You act like Hulk Hogan is the only big win that Warrior has. I bring it up the most because Cena is basically the Hogan of this era in terms of being the face of the company. Warrior has also beaten the likes of Savage, Andre, Undertaker, Rude, Mr Perfect. Almost everyone thrown in front of him he defeated and the only time he lost was due to interference. Cena isn't getting interference as a face. Why should I put someone over Warrior clean when it has never happened before?
WWE Region, Third Round, Steel Cage Match: (3) John Cena vs. (6) Ultimate Warrior
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
So your list includes a 42 year old Shawn Michaels who lost to wuite a few stars during that time period, a guy in Bobby Lashley who never won a world title in WWE (ECW title doesn't count), and the 5'6 Rey Mysterio who is an upper mid carder. I'm not impressed. Warrior is far superior to all of those guys. He is more along the lines of Batista as a face and the Rock, both of whom Cena lost clean to.
Actually, the only people who have acted like that have been the Warrior supporters. I never claimed it was the only big win Warrior has, but in the ridiculous attempt to talk about win/loss records versus faces, Hogan is all you have.
And you brought it up for the face win/loss record thihg.
And Cena has beaten the likes of Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Batista, Miz, Randy Orton, Rey Mysterio, Big Show, Lesnar, etc.
You can say the same thing about Cena.
For all of the reasons I mentioned throughout this thread? You know, better worker, better draw, face of pro wrestling, pride of the company, 13 month run as champion in the modern era, etc.?
And your list included a 37 year old Hogan on his way out, a 39 year old Savage on his way to a 6 month hiatus (due to injury, I believe), an Andre who was only a few years from death and incapable of moving, an Undertaker who had yet to become a main-eventer and two upper midcarders in Rude and Perfect?
And THAT impresses you?
In most of these threads (unless I despise one of the contestants which isn't the case here), I vote from a kayfabe perspective. Kayfabe wise Warrior has never lost a match clean which is what would have to happen here. If there is no evidence showing he lost in a certain way then why would anything change here? Cena has lost these types of matches and would do so again. If your voting criteria includes longevity, loyalty, and in ring work then more power to you, but kayfabe wise this goes to Warrior.
Warrior beat Hogan in 1990 and Hogan didn't leave until 1993. He was still basically full time until after Mania 8 in 1992. Kayfabe wise Warrior retired Savage and did so after kicking out five flying elbows. Andre was old and shouldn't have been in the ring but beating him in like 30 seconds is still damn impressive. Undertaker may not have been a main eventer yet but he was still undefeated at that point. So yes that list does impress me.
Warrior beat Hogan in 1990 and Hogan didn't leave until 1993. He was still basically full time until after Mania 8 in 1992. Kayfabe wise Warrior retired Savage and did so after kicking out five flying elbows. Andre was old and shouldn't have been in the ring but beating him in like 30 seconds is still damn impressive. Undertaker may not have been a main eventer yet but he was still undefeated at that point. So yes that list does impress me.
Kayfabe wise, Warrior faced very few top guys in singles matches. Kayfabe wise, Warrior only won ONE main-event caliber match. Kayfabe wise, Warrior is a paper tiger, yet to truly prove his win against Hogan wasn't a fluke. Kayfabe wise, Warrior couldn't hold the World title for even a year, even though he only defended it on PPV twice.
Kayfabe wise, Cena has beaten the very best the business has to offer. Kayfabe wise, Cena has won the World title 12 times. Kayfabe wise, John Cena held the title for a full year, and only lost it because of injury. Kayfabe wise, John Cena has won more big time matches in 6 months than Warrior did in his entire career.
You can't even really argue the kayfabe angle, unless you're willing to say that one match equals the total quality of the individual. And with you being a sports fan, and an avid detractor of Tim Tebow's abilities, I would imagine you understand that winning one big time encounter doesn't make you great.
But Hogan was doing everything he could to leave to get into movies, and his match against Warrior was him passing the torch. Most wrestling fans know this.
Kayfabe wise, Shawn Michaels was one of the greatest wrestlers in the company, and one of the best the WWE has ever had to offer. Kayfabe wise, Bobby Lashley was a wrecking machine, who had run roughshod through the WWE. Kayfabe wise, Rey Mysterio is a former World champion.
