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

[George Steele's Barber]

Cena is booked to go over Warrior but about 10 minutes after beating Cena down Warrior botches a spot that causes Cena a horrifying injury. Since Cena won't be able to compete for a while, on the fly the bookers call an audible and have Warrior get out of the cage first after shaking it violently.

The next night on Raw Cena comes out and says that he is just "hurt not injured" and wants a rematch with Warrior for his spot back. Instead Tastycles comes out with some henchmen, beats down Cena and tells him that at the Over the Limit PPV event, Cena's opponent is "ME!".

Warrior rants on Youtube-plus 2030 that Cena is a drug addicted, wife abusing power hog while some type of blood looking fluid pours over his skull. Papa Shango is reborn in 2030 and the world shrugs.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm not buying into the Warrior greatness arguments. The guy was and remains a massively overrated hack who could barely put on a passable match most of the time.

I've never been a huge fan of John Cena but, at the same time, Cena is certainly someone that gets more than his fair share of unjustified hate. Whether it be on the mic, in the ring, in terms of personality, charisma or athletic ability, Cena is, in my eyes, far superior to the Warrior. I give Warrior credit for being the first guy to pin Hogan cleanly but that's just not nearly enough to automatically outweigh everything Cena's ever done, not by a long shot.

Cena has shown his toughness & versatility in environments far more brutal and taxing than cage matches, so this should be a cake walk comparatively speaking. I don't really see this as being a tremendous match because, quite frankly, Warrior's not on Cena's level. Cena would be able to carry him to a great match by Warrior's usual standards, but it certainly wouldn't be an epic encounter.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Difficult, difficult choice.

First we have a guy who is one of the biggest and most successful wrestlers of all time and someone who didn't have a long career but went over everyone including Hogan and Andre (in record time no less).

Warrior would win. Never lost a cage match and went over 2 guys who were a league above Cena. Unless Cena turns heel and cheats to win he aint winning here.

Warrior wins.

 

[The Brain]

I don't mind people arguing for Warrior and using his win against Hogan, but please let's not discuss his wins against Andre. Those took place way past Andre's prime and that is an understatement. Andre shouldn't have even been wrestling anymore. He could barely walk to the ring and the only reason Warrior beat him so quickly was because Andre simply couldn't go anymore. I'm still leaning toward Cena and I think Warrior stands a great chance here but the wins over Andre are irrelevant.

Just to throw this out there.

According to profightdb.com,
Warrior has won almost 90% of his matches
Cena has won around 65% of his matches.

Keep in mind during Warrior's era guys regularly competed in squash matches against no name jobbers. That's not the case with Cena. Many of the 90% came against the likes of Terry Gibbs and Dale Wolfe.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Even in Andre's advanced age and near crippling state very few people still went over him, or at the very least didn't do so by pinfall. It doesn't matter what age Andre is, if any wrestler got a clean victory over Andre means the company had incredible hopes for that person. Jake never pinned Andre, Demolition never pinned Andre, I don't recall Savage ever pinning Andre and those are some pretty big names during Andre's last few years. Sure they all beat Andre but it was by DQ, or count out or Andre's partner got pinned, they didn't pin Andre, but Warrior sure as hell did and more than once.

Saying Warriors wins over Andre are irrelevant is ridiculous, no matter how bad of shape Andre was in if you go over Andre, you are something special and do something only a handful of people have ever done, guys like Race, Inoki and Hogan have only done. That's like saying Hogans WM3 win over Andre is irrelevant and I don't think there has ever been a more relevant win in wrestling history.

 

[The Brain]

Even in Andre's advanced age and near crippling state very few people still went over him, or at the very least didn't do so by pinfall. It doesn't matter what age Andre is, if any wrestler got a clean victory over Andre means the company had incredible hopes for that person. Jake never pinned Andre, Demolition never pinned Andre, I don't recall Savage ever pinning Andre and those are some pretty big names during Andre's last few years. Sure they all beat Andre but it was by DQ, or count out or Andre's partner got pinned, they didn't pin Andre, but Warrior sure as hell did and more than once.

Saying Warriors wins over Andre are irrelevant is ridiculous, no matter how bad of shape Andre was in if you go over Andre, you are something special and do something only a handful of people have ever done, guys like Race, Inoki and Hogan have only done. That's like saying Hogans WM3 win over Andre is irrelevant and I don't think there has ever been a more relevant win in wrestling history.

I remember most of the matches between Warrior and Andre ending in either DQ or countout. The one match I remember Warrior winning by pin didn't even have an opening bell. His music hit, he ran to the ring, jumped Andre from behind, and pinned him without his music ever stopping or a bell ever ringing. How can a three count take place to end a match when the match never started? I don't want to take this thread off topic. It's about Warrior vs. Cena not Andre. You can make a strong case for Warrior but I don't find his wins over a Giant who could barely get in the ring all that impressive.

