WWE Region, Third Round, Steel Cage Match: (3) John Cena vs. (6) Ultimate Warrior

[Davi323]

80 some people are COMPLETELY WRONG on this one. You guys actually believe that for the FIRST TIME IN WRESTLING'S HISTORY the guy with the best winning percentage in history is going to get beat clean in a tournament in the earlier rounds by someone who routinely jobs to the stars. YEAH FUCKING RIGHT!

Ultimate Warrior's "winning percentage" is a completely manufactured stat based on booking decisions that had absolutely zero to do with his actual ability. If Vince McMahon wanted to, he could make Jack Swagger the most dominant wrestler on the roster. Would that make Jack Swagger stop sucking? No it wouldn't. It just means that he was booked to win for whatever reason. You are trying to use a stat that is based on kayfabe storylines and booking decisions as absolute fact, when wrestling in and of itself, is entirely fictional. It's laughable. Tatanka went undefeated on television for almost 2 straight years (Feb 92-Oct 93). Does that make him invincible too? Would he beat John Cena?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

What is a big difference is their won-loss record. The Ultimate Warrior has the HIGHEST win percentage of all time at around 90%. And he has never lost clean. Cena won 65% of matches. Big difference.

I voted for the Warrior and even I can't believe this statement. Cena only wrestlers main eventers and upper mid carders, 90% of Warrior's matches were against jobbers which was the norm back in the 80's. At least use his average against main eventer's and upper mid carders only.

Also it was more common in the 80's for the faces to win especially in WWE, between the years of January 1984 and January 1991 there were only 2 heel champions. 1 was Andre and that lasted about as long as it takes me to have a piss and the other was Savage and that was after the first 11 months as a face champion. So in 7 years there was a heel champ for a total of 5-6 weeks.

The era was completely different, most main eventers had a winning percentage of over 80% in that era. Just take Hogan's average during that era and you will see what I mean.

 

[steve_smith]

I voted for the Warrior and even I can't believe this statement. Cena only wrestlers main eventers and upper mid carders, 90% of Warrior's matches were against jobbers which was the norm back in the 80's. At least use his average against main eventer's and upper mid carders only.

Also it was more common in the 80's for the faces to win especially in WWE, between the years of January 1984 and January 1991 there were only 2 heel champions. 1 was Andre and that lasted about as long as it takes me to have a piss and the other was Savage and that was after the first 11 months as a face champion. So in 7 years there was a heel champ for a total of 5-6 weeks.

The era was completely different, most main eventers had a winning percentage of over 80% in that era. Just take Hogan's average during that era and you will see what I mean.

Warrior almost never wrestled jobbers. Just like Hogan and the Macho Man. They never wrestled jobbers.

His PPV win percentage was 17 wins out of 21 matches. He was booked as unbeatable (only beatable by cheating).

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Warrior almost never wrestled jobbers. Just like Hogan and the Macho Man. They never wrestled jobbers.

Warrior often wrestled jobbers, it wasn't until the last few years of his run where he regularly wrestled main eventers like Mr. Perfect and Ted Dibiase (although they weren't main eventers they were more like upper midcarders).

Hogan came in and immediately became WWF champion so he didn't, and Macho came in and after a very short time became IC champion so he only did at the very beginning.

Warrior wrestled jobbers for the 1st year of his career. He rose quickly but spent quite a bit of time on the B and C shows before getting a push. Even in his early days as IC champion he often wrestled jobbers. It was the best way to get him over, have him man handle lesser guys to show his dominance.

 

[steve_smith]

Ultimate Warrior's "winning percentage" is a completely manufactured stat based on booking decisions that had absolutely zero to do with his actual ability. If Vince McMahon wanted to, he could make Jack Swagger the most dominant wrestler on the roster. Would that make Jack Swagger stop sucking? No it wouldn't. It just means that he was booked to win for whatever reason. You are trying to use a stat that is based on kayfabe storylines and booking decisions as absolute fact, when wrestling in and of itself, is entirely fictional. It's laughable. Tatanka went undefeated on television for almost 2 straight years (Feb 92-Oct 93). Does that make him invincible too? Would he beat John Cena?

