Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 293

Thread: The John Cena Thread

  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,087

    The John Cena Thread

    You can't see him right now, since he's out with an injury, but talk about "The Champ" here.

  2. #2
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    Supposedly he's out until around Rumble time. Who sees something different than him becoming the 2nd ever three time winner and challenging Orton for the belt?

  3. #3
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839
    I have this hilarious new tagline to show how sick we are of this fool:

    We've Cena Nuff!

  4. #4
    A Professional Sort Of
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,068
    I hope that Cena does not win the Royal Rumble. There is only one man who has won the Royal Rumble three times and it should remain at one man.

  5. #5
    Blunt Force Balls
    Guest
    No I think Cena will win the WWE title at the Rumble and The Rock will win the Rumble itself so we get Cena vs Rock 3. BUT THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL!!!

    In all seriousness, Cena's arm wouldn't have been so badly injured in the first place if he didn't have it raised so often.

  6. #6
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    No I think Cena will win the WWE title at the Rumble and The Rock will win the Rumble itself so we get Cena vs Rock 3. BUT THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL!!!

    In all seriousness, Cena's arm wouldn't have been so badly injured in the first place if he didn't have it raised so often.
    That explains the swollen elbow, he's had so much fluid building up there. The dangers of winning, eh?

    Please lord, no Rock/Cena III.

  7. #7
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post
    That explains the swollen elbow, he's had so much fluid building up there. The dangers of winning, eh?
    Don't encourage the troll, mizfan. It will only keep making him think he's making funny jokes with the argument of a 12 year old.

    Sig bet: people shitting on Cena as a worker now will change their opinion if/when he turns heel.

  8. #8
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    Good luck finding someone to take you up on that. Stupid people changing their minds for stupid reasons is the whole point of the internet.

  9. #9
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    It won't be hard to find. Give it a day.

  10. #10
    A Professional Sort Of
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,068
    Give it an hour.

  11. #11
    Blunt Force Balls
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    Don't encourage the troll, mizfan. It will only keep making him think he's making funny jokes with the argument of a 12 year old.

    Sig bet: people shitting on Cena as a worker now will change their opinion if/when he turns heel.

    And you think your above everyone else here and your always right.


    I have no doubt Cena would be able to pull of a heel brilliantly as a character, he already loathed by thousands of people so he could simply just smirk at fans, promos and crowd mocking techniques would be a cinch for him.

    I'm not convinced his heel work in the ring would be all that though. After the same old superman routine for years, would he be able to do what a heel is meant to do, such as set babyface opponents up for comebacks, beg off, sell weaknesses, illustrate his own weaknesses and promote his foes heroism? Maybe he could but I'm not so sure he's the most versatile worker in the company you think he is.

    My guess is we won't find out, because I seriously doubt he's turning heel- at least not anytime soon anyway.

  12. #12
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987

  13. #13
    Blunt Force Balls
    Guest
    Thanks for pointing that out me old mucker.

    Back on the subject of Cena, If you don't read the CF, can I point out these two superb posts on John Cena. They basically sum up my feelings toward him but I'm not as good a wordsmith as these two gentleman because I don't know the difference between your and you're.

    Firstly by Sidgwick:


    Quote Originally Posted by Sidgwick View Post
    Sharp Shooting – A Belated Response To PEN15’s ‘John Cena Is The Best In-Ring Worker In The [Sic]* WWE’


    Welcome back...

    *I’ve inserted [Sic] into the title because, to me, ‘the WWE’ makes no sense. ‘The World Wrestling Entertainment’ just sounds daft. ‘The WWF’ used to work. ‘The WWE’ doesn’t. It’s not just PEN who refers to the company in this incongruous way, so I’m not trying to single the man out – just getting a pet peeve off my chest.

    This reply is belated because I’ve spent the last month carrying out last minute wedding preparation, getting married, and going on my honeymoon. I’m writing from a very contented place, depressed though I am from coming back to the north of England from San Francisco. It’s such a beautiful and interesting city. If you ever go, be sure to visit the Beat Poet Museum (you can see Allen Ginsberg’s typewriter!), Alcatraz, and make the long trip to Yosemite National Park.

    It's also belated and even more woefully out of date because of the board reset...but I've written it now, so you're reading it.

    I’ve written this column because PEN made reference to me in his, and I wanted to pay the man respect and enter into a proper debate. Also, I’ve wanted to write an argument against John Cena and specifically the inexplicably-popular-amongst-LoP notion that he’s an excellent in-ring worker since I arrived in the CF. This gives me a justifiable outlet in which to do so. In the interest of fairness, outside of the respective introductions, both PEN’s column and mine total 1796 words.

    Lastly, before I begin, I need to point out that, though I disagreed with the wider argument, I thought PEN’s column was a good one. It wasn’t antagonistic or patronising, criticisms I’ve levied against the man in the past. It was considered, well thought out, and, I must say, rather brave…

    “On with the show…”

    I found the central argument of PEN’s column, the list of “solid-to-awesome” Cena matches, to be reductive. It can be used to evidence the fact that Cena has taken part in several above-average contests; it is not evidence that Cena is the best in-ring WWE talent, something PEN himself acknowledged. John Cena likes to refer to himself as “The Champ”. In the latest issue of ‘Power Slam’ magazine, the venerable Fin Martin defines a champion as “someone who hoists his weaker opponent to his level”. That is the John Cena Problem: John Cena is incapable of making an inferior opponent look good in defeat, a skill Daniel Bryan has shown most recently working with the limited Roman Reigns. It’s all well and good to say that John Cena is a great worker because he has amassed a collection of stirring contests against a collection of good opponents. One should positively expect that as the least Cena should have done, given that he’s had a near-decade of 20-minute-plus main event matches to do so. A certain Chris Rock punchline springs to mind here. No, Cena should be judged on his self-professed ability to “make average look awesome”…

    Try and think of a wrestler other than Umaga, who opposed Cena as a star on the rise, who was just getting over to the main event level, and ended up in a better position afterwards. It’s difficult, isn’t it? Punk and Bryan can be taken out of the equation here; the former had already been a solidified, although demoted, main event player before his first program with Cena, and Bryan was more over than Cena before he faced him and didn’t need the “rub” like so many other wrestlers WWE has tried and failed to hoist to Cena’s level. At this point, I shall create my own list, which will focus on recent history given Cena had mostly worked with and been led/carried by several established main eventers from 2005-2009, when WWE still had a wealth of them at their disposal.

