Which is Worse: Diva's Division or Super Cena?

[The Dragon Saga]

Hogan lost to Warrior at WM6 cleanly. He lost to the Undertaker cleanly. Hogan also lost to Sting, Luger, Macho Man, Roddy Piper, DDP, Goldberg, the Rock, Undertaker a second time, etc... Austin lost to Bret Hart cleanly at Wrestlemania and he also lost to the Rock cleanly at WM...

You basically proved his point. He said, "Top faces rarely lose cleanly," which has always been the norm. Because the way they have drawn it since the '80's is that when a top face is beaten cleanly, it comes across as more of a shock. You gave your examples and only two beat Hogan when he was the top face in the company, the rest are from when Hogan was a top heel in the nWo or pre-WCW where Hogan was no longer THE top face, and even then he didn't really lose cleanly.

He lost to The Rock at No Way Out because Vince screwed him, Sylvein was a planted referee. Then Goldberg beat Hogan in WCW, Hogan was distracted which allowed Goldberg to hit the Spear; Hogan was heel then, so you have simply reiterated the original point and made it stronger.

Austin was a heel at WrestleMania 13. Throughout the match as Hart used more dirty tactics the alignments shifted. Austin did lose to The Rock at WrestleMania 19, but here's the thing, WWE made Austin look as strong as he could possibly be. It took two Stone Cold Stunner, a People's Elbow and three Rock Bottom's to keep Austin down.

John Cena has been on his current run for about 8 years now and who has he ever lost cleanly to? I don't believe that he has!!! There is always some screwy reason as to why John Cena loses a match, just like I stated before... As much as you want to ignore this fact, it still doesn't change it.

John Cena lost cleanly to Sheamus at the Royal Rumble. He lost cleanly a couple years back at WrestleMania to Randy Orton in a Triple Threat match also involving Triple H. Hes lost cleanly in the past to Orton, some could argue he even lost cleanly to Punk at MITB because Cena left the ring to his own accord.

I could go on. WWE may have a knack of making Cena seem strong, but when you place the slogan "Never Give Up!" on someone it's kind of hard to not make him look strong, hell, It'd be ******ed not to.

 

[californiachef84]

I know you can't be this stupid. Let's continue.

1. When Hogan was the guy in the late 80's and early 90's, the only clean loss to my recollection was to Warrior.

2. Austin was a heel when he lost to Hart. You're not doing so good.

3. Wrestlers that Cena has lost clean to: Lesnar, Taker, Angle, HHH, Orton, HBK, Sheamus. Just to name a few.

Anything else?

Cena lost to Lesnar & Taker before he was the top babyface in the company... Angle never beat John Cena cleanly, not when he was the top babyface. HHH didn't either. I do not know what HBK match you are referencing, sounds to me like you are making that up. Sheamus simply pushed Cena through a table. The Sheamus match was done in such a way that they made Sheamus win look "cheap" because he never actually pinned Cena or made him tap out... Looks like you are the one who is not doing so good here!

The only reasonable argument that you have is Orton. That's it!

Hogan lost to both the Warrior and the Undertaker during his first run in the WWE cleanly... He also lost to the Giant (Big Show) as a face in WCW cleanly. As well as to Sting, & DDP... So let's not count all of the countless other wrestlers that Hogan put over as a heel, since Cena hasn't had his big heel turn yet. Hogan lost to Rock cleanly at WM 18... Now I know that you are gonna say that "Hogan was a heel"! The crowd backed Hogan as the babyface in that match OVERWHELMINGLY! So that argument doesn't hold water. Hogan also lost again to the Undertaker during this run.

How on earth can you really compare Cena's run to Austin run as top babyface? Austin's run lasted for maybe 4 years? Cena is around 8 years as the top babyface.

 

[FearMyBeard]

Comparing how they're booked:
-Cena always emerges victorious in feuds because he is the face of the company. He's being built up by the WWE to be their greatest superstar ever to the non-analytical audience and the little jimmies.

t times I find some of his matches,feuds to be boring, I respect what he's done for the business and at the end of the day, I give respect where respect is due. He's also the most hardworking man in the company. He deserves to be where he is right now in the WWE.

The Divas division? Well they don't get a lot of time to perform to their potential. Their matches barely last 10 minutes. Their segments are at times quite awful. It's hard to respect that division with that kind of booking. I also understand that some of the divas aren't really talented as Gail Kim, Mickie James, Trish Stratus,etc. but hell, even when Kim was with the WWE she was poorly utilized. So I'd say that the divas division is worse and is caused by a combination of bad booking and not a deep female division in terms of wrestling-capabilities are concerned but I think that the bad booking is the more to blame here.


