The *Official* John Cena Thread

[SSJPhenom]

Somehow this thread got derailed into talking about The Rock even though this is the Official John Cena thread. So I'm going to derail it back to where it needs to be right after I respond to this post:

Here we go again Savage Taker. I thought I had rid myself of you in the 'Taker thread, but like Mick Foley to the Rock, you are back to harass me again.

If by you growing up when pro-wrestling was the shit you mean the Attitude Era, then guess what? I grew up watching wrestling that Era and I find today's era of wrestling to be way better. Back then it was all about the drama and not enough about all of the other aspect of wrestling. Today, there's a good mixture of every aspect of wrestling. And you enjoyed it because of the drama and shock value, not because the wrestling was good. And the Attitude Era wasn't the shit, as a matter of fact is far away from being the shit. Do you know how much harm it caused to wrestling? Anyways. don't answer that because this is a thread about John Cena not the Attitude Era.

This is your opinion about the Attitude Era. I love how you marks come in here and state your opinion and it automatically makes it true. However, I started watching wrestling when I was around 5 that is '93 by my count and that was way before the Attitude Era, that is what I am talking about. BTW, the Attitude Era that you despise so much produced some of the greatest superstars and matches of our generation and if it hadn't have been for those stars in the Era that you hate so damn much, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now about any kind of wrestling.

Then stop watching. It's a very simple thing to do. Even a ******ed chipmunk would know what to do if they didn't like something anymore. If you think it has gone to hell then why do you continue watching it if it obviously doesn't satisfy you anymore?

You know, I hate crack to but once you start, it is hard to stop. Wrestling is my crack, my only bad T.V. habit(despite reality T.V.) and even if its bad, I just can't stop.

Anyways, I have to say that I am so damn sick and tired of people saying John Cena only has 4 moves.

I always thought it was 5 moves, but whatever.

It really does make me sick.

Take some Tylenol.

No real and true wrestling fan sits in front of their TV’s every Monday night during a John Cena match and count how many moves he is doing. If you actually do that then you aren’t a real wrestling fan.

After watching him for years, how can you miss it?

The number of moves a wrestler does shouldn’t decide whether they are a good or bad wrestler. Look at Dean Malenko for example; what was one of his nicknames? "The Man of 1,000 Holds". I know he probably didn’t know a 1,000 holds but he did know a lot of them and is considered one of the best technical wrestlers. So let’s look at it this way, he knows a lot of moves yet he is still a very boring wrestler. Now let’s look at John Cena. He has 4 moves according to you smarks, yet he is still way more entertaining than Dean could ever dream of being. The difference between them is that Dean knows a lot of moves and John Cena doesn’t according to you smarks. Do you understand what I’m trying to say? In case you don’t I’ll tell you, John Cena may know less moves than Dean yet he is still way more entertaining than him, proving that just because you have a bunch of moves in your arsenal it doesn’t automatically make you a good wrestler. I’ll say it one more time, if you are worried so much about how many moves a wrestler does and sit in front of TV counting them then you aren’t a real fan of pro-wrestling.

I love this entire statement. Ahh, the circle that is the *Official* John Cena thread.

I believe we have discussed Dean Malenko abundantly in this thread about how he wasn't successful as a wrestler. I have also stated many times that I believe it is a combination of all things in professional wrestling that make a great star(Haven't I told you this before?). I do believe Cena can entertain and hold a crowd and talk shit and all the other things that made all the stars that you hate from the Attitude Era so good, but can the man put on a wrestling clinic? NO! Unless, of course, he has the best in ring performer in the world across the ring from him(HBK). Do I count his moves and suplexes and strikes, no. Do I notice the same tired routine over and over again? Yes. I don't just watch wrestling for the drama. I love the matches and in ring aspect too and when the top star of the company I have loved my entire life doesn't deliever on what I am used to, then I am going to complain and this lovely site gives me a forum(no pun intended) to do so. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it, its that simple.

 

[SavageTaker]

Here we go again Savage Taker. I thought I had rid myself of you in the 'Taker thread, but like Mick Foley to the Rock, you are back to harass me again.

No one is harassing you. Do you know even know what it means to harass someone? I felt the need to respond to your post because I disagree with it, that’s not harassment.

This is your opinion about the Attitude Era.

And that’s also the same opinion of many other posters around here.

I love how you marks come in here and state your opinion and it automatically makes it true.

I love how you smarks come in here and think you’re so cool because you hate on the babyface yet you can’t find a good reason as to why you hate a babyface, for example John Cena. And by the way it’s my opinion; I know it doesn’t make it true but that’s why it’s called an opinion. Do you know what an opinion is? It’s not like I came in here and said everything as if it were a fact.

However, I started watching wrestling when I was around 5 that is '93 by my count and that was way before the Attitude Era, that is what I am talking about.