    • Wade Barrett / The Nexus – After a promising start, Cena derailed the momentum of the invading Nexus faction by frequently turning up unscathed on the next RAW after a seven-on-one beatdown the previous week. They were declared dead following SummerSlam 2010 after Cena defeated two members of the group single-handedly within a minute and a half of being DDT’d on exposed concrete.
    • The Miz – After attracting mega heel heat in 2011, The Miz was rendered utterly irrelevant following his dire program with Cena, at the climax of which he no-sold Miz and Alex Riley’s twenty-minute lead pipe attack.
    • R-Truth – Cena relies on the close near-fall to create drama in his matches to such an extent that he’s buried his own Attitude Adjustment finisher. R-Truth wasn’t permitted to kick out at the first attempt, like so many others, reducing him to the status of a schmuck forevermore.
    • Awesome Truth – The tandem of The Miz and R-Truth had potential, following their victory over Triple H and CM Punk, but they were easily beaten down at the same time by Cena even before their Survivor Series match with Cena and The Rock. Cena’s in-ring shortcomings and lack of nous in this instance hurt the buy rate of a Pay Per View featuring the return of The Goddamn Rock, which is nothing short of a disgrace.
    • Dolph Ziggler – their matches in December 2012 and January 2013 left precisely one impression: none of Dolph Ziggler’s moves must hurt very much. Cena climbed a ladder whilst in Dolph’s sleeper hold, and kicked out of everything else ad nauseum in what can accurately be described as psychology-free near-fall porn.
    • Ryback – we’ll get to him shortly…


    I am aware that the outcome of Cena’s matches is at Vince McMahon’s discretion, but there is an art to the elevating one’s opponent in defeat that is crucial to the progress of the business that Cena hasn’t and will never grasp. An excellent practitioner of this art is NJPW’s Hiroshi Tanahashi, who has in the past three years made the likes of Minoru Suzuki look like monsters while at the same time defeating them and making himself look good. When these feuds are reheated a year or so after the first go-round, they do big business. In contrast, John Cena vs. Wade Barrett in late 2011 would have bombed, because Cena’s victory in their 2010 series was so utterly decisive. This is a big reason why WWE’s numbers have diminished in recent years.

    PEN also makes an argument that Cena shouldn’t be judged on his limited repertoire of offensive moves, a sound one, but I think it misses the point. I and many others don’t judge Cena because he purportedly has just “five” moves, which is a falsehood in itself. Any long-serving fan should know that there isn’t a relationship between the ability of a wrestler and the volume of moves they perform. To suggest that all Cena cynics think otherwise is insulting. It’s what Cena doesn’t do in between these moves and how he reacts, or rather doesn’t, to the offense of his opponents which boils the collective piss of his detractors.

    Take his Last Man Standing bout with Ryback at Extreme Rules 2013, which he would have called and helped to structure, as an example. Part of the build-up focussed on Cena’s injured ankle and Ryback’s relentless targeting of it. Did this come into the story of the match? No, it did not. There are two possible reasons for this. Either Cena doesn’t have the nous to effectively use even the most basic mode of psychology to story-board his matches, or he doesn’t wish to appear too vulnerable. It is immaterial whether his poor selling can be attributed to inability or inadequacy; the end result, stagnant numbers and a dearth of credible opponents, remains the same. When Cena routinely fails to sell the offense of his opponents, fans don’t really buy it in the opponent’s next feud.

    This mostly happens with opponents who aren’t on Cena’s level, suggesting a Hogan-like selfishness, but not always; after a great, dramatic and logical match with Brock Lesnar at Extreme Rules ’12, Cena undermined it all by cutting a completely unnecessary promo afterwards, without even having the courtesy to feign being out of breath... I’m wary that this might be beginning to read like a character assassination, but the art of selling is so important to the fabric and success of professional wrestling that Cena’s failure to grasp it cannot be overstated. Wrestling is meant to look real. Damaging. When a man in a position of massive influence has systematically damaged the very notion on which his industry is built for as many years as Cena has, he absolutely cannot be considered even close to the best. It’s an insult to those who came before him and a mountain to climb for those who will follow.

    Elsewhere in PEN’s column, he believes that Cena can be considered the best because of his ability to work a good match against a variety of opponents. This is a subjective opinion, of course, but I’ve seen no evidence of it. Whenever I recall a John Cena vs. Big Hoss match, I think of Money In The Bank ’13 vs. Mark Henry, which was a typical, illogical Cena bout. He totally oversold in the first half, despite not receiving much in the way of punishment, and looked daisy-fresh during the finish and after his win. Cena can sell; just not in the right order…I also think of his match with Big Show at No Way Out ’12, which, to put it bluntly, was boring as shit. Contrast those matches with Daniel Bryan’s credible and exciting work against both men in their 2011/12 three-way feud, a greater challenge given the bigger size difference, and there isn’t a contest. Bryan made it easier to suspend one’s disbelief than Cena did.

    I also have to disagree that the likes of Batista and The Big Show had their best matches with Cena, but I won’t spend too long debating this opinion because it’s just that. I preferred Batista’s matches with Triple H, The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Edge over the 2010 Cena series, and I prefer Bradshaw and Trish Stratus vs. Chris Nowinski and Jackie Gayda above any Cena vs. Big Show match, but that’s just me.

    A seemingly objective query threatens to dent my argument: if Cena is so incompetent, how can I account for the considerable amount of entertaining matches he’s had? I won’t suggest that Cena hasn’t had several good-to-excellent matches in his career. Even the average ones have a certain entertainment factor, especially when watched live, thanks to the high level of heat, even though often it appears fans do duelling chants to amuse themselves. The very best Cena matches, in my subjective opinion, have been contested against superlative technicians or sellers – the Daniel Bryans and Shawn Michaels’ of the game. I can’t name one four-star-plus match with a merely above average opponent, and I think anyone would be stretching to disagree. Even the very best Cena matches, most of which are gimmicked and easier to pull off, have elements of sloppiness you simply don’t see in the very best, say, Randy Orton matches. Consider Cena’s last match - one I’d easily place in the top 5 John Cena matches - against Daniel Bryan at SummerSlam. Despite telling an intriguing, action-packed story of Bryan’s equality to Cena - demonstrated best by the simple sequence which saw each man pushing themselves up against one another’s puffed out torso - it was still damn sloppy. Cena nearly dropped Bryan on his head, on top of his regular crimes like loud spot-calling and poor positioning. Even the vaunted Money In The Bank ’11 match with CM Punk, widely considered Cena’s very best match, had about five “you fucked up” moments. I’m nit-picking, but if there was ever a time to nit-pick, it’s during a debate about whether or not a guy is the best a company has to offer…

    I wouldn’t describe Cena as the best in-ring worker in WWE. I’d describe him as a man more than capable, especially against a certain opponent, of assembling a dramatic and exciting, if not particularly intelligent nor fluid main event level match, but one who through either folly or ego doesn’t do so often enough.

    Secondly by Right Side Of The Pond's very own 'Plan:

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Plan View Post
    Ah, John Cena. The great debate of our time no less. I'm unfamiliar with Pen's half of this argument, and so it would be remiss of me to say if you adequately countered it or not. Certainly, what you did do was put together a very reasonable and level-headed argument I thought. Was it lopsided and a rather biased? Yes, but bias is just a euphemism for opinion anyway and that's exactly what all this column writing shtick is about after all. Because of all this, I'll simply state my own stance on Cena, but will do so only briefly for fear of writing my own column in the form of feedback to yours!