In case you forgot, wrestling is fake. It is decided in the back rooms who wins, loses, holds the belt etc etc. THEY decided to book Ultimate Warrior as the most dominant force in wrestling at the time. Not me.

And Tatanka lost a lot after his debut. The Warrior didn't. And I would not have been surprised if Tatanka would beat Cena in a match as it is not that uncommon. He has lost 35% of his matches.

Of course, Cena is more important to WWE/F than Warrior was. He has carried this crap product for several years now. But....... he loses a lot. The Warrior didn't

 

[steve_smith]

Tag, I'm in! Pippa has been absolutely decimating you steve. You should have given up.
Actually, what he said is exactly correct.

Nope, I'm not sure who or what "yardbarker" is, but your statement is completely false.

Yup, this is completely false.

If you meander over to the General Wrestling forum, I have a collection of spreadsheets with all types of wrestling information, including WWE live event attendance. I believe it only refers to house shows, not PPVs, and it does not sort by Raw and Smackdown. However, the information came straight from the Corporate WWE website itself.

If you go look, the WORST year in live attendance for the WWE was 2011, when they averaged 6,000 domestically, and 6,700 internationally. However, like I said, this does not separate Raw and Smackdown shows, and I'm not sure it includes PPVs, which would also bump up the numbers. And since we are talking about John Cena who only works Raw, and Raw clearly does better house show business than Smackdown, I think it's safe to say John Cena, at worst, draws equal to the numbers reported by Pippa, and Cena probably draws better.

Moreover, that's the WORST year the WWE has had since Cena took over, Cena was only champion for roughly 3 and a half months, and the world was going through a huge economic recession. Add in the fact Cena has been doing this for 7 years, and throw in the fact Cena draws money for the WWE in other ways besides just house gates, and it's easy to see Cena is a bigger draw than Warrior.

Not really close. Anyone can draw a couple of big shows when the audience is already there, it's when you do it for years at a time and create new fans which prove how big of a draw you really are. Warrior did neither.

And it's not the only criteria. As good as Warrior was in the ring, Cena is so much better. As good as Warrior's promos were (and they are totally underrated), Cena is much better on the stick. In fact the ONLY argument people have for Warrior is kayfabe record, which is a ridiculous argument because John Cena works in one month in front of a worldwide audience the same number of times Warrior worked in a full year in front of a national audience. You simply cannot compare the eras.

So you can continue on with your silly win/loss record argument, ignoring how ignorant it is, but the fact is Pippa completely destroyed you in this argument and Cena is better than the Warrior, even though I'm a big Warrior fan.

1989-1992 is hardly wrestling's "glory days". 1983-1988? Sure. But not when Warrior made his main-event run.

It is impossible to argue with someone who believes that ..

Wrestler A: Draws 6000-7000 at a live show = YES DRAW
Wrestler B: Draws 6000-6500 at a live show = NO DRAW

I give up. You win.

 

[Davi323]

In case you forgot, wrestling is fake. It is decided in the back rooms who wins, loses, holds the belt etc etc. THEY decided to book Ultimate Warrior as the most dominant force in wrestling at the time. Not me.

And Tatanka lost a lot after his debut. The Warrior didn't. And I would not have been surprised if Tatanka would beat Cena in a match as it is not that uncommon. He has lost 35% of his matches.

Of course, Cena is more important to WWE/F than Warrior was. He has carried this crap product for several years now. But....... he loses a lot. The Warrior didn't

You are the one using his winning percentage as some sort of undeniable proof of the Warrior's superiority, not me...

The thing you are completely missing out on is the ability to strip away 100% kayfabe accomplishments and simply look at each wrestler for their actual abilities. Not how they were booked, but what they can actually DO. John Cena can do anything that Warrior could do in the ring, but Ultimate Warrior could not do everything that John Cena can do in the ring.

The Ultimate Warrior was a whole lot of hype with very little substance.

 

[steve_smith]

You are the one using his winning percentage as some sort of undeniable proof of the Warrior's superiority, not me...