You're going to have to decide if you're using kayfabe or not. You can't only use kayfabe when your real life arguments fail, and then switch back to real life when your kayfabe arguments fail.
No it isn't.
No it doesn't. If Cena beating one of the greatest wrestlers in history, beating a guy who tore through the WWE and beating a two time world champion doesn't impress you, I fail to see how your Warrior list impresses you.
Unless you are using two incredibly difference scales to judge each man, in order to make it appear as if you have a valid argument. By the way, this is what I'm betting you're doing.
The way business is done today, Warrior could indeed insist on going over, and if they really wanted him for the event they'd let it happen. I think the situation with The Rock is a perfect example and it would be no different with Warrior who is at least as big as The Rock and would have as much pull.
Not exactly, not within the era they were in. Rick Rude and Sgt. Slaughter were two of the biggest heels of their day in WWF. It's also worth noting that Slaughter only won after heavy interference from Macho Man and Sherri, and Rude also only beat Warrior due to heavy interference and was beat by Warrior on two separate occasions after that, once for the IC title and again in a steel cage match for the WWF World Championship.
It was intended to be that, and it was. I don't think Warrior really lost popularity so much. I think that after having such a big moment, they just couldn't generate another one like that UNTIL the next year, they didn't have a Hogan for him to play off of, so the next year it was Randy Savage and they had the MOTN, even though Hogan and Slaughter were the main event for the title, and Warrior was still perceived as the REAL champion. Had he not been let go, one could safely assume he would have been back in the title picture.
I'm going to address that here in some other responses as well.
.
I think that's a pretty valuable point worth noting right there.
That's not the argument. I don't think anyone is really disregarding Cena's resume. In fact, the very resume you're reciting for us is the reason this is even a conversation. The stark contrast between resumes is lopsided, and you make clever note of that. I don't think AS MUCH stock though, should be put in to that discrepancy for a couple of reasons.
First reason: All of John Cena's accomplishments have come at a time when wrestling isn't nearly as popular as it was when Warrior was on top. That might sound superficial on the surface but look deeper. If Warrior appealed to a bigger fan base, was a/thee top draw in the company which we know he was, you'd have to conclude that he was more popular/bigger draw, more profitable, and that his accomplishments were of greater significance because the business itself was of much greater significance. It meant a lot more back then to be at the top technically, and there was much less vacancy with Hogan around. Even when Warrior was the Intercontinental Champion, what do you supposed his squash of HTM and subsequent run that led him to the WWF World Championship, becoming the first person to hold both titles after entering WrestleMania as the IC champion and beating the World Champion is worth vs Cena's body of work?
Second Reason: The above statements are true regarding the value of the titles and the reigns back when Warrior was on top, compared to the time Cena has been on top. It is so because of the way the business has changed. As you noted, there were only 4 ppv's back then, you didn't see Warrior literally every week, multiple times a week, every month on PPV, and he wasn't in action virtually every week so you didn't see him wrestle as much either. You've implied that means he accomplished less technically, I am saying even though by volume of matches, titles, etc... that is true, the significance of everything Warrior did was much greater at that time as well, making Cena's resume pale a bit along side his. We all know that none of the titles are as important now as they were then. It's even widely debated as to whether they are just a prop or not now-a-days.
Third Reason: I think it's also worth noting that even though people back then got to see a lot less action and had a lot less content to absorb, that didn't keep Warrior from being more popular to a broader audience, once again pointing to the greater significance of what he accomplished. I also that you pointing out how there were less ppv's then lends to this argument, that Warrior's smaller body of work shouldn't could against him here as the times were so much different. It was less exposure all around, not just the ppv scene, but he was a bigger star with far less opportunity in the spotlight.
And that's the bottom line, because “The Self-Destruction of The Ultimate Warrior” DVD said so!
Ok, I know that's not what you're pulling, but that's generally the case on here. I know there've been plenty of folks to sound off about him, and am aware of plenty of his actions that showed some of that to be true. However, what does that really have to do with his ability or credibility to win this match? Real life character flaws don't come across to me as very relevant judging criteria. This is a wrestling match, not a “Mr. Congeniality” contest when John Cena is being discriminated against for having lady parts.
