Who's The Better Wrestler?

[X]

I'm 22 years old, a college senior, a basketball coach, a hired teacher, and have been watching wrestling since I was 4. What do you have for me?

I'm a fan of wrestling, and I think Cena is just as good as HBK. I voted HBK (I think) but only because he's been around longer. But to say HBK is better by far? That's just a gross misstatement. When HBK isn't main-eventing he half-asses it in the ring, and when he doesn't get his way, he pouts like a 5 year old. Cena comes to work every night, and gives everything he cans to put on a great match. You talk about moveset, as if that really matters in a professional wrestling match, but let's go ahead and talk movesets.

HBK's moveset: Punch, chop, get beat up for 15 minutes, flying forearm, a nip-up which completely no-sells an entire match of offense, elbow drop from the top-rope and the wind-up for Sweet Chin Music, which he usually misses the first time, only to connect a few seconds later. That is HBK's entire moveset in most matches. Now, how does that make him any better than Cena?

Come on slyfox, even you have to admit this question is ridiculious. HBK is a legend, Cena is not. Granted, for arguments sake, lets say Cena will become a legend(obviously I don't agree with that statement, but for argument's sake)he still does not compare to HBK at the moment. I understand where your coming from, but my god man even you have to admit that HBK blows Cena out of the water in terms of in ring ability, mic skills, everything. How many five star classics has Cena put on? Zero. HBK? Several. HBK and Bret Hart DEFINED the WWE in the mid-90s, I doubt people would think Cena defines the WWE at the moment, in fact many would argue he defines what is wrong with the WWE at the moment. Then again people said that about HBK as well in those days.

Still though, this question is very unfair, you're right, but that being said, the answer is easily and by far HBK. I mean, come on man, you're a smart guy, you have to see how ridiculious of a question this is? Give it 10 years and then this question will be much more open to debate, but at this moment, it's easily HBK by far.

Also, its pretty unfair that you're just comparing HBK's post-retirement career to all of Cenas. HBK is an old man, Cena is not. HBK does his moves of doom because he's so well established that no one minds. Cena is not established, people still think he makes a terrible champion. Compare HBK's first 7 or so years to Cenas first 7, and you have a more accurate way to compare the two. And in that sense, HBK still destroys Cena by far. HBK never relied on his moves of doom in his heyday, so don't forget that HBK is now an old man and not as limber or as savvy as he once was.

 

[Slyfox696]

How many five star classics has Cena put on? Zero. HBK? Several. HBK and Bret Hart DEFINED the WWE in the mid-90s, I doubt people would think Cena defines the WWE at the moment, in fact many would argue he defines what is wrong with the WWE at the moment. Then again people said that about HBK as well in those days.

We've had this discussion about what determines a 5 star classic match. I've only seen one 5 star match from HBK (ladder match vs. Razor, and haven't seen the HIAC). That's 1 5 star match in nearly 20 years of work. Cena has only been around for 5. And, in 20 years when people look back on the WWE, they'll remember this as the Cena period. Just like 98-99 is Austin, 2000-01 is Rock and 03-05 is Triple H, this period will be Cena.

Still though, this question is very unfair, you're right, but that being said, the answer is easily and by far HBK. I mean, come on man, you're a smart guy, you have to see how ridiculious of a question this is? Give it 10 years and then this question will be much more open to debate, but at this moment, it's easily HBK by far.

A couple of things about this. I'd take John Cena now vs. prime HBK and call it even. I take 2007 Shawn vs. Cena, and I take Cena.

Also, its pretty unfair that you're just comparing HBK's post-retirement career to all of Cenas. HBK is an old man, Cena is not. HBK does his moves of doom because he's so well established that no one minds. Cena is not established, people still think he makes a terrible champion. Compare HBK's first 7 or so years to Cenas first 7, and you have a more accurate way to compare the two. And in that sense, HBK still destroys Cena by far. HBK never relied on his moves of doom in his heyday, so don't forget that HBK is now an old man and not as limber or as savvy as he once was.

HBK doesn't have to use the 5 Moves of Doom sequence. Triple H doesn't. Chris Benoit didn't. There's a lot of guys who don't. He uses it because it is good wrestling psychology. 5 Moves of Doom is good wrestling psychology, in more ways than 1.

Also remember that in the mid 90s, there was no such thing as the "limited WWE style". Moves weren't banned, there were a variety of styles, and guys were allowed to do various things. Now, I'm in favor of the WWE limited their wrestlers for a number of reasons, primarily for injury reasons. I think it's a good move. But, when given the same guidelines and restrictions, HBK and Cena wrestle in very similar ways.

Like I said, if I had to pick between the two, I'd give the slight nod to HBK. But, that is only because he has a whole career worth of work.

If I was starting a new wrestling business right now, there is no one in the world I'd rather have than the 2007 John Cena. Not one person in the entire world.