The thing you are completely missing out on is the ability to strip away 100% kayfabe accomplishments and simply look at each wrestler for their actual abilities. Not how they were booked, but what they can actually DO. John Cena can do anything that Warrior could do in the ring, but Ultimate Warrior could not do everything that John Cena can do in the ring.

The Ultimate Warrior was a whole lot of hype with very little substance.

I'm just assuming a tournament like this is kayfabe.
Otherwise, what can it be based on. Who can kick the other guy's ass? Then Lesnar (or Haku) wins. By accomplishments and career? Then Hulk wins.
I thinking in terms of kayfabe that's why I go for Warrior.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

BTW, people are talking so much about Warrior's prime that I think that we have forgotten about Cena's prime. I think Cena, from 2005 when he won the title to 2007 when he was pinned clean by HBK in London, went through more matches than Warrior without a clean loss. I do not really have the numbers but considering how many more matches the main event guys have these as compared to the 1990's, smart money is on the fact that Cena actually topped Warrior's prime in his first run as champion in terms of going through more matches without a clean pinfall loss.

 

[Slyfox696]

It is impossible to argue with someone who believes that ..

Wrestler A: Draws 6000-7000 at a live show = YES DRAW
Wrestler B: Draws 6000-6500 at a live show = NO DRAW

I give up. You win.

Hell, Mr. Strawman logical fallacy, nice to see you.

That was never my argument. Did you read what I said? Did you notice where I talked about the difference between Raw and Smackdown house shows? Or PPVs? Or how about the fact "drawing" is not just about people to the show but also includes other factors as well? What about the economic recession? Did you just skip the part where I talked about how Cena has done it for seven years, and part of being considered a draw is about doing it long term and/or creating fans? How about when I talked about the difference in showing up in front of a national audience for a singles match twice a year versus showing up in front of a worldwide audience every single week? Apparently you missed that.

No, you just resort to logical fallacies, and in the process, prove you lost the debate. Thanks for playing, try again next time.

 

[steve_smith]

Hell, Mr. Strawman logical fallacy, nice to see you.

That was never my argument. Did you read what I said? Did you notice where I talked about the difference between Raw and Smackdown house shows? Or PPVs? Or how about the fact "drawing" is not just about people to the show but also includes other factors as well? What about the economic recession? Did you just skip the part where I talked about how Cena has done it for seven years, and part of being considered a draw is about doing it long term and/or creating fans? How about when I talked about the difference in showing up in front of a national audience for a singles match twice a year versus showing up in front of a worldwide audience every single week? Apparently you missed that.

No, you just resort to logical fallacies, and in the process, prove you lost the debate. Thanks for playing, try again next time.

I've read this entire thread twice. You 'lost the debate' before I even entered it.......................

You keep trying to prove that Warrior was not a draw. I'm telling you that he was. How else can you explain Vince constantly going back to him despite all the behind the scenes issues? Because the Warrior was a draw.
They brought Warrior back in 96 or 97. His comeback match against HHH (then a nobody) was near the top of the card. But, I guess, Vince was wrong and you are right..... nobody cares about the Warrior

 

[Davi323]

I've read this entire thread twice. You 'lost the debate' before I even entered it.......................

You keep trying to prove that Warrior was not a draw. I'm telling you that he was. How else can you explain Vince constantly going back to him despite all the behind the scenes issues? Because the Warrior was a draw.
They brought Warrior back in 96 or 97. His comeback match against HHH (then a nobody) was right at the top (or near top) of the card. But, I guess, Vince was wrong and you are right..... nobody cares about the Warrior

But if he was such a draw for his comeback, why was he going against Triple H at Wrestlemania, a clear midcarder at the time, rather than one of the top names in the WWF at the time? That wasn't Triple H, King of Kings, the Cerebral Assassin, multiple time World Champion, that was pre-DX Hunter Hearst Helmsley, the Connecticut Blue Blood. The Triple H that feuded with Duke the Dumpster Droese, Henry Godwinn and Marc Mero. The guy that didn't even make it on the 1996 Royal Rumble PPV, losing in the FREE FOR ALL before the PPV started. That is the Triple H that the Ultimate Warrior beat at Wrestlemania, yet somehow that is proof the Ultimate Warrior was still such a huge draw? Even though he disappeared from the WWF a few months later? He was such a huge draw that the One Warrior Nation was a complete disaster for WCW, providing the wrestling world with one of the worst matches of all time?