EDIT:

HHH didn't either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXBGRwxSxX8&feature=related
Actually, Triple H did beat him as I recall on an episode of RAW. Cleanly. The announcers kept bringing up that "This could be Cena's last match on RAW" or something like that.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Cena lost to Lesnar & Taker before he was the top babyface in the company... Angle never beat John Cena cleanly, not when he was the top babyface. HHH didn't either. I dot know what HBK match you are referencing, sounds to me like you are making that up. Sheamus simply pushed Cena through a table. The Sheamus match was done in such a way that they made Sheamus win look "cheap" because he never actually pinned Cena or made him tap out... Looks like you are the one who is not doing so good here!

The only reasonable argument that you have is Orton. That's it!

Hogan lost to both the Warrior and the Undertaker during his first run in the WWE cleanly... He also lost to the Giant (Big Show) as a face in WCW cleanly. As well as to Sting, & DDP... So let's not count all of the countless other wrestlers that Hogan put over as a heel, since Cena hasn't had his big heel turn yet. Hogan lost to Rock cleanly at WM 18... Now I know that you are gonna say that "Hogan was a heel"! The crowd backed Hogan as the babyface in that match OVERWHELMINGLY! So that argument doesn't hold water. Hogan also lost again to the Undertaker during this run.

How on earth can you really compare Cena's run to Austin run as top babyface? Austin's run lasted for maybe 4 years? Cena is around 8 years as the top babyface.

1. For one thing, you asked who Cena has lost clean in the past eight years. I gave you examples. Also, Cena has been the top babyface for about six years.

2. Cena vs. HHH at Night of Champions 2008. Didn't Cena lose that one? I believe so.
3. You must be a tad slow if you forgot his match in London with HBK. I think he lost that one too.

4. If you want to nitpick about when Cena was a babyface, let's do it. He tapped to Kurt Angle in 2004.
Keep on trying.

 

[LSN80]

The problem with the question is this: one is based upon a division of wrestlers, the other is based upon an idea of a wrestler that holds little merit. The notion of "Super Cena" is something that has been invented by the IWC to bash the top wrestler in the company.

Here's the thing about John Cena: He does lose. The concept of "Super Cena' really doesn't hold merit. He fell to CM Punk at two PPV's in a row. Shouldn't "Super Cena" have been able to overcome the hostile Chicago crowd and such and beat the hometown boy? Shouldn't he have been able to beat him at the second PPV at least? Why did "Super Cena" need a distraction to win the No. 1 contendership against CM Punk. If he truly was the way you portray him, he wouldn't have lost any of those matches.

Now I want you to think back to last year, when the Nexus invaded Raw. What happened the first night? Cena was beaten down by the Nexus 8. What happened the next week? He was beaten down again. Then look at the ill-fated Fatal Four PPV. Cena was again beaten down by Nexus and cost the title. Moreover, Cena was forced to join the Nexus when he lostto Wade Barrett, and was forced to be Barrett's slave for months. Look at the main event of Wrestlemania 27, against the Miz. Did I mention he lost that match too?

Im not sure how anyone can sit here, evaluate the facts of the past year and a half, and see Cena as invincible. Along that road to Wrestlemania where Cena lost, he was beat down merciless by Miz week after week. Shouldn't he have been able to overcome Miz when he was attempting to beat him down? Look, Cena has been portrayed as more then vulnerable along the last year and a half. How exacxtly does that translate to him having a Superman like persona? It doesn't. Cena loses his fair share of matches, but as the face of the company, he shouldn't be losing every week the way you apparently think he should.

The other thing about Cena is this: He knows more then five moves. Plus that, he's been adding other moves to his repotoire as of late, including the dropkick and the Stinger Splash. All wrestlers have their "signature moves" they protect that they use in the ring, and Cena is no different. Again, this is a misnomer created by the IWC in order to bash John Cena. There's more to being a great wrestler then just flashy moves, there's storytelling and in-ring psychology that truly make for a great match. And Cena has the advantage over most in those departments.

Comparing Cena to the Divas division is impossible to do. The Divas are given 5 minutes of airtime a week under which to showcase their skills every week. Cena is the face of the company who is featured in the most high-profile feuds. You may be a longtime "fan", but you haven't learned much about how the business is supposed to work. You're trying to compare a group of individual women, each with different skill sets, to one wrestler. If youre asking which Id rather see "go", it would be the Divas division. Not because there aren't talented women there, but storylines are virtually non-existant, and Cena is not only one of the best things going in the company, but he's also my favorite wrestler. I understand those that don't care for him as much as others, but to deny he's one of the best in the world is simply foolish and shows a lack of understanding of what "quality" truly is, regardless of how long you've been watching.