 

[hbk&triple h]

We've had this discussion about what determines a 5 star classic match. I've only seen one 5 star match from HBK (ladder match vs. Razor, and haven't seen the HIAC). That's 1 5 star match in nearly 20 years of work. Cena has only been around for 5. And, in 20 years when people look back on the WWE, they'll remember this as the Cena period. Just like 98-99 is Austin, 2000-01 is Rock and 03-05 is Triple H, this period will be Cena.

A couple of things about this. I'd take John Cena now vs. prime HBK and call it even. I take 2007 Shawn vs. Cena, and I take Cena.


If I was starting a new wrestling business right now, there is no one in the world I'd rather have than the 2007 John Cena. Not one person in the entire world.

5 Star Matches from HBK:
HBK/Ramon Wrestlemania X
HBK/Ramon Summerslam 95
HBK/Bret Wrestlemania 12
HBK/Mankind Casket Match
HBK/Taker Hell In A Cell Bad Blood 97
HBK/Taker Casket Match Rumble 98
HBK/Austin Wrestlemania 14
HBK/HHH Summerslam 02
HBK/Jericho Wrestlemania 19
HBK/Benoit/HHH Wrestlemania 20
HBK/HHH Hell In A Cell Bad Blood
HBK/Angle Wrestlemania 21
HBK/Angle Vengeance 05
HBK/Angle Homecoming
HBK/Vince Wrestlemania 22

You cannot deny that all of these are 5 star matches.You said the only one was the ladder match which is not true.

This period probably will be remembered as Cenas sadly but it will be remembered only because he was made out to be a Superman figure.

Shawn Michales in his prime was outstanding.And you are comparing Cenas skills now to his skills then.John Cena is ok at best and Shawn just gives it his all even with all the injuries and even with his bad figure.There is no comparison.

Just because Cena sells merchandise it doesn't mean you would want him with your company.His matches are barely passable.Would more people tune in to watch the same old boring stale Cena win every match or would people tune in to see great matches.Shawn Michaels is the person I would go for way over Cena.

 

[Slyfox696]

5 Star Matches from HBK:
HBK/Ramon Wrestlemania X

Agreed

HBK/Ramon Summerslam 95

In some ways it was better, but it just didn't capture one's attention quite the same.

HBK/Bret Wrestlemania 12

I'm a big Bret Hart fan, but no way was this match 5 stars.

HBK/Mankind Casket Match
HBK/Taker Hell In A Cell Bad Blood 97
HBK/Taker Casket Match Rumble 98

Haven't seen them, and you're the first person to ever bring to my attention of casket matches with Shawn. Obviously, most people don't feel the way you do.

HBK/Austin Wrestlemania 14

Good match. Not 5 stars.

HBK/HHH Summerslam 02

Good match. Not 5 stars.

HBK/Jericho Wrestlemania 19

While this match is certainly underrated, it is not a 5 star match.

HBK/Benoit/HHH Wrestlemania 20

One of the most overrated matches ever, which is astounding because the match is good. But, it's not as great as people say it is. It's a stretch at a 4 star and a half.

HBK/HHH Hell In A Cell Bad Blood

No. Not even close.

HBK/Angle Wrestlemania 21

Good match. Not 5 stars.

HBK/Angle Vengeance 05

No

HBK/Angle Homecoming

Laughable

HBK/Vince Wrestlemania 22

Hahahahahaha...ridiculous.

You cannot deny that all of these are 5 star matches.You said the only one was the ladder match which is not true.

I just did for most of them *shrugs*.

Just because Cena sells merchandise it doesn't mean you would want him with your company.His matches are barely passable.Would more people tune in to watch the same old boring stale Cena win every match or would people tune in to see great matches.Shawn Michaels is the person I would go for way over Cena.

Well, let's consider the facts. HBK's first run with the title, and only really good indication of his drawing ability, nearly sank the WWF. Ratings and PPV buyrates plummeted, and by the time he dropped it at Survivor Series, people were cheering for SID VICIOUS to take the title off of HBK. And this is when Raw was the only WWF show on television, and I'm not even sure it was 2 hours yet.

Cena on the other hand is the strongest draw in the biggest company in the world.. The WWE has made bucketfulls of money off him, and he is easily the most marketable and the best PR guy in the company. The fact that Cena does sell merchandise is EXACTLY why I would want him in my company. So many fans don't grasp the fact that pro wrestling is an entertainment business. What makes the most money is what the company wants.

I'd take John Cena over any one else in the world right now.

 

[wotdoiput]

Who is beter Cena or HBK?? Hmmm

I think it really comes down to personal preference in the end. As with many sports it is actually hard to compare two people from different eras. But they are both active wrestlers I hear you say. Yes that is true. However is it fair to compare the curret day young in his prime Cena with HBK who is on the backward slide of his career? The answer is no. Same can we compare a 90's HBK with a currnet day Cena? I believe not. The WWE has many moves on its banned list now, that werent previously on it. Who knows how good Cena could be if he were to be allowed to use these moves? Then again who knows how much the same limit on moves could of limited HBK in the 90's?