Sure, Cena's the consummate professional. I think that's the very reason he would be the guy to job out in this match. Supposing it was being booked, you said Cena's not leaving, he's a great spokesperson, a great worker, etc....Well, once again, isn't that why he would actually be booked to lose? After all, he'll be there down the road, he's a great worker, and he'll continue to be a great spokesperson for the WWE. It happened with The Rock, and Warrior is definitely up there or higher. I'm just sayin' there's plenty of reasonable doubt to Cena winning if this was being legitimately booked, and I don't think the character flaws of Jim Helwig really change the situation for the character of The Ultimate Warrior as you've suggested.
In all fairnes “if wishes were fishes”. If Ultimate Warrior worked the schedule Cena did, it's just as easy to conclude that he would have been every bit as dominant as he was with the schedule he did work. Why would their habits of booking him the way they did change just because he was more active in the ring? They seemed to have a pretty good bead on how often they thought someone should go over Warrior, and it was far less than just about anyone you can think to name. It stands true that this guy was never beaten clean, never beaten by another face, and only beaten with dirty heel tactics involving interference and foreign objects.
Now consider that in reference to my argument earlier regarding that very subject.
I'll refer you back to WrestleMania 28 where Cena lost clean to The Rock. It's fair to say that Warrior is at least as big as The Rock, making it also fair to say that Warrior would probably go over, being in the same situation. This isn't a match to determine who the face of the company is either, just who would move on in a tournament, so I don't think that really holds water either.
I'll also note, while John Cena has more....everything to his resume due to the highly increased schedule and his long tenure in the WWE, there's something else that's come with that. Bigger Loses and More of Them. You can say Warrior hasn't won 10 WWE Championships, but you can't say that Warrior was ever thrown through a spot light, or put in a car that was then lit in fire, or beaten the crap out of like Cena was by Brock Lesnar, etc... I think that's the kind of dominance that people are really referring to when they think of Warrior being so dominant. That's not to dismiss the stuff with Undertaker, Jake Roberts, and Papa Shango as if they didn't seriously fuck with The Ultimate Warrior, but in matches Warrior never really got dominated and beat to shit like Cena either, and I think that definitely weighs on the outcome of this match going more in favor of Warrior.
I hit on this earlier. I don't think it was an issue of Warrior not being able to carry the ball. I think it was more an issue of people not being as invested in him going against the competition that he had. Ironically it wasn't until almost a year later as well, after they jumped the gun and took the title off of him, that he did get involved in a really big feud with Savage? Granted that came about as a result of an incident in the match that he lost the title, but the whole thing just as easily could have happened without Warrior losing the title and facing Mach at Mania for the title vs Retirement. Slaughter could have still worked his program with Hogan which could have been just as big without the title. I would say it WAS a booking mistake and while Warrior as champion wasn't as big as when he got the title, I don't think it was entirely HIS fault. Hogan was the biggest opponent he could have had at the time, and after he beat him, what do you suppose was going to happen? People weren't buying that Rude, or Haku, or Mr. Perfect were going to be a match to him, he beat Hogan. Why would they? You see what I mean? I don't think it was very much his fault in terms of not being able to carry the ball.
FunKay the Inevitable
People Like Me, We Don't Play
I see, so you can have Mr. Perfect on your list who was in essence a career midcarder and I cant have Mysterio whos a three time world champion because hes 56? Interesting, interesting. You also ignored Triple H, missed the fact that Cena's not going to be treated as a face in Madison Square Garden, tried to make the correlation that Cena is this generation's Hogan, which is only partially correct and have failed to notice that Warrior, after his stint at the top ultimately means very little to wrestling. Oh and youre also allowed to have Andre who could barely walk and I cant have Bobby Lashley who was getting the biggest push in many a year. Oh and you said Warrior was superior to a 42 year old Shawn Michaels? Well for one he was 41 at Mania 23 and I think most would consider that complete and utter rubbish.
Actually, BigSexy (and UltimateHitman later) was. He was essentially saying to forget all of those things Cena has done, and focus only on Cena's win/loss record against face wrestlers in big matches.
Actually, I'm not sure if I'd say that or not. Certainly, the mid 80s was more popular, but by the late 80s, early 90s, I'd almost say the wrestling fan base was roughly equal, but the WWE has SO much more mainstream acceptance than they had in 1990.
