Dylan Waco Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I suppose if you are a total ECW fanboy Dreamer is a guy you might want on the ballot, but even within ECW he's not one of the five most important guys in the companies history. Hum, what ? Terry Funk Sabu Sandman Shane Douglas RVD Raven Taz ... ah, you're right. You could add Heyman, Todd Gordon and The Dudleyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I wouldn't put the Dudz ahead of Dreamer. Heyman & Gordon of course, but we're talking about workers here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I think there's an argument that Mike Awesome's run during the early ECW on TNN show makes him a more valuable piece of the ECW puzzle than Tommy Dreamer in some ways too. I'd argue Public Enemy were more important overall to the company as well. They really seemed to be the piece that made the company start taking off towards the second fall of 1993. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 In a HoF discussion you really aren't talking just about workers. To that end you could possibly add Styles. I actually don't think Dreamer has any case over the Dudz other than longevity in the promotion. The Dudz were really THE main event act from the period where ECW really started to expand nationally, right until the moment they left. Dreamer's "heart and soul of ECW gimmick" makes him as identifiable with the brand as anyone, but I don't see him as a guy who was consistently a centerpiece of the promotion and really he felt like a hanger on relative to the other "major stars" of the company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I don't feel like anyone ever watched ECW because of Tommy Dreamer. You might have liked the guy and he might have been a favorite but I don't believe that many people ever bought a ticket to see Tommy Dreamer in a match. I think the fact that Heyman never put the belt on him for more than a couple of minutes says something to his place in the company. I know when I was showing the product to other people in the late 90s it was about showing them Taz, Mike Awesome, Rob Van Dam, etc. Honestly, I would sell people on Little Guido or Tajiri as guys to watch. I never thought to use Tommy Dreamer as a company selling point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Not like you couldn't find tons of guys in the NBA that big and he's not even the tallest guy in the company. You'll find guys taller but not as big all around. Same thing with Andre, it was not just being tall, it was he was giant in proportion. But Andre was also around in the 70's and 80's where you didn't see guys as tall so often. Wilt and Kareem. As I said... I'll also spot you Big John Harris and Raja Lion, and that's from being a hardcore wrestling fan, so my point stands. P.S., Wilt retired in '73. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Does Walton count? He was 6'11. Hakeem and Ralph Sampson were the original Twin Towers in the 80s as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Been a fascinating topic, just a few points on some of the guys discussed: * The problem I have with putting Jesse Ventura into the HOF is that Bobby Heenan was right there at the same time and was just as effective as a heel commentator, and there were a few times in which Heenan stepped in to fill for Jesse (this was long before Jesse left the WWF) and I never noticed a difference in the quality of the commentary. Case in point: Heenan was the heel commentator on the SNME in which the Megapowers came together for the first time. The moment wasn't any less special because Jesse wasn't there -- Heenan did a very good job in the heel commentator role. I agree with what John has said that Jim Cornette was just as effective as a heel commentator when he came to WWF and I don't view that as a knock on Jesse. What you have to remember is this: Jesse got put into the heel commentator role because he was originally brought in to be a wrestler, but his back problems meant he couldn't wrestle any longer, so they found something else for him to do. I don't think he was bad in his role -- he did a fine job. But the question I have to ask is this: Did he define the heel commentator because nobody else could have done it or did he define the heel commentator because circumstances allowed him to be the one? For example: If Heenan does the heel commentator work with Vince on Superstars and Gorilla on early PPVs while Jesse is stuck on Wrestling Challenge, does Jesse get nearly as much attention? Or what if Venture had been able to wrestle full time and the WWF decides to throw money at Cornette to make him a heel commentator? That's the problem with Ventura. There isn't a really strong case to make to say that, without him, the heel commentator role isn't truly defined. And with announcers, you are talking about a role with a limited scope, so you really have to look at the cream of the crop and I don't think Ventura is there -- certainly not at the level of Solie and Ross in their primes. * Finkel has the same problem in terms of the scope of his role -- it's very limited. That being said, I can see the argument for Finkel given that the quality between him and the overwhelming majority of ring announcers is a pretty wide gap -- I always thought of Finkel as being the absolute best. I have Gary Cappetta second but it's not a close second. Most every other ring announcer falls into two categories: Solid but doesn't stand out, or just plain sucks. * Okerlund is an interesting case -- again, he's got the "limited scope" issue but