So to me a lot of it doesn come down to personal preference. To me personally I slightly, prefer HBK. But its not by much. I am not a huge fan of, but nor do I hate Cena, to me a lot of my dislike for him comes from the fact he has had a monopoly on the blet for so long. Id like to see him chasing the belt, or better yet out of the title picture for a while. I think this would drop a lot of the ill feeling towards him.

As for HBK well nowadays I think he is a shadow of his former self. Yes he can still put on good matches, but to me Cena can as well. But I just enjoyed the 90's HBK (What I saw) slightly more than I enjoy the current dday Cena. Again thats slightly unfair given the move restricyions. But I also liked Shawn's work on the mic better than Johns.

To me Cena needs the title off him and a heel turn. But from a business standpoint I can see why the WWE stands firm on the current situation.

Also Sly what matches do you believe Cena has had that are 5 stars?? Just wondering.

I agree with you on many of the alleged 5 star HBK matches, but again personal preference. To me I would say the HIAC is definately 5 stars, and aI would add Angle/HBK at Wrestlemania and HBK/HHH/Benoit to the 5 star pool as well.

 

[Slyfox696]

Also Sly what matches do you believe Cena has had that are 5 stars?? Just wondering.

I'm not sure if Cena has had a 5 star match. There are some that come close, but I don't think there are any that actually get there.

Some of the close calls though: Cena vs. Edge TLC, Cena vs. Umaga RR 07, and Cena vs. HBK on Raw.

Like I said, all three are just missing that little something that puts them in the elite category, but are VERY good matches.

I agree with you on many of the alleged 5 star HBK matches, but again personal preference. To me I would say the HIAC is definately 5 stars, and aI would add Angle/HBK at Wrestlemania and HBK/HHH/Benoit to the 5 star pool as well.

The problem with the HIAC is that the match ended about 15 minutes too late. The last 15 or 20 minutes is just HBK and HHH lying around on the mat for forever. Angle/HBK at WM 21 was spotty at times (probably due more to Angle, than HBK, but spotty nonetheless), and the HBK/HHH/Benoit is overrated, I believe, because Benoit won the title. I think if Triple H had walked out of that match with a Pedigree on Benoit, then people wouldn't be singing its praises all the time. But because smark favorite Benoit (well, former smark favorite) achieved his lifelong dream, it gets overrated. The match itself was good, but if you notice, it's never a Triple Threat. It's a revolving one on one match. Very rare are all the guys in the ring at the same time. Usually it's HBK vs. Benoit, Benoit throws HBK out and HHH gets in the ring. HHH gets Benoit out of the ring about the same time HBK gets back in. And its just a revolving 1 on 1 match.

But, like you said, personal preference, and when it comes to star ratings there is no objective criteria. I just think all the matches talked about in this post are lacking in some areas that disqualify them from elite contention. 5 star matches aren't given to great matches. They should be given to elite matches.

 

[X]

I'd agree with you Slyfox that most of those matches listed are very overrated, but come on mate, Jericho vs. HBK was without a doubt one of the greatest matches, ever. It was more then five stars, it was ten stars. Everything about that match is perfect and classic to a T, the phenomenal wrestling aspect, the selling, the feud behind it, the finish. I mean come on, you gotta love when you think they're gonna shake hands and do the old "I respect you" routine and then Y2J gives him the low blow! Classic! Totally classic! I enjoyed the Angle vs. HBK match alot as well, but for me it just felt like they were trying to relive the magic of the match with Jericho the year before, so it never really had that full five star classic feel to it.

The HIAC match I would completely agree and probably go even further to say it was utter and complete shit. One of the worst matches I've ever seen in my entire life. Sure, you've got two great competitors in HBK & HHH, a great feud, and a great setup for a match, but my god did they manage to mess that one up. The match went on for like a god damn hour, and by halfway through nobody gave a shit at all. It just got so slow and tedious, I honestly fell asleep and have yet to watch the last 10 minutes of the match from how mind-numbingly boring it was. I mean, honestly, what in god's name is the point of having a HIAC match if you don't leave the freakin' cell! It might as well have been a scaffold match for all I care, thats how bad it was.

 

[hbk&triple h]

I'm not sure if Cena has had a 5 star match. There are some that come close, but I don't think there are any that actually get there.

Some of the close calls though: Cena vs. Edge TLC, Cena vs. Umaga RR 07, and Cena vs. HBK on Raw.

Like I said, all three are just missing that little something that puts them in the elite category, but are VERY good matches.