I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I'm just saying I'm not sure if you're right. But, even if you are, it wasn't Warrior who brought those fans to the dance, it was Hogan. Cena IS the one bringing them to the dance.
To clarify my last statement, I know Warrior was white hot and drawing in '89 and '90, but he didn't create the fanbase, Hogan did.
No, you cannot reach that conclusion at all, even if wrestling was more popular in '90, which I'm not sure I agree with.
When Ultimate Warrior got the title, business did not do well. Perhaps it was simply a cyclical decline, but it was still a decline. It's one of the reasons Hogan came back so quickly. Second of all, while their financial statements from the period have never been released to my knowledge, I'd say there's no way the WWE was more profitable then than they have been with Cena. These days the WWE gets compensation for their weekly TV shows, they draw significant PPV money each month, Wrestlemania is a FAR bigger deal now than it was then, merchandising in 1990 wasn't a fraction of what it is now, etc. Again, it's impossible to say for sure, but I'd be VERY surprised if the WWE's profits came close to what they've done under Cena.
Many people don't know this, but the pro wrestling side of the WWE's business has performed TREMENDOUSLY under John Cena, even as the country and world has been hit with devastating recession and very slow recovery.
I would say it means much more today to be at the top than it did in 1990. Being at the top today is not only about how many tickets you sell. It's also how much merchandise you can move, how you appear in front of a TV every week, what you're able to do marketing wise for the company, etc.
Warrior was never the top guy in the WWF. He was given the chance to be, but he came up short, and that's why the title went back to Hogan so quickly.
It's impressive, no doubt. But not as impressive as 12 world titles. Yes, I'm aware world champion is considered more watered down these days because of two titles, but you cannot forget the World Champion appears every week on live television, and wrestles two or three times a month in front of a nationwide audience. Ultimate Warrior didn't have to do that.
Warrior's run to the title is not as impressive as what Cena has done after winning the title.
Which I feel makes what Cena has done so impressive. With Warrior, it was a special treat to see him wrestle, because he did it so rarely where you could watch. Every Monday night, you can see John Cena for free from your living room. The fact Cena has accomplished what he's accomplished I think speaks far more highly of him than what Warrior accomplished.
I don't know why that would be. If we were talking about the difference in Warrior and someone like Mysterio, you might have a point, but John Cena has worked himself to a position ABOVE where Warrior was. Both men reached the pinnacle of the mountain, but I don't see why Warrior's pinnacle was any harder to reach than Cena's. But whereas Warrior touched the top of the mountain and took a free-fall leap back to the bottom, Cena has stayed atop the mountain for 7 years, a feat made all the more impressive considering the exposure he has every single week.
Titles have always been a prop. They are used to signify to fans who should be considered the "best". But Cena has evolved to the point where he's always "the best" if he has a title or not. So while I understand what you're saying, I don't think this argument has any merit due to what Cena has accomplished.
I'm not saying it should count against him, so much as I'm saying Cena's work in the different era shouldn't count against him. People are making the argument that Warrior never lost. Well, of course he never lost, he wrestled 2 singles matches a year in front of a live audience. Had Warrior come along in 2002, he would lose just as much as Cena or Orton or anyone else does.
I understand what you're saying about the different eras, but I think the change in eras supports what Cena has done far more than it does what Warrior has done.
I don't believe I've seen it, or if I have, it's been so long ago I don't remember it. I did not say those things because of the Self-Destruction, I say them because of all the rants he's had over the years, the holding up Summerslam '91 for more money, the speech he gave at the University of Connecticut, etc.
It's relevant in the fact that if the WWE has to choose someone to be their top guy, they are going to choose someone who will represent them in a positive manner, not a negative manner. Big Sexy said the WWE would book Warrior over Cena, but that is simply not true, for the reasons I mentioned about each man's character.
No. This is a tournament, and there are several matches on the card. If Warrior threatens to walk away, what does the booker care? He has several other matches on the card, Warrior wasn't going to be around for the next round anyway, and it would only re-affirm you decision to have Cena win.