 

[JH92]

I'm sick of the whole super Cena image. Although if you think about it - it's not actually that bad. Everyone views wrestling differently. But I remember, a few years ago when Triple H was almost always the World Heavyweight Champion I'd tune in to every PPV just excited at the prospect of someone knocking him off the top of the mountain. This is practically why I watch WWE these days - in hope that the Miz or Alberto Del Rio or someone else that I actually like will topple the giant that is super Cena.
Sometimes when you're so sick of someone, it's fun to watch them in hope they will finally fall from the top.

The Divas division is worse than super Cena. I think there's great talent, just hopeless storylines.

 

[Dizzy]

There is no doubting Cena is a cancer. I mean, how many times has he won matches that he wasn't even supposed to be in?

Again, WWE has created legends and stars but Cena is going to go down as the most overrated and overbooked in history of pro-wrestling. I don't know what the hell they are trying to do or prove but It's tainting their product and it always will.

The Divas just suck. They only have for the last 6 years and It will never change, WWE has lost the appeal for fans when it comes to woman's wrestling but the fanboys will simply say "all woman's wrestling sucks" instead of just owning up to the fact that WWE Divas are terrible. So, you cannot complain or want change when the root of the money and consumers will eat it up and defend it.

We hate the way Cena is booked but he draws and nobody will stop WWE from pushing him until their numbers decline. Then, CM Punk will shoot on how WWE handles Cena by making references to the Yankees and whatnot, fans like Internet marks will go for it when it doesn't exactly change anything.

My point being, Cena is obviously worse but nobody will ever admit to it and actually wake up WWE.

 

[Headman]

There is no doubting Cena is a cancer. I mean, how many times has he won matches that he wasn't even supposed to be in?

Again, WWE has created legends and stars but Cena is going to go down as the most overrated and overbooked in history of pro-wrestling. I don't know what the hell they are trying to do or prove but It's tainting their product and it always will.

The Divas just suck. They only have for the last 6 years and It will never change, WWE has lost the appeal for fans when it comes to woman's wrestling but the fanboys will simply say "all woman's wrestling sucks" instead of just owning up to the fact that WWE Divas are terrible. So, you cannot complain or want change when the root of the money and consumers will eat it up and defend it.

We hate the way Cena is booked but he draws and nobody will stop WWE from pushing him until their numbers decline. Then, CM Punk will shoot on how WWE handles Cena by making references to the Yankees and whatnot, fans like Internet marks will go for it when it doesn't exactly change anything.

My point being, Cena is obviously worse but nobody will ever admit to it and actually wake up WWE.

I hope if I ever get cancer I get the kind that makes me a shit ton of money. Oh boo whoo they won't push anybody else until Cena's popularity declines? Is this your real argument? Has watching Crimson and Gunner try and learn how to wrestler on national television turned your brain to mush? Why would they need to replace a guy who you just admitted draws money? CM Punk hasn't drawn a dime on his own yet. He might get his chance, but some of you fans strike me as the kind of rocket scientists who would bench Tom Brady while he's in the process of winning you a football game just so you can get a look at the backup. If the WWE thought they had another guy on the roster who was half the draw Cena was they'd get their chance, but that's not good enough for snarky marks. Especially snarky TNA marks who can insult the WWE and somehow manage to defend TNA that has a broken down drunk who likes to shoot on twitter then pretend his account was hacked as it's champion.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Cena lost to Lesnar & Taker before he was the top babyface in the company... Angle never beat John Cena cleanly, not when he was the top babyface. HHH didn't either. I do not know what HBK match you are referencing, sounds to me like you are making that up. Sheamus simply pushed Cena through a table. The Sheamus match was done in such a way that they made Sheamus win look "cheap" because he never actually pinned Cena or made him tap out... Looks like you are the one who is not doing so good here!

The only reasonable argument that you have is Orton. That's it!

Hogan lost to both the Warrior and the Undertaker during his first run in the WWE cleanly... He also lost to the Giant (Big Show) as a face in WCW cleanly. As well as to Sting, & DDP... So let's not count all of the countless other wrestlers that Hogan put over as a heel, since Cena hasn't had his big heel turn yet. Hogan lost to Rock cleanly at WM 18... Now I know that you are gonna say that "Hogan was a heel"! The crowd backed Hogan as the babyface in that match OVERWHELMINGLY! So that argument doesn't hold water. Hogan also lost again to the Undertaker during this run.

How on earth can you really compare Cena's run to Austin run as top babyface? Austin's run lasted for maybe 4 years? Cena is around 8 years as the top babyface.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Of course, Sheamus didn't pin Cena or make him tap out. It was a TABLES MATCH, you nitwit!

2) I think referencing Orton is a very good argument. In the last two years, Orton has not been pinned cleanly by anyone other than John Cena, and Mark Henry. So, a guy like Henry, who has been useless for fifteen years is who he has put over. Yet Cena has lost to C.M. Punk (twice on PPV), Alberto Del Rio (twice on PPV), The Miz at Wrestlemania. Yet Orton wasn't once pinned by C.M. Punk or Christian during his feuds. But Orton is cool, so that makes it okay to have double-standards.