The problem with the HIAC is that the match ended about 15 minutes too late. The last 15 or 20 minutes is just HBK and HHH lying around on the mat for forever. Angle/HBK at WM 21 was spotty at times (probably due more to Angle, than HBK, but spotty nonetheless), and the HBK/HHH/Benoit is overrated, I believe, because Benoit won the title. I think if Triple H had walked out of that match with a Pedigree on Benoit, then people wouldn't be singing its praises all the time. But because smark favorite Benoit (well, former smark favorite) achieved his lifelong dream, it gets overrated. The match itself was good, but if you notice, it's never a Triple Threat. It's a revolving one on one match. Very rare are all the guys in the ring at the same time. Usually it's HBK vs. Benoit, Benoit throws HBK out and HHH gets in the ring. HHH gets Benoit out of the ring about the same time HBK gets back in. And its just a revolving 1 on 1 match.

But, like you said, personal preference, and when it comes to star ratings there is no objective criteria. I just think all the matches talked about in this post are lacking in some areas that disqualify them from elite contention. 5 star matches aren't given to great matches. They should be given to elite matches.

I would say that John Cena vs. Edge and John vs. Shawn are the only worthy ones up there.

I do agree that the Hell In A Cell was very slow towards the end but I guess I just enjoyed it a bit more.

I dont think the Wrestlemania 20 match was overrated at all.And I didn't want Benoit to win.I thought it was just an all around great match and it was a nice long main event.

 

[wotdoiput]

The HIAC match I was referring to was HBK's match against the Undertaker, not the one between HBK and HHH. Hell even if think that the HBK/HHH match blew massively.

I will agree with you Sly on the closeness of all those 3 Cena matches. I have seen a lot of people say they didnt like Umaga and Cnea at the Rumble but I quite enjoyed that match, even though Cena won.

But whether a match is 5 stars or not is based on personal opinon, what I like someone else wont and thats the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[BRandonkin]

Shawn Michaels is a far better wrestler than Cena. By the time HBK was 30 years old (11 years into his career) he had a classic ladder match, was involved in hell of classic matches with Janetty.When Michaels was 30 like CENA. Michaels was not a wrestler who was pushed hard like Cena. Michaels did not have a gimmick that people was able to support right away. He was premadonna prick who gradually work his way up. Michaels came up in a time of Hogan, Savages, Scott Halls, Kevin Nash, Bret Hart, Stieners Brothers, L.O.D, British Bull Dogs, Demolition,

Look at wrestlemania 10 and realize that the Owen vs Bret was a classic match. Then look and see that the HBK/Hall match stole the show is incredible. People saw a glimpse of what Cena could do at Wrestlemania 23 and raw against HBK. At WM23 Cena jagged and messed up on the knee angle that Micahels dominated on for most of the night for those talking about michaels lack of moves and being beat up for most of a match.

I love when people bring up michaels first reign. When Michaels assumed the top postition, Bret was on break, Hall and Nash left for the NWO angle in WCW. The top 3 left as taker was pushing mick foley and vader had lost it. WWE was hurting not on Michaels part. Triple H, Austin and The Rock was nobodies. Mick was on his way up. They had no real talent at the time. Why don't people bring up how the Hart foundation, HBK, AUstin, Taker fued brought ratings up. How when Bret/HBK/Taker brought ratings up to 2.8. how HBK third reign with DX, the fued with taker and Austin averaged michaels a 3.3 rating. The first for a WWE champion. How about mention that on before Michaels first run as champ. Diesel had a 2.2, Bret had a 2.3 and Michaels had a 2.4. there is a post about those numbers here to read them.

Cena has no competion. He was pushed to fast, one of the reasons angle left. Cena has seven years and yet he is still strugling with the same issues he had when he was beating angle. Cena can only wrestle a 20-30 minute match with him getting beat up. I believe that why Micahels is so praised for their matches because Michael had to the beating and carrying. After 10 minutes of punches it can get boring. I can't even compare the two Cena is the same even in main event time. HHH is right to remove the title. WM 24 HHH and Orton should be a good one.

Cena on the other hand is the strongest draw in the biggest company in the world.. The WWE has made bucketfulls of money off him, and he is easily the most marketable and the best PR guy in the company. The fact that Cena does sell merchandise is EXACTLY why I would want him in my company. So many fans don't grasp the fact that pro wrestling is an entertainment business. What makes the most money is what the company wants.

I'd take John Cena over any one else in the world right now.

Not the strongest draw. People are turning away because of Cena. Cena name will not go down as one of the greatest based on his first 10 years in the action. Michaels first seven years solo (1992-1999) does not compared to cena first seven yeas. Micahels and Hart are the founders of the aittiude era.

 

[Slyfox696]

Shawn Michaels is a far better wrestler than Cena. By the time HBK was 30 years old (11 years into his career) he had a classic ladder match, was involved in hell of classic matches with Janetty.When Michaels was 30 like CENA. Michaels was not a wrestler who was pushed hard like Cena. Michaels did not have a gimmick that people was able to support right away. He was premadonna prick who gradually work his way up. Michaels came up in a time of Hogan, Savages, Scott Halls, Kevin Nash, Bret Hart, Stieners Brothers, L.O.D, British Bull Dogs, Demolition,

By the time Cena was 30 years old, he's had numerous Match of the Year Candidates, incredible workrate and was so over that he was made champion three separate times. And that is with only 5 years of career experience.