Thank goodness Cena is kicking Warrior's ass in the polls, so this ridiculous Ultimate Warrior lovefest can end.

 

[steve_smith]

But if he was such a draw for his comeback, why was he going against Triple H at Wrestlemania, a clear midcarder at the time, rather than one of the top names in the WWF at the time? That wasn't Triple H, King of Kings, the Cerebral Assassin, multiple time World Champion, that was pre-DX Hunter Hearst Helmsley, the Connecticut Blue Blood. The Triple H that feuded with Duke the Dumpster Droese, Henry Godwinn and Marc Mero. The guy that didn't even make it on the 1996 Royal Rumble PPV, losing in the FREE FOR ALL before the PPV started. That is the Triple H that the Ultimate Warrior beat at Wrestlemania, yet somehow that is proof the Ultimate Warrior was still such a huge draw? Even though he disappeared from the WWF a few months later? He was such a huge draw that the One Warrior Nation was a complete disaster for WCW, providing the wrestling world with one of the worst matches of all time?

Thank goodness Cena is kicking Warrior's ass in the polls, so this ridiculous Ultimate Warrior lovefest can end.

http://wrestlingdvdcovers.com/01/updated-cover-unreleased-custom-cover-wrestlemania-12-dvd/

Yes. They guy who isn't a draw is featured more on the wm 12 dvd cover for his 1 minute squash match than the guys in the 1 hour me match.

Bringing him back and FEATURING him after 3 years of absence proves that the Warrior was a 'draw.' I can't understand how hard it is to comprehend this. Vince and the WWF had 3 years to sit back do an analysis as to whether the Ultimate Warrior was worth the high salary and all the headaches and they collectively decided that, in fact, he was. They returned him to their business after he was a complete asshole and disrespected the company and his co-workers by threatening to NO SHOW. They returned him because he MADE THEM MONEY.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've read this entire thread twice. You 'lost the debate' before I even entered it.......................

Then you obviously fail at reading comprehension.

You keep trying to prove that Warrior was not a draw.

I never once said that. I said Cena was a better draw. Karl Malone was a great player...Michael Jordan was better.

Reading comprehension, kid. It'll work wonders.

I'm telling you that he was.

I never said otherwise.

How else can you explain Vince constantly going back to him despite all the behind the scenes issues? Because the Warrior was a draw.
They brought Warrior back in 96 or 97. His comeback match against HHH (then a nobody) was near the top of the card. But, I guess, Vince was wrong and you are right..... nobody cares about the Warrior

You really should have stuck with "I hadn't read the thread", because now you just look like an idiot.

I've said multiple times Warrior was white hot leading to his match in 1990. I've said many times I'm a fan of Warrior. I've said many times he was underrated as a worker. However, what I've been arguing is that he's not in Cena's class, in any way.

You obviously DIDN'T read the thread twice, which makes you a liar, or you did read the thread twice and you didn't understand any of what you read, which makes you a moron.

So are you a liar or a moron?

http://wrestlingdvdcovers.com/01/updated-cover-unreleased-custom-cover-wrestlemania-12-dvd/

Yes. They guy who isn't a draw is featured more on the wm 12 dvd cover for his 1 minute squash match than the guys in the 1 hour me match.

You really need to learn what a "quality source" is. That is not the official cover for Wrestlemania 12.

Here was the promotional poster for Wrestlemania 12:

And here was the official VHS cover:

I don't know what the fuck you posted, but when you read and the first words are "Here is a cover I never released, nor previewed." and the logo for the site says, "Unofficial Publication...", then you need to steer clear from that as a source. And besides that, Warrior was on the BACK cover more prominently, not the front. Just an epic fail for you all around.

 

[steve_smith]

lol. that's the poster before warrior signed. see ramon on the poster. he wasn't on the card. lol. who's the moron or idiot now?

see, i can call you senseless names too.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

lol. that's the poster before warrior signed. see ramon on the poster. he wasn't on the card. lol. who's the moron or idiot now?

see, i can call you senseless names too.