3) Notice how most of your Hogan examples are in WCW, when he was a heel. So, other than Warrior, when has Hogan lost, clean as a sheet, as a face in WWE?

4) Maybe the reason Austin only had four years as a top babyface is because of his injured neck, which forced him to retire. Don't tell me that, if Austin was healthy, he still wouldn't be shoved down our throats today? How stupid are you?

 

[TheAwesomeF'nTruth]

It amazes me that wrestling fans still don't realize, love or hate John Cena if he was to leave the WWE right now the ratings would drop tremendously and the they would lose lots of money.

Fact is you guys need somebody like Cena to constantly point your fingers at and hate on, without him I felt the WWE would be left without controversy. There would be no CM Punk and Miz trying to make a change to the Cena Era (which I feel helped them become main event stars), no back and forth arguments between Cena fans and haters, and no top face of the company for the heels to duke it out with.

Without all of this controversy surrounding the WWE, the shows will get stale and eventually just be flat out boring especially without someone ready to take Cena's spot .

On that note I go with "SUPER" Cena

 

[Notorious718]

Doesn't have anything to do with the wins and losses dude... When Cena does get "beat" he always has a "scapegoat". Either someone interfered in his match or someone distracted him. There is also "the ref got bumped" spot. Cena can NEVER JUST LOSE! There is always a reason as to why he gets beat or something screwy happens...

Well... yeah. The top face rarely loses clean. Is that what you expected? Stone Cold, Rock, and Hulk Hogan were all heavily protected in their time so don't act like Cena is the only one guilty of this.

Divas are sooooooooo much better than John Cena. On one hand you have beautiful women who are in great shape, very sexy, flexible and jump around with certain parts of their body jiggling

I find it funny that people bag on Cena for not being a great in-ring technician yet praise the Divas. For the most part, the Divas division have proven time and time again to have complete trainwrecks for matches and show far less personality than Cena. Not to mention they don't draw anywhere near as much as Cena does.

*If you actually prefer to watch John Cena instead of watching beautiful women then you are either under the age of 12 or you prefer the male sex...

I'm 19 years old, I'm a heterosexual male, and I'm a fan of Cena. In fact, I much prefer watching Cena's matches to the Divas matches. Think again before you make such a bad generalization.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I'll take John Cena or the current WWE Diva's division any day of the week. I love Natalya, and Beth is pretty good and has been great in the past. But I don't see a whole lot of exceptional talent on that roster outside of those two. Eve is a decent in-ring worker, but I've beat the dead horse a thousand times on her already... (that sounds oddly sexual).

At the very least John Cena is pretty constantly booked in half way decent, compelling stories. I mean, you can hate on him all you want but it's still cool that he's going to be facing the Rock at WrestleMania. And teaming with him at Survivor Series. And he was great working with Punk, although I have to give most of the credit for that one to the Chicago native... I don't hate John Cena, but I do hate the divas division almost more than Michael Cole. Almost.

 

[JWGunslinger]

Some of the shit in this thread is fucking pathetic, for the love of god will you idiots stop bashing Cena for unintelligent reasons and either come up with something worth discussing or shut your damn mouths, please?

To compare the Divas to Cena does not make any sense at all, with the Divas you have eye candy that in general have under five minute matches and struggle to flow in the ring, and then you have Cena who is the face of the company, one of the best wrestlers in the history of the business and has had some of the best matches and fueds we have ever seen. I love seeing a hot peice of ass in skimpy clothing as much as the next guy but I'd rather watch them do something else, I watch other stuff when I want to see hot girls, I watch wrestling to watch wrestling. I definitely don't mind when the Divas have a Dodgeball match or a Carwash, but their matches are not worth the time.

Like LSN and JH92 mentioned, the whole "Super Cena" image is facade created by unintelligent fans who cannot seem to grasp the idea of the top man in the company winning alot being normal. Right now Mark Henry isn't losing often, should I call him Super Henry as well? The man is a very talented wrestler and he is the top face of the WWE, and he has been for some time now. He wins alot because of the position he is in and because he is a good worker who does his job well and sells. Also the same old shit about Cena having 5 moves is a fucking old broken record, the man can do tons of stuff in the ring and he has even been expanding his arsenal as of late so shut that crap off.

There is always going to be someone that people hate without just cause, and Cena is the man that all the haters shit on because kids like him and he's an unstoppable force. What these people cannot dispute is that the man is the biggest name in wrestling currently, he draws and he sells, he is a true champion and if you don't like it then go watch Dancing With The Stars or shut up.

 

[foreign_objects]

Cena.

It's not that he wins on a regular basis, but it's how he's booked to dominate and win against all the odds stacked against him.