Oy Vey, WrestleZone Tournament

[Bernkastel]

Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't.

It just goes to show the incredible run Cena has had over the last several years. Cena has defeated HBK, Hulk Hogan and likely the Undertaker in the same IWC voted tournament. That's a VERY impressive resume.

It is considering that 5 years ago Cena probably would have gone out first round against a Jarret, Hall, Christian, or Sabu.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wish I had remembered No Way Out 2007 before now. I didn't even remember it, just kind of stumbled upon it.

 

[Coco]

Also, I just thought of the Triple threat match from Survivor Series a couple of years ago. Who else can say they beat both HHH and HBK at Wrestlemania, and also beat them in a Triple Threat match (let alone while they were apart of DX)? That's amazing. Has really nothing to do with what we're discussing, but I felt the need to point it out anyway, lol.

The bitch of it is the build to that match was atrocious and the buyrate reflected that. I don't know how they managed to fuck up a match of that magnitude, but they sure did. There's no reason for that not to have been one of the biggest matches of the current era.

Thanks for reminding me...

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

The bitch of it is the build to that match was atrocious and the buyrate reflected that. I don't know how they managed to fuck up a match of that magnitude, but they sure did. There's no reason for that not to have been one of the biggest matches of the current era.

Thanks for reminding me...

I don't even remember any build, just DX and Hornswoggle segments and then a tag match a week before the PPV.

 

[jmt225]

Yeah, I thought EVERYTHING about the late DX run was horrible.

 

[Coco]

I almost stopped watching Raw in 2009. Nothing has ever been so trying on my patience as a wrestling fan. And DX is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[shattered dreams]

Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't.

It just goes to show the incredible run Cena has had over the last several years. Cena has defeated HBK, Hulk Hogan and likely the Undertaker in the same IWC voted tournament. That's a VERY impressive resume.

One that Cena ironically owes to how much Rock got him over IMO.

It is almost amusing how the arguments completely flip flopped for why Cena should beat Hogan, to why he should beat Taker. People asininely put down everything about what Hogan did in the ring or even more curiously his level of competition. Now suddenly it is all about accomplishments and the only thing that matters is how long you were the man

It turns out we all thought Taker was being overrated for the wrong reasons. As it is now becoming clear it was mostly due to people massively overrating this recent era of WWE.

Not sure I am buying into the jmt special for next round. My sources indicate Big Show knocked Cena out twice in 24 hours. I can't claim to follow Cena's career that closely but when he does actually lose it seems like he does it more than once before he prevails.

 

[Tastycles]

I think a lot of people who voted Hogan over Cena would vote Cena over Undertaker, which follows (I would say that, it's what I did). The bigger flip-floppers in my mind are the people who voted Cena over Hogan, and then Taker over Cena. The only thing you can give Taker over Cena 100% matter-of-factly is longevity, but Hogan had that too, and a lot of other obvious stats. Hogan was much harder to beat in kayfabe as 1 clean defeat in 10 years would suggest.

 

[Vega]

I think a lot of people who voted Hogan over Cena would vote Cena over Undertaker, which follows (I would say that, it's what I did). The bigger flip-floppers in my mind are the people who voted Cena over Hogan, and then Taker over Cena. The only thing you can give Taker over Cena 100% matter-of-factly is longevity, but Hogan had that too, and a lot of other obvious stats. Hogan was much harder to beat in kayfabe as 1 clean defeat in 10 years would suggest.

To be fair, Taker doesn't have many more clean non-gimmick defeats.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think a lot of people who voted Hogan over Cena would vote Cena over Undertaker, which follows (I would say that, it's what I did). The bigger flip-floppers in my mind are the people who voted Cena over Hogan, and then Taker over Cena. The only thing you can give Taker over Cena 100% matter-of-factly is longevity, but Hogan had that too, and a lot of other obvious stats. Hogan was much harder to beat in kayfabe as 1 clean defeat in 10 years would suggest.

I was commenting on reasoning, not correctness. I don't find anything floppy about people that voted Hogan and then Cena. I also think you can easily give Taker the quality of names defeated edge. Subjectively I think many would give Taker the edge in ring. It is rare for people to vote on purely "objective" criteria anyway. Were there many that made this flop?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Vladimir Kozlov has beaten Undertaker clean.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Vladimir Kozlov has beaten Undertaker clean.

Funny match that. Clean, with a power slam, not even on PPV. Weird decision.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Vladimir Kozlov has beaten Undertaker clean.

Now there's a booking decision to be proud of.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Vladimir Kozlov has beaten Undertaker clean.

LJL with more useless information for your everyday life.

Cena just lost cleanly to the "monster of the month" Lord Tensai, he's also lost to Orlando Jordan, not cleanly, but still; Orlando fuckin' Jordan.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Right up there with Undertaker losing to my man Maven.

 

[Ming]

Rocky doesn't suck, but I think the fact that he already beat Cena once hurts his case. It's much more difficult to beat someone twice. How many times has Cena lost back-to-back to the same person?