    John Cena is a flawed professional wrestler. Anyone who states otherwise, quite simply, is wrong. I get we like to humour the whole rhetoric of everyone being entitled to their own opinion, and of course they are, but there's a line to be drawn. The execution of a lot of what Cena does is flawed. That's not me stating my opinion, that's a very visual fact from watching him on television. A very clear visual fact. My opinion as to what "flawed execution" is can certainly be called into question, but obviously I can only go on my own definitions as to what I define as a truth lest I be lost for any kind of an opinion in a perennial spiral of increasingly pedantic micro-criticisms that derail a debate and bring an intelligent and informed discussion to a grinding halt.

    When I say this, I don't mean solely in the ring. Many of the more vocal critics of Cena will often throw out the same old clichés that get them labelled as a "Hater", a concept in itself I find to be entirely inert. The idea he only executes, or knows how to execute, five particular moves has been disproved for quite some time, often by Cena himself, for example. However, his overall game lacks cohesion and, to my mind, evidences on a frequent basis either a total misunderstanding of psychology or an apathy towards creating the best possible product for the fans. Neither of those is in any way excusable. Whether it's him reacting in a manner as he enters the arena for a big ppv match being entirely at odds with the storyline said match is culminating, often resulting in a total no-sell of the stipulations Cena seems reliant on for his better matches at the same time, whether it's his inconsistent selling that has been a clear fact on numerous occasions in numerous matches (with his forgetting about his leg in his Wrestlemania 23 match with Michaels and his total no-sell of Orton's punt kick after their Hell in a Cell match in 2009 being examples that spring immediately to mind) or whether it's his sheer unwillingness to elevate others in a promo, Cena is a worker who, it seems to me, feels that what he does between the tolls of a bell signifying a match is entirely unrelated to what he does otherwise. His promo after the Lesnar match you raise yourself, his miraculous recovery from Orton's punt to the head (a move built up for over two years as being one that can end careers) after the Cell match I raised and his decision to basically sit there looking disappointed but not exhausted or beaten after his loss to The Rock at Wrestlemania 28 are all examples, to my mind, of how he seems to think that, once the match is over, it doesn't matter what he does. That's a flaw.

    There is a belief that an individual like John Cena can not be as poor a wrestler as many believe if he has had as many great matches as he had. There is a clear truth to the statement that John Cena has had a huge swathe of amazing bouts. Many of his best, however, will either have a stipulation to help mask his failings, be against a far more talented or experienced opponent or be largely reliant on a hot crowd. It's ironic that the distaste many have for Cena is probably exactly what's helped him cement a myth as being one of the greatest of all time. He's the only wrestler in history to have been made a legendary babyface because people hate him. Take away the hot crowd reaction and even his better straight-up wrestling matches would probably lose at least one star. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. Two being Punk/Cena from 2011 and Bryan/Cena from Summerslam this year. But rather than being put forth as positives, I'd say those bouts do nothing but substantiate the argument Cena is NOT the best in-ring worker in the company. If he was, why would he not be putting in that amount of variety in all of his big main events on pay-per-view? How can Cena have a match like the one against Henry from Money in the Bank this year, coming off one of the most admired segments in WWE history and with the heel putting out the best work of his very long career, one that is fundamentally flawed in its execution and far more sub-standard than it ever had any right to be, but then go on to wrestle the way he wrestled against Bryan at Summerslam 2013? It boils down to one's criteria for best in-ring worker, but for me consistency would be a big part of it. Cena is far from consistent, coasting for most of his career and only really putting forward a better than usual effort - evidencing a desire to improve himself and his product - when he has no other choice. You can place the blame for that at his door, at the door of Creative, at the door of WWE's fear for his position, but ultimately coasting is coasting and has no right even being considered as a flaw for a man we choose to label as the "best in-ring worker" in WWE.

    I'm going on a bit here. There's plenty of things for me to bring forward to help support my own argument, but the final one I'll touch on here is this idea that he deserves props for how hard he works. Yes, Cena rarely has time off. Yes, you can even call him consistent if for no other reason than the fact he works an insane number of days each and every year he's employed by the company (though I'd argue that's irrelevant if he's coasting for most of them). But if you want to show me a single wrestler employed in the WWE who does NOT work an insane number of days, who does NOT show that much dedication to the industry and who does NOT work in terms of what we'd define as "hard", then be my guest. The difference is, they don't get anywhere near as much praise for it. Does Tyson Kidd ever coast? Do you ever feel that Daniel Bryan or CM Punk don't put forward their best possible effort each and every time they have a match on ppv, and in doing so evidence a great deal more energy, creative output and variety than John Cena does? Do you ever feel that AJ Lee doesn't have the same fire for wrestling than a man who's a double-digit WWE Champion does? Point being, when you start using "hard work" as one of the major positive crutches for a defence against any wrestler, you've got a problem. Hard work should be a given, not anything special, and I will never accept it as a viable argument for Cena's defence.

    As I said, I haven't read Pen's version of this column and, truth be told, I read your own piece here more out of being a fan of yours than interested in the argument. No one will ever agree on it and I'm as tired as the debate as I am of John Cena himself. I have my own opinion and it won't ever be swayed. I think to consider him the best "in-ring worker" in the company is, frankly, ludicrous. I find many of the arguments posited for his defence as flawed as his in-ring work and, finally, I loathe the idea that he's "not a wrestler, he's a great entertainer." How can anyone be considered a "great entertainer" when there are THAT many people who don't find them entertaining? I have no idea. And even if I did, I still wouldn't accept him. I watch wrestling for wrestling. If you aren't a great wrestler, or if you can't be bothered to be a great wrestler, I'm never going to like you.

    Sorry for hijacking your own piece to write what turned out to be a mini-column anyway! I've no idea whether you put forward a strong rebuff of Pen's arguments, but it was certainly an interesting read nonetheless. I've only tried to posit my own position here, and in contrast to the more common positively-routed arguments I see levied about Cena. Fans like ourselves are never likely to enjoy Cena's work I don't think. I'm at a point where I just content myself with the knowledge of how most of his matches will be told before he tells them. A sort of business-as-usual approach. Seems to be his! Now get back to writing something positive! You're too good to be wasting words on John Cena!
    For the sake of balance and variety, here is the PEN15 column they reference: http://www.lordsofpain.net/columns/p...ler_Today.html

  14. #14
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Yes, you quote guys that agree with your stance, and have been loyal to them since this "debate" started. It's quite peculiar that when you've been proven to be insanely wrong, or at the very least judged to have a truly unpopular opinion, your course of action is to go to better speakers than you to make your argument for you. Does it make you feel like a bigger man that you can't defend your own thoughts and beliefs, so you get them to write in your place?

