Where Does John Cena Rank Among The WWE/Wrestling Greats?

[Sheppy]

He’s too boxy and not very athletic or agile. He’s not like Roman who has the agility and athletic ability to be smoother in his movement (to compare two top guys of a similar elk). But at least he tried, and he had the psychology down to get the fans hooked.

I would also say that Roman's selling was much better, too.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And that leads us to Psychology vs Athletic Ability and what is more important.

For wrestling, I feel that psychology is more important than pure athletic ability but as it relates to Cena, I think his use of it is overstated by some. He doesn't exactly suck you in. The guy he's with against what Cena means in totality is often what sucks one in. What Cena means in totality is more the machine than Cena himself. I think if you put Cena into any other era, he would not improve said era nor adequately replace anyone at the top at the time and he would probably filter to the upper midcard/main event but not the draw like Undertaker was for most of his career.

 

[Cor]

For wrestling, I feel that psychology is more important than pure athletic ability but as it relates to Cena, I think his use of it is overstated by some. He doesn't exactly suck you in. The guy he's with against what Cena means in totality is often what sucks one in. What Cena means in totality is more the machine than Cena himself. I think if you put Cena into any other era, he would not improve said era nor adequately replace anyone at the top at the time and he would probably filter to the upper midcard/main event but not the draw like Undertaker was for most of his career.

I mean, I feel like that can said for most psychological driven wrestlers.

If Undertaker never happened, and on Monday, he debuted, would it go as well as it did? I don't think so, because these days, there's no Kayfabe, and the character wouldn't get over as much as it did.

You take Fruit Loops, PG John Cena and put him into the Attitude Era, and yeah, it's probably not as effective.

Guys like HBK, and Bret Hart would be able to translate to other eras better because they are about their ability, and not so much a "persona".

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I mean, I feel like that can said for most psychological driven wrestlers.

If Undertaker never happened, and on Monday, he debuted, would it go as well as it did? I don't think so, because these days, there's no Kayfabe, and the character wouldn't get over as much as it did.

You take Fruit Loops, PG John Cena and put him into the Attitude Era, and yeah, it's probably not as effective.

Guys like HBK, and Bret Hart would be able to translate to other eras better because they are about their ability, and not so much a "persona".

I'm not necessarily talking about taking his character as-is into another era. More just the talent within the performer itself and let him develop a character suitable to the times. I think Cena would still be successful because he has talent to get to that level regardless of era. I just don't think he'd ever be the man in any other era. I also don't think that his talent was at all game-changing in any real way. Still a great talent but we're talking about the elite of wrestling's history and I just don't think he compares to them. He had a look and can talk but was his talking all that much of an influence on his era and the industry in total? I wouldn't say so.

 

[Disclose]

So what are your qualifications of the best wrestlers then??

Because he's one the best technical wrestlers of all time

i mean its simply personal.
my top ten always starts with Ric Flair at 1 and Taker at 2.
they might be the complete opposites as far as two wrestlers go.... i dont know what my criteria is except impressing me inside and outside the ring.
you'll be scared of taker. while you'll want to punch ric in the flair for running his mouth.

in this scenario i would always chose Owen over Bret because Bret was really good in the ring but thats it for me. His brother was as good and way more of a fun character and even story line chasing his brother's success.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

I would also say that Roman's selling was much better, too.

Roman is better than Cena in the ring, flat out. Cena has the psychology down, but Roman is better at everything else in the ring imo.

I think, personally, now that Roman is away and people look at it in the bigger picture — his 2018 was awful because he was mostly working with Lesnar, but he’s had quality matches every year before that, more so than Cena was having in his run on top.

 

[TD Charlie]

Assuming we're talking from the Hogan era onward (as it was a very different world before then).


Cena is the biggest star of his era, but a smaller star than the biggest stars of past eras. He's still top five at worst. Hogan, Austin, and Rock all clearly above him. You can make an argument for Undertaker over Cena, but I'd go with Cena.


The next tier you have guys like Bret, Michaels, Savage, and maybe half a tier below that you get a Jericho and HHH tier.

Nailed it. Top to bottom. I sneak Flair in the conversation with Taker and Cena, but I actually put Flair just below them.

 

[bobholly39]

Hogan/Rock/Austin are always going to be top 3 (starting from Hogan's era - it's too different before that).

I think Cena is #4.

His work ethic is not only commendable but an all-time great #1 and I think that should matter. Being "the guy" for so long is crazy. Austin only lasted a couple of years at the top, Rock too. Hogan did last longer but he had a lot of ups and downs, a lot of breaks, and there was especially a lot less tv/ppv's back then so harder to get overexposed.

So yeah - Cena #4.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't see how Cena was particularly good at ring psychology. It's better than his horrid execution and selling (arguably part of psychology) but this is the guy who buried the Nexus with a single horrible match and who would randomly act like a heel in some matches and then otherwise carry on like the whitest meat babyface imaginable. His matches didn't come off as especially logical (how many times was a limb worked over only for him to ignore it in the conclusion of a match) and he didn't build to bigger and better reactions throughout his matches for the most part.

I find Cena like wrestling's version of Stockhold Syndrome. He stuck around long enough that a fair number of people talked themselves into him while most other fans just stopped watching.

The comment about Reigns and Cena regarding athletic ability is good. Reigns is far less awkward than Cena and it shows in his execution and selling. He has some of Cena's bad traits when it comes to psychology though, though perhaps that's what WWE wants in the end. Cena is a much better talker though.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

As morbid as it sounds, Reigns was always looked at negatively because of his push.

I think when he comes back in addition to his time away fighting leukemia, people will appreciate him more and start giving him his due, because the fact is Cena is only better than him on the mic (in terms of actual performance, not business wise, although Reigns did move the most merch too recently).

Time away always makes the heart grow fonder, just like in 2015 when fans were chanting “we want Cena” towards Roman.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Somewhere in the 5 - 10 range. Cena is clearly behind (in no particular order) Hogan, Austin, Rock, Bruno, Taker, and I would have him behind HBK, and Bret Hart as well. And Flair and Andre if you count non-WWE/F American wrestling (ie, NWA/WCW).

 

[Merci Saku]

i mean its simply personal.
my top ten always starts with Ric Flair at 1 and Taker at 2.
they might be the complete opposites as far as two wrestlers go.... i dont know what my criteria is except impressing me inside and outside the ring.
you'll be scared of taker. while you'll want to punch ric in the flair for running his mouth.

in this scenario i would always chose Owen over Bret because Bret was really good in the ring but thats it for me. His brother was as good and way more of a fun character and even story line chasing his brother's success.

Fair enough,

you didn't find the Hart Foundation Era entertaining? Bret was excellent a the leader of that faction. He showed me a different side of him rather than just the pure wrestler

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

And that leads us to Psychology vs Athletic Ability and what is more important.

Taker and Cena for example aren't the best pure wrestlers in the world, but they knew how the psychology of a match works and can work the crowd during matches like no one else.

I think that UT had an easier time with it because of his character. He was basically a big man that stalked his opponent and rarely sold because he was dead.

Even when he lost, he basically beat the hell out of his opponent.

With Cena its different with his character, because he was suppossed to be that plucky never give up guy, that's why they gave him the Hulk Hogan big book of basic wrestling. Take a beating make the quick comeback and win.

I guess the question that I have is this, did anyone ever come out of a feud with UT looking strong? Iremember when they had Jeff Hardy go over the undertaker but it was basically a 15 minute ungodly beatdown.

I think in terms of pure story telling and psychology UT always had it fairly easy. When you look at the psychology of a Bret, or Owen, or Angle or Shawn. Undertaker doesn't really compare. He's basically a Diesel that was a bit more generous with his opponents.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

Fair enough,

you didn't find the Hart Foundation Era entertaining? Bret was excellent a the leader of that faction. He showed me a different side of him rather than just the pure wrestler

Especially when he called one city a toilet that needed and enema. Basically Bret was amazing when he played the heel in the US and the face everywhere else. People forget that for all of his years as a baby face, he was a natural heel.

His mic work as a heel was better then his mic work as a face.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I think that UT had an easier time with it because of his character. He was basically a big man that stalked his opponent and rarely sold because he was dead.

Even when he lost, he basically beat the hell out of his opponent.

With Cena its different with his character, because he was suppossed to be that plucky never give up guy, that's why they gave him the Hulk Hogan big book of basic wrestling. Take a beating make the quick comeback and win.

I guess the question that I have is this, did anyone ever come out of a feud with UT looking strong? Iremember when they had Jeff Hardy go over the undertaker but it was basically a 15 minute ungodly beatdown.

I think in terms of pure story telling and psychology UT always had it fairly easy. When you look at the psychology of a Bret, or Owen, or Angle or Shawn. Undertaker doesn't really compare. He's basically a Diesel that was a bit more generous with his opponents.

Taker made far more people than he squashed.

Yokozuna, Mankind, Kane, Cena, Big Show, Brock, Batista, Edge, Orton...

All of them had their first major storyline as main eventers or the one to make them main eventers with Taker. He was the one that the next young star learned from and got a push from.

Established stars also had feuds with Taker and came out strong or even on top...Austin, HBK, HHH

 

[Disclose]

Fair enough,

you didn't find the Hart Foundation Era entertaining? Bret was excellent a the leader of that faction. He showed me a different side of him rather than just the pure wrestler

i did. but thats because i personally love heel wrestlers.
nothing against him. i will not argue that Brett was bad, ever. i would just not put him in my top 10.
Cena for me is a no brainer. i liked him more than i ever liked Brett.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

Taker made far more people than he squashed.

Yokozuna, Mankind, Kane, Cena, Big Show, Brock, Batista, Edge, Orton...

All of them had their first major storyline as main eventers or the one to make them main eventers with Taker. He was the one that the next young star learned from and got a push from.

Established stars also had feuds with Taker and came out strong or even on top...Austin, HBK, HHH

Valid points, out of those I'd really give you Edge, probably Brock and Batista.

Yoko I don't think was ever really made, he was designed as the monster who was fed to however was needed to go over, it was the Hulk Hogan King Kong Bundy playbook played over and over again.

With Mankind, I would argue that it was mankind and his crash test style more then anything that Taker ever did.

Kane didn't really come out of his fued with Taker being more over, I would argue that his tag team alliance with X-Pac more then anything else.

Cena, sure, but Cena was already starting to see his immense ruthless aggression push.

Big Show sure, absolutely.

Brock, absolutely his win over Taker at Wrestlemania was huge for his career, but that took sacrificing the streak, and in hind sight it might have been a wasted thing as Brock was already at the top of the card.

Batista yeah I can see it.

Edge - I would argue that the transition from weird Gothic guy to the whole Lita love triangle to the Rated R superstar character more then any one feud or match that launched him into the stratosphere.

Orton - Sure but really did it give him that much of a bump?


With the established ones that you mention, I don't know if he really had a big effect on HHH, HBK or Austin, I would argue that he was the King Kong Bundy of those feuds, but his rub meant very little to their career trajectories.


The one that you forgot though was that Taker was invaluable to the HBK Bret feud when Bret was a heel, with the spit heard around the world, and the Bret Taker mini feud.

 

[DaaaaB's]

i mean its simply personal.
my top ten always starts with Ric Flair at 1 and Taker at 2.
they might be the complete opposites as far as two wrestlers go.... i dont know what my criteria is except impressing me inside and outside the ring.
you'll be scared of taker. while you'll want to punch ric in the flair for running his mouth.

in this scenario i would always chose Owen over Bret because Bret was really good in the ring but thats it for me. His brother was as good and way more of a fun character and even story line chasing his brother's success.

Bret Hart could wrestle circles around Ric Flair. And Flair was damn good. Have any of you guys actually watched Bret wrestle when he was in his prime talent wise (80's). His matches with Dynamite Kid and Tiger Mask are some of the best matches pro wrestling has ever seen. Owen was super talented too but didnt have the in ring psychology down like Bret did.

Bret Hart was also the biggest draw Vince had on the 90s by far. Until Stone Cold came along that is.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Undertaker most definitely did not make Edge.

 

[Reality Check]

I still found him whack when it was cool to like him on Smackdown as Vanilla Ice 2.0

The man was PR dream(especially after Benoit) however and you've never heard that much backstage shenanigans. He really was the modern day Hogan. For as big of a star as he is now, it would have been doubled in the 80's.

He belongs in the top 10. But at the same time, the only thing I'll remember about him is just how much fans hated his guts. Even Alberto Del Rio would get cheered over him.

 

[alko]

His finishing move was .... meh ..

 

[Sens]

Quality of work more than anything and impact on the business. They may have made a lot of money off of Cena but he wasn't some game-changing performer.

I’d argue that’s because nobody else was in his league... Cenas biggest rival was Randy Orton throughout his prime

 

[Sens]

Especially when he called one city a toilet that needed and enema. Basically Bret was amazing when he played the heel in the US and the face everywhere else. People forget that for all of his years as a baby face, he was a natural heel.

His mic work as a heel was better then his mic work as a face.

Bret as a heel was mint

 

[Sens]

His finishing move was .... meh ..

Better then a leg drop?

 

[M.C.G. 31]

His finishing move was .... meh ..

Did you see The Rock’s finishers? lol