Didn't Sheamus beat Cena three times in a row?

Hasn't Batista and CM Punk beaten him consecutively as well? I might be wrong.

 

[shattered dreams]

I looked it up and Cena has lost back to back to a number of people, both top guys and relative afterthoughts. One of the top guys is Undertaker. I guess jmt voted for Cena in that match because how many times has Cena lost three straight? I think we should stick to the one straight arguments before this quickly becomes ******ed and the Brooklyn Brawler wins next year.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I don't even know why people use win-loss records in their considerations.

Hey guys, newsflash. Wrestling is fake. Oh god, I've turned into that guy...

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Cena shouldn't have beaten Hogan.

Are we still on that?

Am I late to the dance?

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Cena shouldn't have beaten Hogan.

Are we still on that?

Am I late to the dance?

Agreeadio. I can understand why he's getting past Taker, though, I have voted against him both times but for him the rest of the tournament. Next year I'm campaigning to get Hogan a win he much deserves.

 

[shattered dreams]

Fuck, I may have been hasty to say Taker beat Cena two straight. Two straight in the US still works.

Hogan will never win this tournament. Cena is going to win it many times in a row. If Cena wins this year, I may be done with the tournament. Someone PM me if Cena matches up with Austin though.

 

[Slyfox696]

One that Cena ironically owes to how much Rock got him over IMO.

I think that played a part, but I think Cena's work with Punk last year made a big difference too. When people look up and say that not only Cena put IWC favorite Punk over, he also did it in a rare Dave Meltzer 5 star match. And for whatever reason, Meltzer's opinion matters to a lot of people. But regardless of how people feel about Meltzer, most people agree MITB was a great match.

I think his match with Punk, his constant goodwill work, and his not winning every match (no Super Cena) played a big part in this, as well as his feud with Rock.

It is almost amusing how the arguments completely flip flopped for why Cena should beat Hogan, to why he should beat Taker. People asininely put down everything about what Hogan did in the ring or even more curiously his level of competition. Now suddenly it is all about accomplishments and the only thing that matters is how long you were the man

In fairness, arguing against Hogan and Undertaker does require different arguments due to the fact they worked in completely different eras.

If Cena wins this year, I may be done with the tournament. Someone PM me if Cena matches up with Austin though.

Are you saying Cena doesn't deserve to win?

 

[Con T.]

Cena didn't deserve to go over Hogan.

I don't understand in what aspect of wrestling Cena is better than Hogan. Again, that isn't a knock on Cena; Hogan should have won this whole thing. Literally everything Cena does well, Hogan did one hundred times better

 

[shattered dreams]

I think that played a part, but I think Cena's work with Punk last year made a big difference too. When people look up and say that not only Cena put IWC favorite Punk over, he also did it in a rare Dave Meltzer 5 star match. And for whatever reason, Meltzer's opinion matters to a lot of people. But regardless of how people feel about Meltzer, most people agree MITB was a great match.

I didn't see much change about how Cena was regarded after that. Cena fans that had already defended him tirelessly just added another chapter to their diatribe. However, I did see him getting the most support I have ever seen him have after the Rock beat him (something that steadily built up as the match approached).

I think his match with Punk, his constant goodwill work, and his not winning every match (no Super Cena) played a big part in this, as well as his feud with Rock.

I think the myth was that it was about the winning matches. The issue was never matches, except for maybe in his first rise to the top. The issue had long been the way his character was used. IMO what happened with CM Punk didn't change that at all. What happened with the Rock provided the dramatic change needed.

In fairness, arguing against Hogan and Undertaker does require different arguments due to the fact they worked in completely different eras.

Different arguments? Yes. Stylistically contradictory arguments? Not if you are claiming to be consistent. If you argue Cena over Taker based on accomplishments then when arguing Cena over Hogan you would have to argue that Cena's era adjusted accomplishments are superior, not completely change the criteria as it suits you.

Are you saying Cena doesn't deserve to win?

Yep. Cena isn't the greatest wrestler yet. I imagine at some point I could begrudgingly concede he might deserve to win but as it stands now him beating Hogan in a straight up normal match is the most ridiculous result in this tournament. At least before Hogan was losing on dumb gimmicks. There was no gimmick here. I don't really have a problem with Cena beating Undertaker but the arguments have been lacking in quality IMO. Cena doesn't deserve to beat Rock yet either. Rock just pinned him clean in Miami after being off for years while Cena is still pretty much in his prime. Rock's era trumps Cena's era by a mile. The only reason Cena may very well still win anyway is that his shitty era drove all the fans that made Rock's era great away and replaced it with idiot youth that think the present is awesome because their only frame of comparison is the sucktitude of the transition era. Even then it took Rock coming back to truly convince people that only know Cena's era to actually support him in mass.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Vladimir Kozlov has beaten Undertaker clean.

So, um, am I the only one here who actually liked Kozlov?