    Also, did you not read my reply to Sidgwick's column? I felt his piece was flawed and biased, just like your arguments tend to be. It's impossible to take you seriously, or to lend credibility to anything you have to say when you have such an obvious agenda. Same for those 2. They may be great writers, but their idea of retorting to my column involves very little reply to my actual content. Hell, Plan didn't even bother to read my column. Which is fine - they can value great wrestling on a different level than I do. So can you, or mizfan for example. But, one thing you or they have not done is proven my stance to be wrong in any way. You can say his best matches are only with the better wrestlers, but that would be ignoring the matches he has had with lesser talents. You can blame his selling to ruin a match, but you can't seem to shake the rather intelligent and obvious position that this is WWE's decision to book him in a vulnerable position for 90% of a contest until the eventual comeback (and that we've seen this from several other WWF top guys since the 80s).

    Not liking him is fine. Disagreeing with me on my opinion is fine. But arguing that I am wrong because these other guys who are obviously smarter than you agree with you is flawed. Are you trying to win me over into believing you're right? Are you trying to get others to tell me I'm wrong and agree with you? See, the problem with you, Plan, and Sidgwick is that you're taking my words as the basis for your existence on LOP. I'm not Tito, and I don't believe that controversy is the best basis for being a success. But it's entirely entertaining that a guy like Sidgwick, who is capable of writing a column without bias and slander, waits almost a month to respond to reply to me in such a manner. Yes, life gets in the way, but over the course of the last month, he didn't find a single better thing to write about than my column. Hilariously pathetic. And that you'll praise his piece as genius repeatedly. Do you think I'm swayed? None of what you, Plan or Sidgwick wrote changed my mind, and in fact proved that your input on wrestling is lacking credibility. To completely dismiss obviously strong matches because of your personal preferences against one of the talents involved is no different than the immature notion that all music of a certain style/genre is bad. It's an ignorant and blanket statement. I'm not saying your opinion isn't more popular than mine - the way I credit Cena as the best worker is not the same most seem to judge wrestling. But none of you have proven my judgments to be wrong. Share your different opinions all you wish, but you've yet to show that any of the wrestlers you can name deliver as many strong matches with the variety of opponents over the course of time that he has. This is a fact with no opinion required. You can choose to dismiss it, as you have, and show your obvious ignorance, or you can accept it and say "I still prefer these guys instead" and get your point across with much more credibility.

    See, you can disagree in a respectful manner, hence the saying "I respectfully disagree." Instead, there's a column, a reply, and your trolling that shows no respect, and therefore loses all credibility. And I can accept that you don't think my opinion of you 3 matters too much. But in the long run, it goes to show the type of people you are to be entirely ignorant of opposing opinions, instead of "respectfully disagreeing" as I have.

    Cheers mates. Enjoy posting however you like.

  15. #15
    I agree with PEN that Cena was the best worker from 2005-2011; I don't believe he's the best worker now though. He did have some good bouts in 2012 with Lesnar, Punk and Ziggler and some good ones this year with Punk, Bryan and The Shield; at the same time though he's also been involved with some pretty brutal feuds and matches with Johnny Ace, Kane, Big Show, Ryback and Mark Henry (the feud was good, match was average). More often than not I thought Punk was more consistent of a performer last year than Cena, and Bryan was this year. He's still one of the better ones though, and he certainly was the best worker the company had overall for a six year period. I may not have liked everything he did, but there's no denying that.

    I will say this now; I'm wondering if we are starting to see the end of the era where Cena is the number one face (key word there). I know some people aren't yet sold on Bryan being the next guy now or ever, but I have a hard time believing Vince and Triple H are sitting backstage every week and not noticing how big of a reaction Bryan gets. It dwarfs what Cena's been getting recently by a mile and (obviously) is far more positive. In addition to that, it was telling to me how the WWE has been having the locker room embrace Bryan; clearly it's by storyline design, but at the same time I never recalled the locker room embracing Cena in storyline the way they've done so for Bryan (nor have I heard the announcers refer to Cena as the leader of the locker room like they have with Bryan). I could be reading through the lines wrong, but I do believe we are on the cusp of Cena either passing the torch to Bryan or at least sharing it with him and maybe Punk. Either way it can only be a positive thing.


  16. #16
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    I agree with PEN that Cena was the best worker from 2005-2011
    That's a bold and somewhat insane claim there, my friend. Benoit was on the roster for 2 1/2 of those years and Cena cannot touch what he could do in the ring with any opponent. And you've got some Angle in there, not to mention a near total overlap with HBK. I can buy that Cena worked his way into the upper tiers, not sure I agree but I can see the argument, but any statement that puts Cena as a better worker than Benoit is sheer lunacy.

  17. #17
    Did Benoit really have that great of a 2005-2007 though? The only thing I really recall him doing of note during that time was making MVP into a star, but beyond that it was just kind of so-so with regards to him. Angle had a good 2005 and early 2006, but after that he kind of leveled off a bit too. I'll concede HBK though; guy was doing great work back then and really helped Cena when they eventually crossed paths.


  18. #18
    Blunt Force Balls
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    Yes, you quote guys that agree with your stance, and have been loyal to them since this "debate" started. It's quite peculiar that when you've been proven to be insanely wrong, or at the very least judged to have a truly unpopular opinion, your course of action is to go to better speakers than you to make your argument for you. Does it make you feel like a bigger man that you can't defend your own thoughts and beliefs, so you get them to write in your place?

    Also, did you not read my reply to Sidgwick's column? I felt his piece was flawed and biased, just like your arguments tend to be. It's impossible to take you seriously, or to lend credibility to anything you have to say when you have such an obvious agenda. Same for those 2. They may be great writers, but their idea of retorting to my column involves very little reply to my actual content. Hell, Plan didn't even bother to read my column. Which is fine - they can value great wrestling on a different level than I do. So can you, or mizfan for example. But, one thing you or they have not done is proven my stance to be wrong in any way. You can say his best matches are only with the better wrestlers, but that would be ignoring the matches he has had with lesser talents. You can blame his selling to ruin a match, but you can't seem to shake the rather intelligent and obvious position that this is WWE's decision to book him in a vulnerable position for 90% of a contest until the eventual comeback (and that we've seen this from several other WWF top guys since the 80s).