 

[Larry]

Here's one of the main things it comes down to for me. Warrior doesn't job, Cena does. If this match was actually being booked, there's no way Warrior allows Cena to go over him, and I guarantee Cena agrees to do the job.

You can go on until you puke coat hangers about how Cena is better than Warrior in every conceivable way, that amounts to nothing when you're putting someone against Warrior. How many guys did he go against that were better than him in so many different ways? Just looking at Hogan, Savage, Rude, Andre, etc... They all had a lot on Warrior in some ways, but it didn't matter. He was the most unstoppable superstar that there has ever been.


Play down his victory over Hogan all you want, if you weren't there, you don't have a fucking clue how big a deal it was and how big it actually is still. I was around then, I remember how big it was, and very few events after that have ever come close to it. Go look it up, The Skydome, a record breaking 67,678 in attendance for The Ultimate Challenge. Hulkamania vs The Power of the Warriors. A redefinition of The Irresistible Force meeting The Immovable Object. No one in wrestling was on the level of Hogan, except Warrior, and Warrior was SOOOO over, he went over and it was a true passing of the torch, a situation we've seldom seem since. Whenever John Cena beats the biggest superstar in the history of professional wrestling, in the house that he built, clean, you let me know. When John Cena does anything that can even stand in the shadow of that, you let me know.

Whether you like The Ultimate Warrior or not, it's an inescapable fact of history that stands now that he is not only one of the biggest superstars of all time, he was also one of the greatest characters, one of the most charismatic superstars of all time, and he has one of the best records of all time which was amassed at a time when wrestling was much more popular, a time when he ruled and ran through people like a fat kid with diarrhea runs through toilet paper. Cena would be no different and people need to get smart, realize that, and quit voting against people to protect their prediction cards, to try and engineer specific outcomes to create specific matches, and just quit bullshitting everyone.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I remember most of the matches between Warrior and Andre ending in either DQ or countout. The one match I remember Warrior winning by pin didn't even have an opening bell. His music hit, he ran to the ring, jumped Andre from behind, and pinned him without his music ever stopping or a bell ever ringing. How can a three count take place to end a match when the match never started? I don't want to take this thread off topic. It's about Warrior vs. Cena not Andre. You can make a strong case for Warrior but I don't find his wins over a Giant who could barely get in the ring all that impressive.

We can argue about this until the cows come home but you're right it has nothing to do with Cena vs. Warrior so no point in doing it here.

Moving on I just don't see The Ultimate Warrior losing this match and here are a few more reasons besides his Hogan win.

1. Warrior at his hottest (so in his prime) eclipsed pretty much everybody when it came to popularity and fan base. Growing up I don't recall anyone who hated the Ultimate Warrior and most loved him even more than Hogan. Warrior was pretty much Goldberg, he would always win and always would get great crowd reactions in doing so.

2. Even though Warrior often did questionable things in wrestling (like holding Vince up) it doesn't change the fact that he accomplished a lot in this business, more than most ever have. So has Cena no question but if Cena was asked to job to Warrior he would do it and with a smile on his face, I don't know if Warrior would do the same thing.

3. It seemed no matter who Warrior faced he would always come out the victor. This is a guy who survived FIVE flying elbow drops from the Macho Man only to put him into retirement 5-10 minutes later. Sure, Warrior lost but like I said before I can't think of 1 time he lost clean. Even Hogan lost clean a few times but has the Warrior? He may have but I don't ever recall it happening, or at least as The Ultimate Warrior character.

4. Lastly I can't see Cena keeping Warrior down long enough for him to either pin him, or escape the cage and win. No matter how bad a beating the Warrior took he always seemed to get up and keep coming. If Cena got Papa Shango to put a curse on Warrior maybe otherwise no.

I don't even like Warrior more than Cena but there is no doubting in Warrior's prime he was white hot and always persevered no matter what the situation was. Cena has to be a heel and do heel things to win this match. This is the same guy who lost at MITB because he had to win by the book, doesn't sound like someone who will do heel things in order to win. Use weapons? Sure. Play dirty? You bet. Be a straight up heel? I don't think so.

 

[The Brain]

Here's one of the main things it comes down to for me. Warrior doesn't job, Cena does. If this match was actually being booked, there's no way Warrior allows Cena to go over him, and I guarantee Cena agrees to do the job.

That would be fine if Warrior was the one calling the shots but he's not the booker. From a booking standpoint it's not up to Warrior to allow Cena to go over him. If you think it is we should just crown him the winner of the tournament right now.

You can go on until you puke coat hangers about how Cena is better than Warrior in every conceivable way, that amounts to nothing when you're putting someone against Warrior. How many guys did he go against that were better than him in so many different ways? Just looking at Hogan, Savage, Rude, Andre, etc... They all had a lot on Warrior in some ways, but it didn't matter. He was the most unstoppable superstar that there has ever been.