What happened at Summerslam '91 is different than what happens here. Warrior was part of THE drawing match of the show. Hogan and Warrior teaming together sold the show, if Warrior wasn't there, fans would be outraged. But Cena vs. Warrior is not the sole draw to this show. If Warrior doesn't show, big deal.
No, just no. Warrior is no where near the level of the Rock, in any way. First of all, Rock WOULD have been willing to take the loss, or so I would imagine based upon his history. Second of all, the WWE wants Rock to stay around because he draws business to their show, not from wrestling fans, but from other fans. Rock is a movie star, with name recognition all over the country. Ultimate Warrior is a painted up freak (referring to his character, though it aptly applies to the person as well, I suppose) with no name recognition outside of pro wrestling.
Throw in the fact that Rock is one of the biggest draws in the history of wrestling, and Warrior is no where near his level.
For the same reason Cena eventually started getting beat. When Cena won the title at Wrestlemania 21, he was every bit as dominant as Warrior was. Cena won almost every match until New Year's Revolution, where he lost to Edge AFTER winning the Elimination Chamber. Cena then defeats Edge at Royal Rumble and keeps the title until ONS, where he only lost because Paul Heyman apparently has a magical referee license. Then Cena wins the title back from Edge in September, and holds the title for a full YEAR, where he ends up having to drop it because of injury.
Cena was EVERY bit as dominant as Warrior was...but Cena loses matches now. Why? Because eventually you have to lose matches in order to sell shows. People have to see you as vulnerable, if they are going to be willing to pay to see if you can overcome evil. The WWF would have had to make Warrior vulnerable, to see if he could overcome the challenge. It's easy to have Warrior win and still sell doubt when he's only wrestling 2 times a year in singles matches. It's much harder when he's working 12-14 times a year on PPV, and several other times on free tv.
Warrior would lose, just like anyone else in the WWE loses today.
I'm very aware of the difference, I just think that speaks more highly of Cena than the Warrior.
No, it's not fair to say that, because it's completely untrue. Just based on their wrestling resumes alone, Rock was a far bigger draw than Warrior. Throw in the fact he's now a movie start with national or even worldwide recognition, and Warrior is no where near the level of the Rock.
You keep looking at fans response leading up to Warrior's title win. You fail to look at fan response AFTER his title win. Warrior was not doing good business after he won the title. And, like I said, Warrior couldn't draw in the non-wrestling fans like Rock does.
If I'm deciding who to book for a win, I'll book the guy I can rely on every day instead of the guy I can never rely on.
Again, as I said, those things are the way the WWE creates more interest in John Cena matches. You cannot hold it against him, while simultaneously crediting Warrior for it. The fact of the matter is Warrior looked dominant in the ring because he only had to work in front of a national audience twice a year. Cena works in front of a worldwide audience every week.
Completely different situations. Cena would win here. He's a better worker, he's the face of the company in a way Warrior never was, he's a significant draw (I'd argue bigger than Warrior due to Cena's ability to sustain and not fizzle out), and Cena is dependable and reliable.
Cena would win, no matter how you try and stack the deck. Unless you want to talk about Warrior's 1-0 mark against top faces in singles main-events during his prime.
I am voting for Cena here. Not because it's better for business, not because of his loyalty, but because when strip away all of the bullshit, John Cena is flat out a better wrestler than the Ultimate Warrior ever was. Warrior was hyperpushed to the moon...but he had very little actual wrestling ability to fall back on. He was all power, nothing else. John Cena isn't booked as a power guy, but he could have been. We have seen John Cena perform the required feats of strength. John Cena is every bit as physically strong as the Ultimate Warrior, it's just not the focus of his persona. But, unlike the Warrior, John Cena has wrestling ability and stamina behind it. Warrior HAD to be booked to win quickly, because if the match went past 10 minutes, he got completely gassed, because while he looked great, had a tremendous physique, he didn't bother with the cardio to match the weight training. Now, a matchup like this is definitely going to last a while, and that favors Cena far more than it does Warrior. 20 minutes into a match like this, Cena still has plenty of gas left in the tank. If the match lasts 30 minutes, Warrior would have no chance in hell. Not against someone as resilient as Cena. Physically, the Ultimate Warrior is a one trick pony. Brute strength, with nothing else to rely on. Cena has the brute strength too (anyone think Cena couldn't do a gorilla press after seeing him deliver an FU to the Big Show?), but he can wrestle. He can play rough and bust you open, he can make you submit, and he can do all of that far longer into a match than the Ultimate Warrior could rely on his strength.