That was my mistake then.

BTW, the Attitude Era that you despise so much

Where in my post did I say I despise the Attitude Era? Did you even read my post? I would love for you to tell me where exactly I said the words “I despise the Attitude Era so much”.

produced some of the greatest superstars and matches of our generation

That still doesn’t change the fact that it cause a lot of harm for pro-wrestling for over the years that the WWE is still trying to fix.

and if it hadn't have been for those stars in the Era that you hate so damn much,

Again I ask you, where in my post did I say I hate those stars from the Era? I like many of the stars from that Era and I never said I hated them. Point to me where I said those exact words.

we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now about any kind of wrestling.

I don’t think you understood a damn thing I was saying about the Attitude Era. I never once said I despise that Era and that I hated the stars from that Era. I merely said it was far from the shit because of the long term damage it did to pro-wrestling that the WWE is still trying to fix.
Now, I’m not going to continue responding to posts about the Attitude Era. This is a John Cena thread not an Attitude Era thread. If you want to respond to the parts about this post that have to do with the Attitude Era then go ahead, just don’t expect a response because this isn’t the thread to be doing that type of discussion.

I always thought it was 5 moves, but whatever.

It doesn’t matter whether the smarks say it’s 5 moves or 4 moves, it still doesn’t change the fact that smarks will claim either one to be the right number of moves.

After watching him for years, how can you miss it?

Let’s see, I’ve watched him for years and I don’t sit there counting how many different types of moves he does. I don’t need to because the amount of moves a wrestler does shouldn’t matter at all. I watch John Cena to be entertained and he always delivers. Also, there have been matches that I have seen again and I notice that he uses a variety of moves. Maybe not as many moves as some other wrestlers like Bret Hart, but he still uses more than 4 or 5 moves that smarks claim he uses.

I believe we have discussed Dean Malenko abundantly in this thread about how he wasn't successful as a wrestler.

Who said Dean wasn’t successful? I think most people are saying he wasn’t as successful as other wrestlers because he is boring. He was still successful holding several title, he just wasn’t as successful as other guys. But I digress.

I have also stated many times that I believe it is a combination of all things in professional wrestling that make a great star(Haven't I told you this before?).

I don’t need you telling me what makes a great star. I already know what makes a great star and Cena has all of those qualities. You don’t see it because you’re a smark and have blind hate for the man.

I do believe Cena can entertain and hold a crowd and talk shit and all the other things that made all the stars that you hate from the Attitude Era so good, but can the man put on a wrestling clinic?

I was once again say, I never said that I hated all of the stars from the Attitude Era, but once again I digress. Anyways, why does he need to put on a wrestling clinic? Today’s fans no longer care if a wrestler can put on a wrestling clinic or not. Wrestlers don’t even need to do that to show they’re great or that they know a bunch of moves. People don’t care how many moves a wrestler has because there’s no point in caring about it if they can still put on entertaining matches without the need of 100 different moves.

NO! Unless, of course, he has the best in ring performer in the world across the ring from him(HBK).

And again we’re back to square one. HBK never carried John Cena in a match and you’ll never understand that because you’re a smark and you have blind hate for John Cena. And you consider HBK the greatest in ring performer in the world? I hope you’re kidding. I like Shawn but I wouldn’t put him in such a high ranking. He might be one of the best in North America or the United States, but not in the world.

Do I count his moves and suplexes and strikes, no.

Then what the hell do you consider a pro-wrestling move to be. Not counting a suplex or strikes as moves in pro-wrestling is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Then what the hell are they if they aren’t moves according to you?

Do I notice the same tired routine over and over again? Yes.

So you notice HBK’s and Undertaker’s same tired routine over and over again too right. Oh but let me guess, they are the exceptions to the rule, right?

I don't just watch wrestling for the drama.

I don’t just watch it for the drama either. I watch it for many reasons but this is not the thread too discuss those reasons.

I love the matches and in ring aspect too and when the top star of the company I have loved my entire life doesn't deliever on what I am used to, then I am going to complain and this lovely site gives me a forum(no pun intended) to do so. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it, its that simple.

Again with the John Cena doesn’t deliver argument. You’ve already been giving a plethora of times he has delivered yet you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong. I’m not even going to post a bunch of times he has delivered because there’s just no point in arguing with you.

Hehe, if you don’t like what people are saying then don’t read it, it’s that simple. See, that applies to you too.

 

[SSJPhenom]

No one is harassing you. Do you know even know what it means to harass someone? I felt the need to respond to your post because I disagree with it, that’s not harassment.

The harassment part was a joke. See, you were saying that we talked too much about the Rock so I decided to say something that had him involved.

And that’s also the same opinion of many other posters around here.

