Who's The Better Wrestler?

[rekrul]

As for who the better wrestler is between HBK and Cena, it certainly has to be HBK simply based on his accomplishments. Maybe in 5 years we'll say Cena is better, but as of yet, he hasn't proved it.

And to address Mr. Controversy on here, Slyfox696, I'm going to disagree with this statement you made on this subject..."what gimmick matches they've been the frontrunners of has nothing to do with how good of wrestlers they are."

It certainly does prove how good of a wrestler you are and especially in the case of HBK because no matter what kind of match, he was as good if not better than his opponent. Cena couldn't do the kind of matches that HBK has done, and certainly not the same level. No way you can tell me that HBK/Cena Iron Man match would be equal to Hit Man/HBK Iron Man match. Cena is a one dimensional wrestler, just like your hero Hulk Hogan.

Now remember, when you say 'wrestler' with regards to WWE, that means performer and that makes HBK better and facts prove it.

 

[Kennedy_keeroy]

John Cena dosnt even deserve to be put into the same sentence as the name Shawn Michaels. Shawn Michaels appeals to a lot of fans not just mainstream noobs and 5 year olds who only know cena as a wrestler. Shawn is without a doubt the better wrestler he has more experience than John Cena does hes been champion more times than cena has and cenas got nothing on HBK...


Hbk all the way

 

[MR.SCOTT]

John Cena has potential to be the next Shawn Micheals but he is being held back. John Cena is being limited imo but he is still getting over. He only has 5 moves in his arsenal but in every match he tries something new and it shows how he strives to do something new and he wants a new arsenal. John Cena has mic skills and charisma. Same would go for Shawn Micheals. But Micheals is way better in the ring. He has had 5 star matches with the likes of Bret Hart, Triple H, Razor Romon and etc. John Cena yet to had a five star match with anybody. He has maybe 4 1/2 star match with some peeps at the most. HBK even with his current injuries can put up a 5 star match or a better match than Cena. In 2005 he carried Hogan. No one could of carried Hogan the way Micheals did. Micheals made that match good. A Cena and Hogan match would be a snooze fest. So my answer is simple. HBK.

wait did i hear that cena has the potential to be the next michaels???, the next rock maybe but the next michaels?, if you said hogan i would have let it slide but michaels?, what kind of pot are you smoking, michaels is a wrestler, he can carry a match and make anyone look good even hogan, cena has a very limited move set and has not advanced since his debute, yes his mike skills are comparable to shawn but not in ability so next time you say something like that please make sure you get your facts right coz you just made yourself look foolish the next shawn michaels peh...

 

[simplejt1985]

I'm glad I'm finally on this post forum. And my first topic discussion is HBK and Cena. I can't lie, Cena when he first turned into that rap gimmick was fun to watch perform. That's when the fans loved him. I still like Cena. Not the greatest performer and not as good as HBK (old school or new school). HBK is a legend and would have been even if he didn't come back in 2002. I don't see why people hate Cena. I guess most people are just hating Cena just to hate. He can get annoying sometimes but he's much better than people give him credit for. HBK all the way though. He's actually in the top 10 greatest of all-time. I doubt Cena gets there by the end of his career. But you never know. Look how the Rock improved as he got older. Even Goldberg.

 

[MR.SCOTT]

I'm glad I'm finally on this post forum. And my first topic discussion is HBK and Cena. I can't lie, Cena when he first turned into that rap gimmick was fun to watch perform. That's when the fans loved him. I still like Cena. Not the greatest performer and not as good as HBK (old school or new school). HBK is a legend and would have been even if he didn't come back in 2002. I don't see why people hate Cena. I guess most people are just hating Cena just to hate. He can get annoying sometimes but he's much better than people give him credit for. HBK all the way though. He's actually in the top 10 greatest of all-time. I doubt Cena gets there by the end of his career. But you never know. Look how the Rock improved as he got older. Even Goldberg.