There is no doubt that Warrior won a hell of a lot more than he lost. He did however lose at WrestleMania to Rick Rude and he did lose the world title to Sgt. Slaughter. I think Cena ranks considerably ahead of those two.

Play down his victory over Hogan all you want, if you weren't there, you don't have a fucking clue how big a deal it was and how big it actually is still. I was around then, I remember how big it was, and very few events after that have ever come close to it. Go look it up, The Skydome, a record breaking 67,678 in attendance for The Ultimate Challenge. Hulkamania vs The Power of the Warriors. A redefinition of The Irresistible Force meeting The Immovable Object. No one in wrestling was on the level of Hogan, except Warrior, and Warrior was SOOOO over, he went over and it was a true passing of the torch, a situation we've seldom seem since. Whenever John Cena beats the biggest superstar in the history of professional wrestling, in the house that he built, clean, you let me know. When John Cena does anything that can even stand in the shadow of that, you let me know.

I don't want to play down Warrior's victory over Hogan at all. I remember it well and it was one of my favorite mania main events. I don't believe it was a true passing of the torch. I believe it was intended to be but it didn't work out that way. At the very next WrestleMania it was Hogan in the main event again closing the show with the title back around his waste. Warrior would never win a title again.

John Cena did make Triple H and Shawn Michaels tap out at back to back WrestleMania main events. I admit it's not quite as impressive as pinning Hogan in his prime but for the era in which Cena competed it was a pretty impressive feat.

Whether you like The Ultimate Warrior or not, it's an inescapable fact of history that stands now that he is not only one of the biggest superstars of all time, he was also one of the greatest characters, one of the most charismatic superstars of all time, and he has one of the best records of all time which was amassed at a time when wrestling was much more popular, a time when he ruled and ran through people like a fat kid with diarrhea runs through toilet paper. Cena would be no different and people need to get smart, realize that, and quit voting against people to protect their prediction cards, to try and engineer specific outcomes to create specific matches, and just quit bullshitting everyone.

Cena is also one of the biggest and most charasmatic superstars of all time. Warrior may have a better record but look at the difference in competiton. During Warrior's time there were four ppvs. Two of them were gimmicks that didn't feature one on one matches. Between 1988 and 1992 Warrior was 7-2 in singles matches on ppv. It's a great record, no doubt. That's nine matches over a four year period. What if Warrior had nine or ten matches every year for a four year period? He would probably have a lot more losses. I'm sure his winning percentage would still be great but it would likely be on par with what Cena's is now. Not to mention Cena faces quality competition on Raw regularly wheras Warrior faced no namers on Superstars. If Cena wrestled no name jobbers every week and only had two ppv matches per year I'm sure his record would be just as impressive as Warrior's. It's actually pretty impressive anyway.

 

[Big Sexy]

I've yet to see one good kayfabe argument as to why Cena would go over Warrior and it is because that argument doesn't exist. If you are voting for Cena because of his loyalty to the business or because you like him better then just say that and move on. Don't try to justify a kayfabe win for him.

Anytime Cena has faced a big name face one on one in his career, he has usually lost. The only exception off the top of my head is when he split with HBK at Mania 23/RAW but HBK has lost to a lot of guys. Cena lost to Batista when Batista was a face, he lost to The Rock, and he even lost to CM Punk who is certainly not as a big a star as Cena. Warrior on the other hand beat the biggest face in wrestling history in his prime and he did it clean. He was the ONLY guy to beat Hogan clean in his prime. Cena supporters in this debate want to know why the Hogan thing keeps getting brought up. It's getting brought up because we are talking about Hulk fucking Hogan in 1990. We aren't talking about Hollywood Hogan or old man Hogan from the WWE this past decade. We are talking about the biggest face the business has ever seen losing on the biggest stage of them all to Warrior. That one win for Warrior is greater then any win Cena has on his resume.

Cena just would not be booked to win this match.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Anytime Cena has faced a big name face one on one in his career, he has usually lost. The only exception off the top of my head is when he split with HBK at Mania 23/RAW but HBK has lost to a lot of guys. Cena lost to Batista when Batista was a face, he lost to The Rock, and he even lost to CM Punk who is certainly not as a big a star as Cena. Warrior on the other hand beat the biggest face in wrestling history in his prime and he did it clean. He was the ONLY guy to beat Hogan clean in his prime. Cena supporters in this debate want to know why the Hogan thing keeps getting brought up. It's getting brought up because we are talking about Hulk fucking Hogan in 1990. We aren't talking about Hollywood Hogan or old man Hogan from the WWE this past decade. We are talking about the biggest face the business has ever seen losing on the biggest stage of them all to Warrior. That one win for Warrior is greater then any win Cena has on his resume.