I don't see how the Attitude Era was so bad. Without it, again I stress, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

I love how you smarks come in here and think you’re so cool because you hate on the babyface yet you can’t find a good reason as to why you hate a babyface, for example John Cena. And by the way it’s my opinion; I know it doesn’t make it true but that’s why it’s called an opinion. Do you know what an opinion is? It’s not like I came in here and said everything as if it were a fact.

Of course I know what an opinion is; I express mine openly everyday. I don't think I'm cool at all. I wouldn't spend my time trying to be cool on the internet, I just don't like Cena and I love to voice my opinion on why and if you think my reasons as to why are lame or none existent, then I guess I'm sorry, I mean, I don't know what to say. I guess that's why they call it a debate.

That was my mistake then.

No problem.

Where in my post did I say I despise the Attitude Era? Did you even read my post? I would love for you to tell me where exactly I said the words “I despise the Attitude Era so much”.

Yea I read your post. I mean, with all the flack you were giving the Attitude Era, I assumed that you hated it. C'mon, at least disliked it?

That still doesn’t change the fact that it cause a lot of harm for pro-wrestling for over the years that the WWE is still trying to fix.

Explain this one to me please. What? You think that just because WWE isn't as popular as it was then that the Attitude Era hurt it? I'm sorry but the Attitude Era is the only reason we have a WWE.

Again I ask you, where in my post did I say I hate those stars from the Era? I like many of the stars from that Era and I never said I hated them. Point to me where I said those exact words.

Again, I assumed.

I don’t think you understood a damn thing I was saying about the Attitude Era. I never once said I despise that Era and that I hated the stars from that Era. I merely said it was far from the shit because of the long term damage it did to pro-wrestling that the WWE is still trying to fix.
Now, I’m not going to continue responding to posts about the Attitude Era. This is a John Cena thread not an Attitude Era thread. If you want to respond to the parts about this post that have to do with the Attitude Era then go ahead, just don’t expect a response because this isn’t the thread to be doing that type of discussion.

Ok.........

It doesn’t matter whether the smarks say it’s 5 moves or 4 moves, it still doesn’t change the fact that smarks will claim either one to be the right number of moves.

I guess I'm considered a smark and I say 5.

Let’s see, I’ve watched him for years and I don’t sit there counting how many different types of moves he does. I don’t need to because the amount of moves a wrestler does shouldn’t matter at all. I watch John Cena to be entertained and he always delivers. Also, there have been matches that I have seen again and I notice that he uses a variety of moves. Maybe not as many moves as some other wrestlers like Bret Hart, but he still uses more than 4 or 5 moves that smarks claim he uses.

Maybe it's a matter of styles, but Cena doesn't deliver to me. It isn't blind hate. It is a matter of what I like and I don't like the man. Respect his work ethic, can't stand his matches. You don't understand, I really am torn up inside.

Who said Dean wasn’t successful? I think most people are saying he wasn’t as successful as other wrestlers because he is boring. He was still successful holding several title, he just wasn’t as successful as other guys. But I digress.

I was trying to say that he wasn't "As successful," but I digress aswell.

I don’t need you telling me what makes a great star. I already know what makes a great star and Cena has all of those qualities. You don’t see it because you’re a smark and have blind hate for the man.

This is where our debate comes in. I don't think that he does have all of those qualities. I don't see it because I don't like his style and I just love to explain that to all of the people that think Cena is a godsend.

I was once again say, I never said that I hated all of the stars from the Attitude Era, but once again I digress. Anyways, why does he need to put on a wrestling clinic? Today’s fans no longer care if a wrestler can put on a wrestling clinic or not. Wrestlers don’t even need to do that to show they’re great or that they know a bunch of moves. People don’t care how many moves a wrestler has because there’s no point in caring about it if they can still put on entertaining matches without the need of 100 different moves.

Maybe alot of, "today's fans," might not care about the wrestling, but I think alot of old school fans do, hence why he is booed alot and I really don't want to here that Philly is smark country, because I really can't remember an over babyface getting booed as much as Cena anywhere and that includes, "Smark Country." Save for Canada, but that's a different story.

And again we’re back to square one. HBK never carried John Cena in a match and you’ll never understand that because you’re a smark and you have blind hate for John Cena. And you consider HBK the greatest in ring performer in the world? I hope you’re kidding. I like Shawn but I wouldn’t put him in such a high ranking. He might be one of the best in North America or the United States, but not in the world.

I happen to think that Cena couldn't have had a better match with anyone in the WWE at that time or today. If that isn't a testimate to HBK then what is it? If he could have had a better match, tell me with who, please. Oh yea, I forget that you are so well versed in, "Over seas wrestling." Well I'm not, so I consider HBK to be the best, but I digress about HBK.

Then what the hell do you consider a pro-wrestling move to be. Not counting a suplex or strikes as moves in pro-wrestling is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Then what the hell are they if they aren’t moves according to you?