This is a battle of Power vs. Power/Ability/Endurance. John Cena is a more complete wrestler who can not only match the Ultimate Warrior's strength, but bring a lot more to the table as well.
This is a battle of Power vs. Power/Ability/Endurance. John Cena is a more complete wrestler who can not only match the Ultimate Warrior's strength, but bring a lot more to the table as well.
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
I went with Cena. I think that Warrior's single victory over Hogan has been blown out of proportion for the entire course of this thread. Sure, he defeated him but even that did not make Warrior the man in the WWF. Hogan feuded with the likes of Earthquake after he lost to Warrior and even took time off but for the entire duration remained much more popular than Warrior. Had Hogan faced Warrior again, I have no doubt that he would have been the winner. Warrior has a winning record over Hogan in WWF because Hogan was supposed to leave at that time and because they never faced each other again in WWF. I know people love to argue prime vs prime but Warrior's prime isn't too relevant to the industry, much less relevant than even that of Brock Lesnar and certainly nowhere comparable to Cena's prime. Cena has had title reigns as long as Warrior's prime. Warrior was like a blip on a radar
None of Warrior's other wins are as impressive. Warrior beat Savage whom almost everyone beat. It is almost equivalent to Cena's win over HBK. Warrior beat Undertaker much before his prime which is somewhat equivalent to Cena beating a Bobby Lashley or an Umaga. Who else do we have? Oh yeah, an old Andre whom Warrior jumped from the back. Cena has beaten superheavyweights like Big Show and Khali many times. Sure Andre, in his prime, was more popular and unbeatable but this is not his prime that we are talking about.
Apart from these "comparable" victories Cena has also beaten the who's who of the industry. Orton, Punk, Batista, Mysterio, Jericho, HHH and many more.
Oh yeah, and Cena does not need to pin Warrior either. I can totally buy Brain's finish happening with Cena tying the tassels of Warrior's dress onto the cage and escaping it for the win. Cena in kayfabe( and also in real life) is also smarter than Warrior and that must count here too.
None of Warrior's other wins are as impressive. Warrior beat Savage whom almost everyone beat. It is almost equivalent to Cena's win over HBK. Warrior beat Undertaker much before his prime which is somewhat equivalent to Cena beating a Bobby Lashley or an Umaga. Who else do we have? Oh yeah, an old Andre whom Warrior jumped from the back. Cena has beaten superheavyweights like Big Show and Khali many times. Sure Andre, in his prime, was more popular and unbeatable but this is not his prime that we are talking about.
Apart from these "comparable" victories Cena has also beaten the who's who of the industry. Orton, Punk, Batista, Mysterio, Jericho, HHH and many more.
Oh yeah, and Cena does not need to pin Warrior either. I can totally buy Brain's finish happening with Cena tying the tassels of Warrior's dress onto the cage and escaping it for the win. Cena in kayfabe( and also in real life) is also smarter than Warrior and that must count here too.
Is this lot actually true or what? You have to understand, I find the financial side of pro-wrestling about as interesting as watching paint dry on grass, so I just assumed that Hogan was brought back to face Slaughter because Hogan typifies the "Real American" whereas Warrior typifies the "Loony Bastard." I just figured that Hogan was brought back to give the Americans their America>Iraq moment, while Warrior busied himself by retiring Savage.
Are there numbers to back this up? I wouldnt ask here if I hadnt of looked myself. He was still booked roughly in the main event, he wrestled Savage for the Title again when he came back after all, winning by count out.
People have used the Warrior gets gassed argument every year, I didnt buy it then and I dont buy it now, I'll buy an argument that John Cena is fitter, he works more dates after all, if that sort of thing is even important, but I cant really find evidence of Warrior gassing after only ten minutes, certainly not during his original run.
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
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!
Here are the stats
THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR
Type Win % Draw % Loss %
PPV 17 (80.95%) 0 (0.00%) 4 (19.05%)
Non-PPV 113 (89.68%) 2 (1.59%) 11 (8.73%)
(more matches documented than Lesnar)
The HIGHEST WIN PERCENTAGE OF ALL TIME. ALL TIME.
He beat everyone. He was Vince's go-to-guy after the Hulkster. He was the 2nd biggest star of wrestling's best ever period, its Golden Era.
Vince makes a propaganda video on the Warrior, and now, all of a sudden, he's 'worthless,' he 'can't work,' he can't put on a good match blah blah blah.
Fact is, once the Warrior's music hit the roof came of the building. Every single time. And he always won.
But, because most people who are voting are too young to have experienced the Warrior's greatness and are too influenced by Vince's propaganda video, Cena is going to take this one.
Also worth noting, The Ultimate Warrior would have the crowd in this match. Just like CM Punk did and just like the Rock did. Who won those matches? Thank You
Here are the stats
THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR
Type Win % Draw % Loss %
PPV 17 (80.95%) 0 (0.00%) 4 (19.05%)
Non-PPV 113 (89.68%) 2 (1.59%) 11 (8.73%)
(more matches documented than Lesnar)
The HIGHEST WIN PERCENTAGE OF ALL TIME. ALL TIME.
He beat everyone. He was Vince's go-to-guy after the Hulkster. He was the 2nd biggest star of wrestling's best ever period, its Golden Era.
Vince makes a propaganda video on the Warrior, and now, all of a sudden, he's 'worthless,' he 'can't work,' he can't put on a good match blah blah blah.
Fact is, once the Warrior's music hit the roof came of the building. Every single time. And he always won.
But, because most people who are voting are too young to have experienced the Warrior's greatness and are too influenced by Vince's propaganda video, Cena is going to take this one.
Also worth noting, The Ultimate Warrior would have the crowd in this match. Just like CM Punk did and just like the Rock did. Who won those matches? Thank You
What is it like posting ignorantly in the thread, while bashing everyone in it? I'm curious, because you seem to have experience with doing so.
If you had paid attention in the thread, you would see where everything you mentioned was refuted with a little bit of common sense. Furthermore, I WAS old enough to watch Warrior, haven't seen the DVD (or don't remember it if I did) and you are completely blind if you think Warrior would get cheered over John Cena in this day and age.
Cena is hardly "jobber to the stars", I don't believe you even know what that means. Seriously, do you know what a jobber is? If you did, you'd understand why you sound silly.
John Cena would win this match. He's a better worker, better draw, better company guy, and he's beaten just about every main-eventer in the WWE since he got there. Warrior's win/loss record where you may have found that, is roughly equivalent to what John Cena does in 9 months.
You really should read a thread before posting in it.
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
'better worker,' 'better company guy' - this means nothing.
The Ultimate Warrior has never lost clean.
The Ultimate Warrior has never lost clean.
The Ultimate Warrior has never lost clean.
How many times do I have to say it....
So Cena, for the first time ever, is going to beat the Warrior clean. And in the 3rd round no less.
The Ultimate Warrior has never lost clean.
The Ultimate Warrior has never lost clean.
The Ultimate Warrior has never lost clean.
How many times do I have to say it....
So Cena, for the first time ever, is going to beat the Warrior clean. And in the 3rd round no less.
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
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
......except that, when Hogan was leaving for the 2nd time, Warrior was acquired specifically for the main event picture. They brought him back to main event despite all the problems they had with him. Of course this didn't pan out because Warrior was a head case and wanted too much money.
also, those attendance stats just show that Hogan was that big of a draw compared to everyone else. Warrior was on the card with Slaughter and probably Flair too. He was a big draw (not as big as Hulk). Why else would WWF attempt to take him back to main event for a 2nd time with the Hogan's 2nd departure. Why else?
All they had left was Randy Savage. That was the only guy that was a proven face draw left on the roster. Vince had no one, so he gambled on Warrior. And, might I add, Warrior never did get a run with the title his second go round, did he? You can point to him being a headcase, but there was definitely an aspect to it that Warrior simply wasn't a draw. Warrior was brought back because they didn't have any other options, plain and simple.
This was also modest numbers for Hogan. Remember, he set the majority of his records in 86. Hogan was a great draw, but there was a reason Vince was looking for a replacement; Hogan wasn't doing his old numbers, and Vince saw it as a sign that he needed someone new. Warrior was picked, and they gave him a shove.
You can argue all you want, but there's a reason the numbers are lower with Warrior on top. Something you've yet to address
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
I'm pretty sure that Warrior's house show numbers are better than Cena's.
Warrior was a draw. Why else would Vince make a propaganda DVD against Warrior? Because he sells!
If you insist on continuing down this road...
Meltzer created a list of the too 54 draws in the history of the WWE. Surely you won't mind using this list, unless you'd like to argue the Dingo Warrior drew. Cena ranks in at 16th all time for WWE, right above Kurt Angle and below Savage.
Warrior? He ranks in at 24th, tied with Randy Orton and Batista, who no one will argue are wonderful draws. The point being, yes, Cena's actually been the better draw throughout his career.
Oh, and there's a reason why Vince made his DVD; because people wanted to hear why he left. Now, it turned out to be slanted, but in tue grand scheme of things, Warrior was a nutcase, and while he was over, he didn't draw all that much money
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
So according to this one guy's list (and the validity of this list is in serious doubt), Warrior was 24th to Cena's 16th - Drawing wise. Hardly a big difference. (Also, I'm surprised Cena is that low)
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.
Everyone is knocking the Warrior, but the fact is..
he was a draw
he was booked as UNBEATABLE
the crowd loved this guy
he had entertaining matches
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
ok. so i looked at that list. it's BS.
it is based on, amongst other criteria, length of career. Triple H is 5 on the list because of the length of his career (higher than the Rock and Austin). Does anyone actually believe that HHH is a bigger draw than Austin or the Rock? No way in hell.
And the Warrior at #24 with just 4-5 years in the business is impressive.
it is based on, amongst other criteria, length of career. Triple H is 5 on the list because of the length of his career (higher than the Rock and Austin). Does anyone actually believe that HHH is a bigger draw than Austin or the Rock? No way in hell.
And the Warrior at #24 with just 4-5 years in the business is impressive.
Why's it in so much doubt again? The WWE will make this info open to the public; this isn't like top secret information.
So let me get this straight; now that the facts don't benefit you, let's scurry away from them, and never deal with them again? I don't know if you are getting what I'm telling you, but Warrior was never a draw. Never. Once. A. Draw. And what's more, I have brought facts and stats to the table... And you're bringing what, exactly? Not once have I heard you use facts, other than this wins-losses shit. If that's your argument, fine; you asked for proof of Warrior not being a draw, I provided it, and now you're running as fast as you can away from the facts.
I'll tell you what; when you can actually prove Warrior was a draw get back to me. Yes, people loved Warrior; apparently, they didn't love him enough to buy tickets, though. Yes, he won a lot; he never did anything with those wins, in terms of drawing an audience. And yes, he's had good matches; he's also had some clunkers, and when he wasn't carried by a better worker, he was absolute shite
And why does career length not count? Warrior's a fuck up, and didn't last long in the WWE. If we're counting the best wrestlers, I want someone with longevity. Cena has it, Warrior hasn't.
Again, prove to me he was a draw; I've given al the data so far. If ou actually want to provide something to the table, feel free to do so. Until then, stop gasbagging
steve_smith
Occasional Pre-Show
What you are saying is absolute bullshit.
Warrior's house show numbers are better than Cena's. LOL.
So WTF are you going on about. Cena's house show #s in 2010 were between 3000-5000 at the gate. Warrior wins. LOL.
"WWE runs over 300 events per year. Actually, the average attendance for a WWE live event in 2010 was lower than that of the WNBA and Major League Soccer. On a per-event basis, WWE was behind the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL WNBA, UFL and the Pacific Coast League minor league baseball system. Based on the same criteria, WWE is only slightly ahead of the AHL and Major League Lacrosse."- yardbarker
Yep, Cena is so much more of a draw than the Warrior. WTF.
since Warrior was booked as unbeatable,being more of a draw is the only criteria that Cena has over Warrior and it's close.
im done. keep inaccurately knocking Warrior all you want. i couldn't give a shit. He was one of the most popular wrestlers of the late 80s back in wrestling's glory days. good luck trying to rewrite history.
Tag, I'm in! Pippa has been absolutely decimating you steve. You should have given up.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll