John Cena is bigger than The Rock and Stone Cold

[PunkStep]

Longer definitely doesn't automatically mean better.

 

Dan Severn had the third longest NWA World Heavyweight Championship reign in history.

[darkship]

The Rock had 50 bentley's in the West Indies at one point.

 

It doesn't matter, nor does it even if he just bought a fresh Bentley.

[Loligan]

To draw the 'longevity' analogy, here is the biggest star UK television has ever had.

 

 

Cena is at a level above Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels (although had either been seriously active in WWE during the attitude era, it may be a different case. Michaels in particular shows the worst timing in history in terms of missing booms), but he's not at the level of Austin, Hogan or Rock. Longevity is only seriously important if it's beating other people who are at similar levels.

 

I don't dislike Cena, but in some ways, he's had very fortuitous timing in terms of not having anyone who could actually challenge him in the top spot. The closest there's been until Punk's recent rise (and that remains to be seen) is...Randy Orton. Who excites, basically, nobody.

 

I actually agree. William Roach has been revered as a legend for years. Everyone in the UK knows Ken Barlow.

 

I dunno about Cena though. In a way I see your point about nobody challenging him but at the same time, Batista evolved at exactly the same time as Cena and Orton wasn't far behind. He has been consistantly better than both IMO, but I think he's more fortunate that WWE is split over 2 brands. Had they all been on the same show I dunno if it would appear so unopposed for Cena.

[Chris B]

I actually agree. William Roach has been revered as a legend for years. Everyone in the UK knows Ken Barlow.

 

I dunno about Cena though. In a way I see your point about nobody challenging him but at the same time, Batista evolved at exactly the same time as Cena and Orton wasn't far behind. He has been consistantly better than both IMO, but I think he's more fortunate that WWE is split over 2 brands. Had they all been on the same show I dunno if it would appear so unopposed for Cena.

 

That's a REALLY good point.

[Astro Hollywood]

If only Cena had even half the charm of Ken Barlow, he'd be doing far better.

 

He's not even as good a rapper

 

[Carbomb]

There was potential for Orton to surpass Cena back when they ran THAT angle with the McMahons, but that got fucked up pretty quickly. Shane McMahon should never be allowed anywhere near ANYONE. Not even his wife.

[The Miz]

Ken Barlow is like Cena in the fact every time someone fucks him over, the next episode he is back on screen laughing and acting badly.

[Chris B]

Cena has a remarkable ability to be as good as his opponents. He's not really capable of carrying someone, but he's capable of upping his game to match whoever he's with.

 

He's able to have good matches with lesser opponents, but not to the level of some. At the same time, only the CM Punk match, for me, has really made him look THAT great.

 

I disagree with those that say he's crap. But I also disagree with those that say he's really, really good.

[wandshogun09]

There was potential for Orton to surpass Cena back when they ran THAT angle with the McMahons, but that got fucked up pretty quickly. Shane McMahon should never be allowed anywhere near ANYONE. Not even his wife.

 

Didn't Shane O try it on with Bret's wife in the 90s not knowing who she was? Think that was in Bret's book.

 

And yeah I think you can't put anyone ahead of Hogan when it comes to star power and being known worldwide. The amount of time he was on top combined with the money he drew and the fame he reached will never be topped in my opinion. Literally everyone knows Hulk Hogan. Like Muhammad Ali in boxing, the circumstances that lead to him becoming massive in boxing and the impact he had on the sport is something no-one will be able to repeat. Hogan's the same, his 80s title reigns and being such a big part of the success of the early Wrestlemanias is something no-one else can really top. You could say WWE as it is now was pretty much built from Hogan's success in many ways. He was at least a massive part of why the company became so successful.

 

Like Pity said, it's hard to beat the nostalgia of the Hogan, Rock and Austin eras for me. Saying that, to my nephew Cena is the be all end all of wrestlers. He fucking loves him, the way he is when Cena is on is how I imagine I was when Hogan, Warrior, Austin or Rock were doing their shit in the 80s/90s. Cena vs Punk was his Hogan vs Warrior.

[Lawz]

Cena has a remarkable ability to be as good as his opponents. He's not really capable of carrying someone, but he's capable of upping his game to match whoever he's with.

 

He's able to have good matches with lesser opponents, but not to the level of some. At the same time, only the CM Punk match, for me, has really made him look THAT great.

 

I disagree with those that say he's crap. But I also disagree with those that say he's really, really good.