I'm gonna give you a piece of advice, take it or leave it bud.

Now this is for all your comments not this one in particular, just stop. Every post you make you just dig yourself deeper in a hole.

I'll say this again, I voted for Warrior, I like Warrior, I like Cena better but the way I look at it is this. Cena wasn't bigger than Hogan was in 89-90 and Warrior beat him clean. Cena overall was a bigger draw and will never deny that but if the office thought Warrior was a good hand to beat Hogan in his prime, chances are they would think the exact same way in regards to Cena, regardless of the fact Cena did more and was a better draw for a longer period of time than Warrior ever was, just my opinion.

All in all what Sly is saying is correct, Cena was a bigger draw than Warrior ever was, just cut your losses and move on man.

 

[Slyfox696]

lol. that's the poster before warrior signed. see ramon on the poster. he wasn't on the card. lol. who's the moron or idiot now?

see, i can call you senseless names too.

How am I an idiot because I showed you the official promotional poster, and the official VHS cover, which showed that your "source" made you look like an idiot? Good God, you're a walking logical fallacy.

Like I said, you obviously don't read posts before you respond to them. I never claimed Warrior's absence on the poster was reflective of his drawing position, so the fact he "hadn't signed" is completely irrelevant to the conversation. My post was simply to disprove your post, and your asinine argument that cover art by an independent Internet blogger, who was in no way related to the WWE, had any relevance on whether or not Warrior was a draw at Wrestlemania 12.

The fact of the matter is even you have now realized how silly you have appeared in this thread, and even you know you got your ass kicked in this debate. That's why you're searching random images on the Internet, blatantly misrepresenting your opponent's position, and making otherwise ridiculous arguments. You have no sensible or logical position left.

Give up, you lost. Just like Warrior has, and just like Warrior would if booked in a match with John Cena.

 

[Davi323]

lol. that's the poster before warrior signed. see ramon on the poster. he wasn't on the card. lol. who's the moron or idiot now?

Pretty sure you still are. That website is a guy who just redoes the covers for the hell of it. He has absolutely no affiliation with the WWE whatsoever.

Since I originally posted this back in 2009

This updated cover was finished on July 9th 2011 over 2 years after creating the original custom cover shown above

Wrestlemania XII was in 1996. This "cover" wasn't created until 2009, and wasn't redone until 2011.

EPIC, EPIC FAIL.

 

[Miko]

According to Kayfabe Memories, it's pretty bad, at least by the era of Hogan's standards. The following are the house shows during 1990-91. A few things worth noting;

This isn't including PPV attendance.

This isn't counting house shows outside of the US. Course, not like Warrior was the top draw for either of these instances. Summerslam was billed as Hogan's return, Survivor Series was billed on the match type, so was Royal Rumble. The annual Europe house shows were billed as Andre being there; if anything, he was the main draw. But, here's the numbers.

1990:

Hogan draws 21 dates, with an average attendance of 11,043

Warrior draws 90 dates, with an average attendance of 6,552

1991:

Warrior draws 3 dates, with an average attendance of 7,265

Slaughter draws 12 dates, with an average attendance of 8,158

Hogan draws 46 dates, with an average attendance of 8,402

It should also be noted that the next reign, Ric Flair's, drew an average attendance of 6,635 fans, for 31 dates.


Why is this so interesting? Because Flair's first reign, at least internally, was considered a disaster. It was so bad, Flair and Hogan was dropped at the Mania program, and we got the double main event.

Flair actually did better as champion as Warrior. Does that give you an idea how bad his title run was deemed?

Warrior was supposed to be the next big star, and they dropped him like a bad habit

Yes, I find this very interesting, to me it paints a picture of WWF not being able to handle not having Hulk Hogan around more than anything particularly bad about Warrior, I'd give Slaughters higher buyrates mucho credito to Hogan fueding with him at this time.