Why is it a positive for Michaels to have taken so long to work his way up the card? I would think it shows how good Cena is since he's already been the number 1 guy for 2+ years.

Look at wrestlemania 10 and realize that the Owen vs Bret was a classic match. Then look and see that the HBK/Hall match stole the show is incredible.

HBK/Razor stole the show because it was a good match with a completely new concept. If you put that same match on today, it would still be a great match, but no where near as revered as it was.

People saw a glimpse of what Cena could do at Wrestlemania 23 and raw against HBK. At WM23 Cena jagged and messed up on the knee angle that Micahels dominated on for most of the night for those talking about michaels lack of moves and being beat up for most of a match.

First of all, give me ONE other specific instance of improper selling by John Cena. Just one. Everyone wants to run their mouth about Wrestlemania, most of which haven't even watch the match, and yet can't name a single other instance. Hell, if we are going to say Cena is a poor wrestler because of this one instance of poor selling, then HBK is probably the worst wrestler ever. No one has consistently no-sold and oversold worse than Shawn Michaels.

And, talking about Michaels lack of moves and being beat up on...that is what he does when he is the face going against the heel. He opens with offense, gets beat up the majority of the match, somehow fights back with a couple of punches then a flying forarm. He then does his nip-up, completely no-selling an entire match worth of offense, goes to the top rope with the elbow drop. He hits the elbow, plays to the crowd, tunes up the Band for Sweet Chin Music....miss SCM, a couple of spots, before he hits the SCM "out of nowhere". It's the same routine everytime for face HBK against a heel.

Why not talk about the Raw match in Milan? Where Cena carried the offensive portion of the match, complete with holds, and locks, and a variety of impact moves? Why not talk about that as an example of Cena's array of offense?

I love when people bring up michaels first reign. When Michaels assumed the top postition, Bret was on break, Hall and Nash left for the NWO angle in WCW. The top 3 left as taker was pushing mick foley and vader had lost it. WWE was hurting not on Michaels part. Triple H, Austin and The Rock was nobodies. Mick was on his way up. They had no real talent at the time. Why don't people bring up how the Hart foundation, HBK, AUstin, Taker fued brought ratings up. How when Bret/HBK/Taker brought ratings up to 2.8. how HBK third reign with DX, the fued with taker and Austin averaged michaels a 3.3 rating. The first for a WWE champion. How about mention that on before Michaels first run as champ. Diesel had a 2.2, Bret had a 2.3 and Michaels had a 2.4. there is a post about those numbers here to read them.

Because, in HBK's first reign ratings WEREN'T like that. Ratings before Wrestlemania 12 were hovering around the 2.9 mark. By the time HBK's reign was over, they were hovering around a 2.1. Additionally, as champion, the WWF lost money during HBK's first reign, and PPV revenue dropped.

And, why don't we talk about HBK's 97-98 reign? Because everyone knows that it was Steve Austin driving those ratings, not HBK. Steve Austin was the hottest thing going in the WWF, by far, and he was what the people were tuning into see, especially after the farce that was Starrcade '97.

Cena has no competion. He was pushed to fast, one of the reasons angle left.

Hahahahahaha, completely inaccurate, and an example of you talking out of your ass.

Cena has seven years and yet he is still strugling with the same issues he had when he was beating angle.

Cena debuted in 2002 (June I believe). Try and get your facts straight buddy.

Cena can only wrestle a 20-30 minute match with him getting beat up.

Except for Raw in Milan and One Night Stand 2 where he carried the majority of the offense. And, what does time have to do with a good match anyways?

I believe that why Micahels is so praised for their matches because Michael had to the beating and carrying.

You really haven't watched the Raw match in Milan have you?

After 10 minutes of punches it can get boring.

Tell that to the millions of Steve Austin fans in the late 90s.

Not the strongest draw. People are turning away because of Cena. Cena name will not go down as one of the greatest based on his first 10 years in the action. Michaels first seven years solo (1992-1999) does not compared to cena first seven yeas. Micahels and Hart are the founders of the aittiude era.

Cena IS the strongest draw. Viewership reflects that as he generally has more people tune into his quarter hour segments than anyone else. Cena is the biggest draw.

John Cena is a wrestler? :s

One of the best in the business.

 

[BRandonkin]

By the time Cena was 30 years old, he's had numerous Match of the Year Candidates, incredible workrate and was so over that he was made champion three separate times. And that is with only 5 years of career experience.

Candidates, not wins. Martin Scorsese had nomination. He just won last year.

Why not talk about the Raw match in Milan? Where Cena carried the offensive portion of the match, complete with holds, and locks, and a variety of impact moves? Why not talk about that as an example of Cena's array of offense?

I will. Great match, but over an hour I think they both had their share. And what about WM23 where Michael carried the match just Cena to feel no pain in his knee.

Because, in HBK's first reign ratings WEREN'T like that. Ratings before Wrestlemania 12 were hovering around the 2.9 mark. By the time HBK's reign was over, they were hovering around a 2.1. Additionally, as champion, the WWF lost money during HBK's first reign, and PPV revenue dropped.

And, why don't we talk about HBK's 97-98 reign? Because everyone knows that it was Steve Austin driving those ratings, not HBK. Steve Austin was the hottest thing going in the WWF, by far, and he was what the people were tuning into see, especially after the farce that was Starrcade '97.[/B

I was wrong in this area. It was the second one when rating were down and Bret did not do much better. There were at 2.6. When Bret won teh belt back they were at 2.1. They never rebounded to Taker's reign.

As far as 1997, I thought it may have included wonderful between HBK and taker that included the debut of Kane and that 5 star Hell In The Cell Match between Taker and Michaels. If you look at the King of The Ring match between Michaels and austin, michaels was not no slouch on the over level.
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=10931

Hahahahahaha, completely inaccurate, and an example of you talking out of your ass.

Explain

Cena debuted in 2002 (June I believe). Try and get your facts straight buddy.

He had two years training. I believe I was talking at this point of my argument over all buddy. I think I spoke about Michael 11 years to Cena seven years.

And, what does time have to do with a good match anyways?

For me personally, if done properly, tension and momentum swings.

Tell that to the millions of Steve Austin fans in the late 90s.
Not an Austin Fan

HBK > Cena

 

[Edgeh]

This isnt even a question. Of course its micheals! Cena has a very limited moveset, however is young..micheals is getting a little older but has a variety of moves at his disposal. But better wrestler?..Micheals.

 

[Slyfox696]

Candidates, not wins. Martin Scorsese had nomination. He just won last year.

Cena vs. Umaga at Royal Rumble is currently the front runner for Match of the Year in 2007.

I will. Great match, but over an hour I think they both had their share. And what about WM23 where Michael carried the match just Cena to feel no pain in his knee.

Wait. How did both have their share in the Raw match that Cena ran the offensive portion of, but Michaels carried Cena in the WM that Michaels ran the offensive portion of?

That makes no sense.

I was wrong in this area. It was the second one when rating were down and Bret did not do much better. There were at 2.6. When Bret won teh belt back they were at 2.1. They never rebounded to Taker's reign.

As far as 1997, I thought it may have included wonderful between HBK and taker that included the debut of Kane and that 5 star Hell In The Cell Match between Taker and Michaels. If you look at the King of The Ring match between Michaels and austin, michaels was not no slouch on the over level.
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=10931

Again, ratings increased because of Austin, and increased even more during the Austin/McMahon feud.

Austin was the catalyst, not Michaels.

He had two years training. I believe I was talking at this point of my argument over all buddy. I think I spoke about Michael 11 years to Cena seven years.

Michaels debuted in 1984. When he was 30, he had 11 years of experience. Cena debuted in 2002. He has 5 years experience.

For me personally, if done properly, tension and momentum swings.

Time is no determinant in quality of the match once the match reaches the ten minute mark.

not an Austin Fan

Who cares? Millions of people were, and all he did was punch, kick, and Stunner people.

 

[BRandonkin]

Cena vs. Umaga at Royal Rumble is currently the front runner for Match of the Year in 2007.

I think HBK vs Cena on raw, Taker and Batista, Jeff and Nitro in the steel cage are all frontrunners. IMO

Wait. How did both have their share in the Raw match that Cena ran the offensive portion of, but Michaels carried Cena in the WM that Michaels ran the offensive portion of?

That makes no sense.

It makes senseI remember in parts of the raw matches Michaels was targeting on a body part for a good part of the beginning. I remember Ross saying that was HBK strategy at Wrestlemania. In The WM match, Michaels pretty much was the aggressor until superman came back.

Again, ratings increased because of Austin, and increased even more during the Austin/McMahon feud.

Austin was the catalyst, not Michaels.
I guess. Funny that it was the Mick Foley event that pushed Raw ahead of Nitro. I don't think one man can single handedly change ratings. Someone should tell TNA that. I guess then the Rock can be given the credit for 5's and 6 that Raw got. It is a team effort being focus in another direction.

I said: He had two years training. I believe I was talking at this point of my argument over all buddy. I think I spoke about Michael 11 years to Cena seven years.

Michaels debuted in 1984. When he was 30, he had 11 years of experience. Cena debuted in 2002. He has 5 years experience.

I said Michaels had 11 years. Cena trained in OVW. Michael 1984 was in territorial wrestling. Where he was a jobber by who the announcer did not even know how to pronounce. HBK started from the bottom and worked his way up. Cena debuted in OVW in 2000. In two years he went to the WWE and been champion for the last three years. He was pushed very fast. As I said before, HBK, Hart, all these guys worked to the top. Cena was pushed very fast.

Time is no determinant in quality of the match once the match reaches the ten minute mark.