Those are moves, I just said that I don't count them, like one....two....three.....etc, etc. You just can't help but notice the same things over and over.

So you notice HBK’s and Undertaker’s same tired routine over and over again too right. Oh but let me guess, they are the exceptions to the rule, right?

I sure do, but different from Cena, they don't just do signatures all damn match. Besides a rouge punch or kick, I don't see anything from Cena that isn't a signature.

I don’t just watch it for the drama either. I watch it for many reasons but this is not the thread too discuss those reasons.

Ok......

Again with the John Cena doesn’t deliver argument. You’ve already been giving a plethora of times he has delivered yet you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong. I’m not even going to post a bunch of times he has delivered because there’s just no point in arguing with you.

When have I said that he delivered? What matches? I think I acknowledged his matches with HBK, which were on HBK to deliver(They say so in his DVD, you should pick it up) and I acknowledged his match with RVD because of the heat that he generated that night. I really don't think that I said I liked anything else he has done.

Hehe, if you don’t like what people are saying then don’t read it, it’s that simple. See, that applies to you too.

I never said that I didn't like what people were saying. I love to read all the posts.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

When have I said that he delivered? What matches? I think I acknowledged his matches with HBK, which were on HBK to deliver(They say so in his DVD, you should pick it up) and I acknowledged his match with RVD because of the heat that he generated that night. I really don't think that I said I liked anything else he has done.

Cena constantly delivered against Umaga, Khali, HHH, Orton, Edge, Lashley and the list goes on. His match with RVD was one of the best because he worked that crowd better than anybody I've ever seen. He has delivered in more matches with more opponents than HBK has recently. Nobody deserves 100% credit for a match in where there are two competitors because the other person plays a part too.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Cena constantly delivered against Umaga, Khali, HHH, Orton, Edge, Lashley and the list goes on. His match with RVD was one of the best because he worked that crowd better than anybody I've ever seen. He has delivered in more matches with more opponents than HBK has recently. Nobody deserves 100% credit for a match in where there are two competitors because the other person plays a part too.

The circle continues......

His matches with Umaga and Khali might have been their best matches, which I guess can be atributed to Cena, but they were still shit. His matches with HHH are highly overrated, Orton carries the offense in the majority of their matches(especially Summerslam '07), his match with Lashley could have been so much more and the list goes on. I think that I have acknowledged how he worked the crowd at One Night Stand plenty of times and it is one of the few times that I have enjoyed Cena.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The circle continues......

His matches with Umaga and Khali might have been their best matches, which I guess can be atributed to Cena, but they were still shit. His matches with HHH are highly overrated, Orton carries the offense in the majority of their matches(especially Summerslam '07), his match with Lashley could have been so much more and the list goes on. I think that I have acknowledged how he worked the crowd at One Night Stand plenty of times and it is one of the few times that I have enjoyed Cena.

How were his matches against Umaga and Khali shit? Still haven't explained why and you wonder why I don't take you seriously sometimes.

Cena is a face, Orton is a heel. Normally in face/heel matchups, the heel will dominate in most of the match. It's been going on forever. If the face dominated the match, how would that make the heel look. It will make the heel look bad so of course the heel dominates. All that carrying offense stuff is pointless because both competitors come into a match knowing what they have to do and they do it well. If one person wasn't doing their job, I can see that but Cena did what he was supposed to do and Orton did what he was supposed to do.

 

[SSJPhenom]

How were his matches against Umaga and Khali shit? Still haven't explained why and you wonder why I don't take you seriously sometimes.

Do I really need to count the ways? For one they were gimmick matches designed to be right up Umaga's and Khali's ally. When you have matches like that you can't help but compare and Umaga and Cena's LMS match doesn't compare well, to say Rock/Foley or HHH/HBK. We've been over his match with Khali several times and c'mon, Khali doesn't perform well with anyone and this includes Cena, not really Cena's fault that Khali is horrible. I feel sorry for anyone that has to perform with Khali.

Cena is a face, Orton is a heel. Normally in face/heel matchups, the heel will dominate in most of the match. It's been going on forever. If the face dominated the match, how would that make the heel look. It will make the heel look bad so of course the heel dominates. All that carrying offense stuff is pointless because both competitors come into a match knowing what they have to do and they do it well. If one person wasn't doing their job, I can see that but Cena did what he was supposed to do and Orton did what he was supposed to do.