I for one dont hate cena, its when people compare his wrestling ability to shawn michaels, there is no comparison, i enjoy watching the guy perform but he is not a wrestler and i hated his long run due to the fact that creative was runing out of ideas, i do believe that when cena comes back he will be better, he just needs to learn to wrestle before he steps back into the ring he is not a technical wrestler or even a story teller

 

[Rated R Superstar95]

I enjoy watching both perform. I anticapate watching HBK on RAW tonight. Just 45 min away! John Cena is a great wrestler, so is HBK. AT WM23 it proved that Cena was better, maybe not when HBK was a little younger, but hey!

 

[Slyfox696]

wait did i hear that cena has the potential to be the next michaels???, the next rock maybe but the next michaels?, if you said hogan i would have let it slide but michaels?,

I agree.

Cena has potential to be much better than HBK.

michaels is a wrestler,

So is Cena.

he can carry a match and make anyone look good even hogan,

HAHAHAHAHA



Do you know how ridiculous that comment is? Hulk Hogan was carrying wrestlers and selling out thousands upon thousands before Shawn Michaels even got started in wrestling.

cena has a very limited move set and has not advanced since his debute, yes his mike skills are comparable to shawn but not in ability so next time you say something like that please make sure you get your facts right coz you just made yourself look foolish the next shawn michaels peh...

Yes, because as well all know, moves=ability.

Is he the next HBK? Of course not. He's John Cena. He's not the next anything, he's the current best wrestler in the WWE, and possibly the world.

Like him or not, John Cena is great.

 

[MR.SCOTT]

I agree.

Cena has potential to be much better than HBK.

It depends what you mean sly, do you mean in name and merchandise value i would agree, if you mean in ability i dont

So is Cena.

cena is more of a sports entertainer not a wrestler

Do you know how ridiculous that comment is? Hulk Hogan was carrying wrestlers and selling out thousands upon thousands before Shawn Michaels even got started in wrestling.

No, hogan was fed opponents, and secondly im not talking about the hogan of yesteryear who held the world championship and became one of the biggest entertainers on the planet, he was not a wrestler and never even made himself out to be, michales totally carried the match with hogan at summerslam and even vince knew that he wasnt going to pay high rate for a one trick poney that couldnt work anymore simple fact


[/QUOTE]Yes, because as well all know, moves=ability.

Im not saying cena doesnt have ability all im saying that he is not as technically gifted as michaels

Is he the next HBK? Of course not. He's John Cena. He's not the next anything, he's the current best wrestler in the WWE, and possibly the world.[/QUOTE]

Best entertainer id agree, wrestler not, cena has not got the ability that michaels has, hes getting better yes, but he is no where in the league of michaels league, he is one of the top guys in the company but that is coz he sells merchandise simple as

[/QUOTE]Like him or not, John Cena is great.[/QUOTE]

he maybe, im not saying he isnt all im saying is he is not the better wrestler!

and sly sometimes i think you make argument for arguments sake

 

[Slyfox696]

It depends what you mean sly, do you mean in name and merchandise value i would agree, if you mean in ability i dont

You do understand the whole point of wrestling right?

cena is more of a sports entertainer not a wrestler

They're the same exact thing.

No, hogan was fed opponents, and secondly im not talking about the hogan of yesteryear who held the world championship and became one of the biggest entertainers on the planet, he was not a wrestler

What are you talking about? Hogan was one of the greatest wrestlers, if not THE greatest, ever. Being a good wrestler has nothing to do with the number of moves or what type of moves you do. It's about telling a story, it's about selling a match, it's about working a crowd, and drawing the fans into the pageantry of the match.

And, nobody did that better then Hogan. Don't believe me? Then explain why he is the biggest draw of all time.

and never even made himself out to be, michales totally carried the match with hogan at summerslam and even vince knew that he wasnt going to pay high rate for a one trick poney that couldnt work anymore simple fact

Please. Between Hogan's selling and storytelling ability, coupled with Michaels ridiculous overselling, HBK did anything but carry that match.

And, Hogan can still out-work 99% of the wrestlers in the world today. Of course, you would actually have to know what being able to work really means...

Best entertainer id agree, wrestler not, cena has not got the ability that michaels has, hes getting better yes, but he is no where in the league of michaels league, he is one of the top guys in the company but that is coz he sells merchandise simple as

That's the whole point of wrestling.