Your opinion. Longer matches test endurance and allows one to get more a feel for the matches. It also makes those 2.999 counts alot more dramatic to me.

Who cares? Millions of people were, and all he did was punch, kick, and Stunner people.

The Poll starter. This is a poll question about my opinion and why I chose who I chose right.

 

[X]

Honestly though Slyfox...does it really even matter how many "Match of the Year" candidates Cena has had? Theres one large difference in his "Match of the Year" candidates and HBK's many wins...

The WWE had about twenty times the talent in HBK's heyday then they do now. HBK won Match of the Years against SERIOUS, SERIOUS competition. I still really don't understand how he won MOTY with the first ladder match when Bret Hart & Mr. Perfect put on a better match IMO at Summerslam of that year. That's some SERIOUS competition. What about in 1997? The same year of the Montreal Screwjob for god's sake!

Listen, I'm not arguing about Cena's worth anymore, god knows me and you have done enough arguing on that, but you have to agree atleast that the quality of matches have declined seriously since the 90s. In the 90s you had atleast one great match at every PPV.

These days you're lucky to get 2 great matches in a YEAR. The fact that "Umaga vs. Cena" is a frontrunner for WWE MOTY really says it all. That match was decent. Really nothing special. I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars. That's average. Average should never be good enough for Match of the freakin' Year.

 

[Slyfox696]

Then, logically, wouldn't that mean that HBK had 20 times the talent to work with and put on great matches with?

Yes but it also means that HBK had 20 times the COMPETITION for great matches. Who is competition these days? You can say Cena all you like....but he is still easily the most disrespected champion of all time. And something is wrong with that. You can say its a bangwagon affair, but really, it's not. It's simply that people DO NOT ENJOY JOHN CENA WRESTLING. Thats why the WWE's ratings have been dropping further and further down this year when guys like the Undertaker, HBK, HHH, Benoit & RVD are no longer part of this business (yes obviously Benoit chose his own cowardly way on that one but he was still a big draw). As soon as the real star power fades....ratings drop.

As for one great match at every PPV and whatnot, I may have exagerrated that, but it's just my personal opinion that I was able to find atleast one damn solid match on just about every single PPV that the WWE put on from 1990 to 1998 (HBK's heyday). Yeah HBK logically would've had 20 times the the talent to work with, he also had 20 times the competition to work against though.

When people look back on history Slyfox...and whether this is fair or not to Cena...people aren't going to regard him as a legend. They aren't going to be lining up around the block to get that "Best Of John Cena" DVD, and they aren't going to be hailing any of his matches as being in even the top 50 matches of all time. Maybe that's not fair to Cena, but thats what I expect fully to happen. The WWE just isn't as popular as it used to be mate.


EDIT by Slyfox: This was not my post. Someone apparently decided to abuse their mod powers and re-write what I already wrote. Don't believe me? Notice the use of the word "mate"...do I look dumb enough to use that word?

 

[X]

...Holy crap. I just edited Slyfox's post with my reply to him....damnit! FORGIVE ME SLYFOX! FORRRGIIIVVEEE MEEEEEE!

 

[Slim Pickns]

^I'm confused with these last two posts.

Anyway I think Slyfox was making good points. I think Cena is actually a better wrestler than people on this forum say he is. He just been in the main event seem too long which doesn't play to the short attention span of the average wrestling fan. This leads to people bashing his skills when they just want to see a new champ. Even with that said I still voted for HBK because if we're talking about overall career there is no denying HBK has been in some classics. I think he is only topped by Bret Hart post 80's wrestling.

 

[Slyfox696]

...Holy crap. I just edited Slyfox's post with my reply to him....damnit! FORGIVE ME SLYFOX! FORRRGIIIVVEEE MEEEEEE!

Uh huh...like I'm suppose to believe that.

It's ok...although I'm curious as to why you were editing my post...hmm...


Seriously, it's not a big deal. I didn't say anything there that I haven't sad a thousand times already.

So, I guess I will just have to quote and reply to "myself"...

Yes but it also means that HBK had 20 times the COMPETITION for great matches. Who is competition these days? You can say Cena all you like....but he is still easily the most disrespected champion of all time. And something is wrong with that.

I totally agree. It's amazing how people can forget about Yokozuna's runs or Diesel's run.

You can say its a bangwagon affair, but really, it's not. It's simply that people DO NOT ENJOY JOHN CENA WRESTLING. Thats why the WWE's ratings have been dropping further and further down this year when guys like the Undertaker, HBK, HHH, Benoit & RVD are no longer part of this business (yes obviously Benoit chose his own cowardly way on that one but he was still a big draw). As soon as the real star power fades....ratings drop.

If you put any of those names in Cena's place...and put Cena on the injured list, do you REALLY think any of those other guys would have been able to hold ratings up after the Benoit thing?

What I'm saying is, if you switched Cena and someone else...and didn't have Cena on the show, would the ratings be any better?

I doubt it.

As for one great match at every PPV and whatnot, I may have exagerrated that, but it's just my personal opinion that I was able to find atleast one damn solid match on just about every single PPV that the WWE put on from 1990 to 1998 (HBK's heyday).

Except for those Wrestlemanias I mentioned right?

When people look back on history Slyfox...and whether this is fair or not to Cena...people aren't going to regard him as a legend. They aren't going to be lining up around the block to get that "Best Of John Cena" DVD, and they aren't going to be hailing any of his matches as being in even the top 50 matches of all time. Maybe that's not fair to Cena, but thats what I expect fully to happen. The WWE just isn't as popular as it used to be mate.

I disagree.

First of all, realize this. Cena is only 30 years old, and has only been in the business for 5 years. Let's look at some of the other greats in the business and see where they were at on their 30th birthday.

Hulk Hogan: Had just won the WWF title for the first time, before Wrestlemania and Hulkamania.

Steve Austin: Was getting jobbed out to Jim Duggan in 29 seconds for the United States title.

Bret Hart: Was in the tag team division with Jim Neidhart and just won the tag team titles for the first time.

Who would have thought people would be lining up for those three guys' DVDs?

John Cena at age 30, is already a 3 time WWE champion, and ranks 5th all-time in combined title length reigns for a WWE Champion, behind Bruno, Hogan, Backlund and Morales. And, he's still got a good 8 years left him in, and as long as injuries don't hamper him, he could probably stay for another 12 easily as great of shape as he's in.

I think by the time it is all said and done, John Cena will be looked back upon as one of the greats of our time. You should enjoy the ride.

 

[Vote for CM Punk]

Shawn Michaels is arguably the greatest in-ring performer in the history of professional wrestling. John Cena has defeated the likes of Undertaker, Batista, Triple H, Randy Orton, Edge, Finlay, and many others including HBK, but Michaels' track record is just as impressive. He's been doing it a lot longer and while he's getting up there as far as age goes, he can still put on a great match with any superstar. My vote goes to Shawn Michaels.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I think that Shawn Michaels is the better wrestler by even Slyfox's criteria. The man is an incredible in-ring performer who can also "tell a story". Better so than John Cena anyway. I cannot think of a single area in which the Heart Break Kid is not superior.

 

[ACTAFOOL]

i hope cena isnt considered to be one of the best of all time in the future, though he probably will i dont think he should, at least up until this point in his career he hasnt done anything worthy of being one of the best of all time IMO

his hasnt given me one classic match, he hasnt given me one classic moment, wich is amazing considering hes been champ for nearly a year now (or has it been a year?) and hasnt left the title seen for about 2 years or something like that, u would imagine that at this point in his career he would have given u some classic matches/moments/feuds... but no, all he has had is a long title reign wich i doubt would have been as long if there werent so many injuries HHH or HBK would have taken that belt from him by now i think, or hope at least

in terms of wrestling i have to admit that cena is a better wrestler than many great champs from the past, but for nowadays wrestling his move set is just way to stale, and the writings dont help at all at getting him over with a crowd older than 10 years old, hes like superman, wich nobody buys and just looks stupid, his little jokes arent funny at all, and his gimmick has 0 charisma IMO

now he might be considered a great champ in the future, but i hope its not for this title reign because all he did was FU big show and khali....

lets see if in his remaining years he actually does something great and not stay at an average level...

 

[MsBHaving]

I do not believe John Cena is the new Shawn Michaels.I believe Vince wants him to be, but Shawn got to be where he is based on talent and charisma.John Cena has charisma but he has nowhere near Shawns talent.Plus Shawn made it to #1 against the odds with Vince Mcmahon against him all the way.John Cena is barely over with the fans despite all the pushes hes gotten.I personally like the heel superstars better.If Cena was to go heel he might get over better.Maybe we have yet to see the best from John Cena but we'll never know unless they let his character develop and quit shoving him down our throats as perfect.So nowhere close to Shawn Michaels, but maybe in the future he might be close.

 

[LadyFranchise]

Shawn Michaels is a better wrestler by a long shot. How many matches has John Cena had that can be considered as a classic? Zero. Shawn Michaels gas had a plethra of them.

vs. Y2J @ Wrestlemania 19
The very first elimination Chamber @ Survivor Series 2002
HHH vs. Shawn Michaels vs Chris Benoit @ wrestlemania 20
Shawn Micheals vs Undertaker in the very first "Hell in a Cell Match"

Those are just four matches but I can go on and on if I wanted to. Untill John Cena can "Wow" me in a match or do somethings for the comany like Shawn Michaels has, than I would have to say Shawn is better.

Don't get me wrong Cena is a solid wrestler but he definatley needs to expand that move set he has. It also wouldn't hurt for him to be in some type of gimmick match like Hell in a cell or Iron Man that will help his credibility. He is only 30 so he's going to have about 8-10 years left in him. Maybe then he can match Shawn Michaels potential but right now I don't think so.