You...have...got...to...be...shitting me. Cena beat Orton (multiple times), Batista (multiple times), Triple H (Mania main event, via submission), Michaels (Mania main event, via submission), Jericho (multiple times), Angle (multiple times), Edge (multiple times) and this doesn't scrape the smaller main event stars like Rey, Booker, JBL, Kane, Big Show and monsters like Lashley, Umaga and Khali. Oh and Brock Lesnar after taking the biggest ass kicking in history.

To say John Cena doesn't win big matches is not only preposterous, but complete crap. Your voting for Warrior because he beat Hogan once, had a pretty weak title reign and is a "master of cage matches" something which has already been exposed as a load of rubbish. Warrior's insane, but Cena's tougher, more entertaining and simply better. He can be extremely violent when he wants to be. John Cena should win and most of you know it, just not deluded fools like Big Sexy.

 

[Tastycles]

Warrior



Only



Beat



Hogan.




People are bringing it up because it's the single greatest achievement in modern wrestling history, for a face to beat Hulk Hogan. Maybe people are over emphasising it, but the fact of the matter is this. Warrior was not "a flash in the pan", he was in the company from 1987-1992. That's twice as long as Brock Lesnar, and also longer than Goldberg in WCW. He has a better win percentage than both. Indeed he has a better win percentage than anyone since the 1970s. Look:

http://profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-win-percentages.html


Cena has experience of losing to people from different eras to his own - note his defeat to The Rock at WrestleMania. This is what happened when Ultimate Warrior faced someone from a different era:




Why are people voting for Cena?
It can't be because he was more popular, because he's not.
It can't be because he won more matches, because he didn't.
It can't be because he has beaten bigger stars, because he hasn't.
It can't be because he has more experience, because he doesn't.
It can't be because he lost less often, because he doesn't.

If you had seen WrestleMania VII, you would know that all this total bullshit about Warrior having crap matches is totally wrong.

Anyway, the whole point of wrestling is to engage the audience. It has nothing to do with how many moves you have, or how many roll ups there are. There has never been a time when Cena has made the crowd go ape shit like Warrior does.

 

[Miko]

I'm not buying into the Warrior greatness arguments. The guy was and remains a massively overrated hack who could barely put on a passable match most of the time.

For the love of fuck, show me a bad Warrior match that wasnt in WCW, this argument is fucking pathetic.

I've never been a huge fan of John Cena but, at the same time, Cena is certainly someone that gets more than his fair share of unjustified hate. Whether it be on the mic, in the ring, in terms of personality, charisma or athletic ability, Cena is, in my eyes, far superior to the Warrior. I give Warrior credit for being the first guy to pin Hogan cleanly but that's just not nearly enough to automatically outweigh everything Cena's ever done, not by a long shot.

How can you be superior in every way to the guy that was being built up as the best ever? Thats where Warrior would be if he stayed, he had classic matches, great promo's and was stealing fans from Hulk Hogan, there havent been too many that could realistically be called better than Warrior.

Cena has shown his toughness & versatility in environments far more brutal and taxing than cage matches, so this should be a cake walk comparatively speaking. I don't really see this as being a tremendous match because, quite frankly, Warrior's not on Cena's level. Cena would be able to carry him to a great match by Warrior's usual standards, but it certainly wouldn't be an epic encounter.

This would be a classic, no two ways about it. Warriors won every classic he's had, he turns up for the big matches.

we should just crown him the winner of the tournament right now.

Can we?

There is no doubt that Warrior won a hell of a lot more than he lost. He did however lose at WrestleMania to Rick Rude and he did lose the world title to Sgt. Slaughter. I think Cena ranks considerably ahead of those two.

John Cena lost to The Miz, this argument is silly.

I don't want to play down Warrior's victory over Hogan at all. I remember it well and it was one of my favorite mania main events. I don't believe it was a true passing of the torch. I believe it was intended to be but it didn't work out that way. At the very next WrestleMania it was Hogan in the main event again closing the show with the title back around his waste. Warrior would never win a title again.

Warrior was busy retiring Randy fucking Savage, why make that match a title match when you can also have Hulk Hogan winning the belt from one of the most hated heels of all time? McMahon had a chance to have two massive matches and he took it.

Cena is also one of the biggest and most charasmatic superstars of all time.

One shitty, biased DVD and an attempt to be written out almost completely and people dont think this about Warrior? Oh but that Shawn Michaels, yeah he's great you know.

To say John Cena doesn't win big matches is not only preposterous, but complete crap. Your voting for Warrior because he beat Hogan once, had a pretty weak title reign and is a "master of cage matches" something which has already been exposed as a load of rubbish. Warrior's insane, but Cena's tougher, more entertaining and simply better. He can be extremely violent when he wants to be. John Cena should win and most of you know it, just not deluded fools like Big Sexy.