    Not liking him is fine. Disagreeing with me on my opinion is fine. But arguing that I am wrong because these other guys who are obviously smarter than you agree with you is flawed. Are you trying to win me over into believing you're right? Are you trying to get others to tell me I'm wrong and agree with you? See, the problem with you, Plan, and Sidgwick is that you're taking my words as the basis for your existence on LOP. I'm not Tito, and I don't believe that controversy is the best basis for being a success. But it's entirely entertaining that a guy like Sidgwick, who is capable of writing a column without bias and slander, waits almost a month to respond to reply to me in such a manner. Yes, life gets in the way, but over the course of the last month, he didn't find a single better thing to write about than my column. Hilariously pathetic. And that you'll praise his piece as genius repeatedly. Do you think I'm swayed? None of what you, Plan or Sidgwick wrote changed my mind, and in fact proved that your input on wrestling is lacking credibility. To completely dismiss obviously strong matches because of your personal preferences against one of the talents involved is no different than the immature notion that all music of a certain style/genre is bad. It's an ignorant and blanket statement. I'm not saying your opinion isn't more popular than mine - the way I credit Cena as the best worker is not the same most seem to judge wrestling. But none of you have proven my judgments to be wrong. Share your different opinions all you wish, but you've yet to show that any of the wrestlers you can name deliver as many strong matches with the variety of opponents over the course of time that he has. This is a fact with no opinion required. You can choose to dismiss it, as you have, and show your obvious ignorance, or you can accept it and say "I still prefer these guys instead" and get your point across with much more credibility.

    See, you can disagree in a respectful manner, hence the saying "I respectfully disagree." Instead, there's a column, a reply, and your trolling that shows no respect, and therefore loses all credibility. And I can accept that you don't think my opinion of you 3 matters too much. But in the long run, it goes to show the type of people you are to be entirely ignorant of opposing opinions, instead of "respectfully disagreeing" as I have.

    Cheers mates. Enjoy posting however you like.
    It's funny how you say you "respectively disagree" with me, and I am "entirely ignorant of opposing opinions". Have you ever heard the term Pot. Kettle. Black?

    Your replies to me on this thread and The Undertaker thread prove that how you "respectively disagree" and how open you are to opposing opinions.

    When Sidgwick mentions in his column that in the past he labeled you as "antagonistic and patronising"....well, he clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on. ...

    While I'm under no illusions both 'Plan and Sidgwick are more intelligent than me, at least at expressing themselves, I also believe them to be more intelligent than you- no offense that just my opinion.

    And that's what this whole debate is about- opinion. You need to realise you have an opinion and it doesn't mean your right because- as you say nobody has proved you wrong on yours, and I agree nobody has proved you wrong-, but you act, and I know some of the main page columnists even think this about you - as if your opinion is fact and you've proved everyone else wrong. It's an OPINION. I'm not the only one who has that opinion, nor is Sidgwick. Thousands of fans chant "you can't wrestle" at John Cena on a weekly basis, and while that's probably a bit harsh and an exaggeration, those fans just don't rate Cena. It doesn't mean they are wrong it's an opinion. Deal with it.

  19. #19
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    The problem is that when opinions are based on incorrect facts, it does make the opinion incorrect as well. And since you've not proven the facts that I've based my opinion on to be incorrect, yet I've done that to you on more than a couple of occasions... makes you incredibly wrong. Just like your opinion.

  20. #20
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    Did Benoit really have that great of a 2005-2007 though? The only thing I really recall him doing of note during that time was making MVP into a star, but beyond that it was just kind of so-so with regards to him. Angle had a good 2005 and early 2006, but after that he kind of leveled off a bit too. I'll concede HBK though; guy was doing great work back then and really helped Cena when they eventually crossed paths.
    Benoit had a highly underrated '05-'07 if you ask me. If you look at Benoit and Cena's singles matches in that time they both had plenty of good matches, but almost all of Cena's notable matches were worked against guys like Angle, Jericho, or HBK, or else had some stipulation to put them on another level (JBL/I Quit '05, Edge/TLC '06, Umaga/LMS '07). Benoit, on the other hand, spent the time pushing guys lower on the card or under his wrestling ability to new levels. An awesome series of matches with Booker T and Randy Orton in '05, not to mention some sweet encounters with guys like Finlay and Regal and a bunch of Edge matches that are criminally forgotten. What's more Benoit was consistently blowing it away on whether he was on PPV, Raw, Smackdown, or hell even Velocity. It's hard to find a month in which Benoit didn't wrestle at least one 3.5 star match or higher. Can't really say the same for Cena.

    Obviously it's a bit subjective, but even within the period I'd say Benoit outstripped Cena. If you take the careers as a whole, I challenge you to find anyone that Cena and Benoit both wrestled where Cena has the better match.

  21. #21
    You do make good points. It might just be for me that Cena was far more interesting to me at the time then Benoit was, either because he was new to the scene or because you wanted to see how the crowd was going to react to him each passing week. Who knows?

    Even if we do say Benoit was the better worker during that time than Cena, Cena was still the best worker hands down from mid 2007 to mid 2011. That's still a decent period of time there.


  22. #22
    Blunt Force Balls
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    The problem is that when opinions are based on incorrect facts, it does make the opinion incorrect as well. And since you've not proven the facts that I've based my opinion on to be incorrect, yet I've done that to you on more than a couple of occasions... makes you incredibly wrong. Just like your opinion.
    Name the incorrect facts my opinion is based off.

  23. #23
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    I dunno... HBK was still hanging around for most of that. Just saying.

  24. #24
    It's close but I'll still give it to Cena. Michaels did a lot, but he was working with a lot of great people at the time to like Flair, Taker and especially Chris Jericho, who I feel was the guy who really made their feud go more than HBK did.


  25. #25
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    I'm struggling to think of any especially memorable Cena singles match from mid '07 through HBK's retirement. God knows he wrestled Randy Orton and Triple H enough times, but are enough of those really memorable enough to push him in the top rank? Meanwhile say what you will about Jericho's great contribution to the feud, without HBK it never would have become of the greatest storylines and series of matches of all time, not to mention a couple career defining matches against Undertaker. Neither are slouches, but with HBK they hit some of the best work ever in that period. He also carried Mr Kennedy and Jeff Hardy to some of their best straight wrestling matches of all time, not to mention leading Flair to his best performance since 1994. Just saying mate.