You marks say this all the time about Cena when, again, it really only applies to Hogan and Cena. Watch any of Rock/Foley matches and tell if they were not more even than anything. Watch any Austin/Rock matches; even. Exception to the rule: Watch 'Taker/HBK from the 90's, 'Taker dominated every single one of those matches as a face. I could keep giving you examples, but it is pointless. There are examples for both cases.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Do I really need to count the ways? For one they were gimmick matches designed to be right up Umaga's and Khali's ally. When you have matches like that you can't help but compare and Umaga and Cena's LMS match doesn't compare well, to say Rock/Foley or HHH/HBK. We've been over his match with Khali several times and c'mon, Khali doesn't perform well with anyone and this includes Cena, not really Cena's fault that Khali is horrible. I feel sorry for anyone that has to perform with Khali.



You marks say this all the time about Cena when, again, it really only applies to Hogan and Cena. Watch any of Rock/Foley matches and tell if they were not more even than anything. Watch any Austin/Rock matches; even. Exception to the rule: Watch 'Taker/HBK from the 90's, 'Taker dominated every single one of those matches as a face. I could keep giving you examples, but it is pointless. There are examples for both cases.

So if those matches were shit because they were gimmick matches, then most of Edge's matches have been shit as well because they were as well. However, Edge has had good non-gimmick matches as well as Cena so if you want to discredit Cena's matches you have to discredit others as well.

How is Khali horrible? He does what he is supposed to do for someone his size. He's not as athletic as a Big Show of similar size. He's not going to the top rope for anything. Khali uses his power with clotheslines and slam. Why should he do anything different?

 

[SSJPhenom]

So if those matches were shit because they were gimmick matches, then most of Edge's matches have been shit as well because they were as well. However, Edge has had good non-gimmick matches as well as Cena so if you want to discredit Cena's matches you have to discredit others as well.

I wasn't saying that they were bad because they were gimmick matches. I was saying that they were horrible gimmick matches. I can't discredit Edge at all. Edge is a way better performer than either Umaga or Khali. However, Edge and Cena's rivalry, when compared to something like Rock/Austin, Foley/Rock, Austin/Bret, or HHH/HBK, it doesn't seem quite as good.

How is Khali horrible? He does what he is supposed to do for someone his size. He's not as athletic as a Big Show of similar size. He's not going to the top rope for anything. Khali uses his power with clotheslines and slam. Why should he do anything different?

So now Khali is a quality performer? I really wish you would make up your mind because in an earlier post you said he was sub par. You are really grasping at straws now, aren't you? To say that Khali is a good performer who captivates the audience, controls the crowd, or is good on the mic is ridiculous. If you say Khali is a good performer, then we have to call someone like Dean Malenko great because he did what he was supposed to do aswell, but this is a thread about Cena, let's stick to him.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I wasn't saying that they were bad because they were gimmick matches. I was saying that they were horrible gimmick matches. I can't discredit Edge at all. Edge is a way better performer than either Umaga or Khali. However, Edge and Cena's rivalry, when compared to something like Rock/Austin, Foley/Rock, Austin/Bret, or HHH/HBK, it doesn't seem quite as good.



So now Khali is a quality performer? I really wish you would make up your mind because in an earlier post you said he was sub par. You are really grasping at straws now, aren't you? To say that Khali is a good performer who captivates the audience, controls the crowd, or is good on the mic is ridiculous. If you say Khali is a good performer, then we have to call someone like Dean Malenko great because he did what he was supposed to do aswell, but this is a thread about Cena, let's stick to him.

How is that grasping at straws? I never said Khali was subpar. Did I say he captivated the audience or controlled the crowd? I said he did what he was supposed to do for somebody his size. He was supposed to be dominant in the ring and used his size to overpower his opponents and that's what he did.

I think the Rock/Austin feud is overrated and I believe the Edge/Cena feud is better. The Rock and Austin feud never really seemed like a feud to me and plus it had like a hundred different wrestlers in it. Plus, I feel like their matches never lived up to the hype.

The Cena and Edge feud started off great with Edge cashing in his money in the bank and has been going on for three years. I wish they would have fought one-on-one at Wrestlemania but they have great gimmick and non-gimmick matches. I don't know what to say about the HHH/HBK feud because it was great at first, but dragged on too long.

 

[SSJPhenom]

How is that grasping at straws? I never said Khali was subpar. Did I say he captivated the audience or controlled the crowd? I said he did what he was supposed to do for somebody his size. He was supposed to be dominant in the ring and used his size to overpower his opponents and that's what he did.

But we all say that other wrestlers are bad because they can't do all of the other things, so why is Khali the exception?

I think the Rock/Austin feud is overrated and I believe the Edge/Cena feud is better. The Rock and Austin feud never really seemed like a feud to me and plus it had like a hundred different wrestlers in it. Plus, I feel like their matches never lived up to the hype.

I think that the Rock/Austin fued was outstanding as the two most charasmatic performers, at that time, did battle. I really enjoyed everytime that they locked up and their promos and storytelling were excellent. For example: The bridge/title scene.......Classic.