So you have Ric Flair's slightly higher buyrates being seen as a disaster, but for Ric Flair, currently fueding with Hulk Hogan wouldnt that be the case? I mean, here you have a guy who is a well recognised face in another major company, Ric fucking Flair of all people, coming to the WWF with the NWA Title belt and fueding with the face of the WWF, and it was drawing low buyrates for the time.
Then you have Warrior, who was getting his first ever World Title reign, in a WWF that was without their established star Hogan for the first time due to him having been "retired," it seems like a gamble that didnt pay off as well as was hoped. I dont think this is as entirely condemning of Warrior as all that, not when stacked up against Flair's poor buyrates, certainly not flattering for Warrior, but not entirely condemning either.

Like I say, I am not particularly good with this stuff, but the PPV buyrates seemed to be round about the same margin as usual at this point, although I understand that House Show's were far more important than they are now back then. I would say that he wouldnt be the first guy to be given another chance and make a run with it later on, as they certainly saw something in him, but I've already speculated more than enough in this thread.

 

[Big Sexy]

I still fail to see how Warrior loses this in kayfabe. Bringing up the 12 title runs for Cena and the list of opponents he has beaten is still pointing more towards his longevity and the different eras they are in. In Hulk Hogan's WWE run from 1984-1993, he only won the title 4 times yet no one would be putting Cena over Hogan. Warrior's only losses in his career came to heels who won due to interference. When Cena has gone up against big name faces he has more often then not lost.

Warrior has beaten two all time greats in Hogan and Savage. Warrior has pinned Andre in about 30 seconds which even in Andre's later years is damn impressive. Warrior gave a young Undertaker the first loss of his career just a few months before Taker won the WWE title from Hogan. He has beaten the likes of Rick Rude and Mr Perfect who, if they fought in this era, would have been world champions. Today's era has a ton more guys who enter the main event at some point because there are two world titles, there are ppv's every month, and the talent is seen on TV more often.

The biggest main event faces Cena has beaten are HBK and Rey Mysterio. While both guys are all time greats, they also have lost a lot to top talent. His other big face vs face victory was Bobby Lashley who won a total of zero world titles in the WWE.

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

As great as Warrior was, He has one major thing going for him Kayfabe wise. That's beating Hogan. Yes, that's a great accomplishment. Not many have gone over Hogan clean. The only other one I think of off the top of my head being The Rock. However, that does not mean he will beat Cena. Many say he's the modern Hogan, which could argued. Though in lue of recent events I do not see how, from a Kayfabe argument you put Warrior over Cena. Cena just took down Lesner. Who is the most legitimate fighter that WWE has ever had. Warrior never faced someone like that.

This is a match based on punishment. Many have said that Cena would not be able to keep Warrior down. Better question, after the match that Cena just went through what chance in hell does Warrior have at keeping Cena down? You cannot honestly tell me Warrior would be able to dish out the amount of punishment that Lesnar gave Cena. Yes, it take a lot to beat Warrior.If this was anyone else I'd say Warrior would win, but this is Cena we're talking about. Cena can have the hell beat out of him and still win, which is exactly what this match calls for.

On top of that, Cena has 12 title reigns to Warriors 1. Cena has been on top for the last 7 years. Being in a main event at Wrestlmania. Beating the likes of Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Batista, JBL, Edge and the Big Show. Yes, Warrior beat Hogan. However, Cena is the stronger in my opinion. Beating one guy does not remove the list of major superstars that Cena has beaten on the same stage.

If you want to go from a business stand point. Cena is the bigger draw, he's sold more, he's been more active for the company, doing more for WWE than anyone else. Why in the world would Warrior go over with his track record compared to a guy like Cena who's done everything possible. Yes, Cena is more than willing to do the job, as can be seen from this past Wrestlemania. There is no way anyone would book Warrior over Cena.

 

[Slyfox696]

I still fail to see how Warrior loses this in kayfabe. Bringing up the 12 title runs for Cena and the list of opponents he has beaten is still pointing more towards his longevity and the different eras they are in. In Hulk Hogan's WWE run from 1984-1993, he only won the title 4 times yet no one would be putting Cena over Hogan. Warrior's only losses in his career came to heels who won due to interference. When Cena has gone up against big name faces he has more often then not lost.

Because, again, you can't use the argument for Warrior and against Cena.