  26. #26
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    Name the incorrect facts my opinion is based off.
    OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    After the same old superman routine for years, would he be able to do what a heel is meant to do, such as set babyface opponents up for comebacks, beg off, sell weaknesses, illustrate his own weaknesses and promote his foes heroism? Maybe he could but I'm not so sure he's the most versatile worker in the company you think he is.
    We know he can do this, and has. Many of his matches over the years have placed him in a heel role while the contest was booked as face vs face. Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, Shawn Michaels. All 3 stellar contests where he played the role of feeding the opponent their moments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    It's funny how you say you "respectively disagree" with me, and I am "entirely ignorant of opposing opinions". Have you ever heard the term Pot. Kettle. Black? Your replies to me on this thread and The Undertaker thread prove that how you "respectively disagree" and how open you are to opposing opinions. When Sidgwick mentions in his column that in the past he labeled you as "antagonistic and patronising"....well, he clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on. ...
    When you've yet to make a coherent argument for yourself, quote others for you, yet you continue to chase me around in every venue possible to keep a discussion you're incapable of having yourself... I don't waste my time trying to be civil or diplomatic. Honestly, my response to Sidgwick and 'Plan was honestly harsher than intended, because they are carrying you around as luggage. Had you not piled in as always and made this a much larger issue than it ever needed to be (take my first response to Sidg which was civil and diplomatic as an example) this wouldn't have escalated. I was open to Sidg opposing opinion, until you chimed in with your BS. I will copy this post into his column and apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    While I'm under no illusions both 'Plan and Sidgwick are more intelligent than me, at least at expressing themselves, I also believe them to be more intelligent than you- no offense that just my opinion.
    No offense? Cute. Of course you meant to be offensive, don't offend me even more by lying about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    Thousands of fans chant "you can't wrestle" at John Cena on a weekly basis, and while that's probably a bit harsh and an exaggeration, those fans just don't rate Cena. It doesn't mean they are wrong it's an opinion. Deal with it.
    So, are judging we can't wrestle chants as the be-all-end-all? Gee, I seem to remember we here in Canada chanting You Screwed Bret at a face Shawn Michaels during his feud with a heel Jericho, but by the end of the segment we were firmly behind HBK. My point is that fans chant for the sake of it sometimes. The content is rarely meaningful, nor should it be taken seriously. Do you, BFB, decide when the crowd chants are worth taking note of, and when it's just silly fun on their part? People boo Vickie Guerrero louder than anyone else, but is she really the top or best heel? No, it's just been part of the routine to boo her until she does her excuse me schtick. If you take the "You Can't Wrestle" chants to Cena that seriously, you need a doctor. They chant this at him, while you and I could most likely agree that he's a better worker than guys who don't get this chant, such as R-Truth, Fandango, Big Show, David Otunga, Jinder Mahal, Ryback...etc. It's more than a bit harsh and an exaggeration.


    From the column replies:
    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    Interesting comments by Oliver too mentioning Cena's similarity to The Rock (in terms of movesets), which can be used to counter the argument that it is solely the booking that is responsible for Cena's inability to make opponents look strong. The Rock was booked as lead babyface in the company after Steve Austin was injured in late 99 and booked in a similar way to Cena yet regardless of winning or losing, Rock was able to elevate the careers of the likes of Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar on PPV.

    In fact the feuds with The Rock, was the main reason, in my opinion for the Benoit's crossface and Angle's ankle lock becoming two of the most over submission moves in WWE history, although The Rock never lost by submission to them in the feuds, you knew, they hurt like hell. Can you say Cena has done that for ADR's Cross Armbreaker, or CM Punk's Anaconda Vice, or Daniel Bryan's Yes Lock?
    This doesn't counter my argument at all. Rock was not booked like Cena is at all. Sure, they have similar movesets, but that doesn't have any bearing on how Vince and the agents shape the Cena matches for John to have a much more Hulk Hogan style of match than Rock. Also, Rock lost to Brock, Jericho, Angle, and to Benoit on a couple of occasions (only to have had the verdict reversed). Similar movesets =/= same booking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blunt Force Balls View Post
    Plus I agree 100% that Cena is incapable of the 4 star plus classics unless he is working with one of the top 5 or so workers in the company.
    OK, name 4 star plus classic matches that Punk and Daniel Bryan have had with someone not in the top 5 workers in the company? You can't make an argument to say Cena is not good as these other guys you prefer if you can't back it up with your own facts. Punk and Bryan have not been able to get classics out of Big Show, Kane or Mark Henry either. And again, you can call the matches Cena has had with these guys as "standard" but that standard is still widely regarded as stronger than what Bryan/Punk/Ziggler has accomplished with the same talents.


    See, BFB, I brought forth the facts of solid (I never said best or classic, but solid) matches with opponents generally hard to get much out of in a main event level. I based my opinion on these facts. I brought plenty of facts, but I know there's only a couple that stuck in your craw. You cannot say I'm wrong about the matches Cena has had with lesser talent if you can't name matches the guys you think are better than Cena that you believe are better than my examples.

    I never said Daniel Bryan doesn't have the skills or potential to be better than Cena. I merely said he hasn't had the same opportunities to showcase it. But in the overall spectrum, once again using my definition of best in-ring wrestler as someone who has been able to entertain me to the highest level possible with a variety of opponents, Cena is better than my personal favorites CM Punk and Daniel Bryan. Based off the facts I've brought forth. Until you do the same, your opinion is also wrong.



    I would say Cena was easily the better worker than Benoit in 2005-2007. Benoit had fallen into a bit of a slump as a worker in my opinion. 2004 was a great year, because he was able to do some great stuff leading up the the WHC win, the rematch, the matches with HHH, and even with Kane before finally dropping the title to Orton. After that... the stuff with Edge. The Best of 7 with Booker didn't really click, neither did the work with JBL (which really disappointed me at the time), Chavo Guerrero Jr, The MVP stuff was better than expected (and probably is the reason people still want MVP back in WWE)...

    Mizfan, I loved the Cena vs Orton feud in 2009. Those might be Orton's best series of matches. I would dare say they were better than the recent string with Christian. Now, it's not an entirely fair comparison, because Christian vs Orton has nothing but singles matches (maybe a no DQ match somewhere?), while Cena vs Orton had Iron Man/I Quit/Hell in a Cell.

  27. #27
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    Punk and Bryan have not been able to get classics out of Big Show, Kane or Mark Henry either. And again, you can call the matches Cena has had with these guys as "standard" but that standard is still widely regarded as stronger than what Bryan/Punk/Ziggler has accomplished with the same talents.


    Remember that time that Cena grabbed (a clearly motivated and much harder hitting, btw) The Great Khali by the throat and dragged him to what is, objectively, a damn good piece of sports entertainment 530 times better than anything that Hogan did with the much less limited Andre?

    It might not be a five-star mat wrestling classic with high flying touches, but Cena sold like a jabroni for 10-minutes and made Khali look like a killer.

    Fun fact: this match features a goddamn spinning heel kick by Khali!

    Damn is Khali underrated.

  28. #28
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Great example. By no means is this an amazing match, but it's quite easily Khali's best. Both of them.

    Let's get some different opinions on here, concerning the "lesser talents" strong matches from other posters. I am not saying all these guys suck, but that they've been described on more than a few times as being limited. Who has helped deliver the best matches from:
    -Great Khali
    -Big Show
    -Mark Henry
    -Bobby Lashley
    -Umaga
    -Batista
    -Rock
    -Kane
    -JBL
    -Edge
    -Wade Barrett
    -The Miz
    -R-Truth
    -Ryback


    I'm not expecting Cena to be the answer that floods the thread, but I'm curious to see how many give an objective opinion, as well as which matches chosen over Cena's with these cats (and how much better they may be).

  29. #29
    -Great Khali: Cena, partially by default and partially because Cena has the size to work with Khali that Punk and Bryan don't, even with their superior striking offense.

    -Big Show: Bryan, was able to make the matches they had in late 2011/early 2012 compelling thanks to his striking offense. Each match was also different, where as Cena and Big Show have been wrestling okay matches that interest no one since 2004.