The Cena and Edge feud started off great with Edge cashing in his money in the bank and has been going on for three years. I wish they would have fought one-on-one at Wrestlemania but they have great gimmick and non-gimmick matches. I don't know what to say about the HHH/HBK feud because it was great at first, but dragged on too long.

I agree that the Cena/Edge fued started off outstanding, even Lita was great at the beginning of the fued, but it has been going on too long. HHH/HBK only lasted from '02 to the end of '04 technically, so how can their fued be to long and the Cena/Edge fued not?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I agree that the Cena/Edge fued started off outstanding, even Lita was great at the beginning of the fued, but it has been going on too long. HHH/HBK only lasted from '02 to the end of '04 technically, so how can their fued be to long and the Cena/Edge fued not?

Let me rephrase this. Cena and Edge feuded mainly from January 2006-September 2006. Then Edge went his separate ways with DX, moved to Smackdown and all that. Cena and Edge will always be attached at the hip ever since that Elimination Chamber.

I believe the HBK/HHH feud should have ended at either WM 19 or Summerslam of that same year. They fought at three different pay per views in 2002 albeit one being an Elimination Chamber. They didn't fight at a single pay-per-view in 2003 and they restarted it again in 2004. I'm not one for feuds starting, then seemingly taking a break, and restarting it again. Their HIAC match would have been one of the best ever if it was at least twenty minutes shorter. It wasn't one of the greatest feuds because it was one-sided in terms of who won matches. The only one-on-one match HBK won was the first one.

Cena and Edge have traded wins back and forth and of course there was some disqualifications along the way but that didn't take away from what was an awesome feud.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Let me rephrase this. Cena and Edge feuded mainly from January 2006-September 2006. Then Edge went his separate ways with DX, moved to Smackdown and all that. Cena and Edge will always be attached at the hip ever since that Elimination Chamber.

I believe the HBK/HHH feud should have ended at either WM 19 or Summerslam of that same year. They fought at three different pay per views in 2002 albeit one being an Elimination Chamber. They didn't fight at a single pay-per-view in 2003 and they restarted it again in 2004. I'm not one for feuds starting, then seemingly taking a break, and restarting it again. Their HIAC match would have been one of the best ever if it was at least twenty minutes shorter. It wasn't one of the greatest feuds because it was one-sided in terms of who won matches. The only one-on-one match HBK won was the first one.

Cena and Edge have traded wins back and forth and of course there was some disqualifications along the way but that didn't take away from what was an awesome feud.

HBK/HHH feud was always there though, even though they weren't fighting. Like 'Taker/Kane fought other people while they were feuding.......SO! BTW, didn't the Cena/Edge feud take a a backseat for awhile and then restart at different times? Like, oh IDK, at WM 25? Double standard here. You don't like feuds to take a break yet you praise Edge/Cena for doing the same thing that you don't like. Kinda like your veiws on triple threat matches. You don't like the WM 20 triple threat because it was seemingly one on one, yet you praise WM 25's triple threat and NoC's triple threat when they did the exact same thing.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

HBK/HHH feud was always there though, even though they weren't fighting. Like 'Taker/Kane fought other people while they were feuding.......SO! BTW, didn't the Cena/Edge feud take a a backseat for awhile and then restart at different times? Like, oh IDK, at WM 25? Double standard here. You don't like feuds to take a break yet you praise Edge/Cena for doing the same thing that you don't like. Kinda like your veiws on triple threat matches. You don't like the WM 20 triple threat because it was seemingly one on one, yet you praise WM 25's triple threat and NoC's triple threat when they did the exact same thing.

I said before that my issues with the WM 20 match wasn't specifically the match itself but the participants in it.

The WM 25/Backlash matches really didn't revive the feud. I still consider their feud to be in 2006. I still feel like the HBK/HHH feud should have ended around 2003 and to me their feud took away from an underrated championship reign by Benoit.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I said before that my issues with the WM 20 match wasn't specifically the match itself but the participants in it.

The WM 25/Backlash matches really didn't revive the feud. I still consider their feud to be in 2006. I still feel like the HBK/HHH feud should have ended around 2003 and to me their feud took away from an underrated championship reign by Benoit.

You might not consider their feud revived, but I could have sworn that before Backlash, Cena came out and cut a 10 min promo on Edge about how their feud was one of the greatest and blah blah blah. If he is going to come out and promote the feud then it's pretty much revived at that point because he is reminding everyone that it exists, had he have kept his mouth shut, that match might not have been about the feud.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

You might not consider their feud revived, but I could have sworn that before Backlash, Cena came out and cut a 10 min promo on Edge about how their feud was one of the greatest and blah blah blah. If he is going to come out and promote the feud then it's pretty much revived at that point because he is reminding everyone that it exists, had he have kept his mouth shut, that match might not have been about the feud.

Or he could have mentioned it just to be mentioning it. He said the word "was" which meant in the past. He was referring to their feud in 2006 and mentioning a feud doesn't really revive it. If DX feuds with Legacy, they're probably going to mention the HBK/HHH feud but it's not going to mean that it is revived.

 

[SSJPhenom]

But HHH/HBk will not be feuding, it will be them against Legacy. Completely different. He was mentioning the feud to revive it so their match could possibly be good or better than it would have been. If he comes out and talks about nothing but their feud, do you think he is doing it for his health?

 

[SSJPhenom]

Also for you Cena marks that say that HBK didn't carry their match or that match wasn't on HBK's shoulders, check this out:

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hyb_YbByXo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hyb_YbByXo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [/youtube]​

Look around 1:40ish, it should tell you everything that you need to know.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Also for you Cena marks that say that HBK didn't carry their match or that match wasn't on HBK's shoulders, check this out:

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hyb_YbByXo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hyb_YbByXo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [/youtube]​

Look around 1:40ish, it should tell you everything that you need to know.

Just want to get one thing straight.

If Cena would have went out there and performed terribly, would the blame have been placed on him or HBK?

Cena performed well in that match but you can't place 100% of the credit on HBK because Cena helped him do his job.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Just want to get one thing straight.

If Cena would have went out there and performed terribly, would the blame have been placed on him or HBK?

Cena performed well in that match but you can't place 100% of the credit on HBK because Cena helped him do his job.

I never said that 100% of the credit went to HBK but that video proves that HBK did carry that match and that the match was on him and until you can provide proof to the contrary, I guess we have to go by that, don't we?

 

[Paradox]

Also for you Cena marks that say that HBK didn't carry their match or that match wasn't on HBK's shoulders, check this out:

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hyb_YbByXo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hyb_YbByXo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [/youtube]​

Look around 1:40ish, it should tell you everything that you need to know.

I love how you took a ten seconds and twisted it. He said if it went bad it was going to be on him. If it went bad, he also said that he's the veteran so the blame should be on him. Did he carry the match? I don't get where you get off saying that he carried the match from that video. Everyone else on that video praised Cena for bring his game that night. Even Hbk who said he likes working with Cena.

I never said that 100% of the credit went to HBK but that video proves that HBK did carry that match and that the match was on him and until you can provide proof to the contrary, I guess we have to go by that, don't we?

Go by what? If you're saying from that video we know that he carried the match your wrong. All he said was if it went bad it was going to be on him. Did he say he had to carry the match? No! Don't get on here and post ignorant shit like that.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I love how you took a ten seconds and twisted it. He said if it went bad it was going to be on him. If it went bad, he also said that he's the veteran so the blame should be on him. Did he carry the match? I don't get where you get off saying that he carried the match from that video. Everyone else on that video praised Cena for bring his game that night. Even Hbk who said he likes working with Cena.

Say what, they praised Cena? I seem to recall everyone, even Cena saying that Michaels was arguably the best ever in that video. Jericho said, "He's Mr. Wrestlemania, you think he takes that lightly, hell no." J.R. said, "Cena went to finishing school that night with HBK." Cena said, "HBK tought me how to hold my own in a big match situation." HBK said, "I like working with John and likes that he trusts me." Which means that he trusted HBK to carry that match through. HBK also said, "You are known as the guy who can go, I'm the veteran so I'm in control." Stop me if you want more quotes. You need to watch it again, I don't think you watched it closely enough.

Go by what? If you're saying from that video we know that he carried the match your wrong. All he said was if it went bad it was going to be on him. Did he say he had to carry the match? No! Don't get on here and post ignorant shit like that.

Somebody is angry aren't they? What does it mean then? If the match sucked then all the blame should go on HBK cause he couldn't deliver and Cena would have had no part in it? Be serious! If he gets the blame for a sucky match then he should get the credit for a great match. Fucking double standard here. I stated everything I needed to above. Watch the damn video again.

 

[Coco]

Say what, they praised Cena? I seem to recall everyone, even Cena saying that Michaels was arguably the best ever in that video. Jericho said, "He's Mr. Wrestlemania, you think he takes that lightly, hell no." J.R. said, "Cena went to finishing school that night with HBK." Cena said, "HBK tought me how to hold my own in a big match situation." HBK said, "I like working with John and likes that he trusts me." Which means that he trusted HBK to carry that match through. HBK also said, "You are known as the guy who can go, I'm the veteran so I'm in control." Stop me if you want more quotes. You need to watch it again, I don't think you watched it closely enough.