I could be Chris Benoit, Rey Mysterio, Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, and Ric Flair all rolled into one package, but if I'm wrestling in my backyard and nobody is paying to watch me, what's the point?

Being a great professional wrestler means being able to make fans give their money away. And, there is no one better at that in North America right now than John Cena.

and sly sometimes i think you make argument for arguments sake

Hmm, if that's what you think, then you haven't been around for very long...

 

[Milto]

There isn't even a comparison. HBK is one of the best wrestlers to ever be in the WWE. He has a wide range of moves and even being one of the older wrestlers going around he still put's his body on the line every night.
Cena doesn't have much technique but I still like watching him. I think he's one of the best on the mic at the moment, he's not my favourite but he always gets my pumped after an interview.
But when comparing the 2 HBK wins by a land slide.

 

[jback]

As of right now HBK trumps Cena a million times. HBK is one of the best ever. He is an amazing wrestler, innovated, great on the mic, and is full of charisma. Cena(even though i dont hate him as much as everyone else) Cena has like 5 moves and doesnt execute his moves very good. When it comes down to HBK & Cena, HBK is techniqly the better wrestler period!! But Cena still has time to grow.

 

[Nin]

These people arguing that Cena is better than Michaels are embarassing themselves. Unless you're making money from him, he's not better in any way, shape or form and i'm fairly confident he never will be.

 

[Slyfox696]

As of right now HBK trumps Cena a million times. HBK is one of the best ever. He is an amazing wrestler, innovated, great on the mic, and is full of charisma. Cena(even though i dont hate him as much as everyone else) Cena has like 5 moves and doesnt execute his moves very good. When it comes down to HBK & Cena, HBK is techniqly the better wrestler period!! But Cena still has time to grow.

HBK is not one of the best ever, unless you just want to look at WWF/E wrestlers from the last 5 years.


I can easily think of no less than 15 guys without even trying that destroys HBK.



And, Cena is 30 years old, and already putting great matches with average talent.

These people arguing that Cena is better than Michaels are embarassing themselves. Unless you're making money from him, he's not better in any way, shape or form and i'm fairly confident he never will be.

That makes no sense.

If Cena is making more money than Michaels, does that not mean that more people are drawn to him? And, the more people who are drawn to him, does that not mean that he entertains more people? And, if he entertains more people, does that not mean that he is the better wrestler?

Because, after all, is that not the whole point of professional wrestling?

 

[Milto]

You do understand the whole point of wrestling right?

They're the same exact thing.

What are you talking about? Hogan was one of the greatest wrestlers, if not THE greatest, ever. Being a good wrestler has nothing to do with the number of moves or what type of moves you do. It's about telling a story, it's about selling a match, it's about working a crowd, and drawing the fans into the pageantry of the match.

And, nobody did that better then Hogan. Don't believe me? Then explain why he is the biggest draw of all time.



Please. Between Hogan's selling and storytelling ability, coupled with Michaels ridiculous overselling, HBK did anything but carry that match.

And, Hogan can still out-work 99% of the wrestlers in the world today. Of course, you would actually have to know what being able to work really means...

That's the whole point of wrestling.

I could be Chris Benoit, Rey Mysterio, Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, and Ric Flair all rolled into one package, but if I'm wrestling in my backyard and nobody is paying to watch me, what's the point?

Being a great professional wrestler means being able to make fans give their money away. And, there is no one better at that in North America right now than John Cena.

Hmm, if that's what you think, then you haven't been around for very long...

SORRY GUYS, BOTH OF YOU START TO MAKE SENCE BUT THEN SAY SOMETHING STUPID.
Hulk Hogan will go down as the all-time greatest, he carried the WWE for almost 2 decades, noone has even come close to acheieving that. Noone has drawn crowds like he has and he is still a huge attraction.
However his moves are very limited. Thats why if you watch his matches a lot of them he gets punished for most of the match, then does his 'Hulk-Up' and wins the match. (Just quickly that still gets me and the crowd pumped when he does that, even after 20+ years).
Cena is a lot like Hulk in that way. He draws good crowds and is great on the mic but his moves are limited.
HBK has the whole package of skill, moves and the mic.
Now I've been a fan all my life and my opinion is that any proper wrestling fan can appreciate the guys who can get the crowd pumped, but get far more enjoyment out of watching the guys who have all the moves and counter-moves. A Match like HBK v Kurt Angle, going counter for counter, those are the matches that should be getting all the praise.
And you can see it with the guys who don't have many moves, they eventually go away and come back with a wider range of moves. Cause they know talking is one thing, but unless you can do more than body slam or chop someone your guna go nowhere. Love the debate though guys!!!

 

[Nin]

If Cena is making more money than Michaels, does that not mean that more people are drawn to him? And, the more people who are drawn to him, does that not mean that he entertains more people? And, if he entertains more people, does that not mean that he is the better wrestler?

Because, after all, is that not the whole point of professional wrestling?

Some people are stupid enough to like what they've been told to like. Christ, people cheer and pay money for Big Dave, despite him having the wrestling skills of an over-zealous 3 year old. Does that make him better than HBK? How about if everyone started cheering Khali?
Citing the general publics opinion as an argument is a dead end.

 

[Slyfox696]

Hulk Hogan will go down as the all-time greatest, he carried the WWE for almost 2 decades, noone has even come close to acheieving that. Noone has drawn crowds like he has and he is still a huge attraction.
However his moves are very limited. Thats why if you watch his matches a lot of them he gets punished for most of the match, then does his 'Hulk-Up' and wins the match. (Just quickly that still gets me and the crowd pumped when he does that, even after 20+ years).

Have you ever watched a Hulk Hogan match before 1988, or after 1996? Or, how about anything in Japan?

You should try it, and you'll see that this routine really is limited to face Hulk Hogan in America at the tail end of his prime.

Cena is a lot like Hulk in that way. He draws good crowds and is great on the mic but his moves are limited.

Again, what does moves have to do with being a good wrestler?


I've yet to see anyone answer this question.

HBK has the whole package of skill, moves and the mic.

HBK's mic skills are actually quite average. He has good charisma, but his pure microphone skills are nothing great. Seriously, just watch some HBK promos. They're slow, fairly repetitive, and not that fluid.

Now I've been a fan all my life and my opinion is that any proper wrestling fan can appreciate the guys who can get the crowd pumped, but get far more enjoyment out of watching the guys who have all the moves and counter-moves. A Match like HBK v Kurt Angle, going counter for counter, those are the matches that should be getting all the praise.

But, they're not.

Because wrestling fans don't care about seeing something they can watch in the Olympics or in the UFC, only for real. Professional wrestling fans want to see larger than life characters, going at it with drama and pageantry, and a great story in the ring.

Moves have nothing to do with it, other than just the means to tell the story of the match.

And you can see it with the guys who don't have many moves, they eventually go away and come back with a wider range of moves. Cause they know talking is one thing, but unless you can do more than body slam or chop someone your guna go nowhere.

Really?

Tell that to Steve Austin circa 1999.

 

[Slyfox696]

Some people are stupid enough to like what they've been told to like. Christ, people cheer and pay money for Big Dave, despite him having the wrestling skills of an over-zealous 3 year old. Does that make him better than HBK? How about if everyone started cheering Khali?
Citing the general publics opinion as an argument is a dead end.

Again, do you even understand the whole point of professional wrestling?

Professional wrestling is about making fans give their money to watch you. This notion that there is some kind of "higher level" in wrestling is ridiculous. Pro wrestling is about making money, and doing it in a way that can be done time and again over long periods of time.

The best professional wrestlers, like Cena, can do that. That's the difference between Cena and a Batista.

With that being said, I'm starting to think that Batista is underrated as a wrestler.

 

[Milto]

Have you ever watched a Hulk Hogan match before 1988, or after 1996? Or, how about anything in Japan?

You should try it, and you'll see that this routine really is limited to face Hulk Hogan in America at the tail end of his prime.


Again, what does moves have to do with being a good wrestler?


I've yet to see anyone answer this question.