    -Mark Henry: Bryan (same reason as Big Show)

    -Bobby Lashley: Cena, though I think Punk and Bryan could've pulled great matches out Lashley too if he had stayed around.

    -Umaga: Cena (same reasoning as Lashley)

    -Batista: Cena, he and Batista were made to feud with each other.

    -Rock: Punk, he had the better build up and his two matches with Rock were far more organic and less forced than Cena's matches with Rock. Take away the overbooking and Punk-Rock were even more superior.

    -Kane: Bryan, his matches with Kane led to both being interesting again, while Punk's feud with Kane in 09 bored everyone to tears and Cena's feud with him was a train wreck (though it did produce the Zach Ryder off the stage in a wheelchair bit. It's still funny!)

    -JBL: A tie between Punk and Cena; their feuds with JBL in 2005 and 2008 were both respectable but not earth shattering.

    -Edge: Cena, no question.

    -Wade Barrett: Bryan, who made Barrett look more like a threat in two or three television matches a few weeks ago than Cena did in several pay per view matches in 2010 (Cena's best match with Barrett was the multi man match at Summerslam, which also saw him outperformed by Bryan in that match).

    -The Miz: Bryan, who we forget had a couple good matches and a pretty good feud with Miz when he first broke in.

    -R-Truth: Cena, pretty much by default.

    -Ryback: Punk, no question.


  30. #30
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    Great example. By no means is this an amazing match, but it's quite easily Khali's best. Both of them.

    Let's get some different opinions on here, concerning the "lesser talents" strong matches from other posters. I am not saying all these guys suck, but that they've been described on more than a few times as being limited. Who has helped deliver the best matches from:
    -Great Khali
    -Big Show
    -Mark Henry
    -Bobby Lashley
    -Umaga
    -Batista
    -Rock
    -Kane
    -JBL
    -Edge
    -Wade Barrett
    -The Miz
    -R-Truth
    -Ryback


    I'm not expecting Cena to be the answer that floods the thread, but I'm curious to see how many give an objective opinion, as well as which matches chosen over Cena's with these cats (and how much better they may be).
    Are we talking the best matches they had, period, or against one of the three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    -JBL: A tie between Punk and Cena; their feuds with JBL in 2005 and 2008 were both respectable but not earth shattering.
    No way Punk's match(es) with JBL come close to Cena's. They just didn't have a style that meshed well (Punk was not good at working with guys considerably bigger than him at that point). Cena vs JBL at Judgement Day in a bloody war was better than everything Punk and JBL did together, combined (other than maybe the promo where I'm pretty sure JBL told him that he'd force him to drink after he beat him).

  31. #31
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839
    Though he hasn't wrestled the whole list, I might put Undertaker over Cena on a few:
    Edge
    Batista

    The ones I'd definitively pick Cena instead of Taker:
    Khali
    Rock (1, not 2 - I despised 2)

    Big Show and Henry are both draws, nothing special for either men. I remember nothing about Cena/JBL, so I can't make a call there.

    And though he doesn't fall into this class, give me Taker/HBK over Cena/HBK. God I hated that series of matches.

  32. #32
    I'll agree with you Punk wasn't as good at working bigger guys back then as he is now (his matches with Kane a year later showcase that perfectly) but never the less I still like his matches with JBL better than Cena's. The matches Cena and JBL had most of the times left me quite bored, even the I Quit match you're talking about; I remember the Smackdown after that (before Cena had been drafted to RAW) where it seemed like the feud would continue, which if I recall pleased absolutely no one at all, myself included. I appreciate what JBL did for Cena don't get me wrong, but that feud to me wasn't as interesting nor as good as the one Punk had, and I enjoyed both the RAW match they had for the title and their match at Summerslam. That's just me though.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.O. View Post
    Though he hasn't wrestled the whole list, I might put Undertaker over Cena on a few:
    Edge
    Batista
    Cena had better matches with Edge; other than Punk I think that was Cena's best opponent he ever had. Taker did have better matches with Batista though; hell their Wrestlemania match still is the best match Batista ever wrestled.
    Last edited by Cult Icon; 09-30-2013 at 01:03 PM.


  33. #33
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    COACH: why not both, all time and modern with Punk/Bryan included?

    My initial intent was of all time. I know what I would vote for each one, but I'm curious to see the results.

  34. #34
    Goldberg Rules!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    4,839
    Well all time and modern is clearly Randy Orton.

    I'm not a big fan of the Edge/Cena series. I have no clue why, it just didn't click with me. The only match I really liked was the TLC one, and that fell in with Edge's tendency to only stick out in specialty matches. Whereas I truly loved his WM 24 match with Taker.

  35. #35
    I thought we were doing just modern. If it's all time, the list goes like this for me:

    -Great Khali: Cena (same reasons as above)

    -Big Show: Ric Flair, really established Big Show in WCW (when he was The Giant) as a force to be reckoned with in their matches as opposed to Hogan, who made Show look like a joke. I still fondly remember the match where Show turned Flair's Figure Four into a chokeslam.

    -Mark Henry: Bryan (same reasons as above)

    -Bobby Lashley: Finlay, Lashley's best matches were those early ones he had on Smackdown against Finlay.

    -Umaga: Cena (same as above)

    -Batista: Undertaker, their Wrestlemania match is still the best match Batista ever wrestled.

    -Rock: Triple H, the Austin matches were more memorable, but the matches Rock and Triple H had always just seemed to flow better for me. Very close between the two though.

    -Kane: Undertaker, not even close.

    -JBL: Shawn Michaels, brought out the best in JBL both in and outside of the ring.

    -Edge: Cena (same as above)

    -Wade Barrett: Bryan (same as above)

    -The Miz: Bryan (same as above)

    -R-Truth: Cena (again by default)

    -Ryback: Punk


  36. #36
    Skulduggery
    Guest
    Perhaps I'm misreading a little, but I'm not sure I agree with the idea that certain matches are objectively better than other matches. They're not quantitatively measured, so I don't see how it can be fact that Match A is better than Match B. Sure, in what most consider to be lopsided comparisons, it's of extremely popular opinion that Match X is almost certainly better than Match Y, but I still think it comes down to opinion and subjectivity. For example, Cult mentioned that he thought Batista's best ever match was against Undertaker at WrestleMania 23; I think that Batista's best ever match was against Triple H at Vengeance 2005 (though the aforementioned Taker bout is in the top echelon of Batista's "best of", as well). Those are just different opinions, and I don't think there's any mathematical formula completely void of any sort of subjectivity that can outright rule one of the two matches as better than the other.

    So I don't think objectivity can definitively be given when saying, "Who pulled better matches out of these guys?" For me, Edge's matches with Undertaker were overall a smidgen better than his matches with John Cena. (For the record, I disagree that Edge is limited and I don't consider any of his great matches as matches in which he was carried). But if somebody were to say that R-Truth's best opponent was John Morrison, at worst, there's popular belief that his opinion is farfetched. But I don't believe he's "wrong", objectively. Subjectivity is at play when comparing matches, that's what I think, anyways.