 

This for me, I look at Cena as this generations Ultimate Warrior, stick him in there with anyone but someone who's a ring general and he's uninteresting and clumsy. But stick him in there with a Punk/Michaels like Warrior had with Savage etc and they look instantly better despite still being clumsy as fuck half the time.

 

As for the whole is John Cena bigger then The Rock and Stone Cold, the clear answer is no. Because if he was, wrestling would be as cool as it was when they were around. He's the most marketed star in a very very average era of wrestling. Drop him in with Hogan's era or Rock/Austin's era and I think he'd of never of gotten past midcard at best. Back in the late 90s, guys like Road Dogg were super fucking over, they only hope they had a midcard that the fans cared about today.

[Carbomb]

Can't really agree that he's not capable of carrying - his matches with Lashley and Khali would suggest otherwise.

[wandshogun09]

Don't think I saw Cena vs Khali but that Cena vs Lashley match was shockingly good. Never thought much of Lashley in WWE and that was the only match I ever really enjoyed of his.

[King Pitcos]

This for me, I look at Cena as this generations Ultimate Warrior, stick him in there with anyone but someone who's a ring general and he's uninteresting and clumsy. But stick him in there with a Punk/Michaels like Warrior had with Savage etc and they look instantly better despite still being clumsy as fuck half the time.

Well that's a load of bollocks. Cena's had tremendous matches with loads of opponents, from your newsletter-approved workrate heroes to the polar opposite. Michaels, Punk, Triple H, Edge, Jericho, Batista, JBL, Batista, Bobby Lashley, even Great Khali. He's had boring, rubbish matches with most of those opponents as well, plus others who should have been able to "carry" him to great bouts (like Kurt Angle). JC's back catalogue's got a lot of shit in it, but a lot of gold too.

 

Don't think I saw Cena vs Khali but that Cena vs Lashley match was shockingly good. Never thought much of Lashley in WWE and that was the only match I ever really enjoyed of his.

Aye, it was. It had a shit build-up as well, and I wasn't expecting anything good from it. But it was one of the best matches that year, an absolute revelation. Lashley got injured right after that and fucked off, but that's the only match he ever had that I'd look at and think he might have become something.

 

For the giggles, which wrestlers would everyone list as bigger stars than Cena? Apart from the legitimate three, I can see tenuous cases being made for some of the attitude era names (Undertaker, Mankind, Triple H etc), some of the Hogan era names (Warrior, Savage, Jake, Andre etc), and some jokers plumping for Flair/Lesnar/Michaels/Bret.

[Carbomb]

I'd say maybe Undertaker now, but only in terms of his standing as the fans see it - he's beyond any belts now, and when you've reached a level where the main event of the world's biggest wrestling could just as easily be a non-title match involving yourself as it could be any World title match, you've got to be considered big.

 

I don't see why it'd be a joke naming Flair or Michaels as arguable candidates for that list, though - Flair was a massive name in wrestling for twenty years, and people still recognise him to the point where EVERYBODY "wooos" when a chop is landed, no matter who's hitting it. Much as I preferred Bret to Michaels, it cannot be denied that Michaels had more longevity, and has, more pertinent to this discussion, had more iconic moments and unforgettable matches/feuds than the vast majority of wrestlers around, and I'd say that could include Cena.

[King Pitcos]

Flair is a massive name in wrestling, but I doubt there'd ever have been a time when many non-fans of any age would say "Ric Flair" if asked to name five wrestlers. If you went to a school in September and asked kids to name a wrestler, two things would happen: One, most of them would say John Cena. Two, you'd get arrested for hanging round playgrounds asking dodgy questions.

 

Flair was never the top wrestler in a global company -- the closest to that was his WWF title reign in 1992, and that amounted to one pay-per-view where he lost the title in the midcard. I don't think he was ever on the pencil cases and bedspreads. As he wouldn't be, usually being the heel, but that's how it goes. Triple H wasn't as big a star as Rock or Austin in 2000, either.

 

Even in WCW's boom, Flair was nowhere near the poster boy. All the WCW merchandise was Goldberg, Sting and the NWO. Flair's like Michaels and Hart. He means a lot to a loads of longterm wrestling fans, but doesn't ring much of a bell with anyone else. In terms of fame, he's nowhere near on par with Hogan, Rock, Austin and Cena. Nor even the likes of Macho Man and Warrior, I'd wager.