His title reign was fine, it was just ended so he could retire Macho Man and Slaughter could become one of the most hated heels ever. Giving McMahon two massive matches with a lot at stake at that Mania, good business. What do people talk about even now though? Hogan beating Slaughter, or Warrior taking five elbow drops and still retiring Savage?

The guy was a big deal, and well worthy of a win here.

 

[Big Sexy]

Anytime Cena has faced a big name face one on one in his career, he has usually lost. .

You...have...got...to...be...shitting me. Cena beat Orton (multiple times), Batista (multiple times), Triple H (Mania main event, via submission), Michaels (Mania main event, via submission), Jericho (multiple times), Angle (multiple times), Edge (multiple times) and this doesn't scrape the smaller main event stars like Rey, Booker, JBL, Kane, Big Show and monsters like Lashley, Umaga and Khali. Oh and Brock Lesnar after taking the biggest ass kicking in history.

To say John Cena doesn't win big matches is not only preposterous, but complete crap. Your voting for Warrior because he beat Hogan once, had a pretty weak title reign and is a "master of cage matches" something which has already been exposed as a load of rubbish. Warrior's insane, but Cena's tougher, more entertaining and simply better. He can be extremely violent when he wants to be. John Cena should win and most of you know it, just not deluded fools like Big Sexy.

Do you not know how to read or are you really just this stupid? I never once said Cena doesn't win big matches because unlike Cena supporters in this thread, I'm not delusional. I said that Cena usually loses his matches against big name faces because he does. When you are a top face, you are supposed to triumph over evil and beat all of the top heels. However, the real challenge is to go over the other top faces in the company. Most of the time Cena is booked to lose those matches. Warrior was not.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've yet to see one good kayfabe argument as to why Cena would go over Warrior and it is because that argument doesn't exist.

As opposed to your "good" kayfabe argument where you use Warrior's 2 PPV singles matches a year to justify why his ONE win against a top face is worthy of a vote?

Anytime Cena has faced a big name face one on one in his career, he has usually lost. The only exception off the top of my head is when he split with HBK at Mania 23/RAW but HBK has lost to a lot of guys. Cena lost to Batista when Batista was a face, he lost to The Rock, and he even lost to CM Punk who is certainly not as a big a star as Cena.

I find it amusing that face/heel disposition record actually means something to people in this match. Cena's numerous WWE titles, 7 years as the biggest draw in the company, defeating names with more prestige and accomplishments, headlining/main-eventing ever Wrestlemania for the last 8 years, etc. mean nothing apparently.

Oh, and Triple H was a face at Wrestlemania 22. And Cena won Royal Rumble 2008, which included many top faces. And those are just the ones off the top of MY head.

So, basically, the argument AGAINST Cena (not for Warrior, just against Cena) is that we should ignore his numerous WWE world titles, 7 years as the biggest draw in the company (and maybe even the world), numerous wins against big name workers, his victory over former UFC Heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar, his victories against faces Triple H and Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania and his Royal Rumble 2008 victory, because he was booked to lose against face CM Punk and the Rock in the 12 months, and a face Batista 4 years ago (oh, you also have to ignore those multiple victories against Batista after his Summerslam loss).

What a ridiculous argument.

Warrior on the other hand beat the biggest face in wrestling history in his prime and he did it clean. He was the ONLY guy to beat Hogan clean in his prime. Cena supporters in this debate want to know why the Hogan thing keeps getting brought up. It's getting brought up because we are talking about Hulk fucking Hogan in 1990. We aren't talking about Hollywood Hogan or old man Hogan from the WWE this past decade. We are talking about the biggest face the business has ever seen losing on the biggest stage of them all to Warrior. That one win for Warrior is greater then any win Cena has on his resume.

But it's only ONE win. Even the Indianapolis Colts last year got TWO wins.

I'm not denying Warrior was mega over, and he is certainly underrated as a worker. But your argument in this post is just silly.

Cena just would not be booked to win this match.

Yes he would. Unlike Hogan at Wrestlemania 6, John Cena isn't leaving. He's not going anywhere. He'll still be in the WWE 5 years from now. Cena has been a great worker, a fantastic draw and a wonderful spokesman for the company. Warrior, on the other hand, is a loose cannon, unstable, homophobic and never has liked the idea of giving control of himself to someone else.

Aside from Warrior's one win against Hogan, do you have ANYTHING to support your position that Warrior would be booked to win this match over Cena?

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Do you not know how to read or are you really just this stupid? I never once said Cena doesn't win big matches because unlike Cena supporters in this thread, I'm not delusional. I said that Cena usually loses his matches against big name faces because he does. When you are a top face, you are supposed to triumph over evil and beat all of the top heels. However, the real challenge is to go over the other top faces in the company. Most of the time Cena is booked to lose those matches. Warrior was not.

He beat Shawn Michaels in the main event of WrestleMania as well as on a number of other occasions, let alone that triple threat against Shawn and HHH (where he pinned the latter I should point out). Oh and he stopped Lashley who was getting pushed to the moon. Oh and Rey last year. Lest we forget the fact that Cena for all intents and purposes is very rarely "the face" in a match. He gets booed heavily a lot of the time (See: WrestleMania 22, SummerSlam 2005, Unforgiven 2006 etc...). Oh and of course there's the fact that Cena's the superior wrestler in every aspect imaginable. Warrior beat Hogan at WrestleMania, but that doesn't make you better than a man who has wrestled classic matches, beaten countless foes (who I listed and are, for the most part, superior talents to Warrior) and outdrew everyone else in his era.

 

[nightmare]

....and the above posts are why Sly\Funkay prove to be badass.



Warrior was great, crowd loved him and he had some good matches- but outside the ring is a complete jackass. Cena is everything he is not in that regard. I would even say he is much stronger than Warrior. The crowd reaction is less because the audience is much more diverse now, but the people who do cheer Cena- cheer like fn maniacs for him.


People cant use the fact that Cena has put some big names over by losing as a reason to discredit the man. If you dont recall, just because he has lost to a handfull of them- he has also put them down quite a few more times. He has been the main man in WWE for alot longer than Warrior so of course he will have more losses- but also more wins. Fact is that Cena is much more than Warrior. His main event record speaks for itself including title wins, WM main events and talent he has beaten. Quit holding on to Warriors one big win against Hogan and putting so much weight behind Cena's one loss to Rock. Sure it was huge, but that doesnt dismiss the big wins Cena has over the top guys he has faced. His wins are numerous over many top talents in the past 8 years.


This is something that Cena would win.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Fan boys love their John Cena don't they?

Aside from a handful of Cena fans that could actually make a case for him, this is typical Cena vs. anyone who's not from 2005 forward.

The Ultimate Warrior was unstoppable for a time. When you beat Hulk Hogan clean during Hogan's PRIME... for the WWE Title... how could you possibly lose to someone like Cena in a cage match. Warrior's nuts... and clumsy at times, but his power, speed, and overall nutcase attitude would overwhelm Cena and beat him.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I've noticed a lot of people talk about how they picked Cena because he is a professional and not a jackass like Warrior. Although that's true we can't assume that Vince already knew this, or anyone for that matter. If Vince knew that before Summerslam 91 he wouldn't have beat Hogan and he wouldn't have put Savage into retirement. Because of this I think the whole "Cena's better for business" logic has no merit, in my opinion anyways, if I thought it had merit then I never would have taken Warrior in this match.

This is prime, IC/WWF champion Warrior we are talking about, not douche bag Warrior who held up Vince for money, up to this point he didn't hold Vince up so we can't assume that, much like a prime Backlund using the crossface chicken wing because a prime Backlund didn't use that move yet, or at least not as a finisher.

Warrior in his prime went over everyone, doesn't matter who it was he won unless the opponent cheated to win, Cena wouldn't cheat. Also because Cena is such a pro he wouldn't make a stink about losing to Warrior, he lost to Rock, someone who wrestled once in 8 years before their match for 5 minutes. Also because he was such a fan he would probably be more than happy to let the Warrior go over him. As big as Cena is he wasn't as big as the Warrior during his prime, very few wrestlers in history were.

 

[Slyfox696]

The Ultimate Warrior was unstoppable for a time.

As was John Cena.

You do remember the year long title reign Cena had, correct? And a Cena year long title reign is roughly the equivalent of Warrior's entire first WWF run (given number of dates worked in front of a nationwide audience), and Cena did it in the main-event the entire time. How about the 9 month run in 2005-2006, where he only lost to Edge at the end of a Hell in A Cell match he had already won? Hell, the IWC created the term "Super Cena" to describe how dominant John Cena was in the WWE.

When you beat Hulk Hogan clean during Hogan's PRIME... for the WWE Title... how could you possibly lose to someone like Cena in a cage match.

Because even the Indianapolis Colts won two games this year. Seriously, when your ONLY argument is one match, you don't have much of an argument.

but his power, speed, and overall nutcase attitude would overwhelm Cena and beat him.

You just described a poor man's version of Brock Lesnar, and Cena just beat him.

I'd love to see a pro Warrior argument that isn't centered around one match with a guy who was planning to take a leave from the company, possibly forever at the time.

 

[UltimateHitman]

Yes he would. Unlike Hogan at Wrestlemania 6, John Cena isn't leaving. He's not going anywhere. He'll still be in the WWE 5 years from now. Cena has been a great worker, a fantastic draw and a wonderful spokesman for the company. Warrior, on the other hand, is a loose cannon, unstable, homophobic and never has liked the idea of giving control of himself to someone else.

Aside from Warrior's one win against Hogan, do you have ANYTHING to support your position that Warrior would be booked to win this match over Cena?

This is the dumbest thing I think I've read so far.

First of all, this is each in their prime. Warrior in his prime would not have lost to Cena. Period. Others have pointed out the face/face match ups, etc, so I won't even bother.

Cena IN HIS PRIME has been booked to lose to other top name talents on a much more regular basis. If you say this simple reason doesn't matter or doesn't deserve mentioning you're an idiot.

Loose cannon? Homophobic? Really? What the fuck does that matter? That would denote personal bias. If I remember correctly, it was asked that this year personal bias be put aside. Barring that suggestion, however, those are still pointless reasons that have no merit.

You also pointed out that Warrior has never liked the idea of giving control of himself to somebody else. As history has shown, this is true, even pertaining to Vince himself. Cena has proven to be opposite. So, by even your logic, Warrior would not give up control and do the job. Cena, however, given his track record, would.

Warrior's ********ed-ness aside, in his prime he would be booked to go over Cena. That is not even up for debate. Considering we're talking about professional wrestling, with the winners being determined by a booking/creative team, dismissing this fact is just laughable.

 

[Slyfox696]

This is the dumbest thing I think I've read so far.

First of all, this is each in their prime. Warrior in his prime would not have lost to Cena. Period.

Because...?

Others have pointed out the face/face match ups, etc, so I won't even bother.

Good, because it's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever read in this tournament, and considering I watched Sting lose because he can't paint his shed, that's saying something.

Cena IN HIS PRIME has been booked to lose to other top name talents on a much more regular basis.

Were you even around from 2005-2007? You do understand that Cena works every week, every PPV every month, etc., right?

If Ultimate Warrior worked the schedule Cena did, he would have lost too. That's a silly argument.

If you say this simple reason doesn't matter or doesn't deserve mentioning you're an idiot.

The idiotic person is the one who doesn't recognize the difference between 1990 and 2009.

Loose cannon? Homophobic? Really? What the fuck does that matter? That would denote personal bias. If I remember correctly, it was asked that this year personal bias be put aside. Barring that suggestion, however, those are still pointless reasons that have no merit.

Did you actually read what I responded to? Big Sexy said Warrior would be BOOKED to win over John Cena. That is false because the WWE would MUCH rather have the face of their company be someone like John Cena, not Warrior.

That's not personal bias, that's objective thinking.

You also pointed out that Warrior has never liked the idea of giving control of himself to somebody else. As history has shown, this is true, even pertaining to Vince himself. Cena has proven to be opposite. So, by even your logic, Warrior would not give up control and do the job. Cena, however, given his track record, would.

Then, much like history has shown, Warrior would be fired, like he was after Summerslam '91.

John Cena would still be the WWE's guy. John Cena would still win. Have all Warrior supporters completely lost grasp of common sense and logic? Or is it you know your position is so weak you have to come up with the most ridiculous statements possible to support your cause?

Warrior's ********ed-ness aside, in his prime he would be booked to go over Cena.

Oh really? You have absolutely NOTHING to support that.

That is not even up for debate.

And yet, here I am debating it, and it appears the majority of the people in this thread agree with me. Imagine that.

Considering we're talking about professional wrestling, with the winners being determined by a booking/creative team, dismissing this fact is just laughable.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm using it to prove my point. In a one-off situation, where the winner represents the WWE, John Cena would be booked to win this match. He's more dependable, he's a better worker, he's been a great draw, not just for 9 months before fizzling out, but for 7 years, and he's a guy the WWE can plaster all over television and encourage positive responses from mainstream people. Hell, Cena even has the sports world doing the "You Can't See Me" sign.

In what world are you living in that makes you think the WWE would rather have Warrior represent them than John Cena? The WWE wants Rock to represent them. They don't care if Punk represents them. They DON'T want Warrior to represent them. For fuck's sake, why do you think they brought Hogan back and made him a champion just four big shows after he lost to Warrior?

You have no leg to stand on, no evidence supports you, and logic has run screaming in terror away from you. I like Warrior. He was white hot, and he's vastly underrated for his work, but there's no way Warrior goes over Cena here, no matter whether you use booking, kayfabe, or just pure pro wrestling abilities. There are a lot of people I would vote Warrior ahead of, but he is simply outclassed by John Cena.

 

[Con T.]

Everyone likes to bring up the Hogan victory; I like to focus more on what happened after the victory. Sure, Warrior got the shove right to the top of the company, and did so in a great Wrestlemania match.

What happened after that? Warrior wound up not being able to carry the ball, and the WWE went right back to Hogan one year later. For whatever reason, the WWE's business slipped when Warrior won the title; blame the lack of Hogan on the marquee, blame the booking, but Warrior just wasn't that great as a champion. Sure, he got the shove right to the top, but never did much with it. It wasn't too long til Vince had to come Hulk, and make him the top face of the company again.

Warrior had a two year run at the top of the company, tops. Cena's been at the top of the WWE for eight years counting, and isn't likely leaving anytime soon. I'll take what Cena's done for the business over what Warrior has done.

 

[UltimateHitman]

We are still talking about Warrior in his prime. In his prime, means BEFORE he burned all his bridges. I respect the hell out of Cena as much as the next guy, but Warrior in his prime WAS booked as "the man". There's no mistaking that.

The face vs. face argument IS valid, since the likelihood of Warrior getting beaten by another face is lesser than Cena's. Can't argue that, history shows that to be true.

Again, Cena willingly jobs. Warrior, not so much (or wasn't groomed to while at the top) unless it was a tainted win. So the mentality of WWE (F at the time) would be to keep Warrior on top.

Warrior: Loses to a newly heel Sgt. Slaughter, at the top of his heel gimmick that plays off of the emotions of the country because of a fresh war.

Cena: Loses to RVD, former face of, at that time, a long defunct, 3rd place wrestling company.

Of course you can point out the fact that RVD was way over since this was an ECW nostalgia ppv, but that only lends credibility to the face vs. face argument. Cena did the job, and would do so to Warrior, for the business and the fans.

Hell, if you really have to point out Warrior's selfishness, then he'd hijack Vince before the match guaranteeing he wouldn't have to take the loss.

No matter how you slice it, Warrior would win. Would some heel take the belt off of him in an underhanded manner a year later in order for Cena to snag the belt from said heel? Probably. But that still wouldn't change the fact that Warrior would win.

 

[Slyfox696]

We are still talking about Warrior in his prime.

Indeed. Tell me, what exactly do you consider Warrior's prime? Was it when he was eliminated in the 1990 Royal Rumble? Was it when he lost to Slaughter at the 1991 Royal Rumble? What exactly are you considering his prime? Please tell me you consider his prime to be longer than one night in Toronto.

In his prime, means BEFORE he burned all his bridges. I respect the hell out of Cena as much as the next guy, but Warrior in his prime WAS booked as "the man". There's no mistaking that.

No he wasn't. Hulk Hogan was the one booked as "the man". Warrior was never booked as "the man". To be "the man" you have to be trusted to be the face of the country for longer than 3 big shows.

The face vs. face argument IS valid, since the likelihood of Warrior getting beaten by another face is lesser than Cena's. Can't argue that, history shows that to be true.

Warrior was 1-0 in face vs face matches against top opponents in his prime. What kind of fucking dumbass uses 1-0 to make a point?

Again, Cena willingly jobs. Warrior, not so much (or wasn't groomed to while at the top) unless it was a tainted win. So the mentality of WWE (F at the time) would be to keep Warrior on top.

You can't really buy this argument. Hulk Hogan has a reputation amongst the IWC to not job, and yet he did for Rock, who was always more than willing to put someone over.

Your argument is ridiculous.

Warrior: Loses to a newly heel Sgt. Slaughter, at the top of his heel gimmick that plays off of the emotions of the country because of a fresh war.

Cena: Loses to RVD, former face of, at that time, a long defunct, 3rd place wrestling company.

Warrior: Completely untrustworthy of being the face of the company.

Cena: Has been the face of the company for over 7 years.

You know you can't argue pro wrestling ability. You know you can't argue championship and accomplishments. So the only argument you have is booking. Well, if we're going to talk booking, promotions are going to decide who wins by first deciding what makes them more money. If both guys are good draws, then they'll decide who is more important to the company.

Who do you think is more important to the company? Exactly. Cena would be booked to win.

Hell, if you really have to point out Warrior's selfishness, then he'd hijack Vince before the match guaranteeing he wouldn't have to take the loss.

I'm dumbfounded at your ridiculousness. This is a tournament. If Warrior threatens to no show, who gives a fuck? Cena moves on to the next round, and the WWE still gets paid. I cannot believe you have resorted to Warrior's unprofessionalism to try and get him votes.

No matter how you slice it, Warrior would win.

No, actually, there's only ONE way to slice it to give Warrior the win, and that's by using his unprofessionalism to create a fantasy world where the WWE would choose to put a loose cannon, homophobic nutjob over their biggest draw for the last 8 years and the guy who has been the perfect spokesman for the company.

You're being an idiot. Not because you're supporting Warrior, but because of the way you're supporting Warrior. How about coming up with a legitimate platform to support Warrior? Surely he's at least deserving of that.