HBK's mic skills are actually quite average. He has good charisma, but his pure microphone skills are nothing great. Seriously, just watch some HBK promos. They're slow, fairly repetitive, and not that fluid.

But, they're not.

Because wrestling fans don't care about seeing something they can watch in the Olympics or in the UFC, only for real. Professional wrestling fans want to see larger than life characters, going at it with drama and pageantry, and a great story in the ring.

Moves have nothing to do with it, other than just the means to tell the story of the match.

Really?

Tell that to Steve Austin circa 1999.

Yes I have watched Hulk's other matches and there all the same. What do you mean 'What do moves have to do with being a wrestler'? You need moves to be a wrestler. So your saying that me or u who have never wrestled could go out into the ring and just because we're good on the mic that means were good wrestlers?
Sorry but unless you can wrestle ur not a wrestler. To say wrestlers don't have to have any moves is a silly comment.
I agree Cena is great on the mic, but to say HBK is not as good I don't think u've watched him on the mic. If you saw the fued he had with the McMahon's last year and the ferosity he delivered his statements with, as well as the commical side he does, alot of wrestlers are very mono-tone. U need charisma and personality to be good on the mic which HBK has.
Of course fans want to see big characters but once that bell sounds if u cant do anything in the ring u won't last that long. If you read my post properly u would see that I said proper fans, not ppl who just jump on the band wagon when they feel like it appreciate the matches more that have technical moves and counter moves, not someone who can talk big and then get in the ring and have nothing.

 

[Oasys]

Again, do you even understand the whole point of professional wrestling?

Professional wrestling is about making fans give their money to watch you. This notion that there is some kind of "higher level" in wrestling is ridiculous. Pro wrestling is about making money, and doing it in a way that can be done time and again over long periods of time.

The best professional wrestlers, like Cena, can do that. That's the difference between Cena and a Batista.

With that being said, I'm starting to think that Batista is underrated as a wrestler.

First of all, Slyfox, lets take a look at the title of this thread. "Who's The Better Wrestler". Now correct me if im wrong, but the word "Entertainer" is not present.
Now that we have that cleared up, lets move along. Try to stay with me now..

Wrestler - (1) One who wrestles; one who is skillful in wrestling. (2) combatant who tries to throw opponent to the ground


What you read above is the definition of wrestler. Nowhere in that definition does it state that entertaining or story telling defines you as a wrestler.

I think that even someone of your intelligence can see that Shawn Michaels is the more skillful of the two.

Now lets talk about entertaining...

Is John Cena the better entertainer? Well, this is a matter of opinion. Slyfox, you have your opinion, and I have mine, as does everyone else on this board. What is my opinion? No, John Cena is not the better entertainer. His matches usually bore me. This is from a entertainment standpoint only.. Ken Kennedy is an amazing wrestler, but he doesn't entertain me. Wrestling talent doesn't have that great of an effect on the entertainment of the match. However, Shawn Michaels DOES entertain me. He is a gifted athelte who knows how to put on an entertaining match. Are there more entertaining? Yes, I personally enjoy Edge's matches much more than I do HBK's. Is Edge a better wrestler than Shawn? No, I don't think so.

Wrestling abillity and being able to entertain are two completely differen't things.

 

[Milto]

First of all, Slyfox, lets take a look at the title of this thread. "Who's The Better Wrestler". Now correct me if im wrong, but the word "Entertainer" is not present.
Now that we have that cleared up, lets move along. Try to stay with me now..

Wrestler - (1) One who wrestles; one who is skillful in wrestling. (2) combatant who tries to throw opponent to the ground


What you read above is the definition of wrestler. Nowhere in that definition does it state that entertaining or story telling defines you as a wrestler.

I think that even someone of your intelligence can see that Shawn Michaels is the more skillful of the two.

Now lets talk about entertaining...

Is John Cena the better entertainer? Well, this is a matter of opinion. Slyfox, you have your opinion, and I have mine, as does everyone else on this board. What is my opinion? No, John Cena is not the better entertainer. His matches usually bore me. This is from a entertainment standpoint only.. Ken Kennedy is an amazing wrestler, but he doesn't entertain me. Wrestling talent doesn't have that great of an effect on the entertainment of the match. However, Shawn Michaels DOES entertain me. He is a gifted athelte who knows how to put on an entertaining match. Are there more entertaining? Yes, I personally enjoy Edge's matches much more than I do HBK's. Is Edge a better wrestler than Shawn? No, I don't think so.

Wrestling abillity and being able to entertain are two completely differen't things.

OASYS right on brother. I couldn't have put it better myself.
I'll like to add to that if I may. I totally agree with what u said abuot entertaining, the perfect example is Shelton Benjamin. He is such a gifted athlete, has a wide variety of moves, things I've never seen before but he is in no way entertaining, however he's stil around because u just can't get rid of someone with those kinds of skills. Wrestlers do need some personality to be successful but persinality does not make you a wrestler.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes I have watched Hulk's other matches and there all the same.

Then you haven't seen his other matches.

What do you mean 'What do moves have to do with being a wrestler'? You need moves to be a wrestler. So your saying that me or u who have never wrestled could go out into the ring and just because we're good on the mic that means were good wrestlers?

No, I'm saying that wrestling moves don't have near as much to do with having a good match as things like storytelling, working a crowd, proper selling, good psychology etc.

Moves are just the way to express all the real traits to a good match. Steve Austin punched, kicked, and Stunnered people, and he could put on some damn fine matches. Because, it was the WAY he did it.

Sorry but unless you can wrestle ur not a wrestler. To say wrestlers don't have to have any moves is a silly comment.

I never said that. I said moves don't make a match. Moves have nothing to do with the quality of a match.

I agree Cena is great on the mic, but to say HBK is not as good I don't think u've watched him on the mic. If you saw the fued he had with the McMahon's last year and the ferosity he delivered his statements with, as well as the commical side he does, alot of wrestlers are very mono-tone. U need charisma and personality to be good on the mic which HBK has.

Get your blinders off. I used to think the same way, but really, look objectively at his interviews. They're slow, with no real unique style to them. Now, he has good charisma while doing it, and he is able to cut a good PROMO, but his mic skills themselves aren't really anything special.

Of course fans want to see big characters but once that bell sounds if u cant do anything in the ring u won't last that long. If you read my post properly u would see that I said proper fans, not ppl who just jump on the band wagon when they feel like it appreciate the matches more that have technical moves and counter moves, not someone who can talk big and then get in the ring and have nothing.

It's a good thing I'm not a mod, because I would literally start banning people on sight for saying such things.

Explain to me what a "proper fan" is, and what a non-proper fan is, and how one is better than the other.

First of all, Slyfox, lets take a look at the title of this thread. "Who's The Better Wrestler". Now correct me if im wrong, but the word "Entertainer" is not present.
Now that we have that cleared up, lets move along. Try to stay with me now..

I'm sorry, I guess I was under the mistaken notion that professional wrestling was entertainment.

Boy do I feel like an ass.


They are the same thing. Professional wrestler is equal to entertainer. It's the same damned thing. Really, it's not hard to understand.

Wrestler - (1) One who wrestles; one who is skillful in wrestling. (2) combatant who tries to throw opponent to the ground

What you read above is the definition of wrestler. Nowhere in that definition does it state that entertaining or story telling defines you as a wrestler.

Then, how is Shawn Michaels a "wrestler"?

By that definition, wrestlers are those who perform per NCAA regulations, or those who compete in Olympics. They are guys who compete FOR REAL LIFE!

Last time I checked, professional wrestling was scripted, not real.

I think that even someone of your intelligence can see that Shawn Michaels is the more skillful of the two.

No need to insult.

Now lets talk about entertaining...

Is John Cena the better entertainer? Well, this is a matter of opinion. Slyfox, you have your opinion, and I have mine, as does everyone else on this board. What is my opinion? No, John Cena is not the better entertainer. His matches usually bore me. This is from a entertainment standpoint only..

And what is the only objective way to determine who's a better entertainer?

The person who draws more fans, and makes the company more money. And, who does that better than Cena? Nobody.

Ken Kennedy is an amazing wrestler,

No he's not. He pretty much blows in every facet of pro-wrestling, with the exception of the oh-so-rare ability to say his name...twice.

Wrestling abillity and being able to entertain are two completely differen't things.

No, they are not. At least not in professional wrestling.


They are the same damned thing.

 

[Oasys]

I'm sorry, I guess I was under the mistaken notion that professional wrestling was entertainment.

It is. I never said it wasn't

Boy do I feel like an ass.

Im not surprised

They are the same thing. Professional wrestler is equal to entertainer. It's the same damned thing. Really, it's not hard to understand.

Yes I understand this. Im not exactly sure where you got the idea that I didn't.. Try reading my posts more thoroughly

By that definition, wrestlers are those who perform per NCAA regulations, or those who compete in Olympics. They are guys who compete FOR REAL LIFE!

Where does it say that in the definition? "One who is skillful in wrestling" Shawn Michaels and John Cena are both wrestlers. Shawn is clearly the more skilled of the two

Last time I checked, professional wrestling was scripted, not real.

Again, why are you wasting my time saying things like this? That has nothing to do with this argument

And what is the only objective way to determine who's a better entertainer?

The person who draws more fans, and makes the company more money. And, who does that better than Cena? Nobody

This thread isn't about who is the better entertainer. Read the title

No, they are not. At least not in professional wrestling

Yes, they are.

 

[Slyfox696]

It is. I never said it wasn't

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not the one trying to distinguish between the two?

Im not surprised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_in_cheek

Yes I understand this. Im not exactly sure where you got the idea that I didn't.. Try reading my posts more thoroughly

Maybe it was the following line that threw me off.

First of all, Slyfox, lets take a look at the title of this thread. "Who's The Better Wrestler". Now correct me if im wrong, but the word "Entertainer" is not present.
Now that we have that cleared up, lets move along. Try to stay with me now..

Where does it say that in the definition? "One who is skillful in wrestling" Shawn Michaels and John Cena are both wrestlers. Shawn is clearly the more skilled of the two

They're not wrestlers though, they are entertainers. They are professional wrestlers, which, in the category of how they perform, transfers to pure entertainers.

I mean, saying Shawn Michaels is a wrestler, is like saying Sean Connery is really a spy agent. Or that Gene Hackman is really a basketball coach. They're not. They're entertainers, paid to portray a character and act out a story for millions of fans.

A wrestler is someone who competes against another in an unscripted bout to see who is the better man. That's not Cena nor Michaels. They are not wrestlers, they are professional wrestlers, aka, entertainers.

Again, why are you wasting my time saying things like this? That has nothing to do with this argument

It has everything to do with the argument. Once we determine that neither HBK nor Cena are "real wrestlers" then it completely changes the criteria for which they are judged.

This thread isn't about who is the better entertainer. Read the title

You already said it was the same thing.

Yes I understand this. Im not exactly sure where you got the idea that I didn't.. Try reading my posts more thoroughly

See?

Yes, they are.

Explain to me how. Show me a professional wrestler that is not an entertainer.

 

[Nin]

And what is the only objective way to determine who's a better entertainer?
The person who draws more fans, and makes the company more money. And, who does that better than Cena? Nobody.

You think the fans are objective? As i said earlier, judging someone according to how much money they manage to draw out of morons is not the way to define quality. You only need to look at the music industry to see that.

 

[Slyfox696]

You think the fans are objective?

Yes.

Because fans are the one who drive the business, which determines what the company, in this case the WWE, does.

Judging fan interest is the only objective wave to measure entertainment quality, as they are the ones who drive the business.

As i said earlier, judging someone according to how much money they manage to draw out of morons is not the way to define quality.

How else would you define it? So arbitrarily set standard that no 5 wrestling fans can all agree on?

On the contrary, it's one of the best to define quality, or at least success. Now, someone making money for 4 months does not automatically qualify them as being good. But, for someone like Cena, who did it for nearly 3 straight years, or for someone like Hulk Hogan who did it for over a decade, it absolutely is a great way to determine.

You only need to look at the music industry to see that.

The wrestling and music industries are different, for many reasons, at least in terms of how you define quality.