Well no fucking shit they put an HBK spin on it. The whole disc was a hypejob on one of the head of WWE's most favoritist rasslers ever! Like they were going to let anybody dare to drag Shawn through the mud. You didn't get Bret's side of WM12 or SS97. You didn't hear about him refusing to lose to talents. You didn't hear about him whining like a bitch and threatening to get Vader fired. You didn't hear about Taker legit threatening to kick his ass as WM14. It was a piece intended to polish Shawn's nuts and glorify him for the marks. See, when I accuse some people of being brainwashed and deluded by the WWE hype machine, this is the kind of shit I'm speaking. Sure, Triple H got to talk about the the incident before WM17. But of course there had to be a rock bottom to make it a proper redemption story. Who better to tell it than your best friend and your wife? But what about the real specifics about what an absolute prick this man? Not generalities, but real meat? There was nothing.

The feature was crap and proves nothing, IMO. Especially when Shawn had gone YEARS without having matches as good as his ones with Cena. Shawn went up to Cena's level, not the other way around.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Well no fucking shit they put an HBK spin on it. The whole disc was a hypejob on one of the head of WWE's most favoritist rasslers ever! Like they were going to let anybody dare to drag Shawn through the mud. You didn't get Bret's side of WM12 or SS97. You didn't hear about him refusing to lose to talents. You didn't hear about him whining like a bitch and threatening to get Vader fired. You didn't hear about Taker legit threatening to kick his ass as WM14. It was a piece intended to polish Shawn's nuts and glorify him for the marks. See, when I accuse some people of being brainwashed and deluded by the WWE hype machine, this is the kind of shit I'm speaking. Sure, Triple H got to talk about the the incident before WM17. But of course there had to be a rock bottom to make it a proper redemption story. Who better to tell it than your best friend and your wife? But what about the real specifics about what an absolute prick this man? Not generalities, but real meat? There was nothing.

The feature was crap and proves nothing, IMO. Especially when Shawn had gone YEARS without having matches as good as his ones with Cena. Shawn went up to Cena's level, not the other way around.

Yes, I have heard Bret's story, I have his DVD too. There isn't an interview that 'Taker has done that I haven't seen or own so I know all about him being, "the discipline," behind the scenes and threatening to whip Shawn's ass if he didn't do right by Austin. BTW, all that shit was on the DVD. They talked about how Shawn was a prick and hard to deal with in the 90's and how he didn't want to lose to Austin. Hell, they show him kicking in the door at the damn press conference after WM 14.

But this is a Cena thread so let's talk Cena. I have his DVD as well and it never mentions him being the one to bring Shawn up to his level or having to carry that match. Your opinion is tainted. Cena himself was in the video praising HBK for his work in that match as was everyone else. Unless you can provide me with proof to the contrary there isn't much you or anyone else can say. Your opinion isn't going to work in this instance. Shawn was and should be acredited for that match, not the other way around.

 

[Coco]

Yes, I have heard Bret's story, I have his DVD too.

Not every Shawn fan does. His DVD could have gained a lot in the way of looking unbiased in certain matters if they threw footage of Bret or his supporters speaking about certain things in there.

There isn't an interview that 'Taker has done that I haven't seen or own so I know all about him being, "the discipline," behind the scenes and threatening to whip Shawn's ass if he didn't do right by Austin. BTW, all that shit was on the DVD. They talked about how Shawn was a prick and hard to deal with in the 90's and how he didn't want to lose to Austin. Hell, they show him kicking in the door at the damn press conference after WM 14.

And JR sold it as a sad moment that Shawn was leaving. Shawn wasn't painted as nearly the prick he was (is?) despite the fact that they showed him kicking the door.

Taker did an interview, and I THINK it was on Off The Record in Canada (I may be wrong), where he talked about making sure Shawn did the right thing.

Of course they said he didn't WANT to lose to Austin but they never got specific. They left blind marks as blind as they went in. The whole piece was soft.

But this is a Cena thread so let's talk Cena. I have his DVD as well and it never mentions him being the one to bring Shawn up to his level or having to carry that match. Your opinion is tainted. Cena himself was in the video praising HBK for his work in that match as was everyone else.

Because talking bad about the Clique is punishable by beheading or depush or something. There are things you can't say and saying one wrestled circles around Shawn Michaels is something a company man can't. Cena isn't gonna break the rules and the WWE would have cut it out if he did.

Of course Kurt Angle shouted it from the rooftops once he was out of the WWE about how he carried his matches with Shawn and about how Shawn was a sissy who didn't like getting his hair pulled.. He also dragged good matches out of Benoit and Guerrero too and is 100% the reason for the greatest match in history. Wrestlers lie.

Nah, forget that. I'm totally gonna believe the wrestlers. They're at liberty to speak the truth. Shawn's ego isn't in the way. Consequences for saying the wrong thing wouldn't be on anyone's mind.

WWE is selling the image of "Shawn Michaels, best ring worker in the West!" and you're sucking your slop down like a starved slave. At least you like the taste.