...so?
Our discussion was whether it was debatable that the modern era was as popular as the Attitude Era. So who cares if the Attitude era began the process which is more advanced in modern times?
Do you even understand what we're discussing or have you resorted to a silly Attitude Era vs. Modern Era argument?
Big Show was never the top guy. And yes, longevity is a vital component of determining quality. Why would it not be?
Yes, lol, it does. Longevity would mean something if it was impactful longevity with huge financial success backing it up, like Flair or Hogan had. But in wrestling, yes, one gigantic year does destroy 12 mediocre ones (being the top dog in a piss poor era financially), and quite easily. For instance, Hogan had way more impact on the business in 1987 than Cena has had from 2002-present. The same goes for Steve Austin in either 1998 or 1999, and The Rock in 2000.
I can't believe someone would actually ask me to provide sources or numbers to back up the most obvious fact in wrestling history, that 1998-2000 blows away 2002-present by miles in terms of revenue/business growth, popularity, pop culture presence, and in terms of a subjective measurement I'd say content as well, but that's obviously up for debate. I will not provide links to ratings, PPV buys, attendance numbers, or merchandise sales because even questioning the difference between the two eras is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Go to Google and do some searches lol. You don't have to be a long-time fan to know common sense things like that.
I'll just say this, conservatively speaking, when comparing the combined audience of the WWF and WCW to today's WWE, Vince has lost at least 70% of the fans that were watching some form of wrestling in late 1998.
And it's not that I don't respect Cena or see his place in history. It's just that he falls more in line with the main eventers of another time period where the business hemorrhaged money, the New Generation Era. He falls in with Michaels, Bret Hart, and Undertaker. Here's my top 10:
1. Hogan
2. Austin
3. Rock
4. Flair
(huge drop off here)
5. Bruno Sammartino
6. Andre The Giant
7. Undertaker
8. Shawn Michaels
9. Bret Hart
10. John Cena
Honorable mention: Sting and Randy Savage
Similar threads