I agree he did well with what he did and knew enough how to get himself over while getting the wrestlers over. In terms of backstage interviewers, he's at the top of the list. But I have to agree that his "after his prime" years, he wasn't very good and, more importantly, he just looked out of place in WCW. * Big Show might be the more recent version of Sting -- there's so much in which you wonder "what might have been" had he been booked better. WCW did some good things but it was a half-hearted push overall. And in WWF/E, I think the biggest problem is that he wasn't "Vince's creation" and thus he didn't really have a reason to get behind him in a way that would take advantage of Show's strengths -- hence he had no reason to go against the flow of however he was booked. That being said, it didn't help Show that he entered a period in which he became lazy and got out of shape, to the point he got sent down to OVW to get his act together. * I think the case for Lex Luger is better than some people may think, but he suffers from the same problem Sting has. There is a lot of "what might have been" with regards to how he was booked initially in JCP/WCW, often where the wheels came off just as he was getting into a groove. In WWF, he was initially bored because I don't think he cared for the Narcissist gimmick. He was more motivated when he was turned face but it was a time in which the fanbase that was there was more favorable to Bret (even if he wasn't a big draw) and Luger just never found his niche. I think Luger did some good things for the first half of his second WCW run, particularly during the nWo feud, but in the latter half, he quit caring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Jimmy Hart Obviously should be in and should have been with the first class. One of three guys I would consider legit contenders for best manager ever and you could argue that unlike the other two he actually carried a promotion for a long time. All the heels in Memphis cycled through Hart during the hottest period in the history of the territory. At the risk of incurring the wrath of OJ, I think his involvement with the music/video end is a nice icing on the cake and I actually like a fair amount of his initial WWF run though it is largely irrelevant to his case. Bill Goldberg Even though I would never vote for him, I tend to favor him because I think if you were one of the three or four biggest stars in wrestling during a period where wrestling was at it's (arguable?) all time peak you probably merit some consideration and you definitely are a good yardstick to use to compare others against. It's debatable how big a draw he was, but I'll be god damned if he wasn't a massive household name and he certainly SEEMED to be the co-equal or superior of Hogan at his peak. Would be interested in seeing the quarter hour comparisons there but I'm far too lazy to do it myself. Yuji Nagata Believe he's been on the ballot and fallen off. Another one of those guys who seems like he had to pop up on the ballot at some point given that he was a main eventer in Japan and at times a good worker. In a sense he always felt like a poor mans Chono to me and I don't see how a poor mans Chono gets in. Not sure I would even rate him over Akiyama using Observer HoF metrics. Skandor Akbar I liked him a good bit as a manager but I don't know that he was ever even the top manager in a promotion during a really hot run. Don't think he did enough as an in ring performer to offset that handicap. Ultimo Guerrero I'd be a liar if I said I knew enough to be sure, but my general inclination is to say he doesn't deserve another crack as I'm fairly sure he's been on the ballot before and I don't see any Lucha fans lobbying hard for him. Cima Can't envision any scenario where I would vote for him, but you could argue he's been one of the more successful stars in Japan of this generation so I feel obligated to say he deserves a shot on the ballot. I don't know how much he can be said to be the driving force behind Dragon Gate, so maybe I really shouldn't be touting him. But he seems like another Nagata type who at least deserves a chance. Los Hermanos Dinamita I've seen enough Lucha fans speak highly of this unit to say they should definitely be on the ballot. They'd almost certainly get a fair number of votes. Masato Tanaka Flik being the biggest FMW fan ever I'm not surprised he would put him in on work alone I high up the depth chart he was in FMW self always like Kanemura a lot more, though I did like Tanaka in his heyday. Not sure how high up the depth chart he was in FMW or how many big drawing shows he headlined. I do think he managed to remain a fairly relevant name after the Japan seen collapsed. Does he really deserve to be on the ballot over Hayabusa or Kanemura? I'm not averse to another guy from FMW's peak getting on the ballot if someone can make an argument, but I'm not sure he's the right guy. And I can't really see any way I would vote for him based on what I know. Hector Garza Don't know enough. I've actually heard conflicting thigns on his degree of stardom. Naoya Ogawa I don't see an argument, but then I did argue for Goldberg and some have called Ogawa the Japanese Goldberg. Not sure I totally get the comparison. I'm sure Dave would argue his Pride work should count which would bolster his case I suppose. Manabu Nakanishi Seems like a huge leap. Not sure he's even a good "affirmative action" pick for modern Japan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Evans Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Hector Garza Don't know enough. I've actually heard conflicting thigns on his degree of stardom. The Garza vs Latin Lover vs Perro Jr vs Heavy Metal feud pretty much saved AAA in the early 2000s I don't know if that's enough for him to go in or not. It's a crime that Cien Caras isn't in the HOF. I doubt he's going in since Meltz seems to really hate the guy and his family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Tanaka goes ahead of Kanemura based on having an exponentially better last 10 years. But damn, is Tanaka even top 20 for 'puro people who deserve to be in a HoF'? Ogawa is a 'hell no'. Huge hype to start, basically coasted that down. Nakanishi is 'hell no'. He's like a worst possible Taue in terms of a HoF case. Not sure how Nagata is "a poor man's Chono" but he certainly has a better case than CIMA, who is the head of a company based on stables and with *very* communitarian booking (ie. lots of guys get a push). Nagata is a bigger star by far and a better worker. Agreed that Jimmy Hart smokes the others on that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 If Tanaka is going in that's kind of a clear sign that there are just no real candidates left in male Japanese wrestling. And I really like the guy too. Still worlds better than Nakanishi, but neither is within 25 miles of a hall of fame case to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 In a HoF discussion you really aren't talking just about workers. To that end you could possibly add Styles. I forgot we were talking anout HoF here. So yeah, in that case, Styles goes before Dreamer. I actually don't think Dreamer has any case over the Dudz other than longevity in the promotion. The Dudz were really THE main event act from the period where ECW really started to expand nationally, right until the moment they left. Dreamer's "heart and soul of ECW gimmick" makes him as identifiable with the brand as anyone, but I don't see him as a guy who was consistently a centerpiece of the promotion and really he felt like a hanger on relative to the other "major stars" of the company I would agree with some of this. That said, the biggest program the Dudz ever had which drew really the best houses was against Sandman/Dreamer (and Spike;)) after they broke Beulah's neck. That was the high point of of Dudz, and Dreamer was a big part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Naoya Ogawa I don't see an argument, but then I did argue for Goldberg and some have called Ogawa the Japanese Goldberg. Not sure I totally get the comparison. I'm sure Dave would argue his Pride work should count which would bolster his case I suppose. I don't see how the Pride helps him. He had little to do with Pride taking off. That was Takada and Sak much more than him. He came in for a run in the 2004 tourney, got a total cupcake draw for two wins, and then got beat by the first good fighter he ever faced (granted... it was a Really Good fighter). Nothing significant there. He got brought back in the 2005 New Years card, took a massive payday (which long term probably wasn't great for Pride), and got cleaned up. Dave's piece on top rated matches: http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-mmatopten122107 "This was a disappointment in that it was expected to be second only to Sapp vs. Akebono in the ratings..." I don't think that helps. In turn, he helped destroy New Japan. A chunk of the credit for that goes to Inoki as well, but Ogawa's feud with Hash was worse than Hogan-Nash. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Not sure how Nagata is "a poor man's Chono" but he certainly has a better case than CIMA, who is the head of a company based on stables and with *very* communitarian booking (ie. lots of guys get a push). Nagata is a bigger star by far and a better worker. The comp someone might want to ponder for Nagata could be Hase. Suspect folks think Hase is a better worker, but Nagata was well pimped. Hase was a "star" in an era where New Japan was bigger, but he certainly wasn't pushed as hard as Nagata. Of course that leads back to Sasaki, who was pushed harder than both. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Not sure how Nagata is "a poor man's Chono" but he certainly has a better case than CIMA, who is the head of a company based on stables and with *very* communitarian booking (ie. lots of guys get a push). Nagata is a bigger star by far and a better worker. I agree, Nagata is a better worker but I don't think he's a better candidate than CIMA. Nagata's big IWGP run for New Japan was during a down time for the company. His 1/4 defense did pretty poorly. Now, in fairness to him, things got worse after his reign ended and his 2007 run did better but the company was also a little hotter going into his win and he wasn't seen as the top guy. CIMA on the other hand has been one of the top 4 guys for Dragon Gate as it's climbed from essentially being a wrestling gym show to being a national promotion that has arguable been the no. 2 promotion at various points over the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I haven't gone back and rewatched any of it in a long time, but I remember back when Nagata went on that long IWGP title run that was longer than Hashimoto's record (because Hashimoto was gone to Zero-1 so someone had to break his record of course) that I really felt by the end it did him at least as much harm as good. The fans were onto what they were doing and by the end had kind of turned on him being shoved down their throats a bit. That was my impression at the time anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 They also hurt Nagata by jobbing him at the end of the IWGP tournament and then winning the belt a month later. He was also pretty fresh off of getting absolutely destroyed by CroCop in an MMA fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Bob Roop What is the argument here? For guys with tough guy rep is he as good a candidate as Meng? Bob Roop is awesome. Member of Olympic team (although that probably shouldn't count for anything). Spectacular Tv interview, great play by play, great color guy (although again that shouldn't count for anything). Also a really great booker. Doesn't belong in a HOF. You should listen to his shoot, watch his matches, listen to his commentary, watch as much of his booking as you can find (some of the awesome Kevin Sullivan feud for Shire is available on youtube), friend him on facebook to read his writing...Worked the gimmick of being son of college educated folks who was too smart for wrestling, had a rep for going into a territory and stealing the talent to run shows himself (legit too smart for the wrestling promoters con). Too smart for wrestling, too smart for it's HOF. Dory Dixon What's the argument here? The little bit I know about Dixon makes him seem like a flash in the pan at best. He's a legit Mexican candidate. I guy who everyone in lucha seems to respect a ton. The caveat on his rep is that he is a guy from the fifties/sixties who worked gimmick of respected legend in UWA of the 70s/80s. It's unclear to me wether he was a legit legend of the fifties/sixties or if working the gimmick later made him into a bigger star in people's mind. (Think Tugboat Taylor working the legend gimmick in global or HBK working the legend in the 21st century). http://www.luchawiki.com/index.php?title=Dory_Dixon Los Misioneros de la Muerte I don't know near enough to say one way or the other about their strengths but they have had support from people who would know so I think they pass the "constituency" argument. Yeah they should be in, generally credited with getting over the trio format which is the form that most lucha has taken since. Skandor Akbar I liked him a good bit as a manager but I don't know that he was ever even the top manager in a promotion during a really hot run. Don't think he did enough as an in ring performer to offset that handicap. Wouldn't he be the top heel manager in Mid-South during their hot run? What's meant as inring performer? I don't know a ton about his career as in ring performer pre-managerial run. But he is an awesome in ring performer as manager...both able to be chickenshit and also come off as legit frighteningly tough. In a "if face wins he gets a whip to lash heel manager/if heel wins he gets a lash to whip face" type stip you legit don't want Akbar to have whip. I think he's probably better candidate then Albano. Kamala Good challenger for Hogan during an era where a lot of people were. Extremely memorable gimmick and he may have been a semi-relevant figure elsewhere in the 80's as a result of that. Still he was not a big enough star. I really like his stuff with Andre. Also credited with getting the cage match gimmick over in Mexico. But, no Los Hermanos Dinamita I've seen enough Lucha fans speak highly of this unit to say they should definitely be on the ballot. They'd almost certainly get a fair number of votes. It is ridiculous that Cien isn't in. If there is one important HOF project, I think it would be to counter Meltz' interpretation of Farmer's data. [big Show I'm sure a lot of people will scoff at me including him as a "guy who should go on the ballot" choice but he does have some positives and I think he has value on the ballot as a point of comparison to other modern candidates (Edge, Batista, et.). ehh, Hopefully next year they will build Mania around Shaq v Big Show. Then he'll be as qualified as Konan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 NINTENDO LOGIC: HHH was inducted in 2005. He had already done just about everything that you would put on his HOF resume by that point. If you thought he was a marginal candidate in 2005, I don't see how the DX reunion would put him over the top. From a HOF voting standpoint, he wasn't a Shawn Michaels, much less a Kurt Angle. I think he should be in the HOF. Even if domestic buys and attendance went down while he was ontop. He has now been booked as the ace of a promotion for over a decade. I think he should have gone in 2005, if you have a HOF for carnies voted on by carnies than the guy who managed to bed down the daughter of biggest promoter in world should get into the HOF. None of those are the reason that Meltzer thinks HHH got into the HOF. When he does the bios of the HOF members HHH is listed as biggest drawing heel during the attitude era. I'm not saying that that's why he's in...but that's what Meltzer argues as basis of his candidacy. LOSS Who did Jesse Ventura get over who would not have been over without Jesse's ability to sell them from the announce booth, the way Ross was associated with Austin, or Okerlund with Hogan and late 90s Flair, or Russell with Lawler, or Solie with everyone in Florida and Georgia? I associate Dino Bravo and Van Hammer with Ventura. JerryVonKramer Jesse might not be snyonymous with "the 80s boom period" but he IS synonymous with SNME and to a lesser extent Superstars and the first Wrestlemanias. Because the WWF's succes in the 80s wasn't as a TV product. Would Vince and Hogan go in if all they accomplished was getting a monthly gig on NBC? Wrestling wasn't promoted as primarily a TV product till Bischoff. My understanding form when I worked in Philly, was that Spaceman Frank Hickey was more of a regular TV presence in the 60s than Bruno. People went to the show to see Bruno and didn't complain about "where's the Spaceman?". There are guys who are in the HOF for there Tv presence. Fargo, Lawler, and Russel are guys who are pointed to as drawing giant TV ratings. Georgous George I think may have been less of an attendance draw vis a vis Thesz at the same time he was a giant TV star. But the point is the most important WWF figures of the 80s (Vince and Hogan) aren't in for their skill as TV personalities or succesfull TV promotion. If we want to rewrite the 80s wrestling wars as a fight for Tv dominance and not for ring attendance than I imagine we'd have to credit Ted Turner as the greatest wrestling promoter of all time...as no one has had more success from promoting wrestling tv programing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think he should be in the HOF. Even if domestic buys and attendance went down while he was ontop. He has now been booked as the ace of a promotion for over a decade. I think he should have gone in 2005, if you have a HOF for carnies voted on by carnies than the guy who managed to bed down the daughter of biggest promoter in world should get into the HOF. None of those are the reason that Meltzer thinks HHH got into the HOF. When he does the bios of the HOF members HHH is listed as biggest drawing heel during the attitude era. I'm not saying that that's why he's in...but that's what Meltzer argues as basis of his candidacy. I would say that Cena has been the ace for most of the past decade. And I disagree with your interpretation of Meltzer's description of HHH. But if even he means what you say he means, he's just one guy. There are dozens of voters who have their own reasons for voting the way they did. I think original intent is just as problematic for HOF voting as it is for constitutional interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 A very large percentage of voters follow Dave's cue and his narratives. I don't even think that is arguable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I would say that Cena has been the ace for most of the past decade. How so? By past decade do you just mean 2011, 2012? I could maybe see that but I can't see arguing the past decade. I wrote this on Oct 24th of 2011: I'm doing finger math so someone might want to check behind me but: There have been 1758 days between 2008 and today. Cena has only held the world championship belt 285 days Same period HHH held it 280 days Randy Orton held it 364 A bunch of other folks have held it the other 800 some odd days. During that period Cena's longest title run was 84 days long, Long enough to win it defend on PPV and then loose to next challenger. Meltzer is now saying on the won board that Austin's monster push didn't start in 96 but rather only started when he hooked up with Tyson in 98. Only then did the fed build itself around Austin. Whatever you think of that reasoning, Cena has never been given a Tyson 98 moment. Cena pretty clearly should have been presented, booked and protected as the ace of the promotion for the last half decade. But I'd like to be pointed to the period where HHH wasn't presented, booked and protected above him. And I disagree with your interpretation of Meltzer's description of HHH. But if even he means what you say he means, he's just one guy. There are dozens of voters who have their own reasons for voting the way they did. I think original intent is just as problematic for HOF voting as it is for constitutional interpretation. I think we are in agreement here. I don't think Meltz' explanation is neccesarily the actual reason HHH got the votes he did. But once Meltzer says "this" is enough to qualify as a Hall of famer in my HOF, it becomes harder to argue against a guy like Big Bossman, Kensuke Sasaki, Kamala, Raschke, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 2008 strikes me as a rather arbitrary starting point. Why include HHH's 210-day reign and the bulk of Orton's 203-day reign and not Cena's year-plus reign and 280-day reign? You should also probably include Cena's 105 days as World Heavyweight Champion, during which time he was usually booked above the WWE Champion. Plus, title reigns only tell part of the story. Look at all the times, like the Nexus feud and his current program with The Rock, where he was clearly the focal point of the promotion despite not having the belt. Since Cena first won the title in 2005, the only year I would say HHH was booked above him is 2008. HHH disappeared for much of 2005 after the Batista feud, and when he came back, he feuded with Flair over the Intercontinental title. In 2006, HHH was occupied by the DX-McMahon feud while Cena was feuding with Edge for the title. HHH was injured for most of 2007. In 2009, Cena feuded with Orton over the world title while DX feuded with Legacy and JeriShow. And HHH stopped being a full-time performer in 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Cena has clearly been the face/top guy/ace of WWE since at least 2006. In 2005, it was a 1 and 1-A situation with him and Batista, but Cena got the prime Raw spot, which he has never relinquished. I would say HHH entered his Part-Time Legend phase after the Batista feud. He's had a few runs where his programs were pushed harder than Cena's since 2005 (DX reunion, feud with Orton), but overall it's basically been Cena's show for 6-7 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.