  37. #37
    Is Your Superior PEN15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,987
    Skul, you're right. That's why this portion is about people's opinion. I don't think anyone expects all the answers to be identical. Just share your opinion on what you prefer.

  38. #38
    Skulduggery
    Guest
    I think the phrasing "objective opinion" initially threw me, but I think I now see what you meant. Regardless of whether one prefers Bryan over Cena, if one truly believes that Cena pulled a better match out of, say, Barrett, they should admit it.

  39. #39
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15 View Post
    I would say Cena was easily the better worker than Benoit in 2005-2007. Benoit had fallen into a bit of a slump as a worker in my opinion. 2004 was a great year, because he was able to do some great stuff leading up the the WHC win, the rematch, the matches with HHH, and even with Kane before finally dropping the title to Orton. After that... the stuff with Edge. The Best of 7 with Booker didn't really click, neither did the work with JBL (which really disappointed me at the time), Chavo Guerrero Jr, The MVP stuff was better than expected (and probably is the reason people still want MVP back in WWE)...

    Mizfan, I loved the Cena vs Orton feud in 2009. Those might be Orton's best series of matches. I would dare say they were better than the recent string with Christian. Now, it's not an entirely fair comparison, because Christian vs Orton has nothing but singles matches (maybe a no DQ match somewhere?), while Cena vs Orton had Iron Man/I Quit/Hell in a Cell.
    Fair point, the Cena/Orton matches were pretty good, I completely agree. They come off less memorable in my mind now because the feud was so criminally exhausted by the time it was finally dropped, but thinking back I do hold the Iron Man match in my mind as a personal favorite of the time period. Comparing them to the Christian/Orton series is difficult, as you mentioned. It's pretty close in my mind. Either way I agree Cena was a strong performer in the period, I just wouldn't rank him #1 in the company.

    As to Benoit, I thought his series with Booker/Orton worked pretty well, and certainly his matches with Booker were miles better than any Cena ever had with him. Also the multiple Regal/Finlay matches shouldn't be overlooked I think, I know both have a reputation for being strong workers but I also challenge you to find anyone that either man had a better match with than Benoit during that period. I never felt like his ring work was slumping, just that the opportunity to show it on a bigger stage was less frequent.

    Regarding the list, I would say:

    -Great Khali

    Cena, any way you look at it. Nobody else is even close.

    -Big Show

    Overall it's Taker, their series in '08 alone puts him over the top. If you take away gimmick matches though I'd have to say Sheamus, I don't recall them ever having a bad match together.

    -Mark Henry

    After thinking about it I have to say Randy Orton. Several people have had a good match with the guy, but he and Orton seem to click pretty much every time whereas everyone else usually has several duds to back up their one standout match. If you take out gimmicks (like Hell in a Cell) then I'd change my answer to Big Show, of all people. They just had great chemistry, especially in 2011. Strange how that works sometimes.

    -Bobby Lashley

    Cena without a doubt, though there isn't that big a pool to draw from.

    -Umaga

    Jeff Hardy. Both he and Cena could wrestle strong gimmick matches with him, but Jeff had much more memorable regular contests with the guy.

    -Batista

    Undertaker for sure. Cena is runner up, but Taker just has a stronger body of work with Bats.

    -Rock

    It may be cliche, but Steve Austin is definitely my overall choice. Chris Jericho passes him up if you take out gimmicks like No DQ and such. I'd also rank Triple H, Kurt Angle, Benoit, and honestly Punk as well before we get to Cena.

    -Kane

    Kane has a spotty record pretty much across the board. Benoit and Mysterio probably have the best claims.

    -JBL

    Eddie Guerrero, without a doubt. If you take away gimmick matches CM Punk may actually have the edge though, their Summerslam match and the follow up on Raw were both better than any non-stip matches Cena ever had with him. The '05 I Quit was good, but they've never come close to recreating that magic in their many other encounters.

    -Edge

    Kurt Angle takes it for me, Undertaker second. Cena is next in line, though I wouldn't even rank him if we ignore gimmick matches.

    -Wade Barrett

    Cena's got this one. Orton is close.

    -The Miz

    Weirdly I think I have to choose Jerry Lawler for this one. They just clicked really well, capped off by that surprisingly good TLC match on Raw. If you take stips out I would say Kofi Kingston has the edge, they always seem to mesh well. Cena doesn't even really rank here, honestly.

    -R-Truth

    Slim pickings on this one. Jarrett in TNA probably got the best of his work to be honest. In the 'E there isn't much to choose from, but I'd say Jericho, Mysterio, and Cesaro at least have had better matches than Cena.

    -Ryback

    I suppose I'll go with Cena here, I didn't think much of either of their big matches but Punk's Cell match was pretty poor as well. The TLC with Punk was my favorite of the bunch, but Cena has a little more consistency. As for non-gimmick matches... does he even have any? I guess that one with Jericho a few months ago was decent.

  40. #40
    The Underage Pessimist Subho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    899
    -Great Khali: John Cena. I prefer the Falls Count Anywhere Match but the singles match at Judgment Day '07 was good too. The Undertaker had a good Last Man Standing Match, too. But their singles matches sucked camel balls.

    -Big Show: Mark Henry. Their 2011 feud produced 2 great matches that left most everyone awestruck.

    -Mark Henry: Daniel Bryan. Even with the contrast in sizes and styles, they had some great matches. In them, two Steel Cage matches, one at a SmackDown and the other a Triple Threat with The Big Show at the Royal Rumble.

    -Bobby Lashley: Cena. The match at The Great American Bash '07 was great. Though, there aren't many wrestlers to choose from.

    -Umaga: Cena, here as well. Their matches at New Year's Revolution and Royal Rumble were Umaga's best matches, no doubt.

    -Batista: The Undertaker. I prefer the many matches they had together over any Cena vs. Batista match.

    -Rock: Cena wins by a margin because even though the 2nd match sucked, the 1st one was better than both the Punk matches.

    -Kane: Daniel Bryan had better matches with him than anyone. Undertaker if you are wondering 'all-time'.

    -JBL: Have to go with Cena here. I really liked all their matches. Even the one at WrestleMania 21.

    -Edge: Cena, again. Great chemistry, great rivalry.

    -Wade Barrett: Bryan. Their trilogy during the build up to SummerSlam gave some great TV matches, and yes, they were better than any match Cena had with him in PPVs in 2010.

    -The Miz: Kofi Kingston. I think about these two, and I know that they can produce a great match whenever these two meet in the ring.

    -R-Truth: Cena wins by default. But, its sad that I can't think of any great R-Truth match at the top of my head.

    -Ryback: Bryan. And I'm amazed that nobody brought him up. Bryan has had 2 great matches with Ryback. One at SmackDown and the other during that Gauntlet Match Bryan was in. And the best fact about them was that they were straight up singles matches. No gimmicks attached.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •