Top Face vs Marquee Guy

[ellax]

I remember hearing this term "Marquee" guy when Triple H described CM Punk in his documentary.

In the comment section most of the time, many people tends to argue over the term "Face" of WWE, or "Top Face", mainly over who should take that namesake base on how many times they main-eventing PPV or Wrestlemania, yada yada.

However, over the years, there are pretty much many wrestler that doesn't need to main-event in any PPV to achieve the status of "Marquee" guy. Eg, Rey Mysterio, he doesn't even wrestle as of late and yet he's still that guy pretty much show up in comic cons almost every year (Even if he wrestle he barely main-event anything)

Another example will be Undertaker, whom pretty much in semi-retired mode and despite so, still, in Vince McMahon's term, the main attraction of Wrestlemania and no matter how many times the streak match barely scratch the main-event of Wrestlemania especially after Cena's "Top Face" status. (Besides, he was never the "Top Face" compared to the likes of Stone Cold and The Rock during his prime)

No one can take the "Top Face" away from Cena to be honest, however, is he really the right measurement to decide whether a wrestler is really at the top?

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Given the amount of fan support/exposure/profit John Cena has had with the WWE, it's sort of hard to not fit him in at the top spot for the WWE. Through the years, despite the hate some fans may have for him, none draw or excite the way John Cena has, it's just plainly given.

Having said this, the credibility of John Cena being a measurement for who can be seen as a top man is a factor, but not the complete reason. Being in a match with Cena credits you with the exposure and attention of being against the number 1 guy. However, how the given wrestler performs in the match against Cena or how he takes a feud with him is a story on its own.

Trully it is up to the wrestler in question for whether he is deserving of being seen as a top cat. If he performs well in matches and goes well on the mic, then little by little his exposure will grow and thus be placed on a main event status-like.

Being against John Cena may be an opportunity for top-tier status but the wrestler has to climb the ladder on his own.

 

[ellax]

To be honest, I don't exactly agree with the term "No 1 guy". Why credit only one?

Like you said, little by little these people, with their mic skills and good matches, they can reach the top, in the case, the likes of Punk, Bryan, or even Orton, whom many are always saying they are good, outstanding, but are just not that "No 1 guy".

Is the "No 1 guy" that much of a significant? Considering the fact that guys like Punk, Undertaker and even Bryan now pretty much outshine, outsold or even out-rate him as of late despite most of the times despite not main-eventing in ppv.

There are many arguments occurred in the comment section that accused Punk as an overrated Mid-Card wrestler and he will never be that "No 1 guy" as long until he main-event at Wreslemania.

Granted, Cena may be the currently the one who main-event almost everytime, but does that mean that the rest of the wrestlers aren't the "Go-to" guy, or not the marquee guy, just because they aren't main-eventing ppv or Wrestlemania?

Attitude era never just had only Stone Cold and The Rock to sell tickets and create era.