Kayfabe wise, Warrior won two matches a year on PPV, Summerslam and Wrestlemania (and sometimes, not even that many). If you take every PPV singles match Warrior had, I'm not certain it equals what John Cena does in one year. They are completely different eras. If John Cena worked two shows a year, he'd win twice a year too. But, in a kayfabe argument, when you get beaten down week after week, suffer from interference, etc., you're more likely to lose. If you are able to be scouted each week, if your body is beaten up each week, you're more likely to get caught.

The fact of the matter is your kayfabe argument is ridiculous. If you're going to parade around 2 singles wins a year, then we're going to parade around 12 World Championships. If you get to take advantage of your era, we take advantage of ours. You don't get it both ways.

Warrior has beaten two all time greats in Hogan and Savage.

When both guys were getting ready to take time off.

Warrior has pinned Andre in about 30 seconds which even in Andre's later years is damn impressive.

No it's not.

Warrior gave a young Undertaker the first loss of his career just a few months before Taker won the WWE title from Hogan.

And John Cena beat Miz before he won his title. Cena's beat Dolph Ziggler. Whoopty fuckin' do.

He has beaten the likes of Rick Rude and Mr Perfect who, if they fought in this era, would have been world champions.

Like, say...Bobby Lashley? Or Batista? How about Miz? Or Edge?

Today's era has a ton more guys who enter the main event at some point because there are two world titles, there are ppv's every month, and the talent is seen on TV more often.

See, here you are trying to have it both ways. You don't get to discredit one's accomplishments, while basking in the glow of the other, when the accomplishments were achieved due to different eras.

The biggest main event faces Cena has beaten are HBK and Rey Mysterio.

Why do you keep forgetting Triple H? And let's not forget Brock Lesnar, who may not be a face, but since we're talking kayfabe, that doesn't matter one bit. In REAL life, which is what kayfabe supposedly is, Brock Lesnar was the UFC Heavyweight champion, the baddest man on the planet, and Cena beat him.

If we're talking "just kayfabe", then face/heel disposition doesn't mean a damn thing.

While both guys are all time greats, they also have lost a lot to top talent.

I'm confused, are you talking about HBK and Rey, or Hogan and Savage? Because you could be talking about any of the four.

His other big face vs face victory was Bobby Lashley who won a total of zero world titles in the WWE.

Why does being a face matter in a kayfabe setting? You only seem to want to use the kayfabe argument when it's convenient. In kayfabe, face and heel doesn't exist. It's two guys fighting, that's it. I'm pretty certain they don't refer to each other as face and heel when they're doing promos (unless it's Triple H or CM Punk, and they're pulling back the curtain, which would most certainly make it NOT kayfabe).

 

[steve_smith]

How am I an idiot because I showed you the official promotional poster, and the official VHS cover, which showed that your "source" made you look like an idiot? Good God, you're a walking logical fallacy.

Like I said, you obviously don't read posts before you respond to them. I never claimed Warrior's absence on the poster was reflective of his drawing position, so the fact he "hadn't signed" is completely irrelevant to the conversation. My post was simply to disprove your post, and your asinine argument that cover art by an independent Internet blogger, who was in no way related to the WWE, had any relevance on whether or not Warrior was a draw at Wrestlemania 12.

The fact of the matter is even you have now realized how silly you have appeared in this thread, and even you know you got your ass kicked in this debate. That's why you're searching random images on the Internet, blatantly misrepresenting your opponent's position, and making otherwise ridiculous arguments. You have no sensible or logical position left.

Give up, you lost. Just like Warrior has, and just like Warrior would if booked in a match with John Cena.

Man, how can you be such a condescending asshole in a fantasy wrestling tournament discussion? I bet you have a lot of friends in real life. lol.

And I lost in what? An online discussion over the ultimate warrior's legacy in wrestling. lol. Believe me. This stuff means a whole lot more to you than it does to me. Yes, it was stupid of me to post a link to a wm 12 cover made by an internet blogger. But my time is extremely limited and, since the official cover of wm 12 does have a big picture of warrior on it, the point still stands. (In my defense, I had no idea that people actually make their own covers for old wrestling ppvs, I have kids up to my neck...getting dinner ready for them... I own 2 restaurants... so I'm doing this posting in an extremely small window of time. The first box cover I saw I jumped all over. Again point stands since Warrior featured on official cover)

Also, I didn't misrepresent anyone's position. There have been at least 3 posters in this thread that have stated that the warrior, to put it nicely, was a poor draw. You 'tagged' one of them. I disagree with this position. Who cares? Don't get so worked up. Cena, obviously, has made more $ for wrestling than the Warrior has. But I vote kayfabe. Warrior never lost clean to a face. never. Cena doesn't cheat. that's it. geeezzzzzz.

 

[Slyfox696]

Man, how can you be such a condescending asshole in a fantasy wrestling tournament discussion? I bet you have a lot of friends in real life. lol.

I do actually, thank you very much. You see, I get along great with people who aren't stupid. But when you say stupid things, you deserve to be mocked. Say fewer stupid things, and I'll be less of a condescending asshole.

And I lost in what? An online discussion over the ultimate warrior's legacy in wrestling.

Yes.

lol. Believe me. This stuff means a whole lot more to you than it does to me.

Clearly. That's what you just HAD to create another post to downplay the beating you received in this thread, and show everyone how little you care, right? Because I know what I don't care about something, I'm sure to make a big show about it to let everyone know just how much I don't care.

Wait, no I don't. If I don't care, I simply don't care. Hmm...

Yes, it was stupid of me to post a link to a wm 12 cover made by an internet blogger.

Yes, it was. It showed how terrible your argument has been this entire thread, to resort to such desperate measures.

But my time is extremely limited

Which is why you've posted in this thread roughly 15 times, correct?

and, since the official cover of wm 12 does have a big picture of warrior on it, the point still stands.

No it doesn't. Your point was the Warrior was the dominant picture on the cover, thus proving him the draw of the show. Warrior is not the dominant picture on the cover, thus negating your entire point.

(In my defense, I had no idea that people actually make their own covers for old wrestling ppvs, I have kids up to my neck...getting dinner ready for them... I own 2 restaurants... so I'm doing this posting in an extremely small window of time. The first box cover I saw I jumped all over.

In your defense, you're terrible at reading comprehension. I think that's what you really meant to say.

Again point stands since Warrior featured on official cover

Again, no it doesn't, since he's not the dominant image on the cover.

Also, I didn't misrepresent anyone's position. There have been at least 3 posters in this thread that have stated that the warrior, to put it nicely, was a poor draw.

But I haven't been one of them, and your comment was directed at me, not them. Thus you were either blatantly misrepresenting my position, or you lied when you said you read the entire thread twice.

Who cares?

Well, you apparently. That's why you've written...how many posts in this thread?

Don't get so worked up.

Not worked up at all. I know stupid arguments when I see them, and you brought a boatload of them to this discussion.

Cena, obviously, has made more $ for wrestling than the Warrior has. But I vote kayfabe. Warrior never lost clean to a face. never. Cena doesn't cheat. that's it. geeezzzzzz.

If one was to look hard enough, I think a person could actually see your tail curl up between your legs as you scamper off.

But, in kayfabe, face and heel disposition has no part of the discussion. Face and heel are OUTSIDE of kayfabe. You cannot argue Warrior's record against faces, and claim to be arguing kayfabe. I just mentioned that in my very last post before this one (in response to Big Sexy). Surprisingly, you obviously didn't read it.

 

[steve_smith]

in before sly gets his 5000th post on an internet wrestling forum and is condescending to everyone who hasn't. lol.

and you're the one without the comprehension skills. Go back and read your first post directed at me. The exchange I was having was about Warrior' selling power. You tagged in.

Calling people stupid, moron, idiot... on the internet must help your fragile ego. fine by me. i'm probably more educated than you anyways.

But if this helps, I concede. You win. Now, if you can, get your hand off your dick for just a second, stand up away from the computer and go give yourself a high five in the mirror. lol.


And as for Cena, I like the guy. He's been carrying the company,imo. But I vote kayfabe and since Warrior has never lost clean and Cena has lost 35% of his matches, there is no way I can conceive of the Warrior losing this in kayfabe. Sorry I disagree with you