Better In-Ring Performer - Hogan or Cena?

[Sean Liska]

This question was asked on the Observer board by the author of this blog discussing whether Hogan or Cena is the better in-ring performer - http://www.wetalkwrestling.com/?p=740. I think it's too interesting of a topic to go to waste there.

 

This is a tough one for me because I think both guys have been way underrated for most of their careers. I'm of the opinion that Hogan was pretty great in the 80s. When I watched the 82-83 NJPW seasons, I found myself looking forward to his matches and thinking they were some of the more consistently smartly worked ones on the set. Watching 80s WWF house shows made me appreciate the way that he gave the fans a fast-paced match that told an effective story and always sent them home satisfied, especially after seeing how horrible the undercards could be. He could have legitimately great matches like the Savage or Bossman ones. Everything he did tended to "look" better than Cena.

 

But it's tough to argue against Cena's track record of legitimately great matches, with the Lensar one this year being the latest example. Changes in in-ring style have put him in a position to have more "great" matches than Hogan, and he's delivered. Could he have gotten a satisfying 20 minute main event out of a blown up Ultimate Warrior? Was his Mania match with Rock as good as Hogan's with Rock when Hogan was already broken down?

 

I feel like Hogan was a more solid performer, but Cena has had more great matches. Thoughts?

[Mr Wrestling X]

In terms of "wrestling" - John Cena is easily the superior performer given that he has risen above his regular routine on many occasions and produced some critically acclaimed matches - Cena vs. Punk at MITB, at that time was the first WWE match in nearly 14 years to have recieved five stars from Meltzer (if you are invested in his system). OTOH, Hogan rarely deviated from his regular in-ring performance from his second tenure with WWE from 1984-1993. Most of Hogan's matches at lesser events didn't end decisively so WWE could boost the hype for events such as Wrestlemania or MSG house shows. Hogan was very much a travelling champion, in the same ilk as Buddy Rogers, Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund before him. In fact, it wasn't until recent times that Hogan began to refine his in-ring performance to accomodate for modern audiences, just look at his work in 02-03 with WWE in which he took losses, went in the favourite and came out the loser and he even wrestled in hardcore and street fight matches.

 

Hogan obviously has the "performance" advantage over Cena because Hogan mastered the ability to connect with the majority audience (which Cena fails to do) and learnt how to effectively sell for his opponent, regardless of who they were. Hogan's big matches were always well recieved from a performance POV because it actually seemed like he might lose, he did make superhuman comebacks, but he was so good at garnering sympathy from the audience and this is what Cena fails at (asides from the fact that his current character has no place in a modern wrestling product, particulary one that has began to rely on popular culture and the entertainment industry in order to further itself). The only time Cena has ever come close to reaching the selling level of Hulk Hogan was during his match with Brock Lesnar at Extreme Rules.

[Coffey]

The thing to me is, Hogan didn't do a lot but everything that he did he did well. Nothing looked sloppy or looked poorly executed. Everything John Cena does looks sloppy to me. Like it lacks crispness. He's like the polar opposite of Bret Hart. Everything from the Attitude Adjustment and the STF to his half-assed Fisherman Suplex and top rope leg drop.

 

It's not that John Cena isn't capable of having great matches, as he has, he just doesn't strike me as a great wrestler. I think WWE is aware of it too which is why they try to get him over as a brawler or a fighter. He seems exceptionally forced. Hogan felt natural.

 

Hogan was a smart worker and he knew that sometimes less was more, which seems to be a lost art nowadays. Especially in U.S. indies. But it was more than just the moves, it was the facial expressions and the selling and the drama too. Cena has some pretty good facial expressions sometimes and other times, like his angry face backstage on RAW a couple months ago when Zack Ryder was leaving in an ambulance, are so back they're B-movie hysterical.

 

I like John Cena and think he gets a bad rap. Especially with as hard as he works and all he does for the company. But I still think Hogan wins in a rout.

 

Maybe nostalgia and rose-colored glasses and just age in general play a huge part in me being biased but Hogan was capable of making me care about matches that I should have no earthly reason to give a shit about. Whereas John Cena, for me, it's all about his opponent making me want to watch John Cena, Hogan made me want to watch Hogan, regardless of if he was squaring off against Sgt. Slaughter, Zeus, Savage or Earthquake.

 

I feel like Hogan was a more solid performer, but Cena has had more great matches. Thoughts?

I sort of agree with this but it was just a different era. Hogan didn't really have 14 PPVs a year to work with back in the 80's. And it's not like Hogan's matches, at least his Wrestlemania matches, were bad. I mean, they're not great by today's standards, but they hold up surprisingly well and were packed full of emotion. Vs. Bundy at 2, Vs. Savage at 5, Vs. Warrior at 6, Vs. Slaughter at 7...those are all watchable still. Plus just the spectacle of André at 3 is still insane. The body slam moment gives me goosebumps 25 years later.

 

Hogan was the top babyface during his WWF Hulkamania run. Then he was the top heel during his WCW "Hollywood" run. Who else can do that?

[Dylan Waco]

I too am pretty high on Hogan, certainly much higher than the average smart fan was when I started traveling in those circles in the early 90's. I also think the AWA Set is going to further give people an opportunity to see Hogan working with his strengths (and quality opponents) to deliver exciting matches, a few of which even tread into "great" territory.

 

I would have zero problem with someone who ranked Hogan above Cena, but ultimately I just don't see an argument for him that I find persuasive. People have pointed to the advantages Cena has of multiple ppv opportunities a year, but Cena also has a massive booking disadvantage to the point where it totally offsets any issues that come up related to volume of good matches.

 

I think if you look at the best from each guy Cena is pretty clearly better and I don't buy that it was a result of superior opponents either. I have seen Hogan in good matches with guys I am indifferent to or think of as pretty poor workers. I have never seen him take half trained nothings like Lashley or Khali and have borderline great matches with them. I have never seen the sort of versatility out of Hogan that Cena has showed working guys as different as Jericho or RVD or Michaels or Umaga in different ways.

 

I will say that I think Hogan was actually at his best when he worked guys who would challenge him and make him react a bit more on his feet. I'm thinking of guys like Savage, Orndorff or Bockwinkel. Meanwhile I think Cena is better when booked against monsters where he can work his underdog gimmick in a more believable way and take advantage of his visual selling tactics which I think are among the best in the history of wrestling (before someone steps in here Yeah I hated the Survivor Series finish from a few years ago too, but that was the exception not the rule). That's not to say both guys can't do the other thing, but Cena is better at "babyface overcoming the odds" even if it's a narrative we've all grown to loathe, while Hogan is better at more give and take style matches where the heat comes from a different context (outside interference, cheap shot tactic, et).

 

I get the criticism of Cena's execution, but I ultimately don't care about it because execution is only something that really hurts someone in my eyes when it is a horrible botch, doesn't make contact at all or is undersold/buried by the guy receiving the impact (and/or announcer). Even still I don't see Hogan as a guy who would have a clear advantage in "execution" or "impact" anyhow.

 

I would take Cena over Hogan for a variety of reasons - more quality matches against more diverse pool of opponents working different settings/styles, better at selling/bumping, better peak year(s), best matches and performances are better, more instances where I felt he was the equal or better wrestler in a legitimately good or great match, et.

 

But I wouldn't knock anyone for taking Hogan

[Jingus]

In terms of best vs best, it's kinda hard to compare them since the eras and styles are surprisingly different (considering that both guys do a lot of the same punch-kick New York theatrical brawling). I dunno if Cena, transplanted to 1990 without the modern agents helping him, could've had as good a match with Warrior as Hogan did. But the others are right when they say Cena's produced a more interesting variety of different stuff with wildly different opponents.

 

Worst vs worst, it's hard to make a case for Hulk being better. His crappy matches were pretty goddamned unwatchable; the worst you can say about Cena is that he often goes on autopilot with repetitive spots and flimsy offense. Of course, he's also so much older and so much more insistent on his own deranged ideas of Creative Control that he's had a lot more opportunities to shit the bed than John has.

[Mad Dog]

I personally don't like the comparison because I tend to see John Cena as being the natural evolution of the Sting persona from the early 90s.

 

As far as the two go. You have to rate Cena higher because his higher end work is just a lot better. He's had so many good matches with so many different people that you can't deny that he's a pretty good worker. Hogan had a lot of good matches with a wider variety of people but Hogan always held back more than he let loose.

 

I think it's also to Cena's credit that he actually survived the level of booking incompetence and reluctance to make him the guy.

[Eduardo]

I dunno if Cena, transplanted to 1990 without the modern agents helping him, could've had as good a match with Warrior as Hogan did.

Isn't Pat Patterson responsible for laying out that Hogan-Warrior match?

 

I pick Cena for reasons that Dylan and Mad Dog already went over. Cena having matches that range from fun to great with guys like Punk, Sabu, Jericho, Edge, Show, Michaels, RVD, Mysterio, Lashley, Umaga, Orton, Khali, and more is pretty neat. Also, Cena's one year title reign was probably the most fun and exciting WWE title reign I can remember in a long time.

[Loss]

I don't really care about breaking down wrestlers like this. I'm more interested in the matches (the output). I don't put nearly as much stock in a list of a person's list of attributes as I do a list of their best matches. (Yes, I realize there are exceptions to this.)

 

But based on that, for me, it's Cena, by far. Hogan is an underrated wrestler, but has never had a great match. Lots of really good ones, lots of historic ones, lots of fun ones. But nothing like Cena/Umaga, Cena/Michaels, Cena/Punk or Cena/Lesnar.

[JerryvonKramer]

Would it be fair to say that while Cena probably has more great matches, Hogan was by far the "better worker" in terms of crowd reaction, generating sympathy selling, promo, charisma, basically everything?

[Loss]

That's probably a fair statement. The debate is over which has more value -- being able to do things better, or being able to translate what you do well into better results.

[JerryvonKramer]

If Hogan himself was here though, you know he'd argue that "better results" means bigger buyrates and bigger gates. Does Cena even compare with Hogan as a draw?

 

If you take matches as the criteria very very few guys from 80s WWF are going to fare well, it wasn't exactly workrate central. Take Steamboat based 100% on his WWF work. His "output" there probably doesn't match Cena's, even if you argued that Cena never had a match as good as the Savage match. Are you going to say Cena is a better performer than Steamboat was?

 

I don't see how you can do this in a fair way and give it to Cena.

[Loss]

The topic of this thread is "better in-ring performer". Buyrates aren't part of the discussion. "Better result" means "I used my talent to have better matches."

 

I will mention this for about the 40th time and I would like to see you finally respond to it.

 

Barry Windham is a more talented wrestler than Ric Flair. Ric Flair is a better in-ring performer than Barry Windham because he had better matches.

 

The fair way is matches. If the wrestling wasn't as good then, it doesn't reflect very well on the people who wrestled then.

[Matt D]

I'll take attributes over output anyday.

[Loss]

But does none of that matter because Hogan's hammerlock takedown looked better than any of Cena's offense? I'd rather look at this in a macro way than a micro way myself.

[Loss]

I'll take attributes over output anyday.

Why?

[Loss]

Hogan obviously has the "performance" advantage over Cena because Hogan mastered the ability to connect with the majority audience (which Cena fails to do)

No one in wrestling gets the heat Cena does. How can you say he doesn't connect with a crowd?

[Slasher]

Hogan obviously has the "performance" advantage over Cena because Hogan mastered the ability to connect with the majority audience (which Cena fails to do)

No one in wrestling gets the heat Cena does. How can you say he doesn't connect with a crowd?

 

I think he means in the context of getting the "right" kind of reaction in relation to his character alignment. Even if nowadays, "any heat is good heat", getting booed by half the crowd while playing a babyface is not necessarily a good thing.

[Loss]

The thing to me is, Hogan didn't do a lot but everything that he did he did well. Nothing looked sloppy or looked poorly executed.

Watch this.

 

It's not that John Cena isn't capable of having great matches, as he has, he just doesn't strike me as a great wrestler. I think WWE is aware of it too which is why they try to get him over as a brawler or a fighter. He seems exceptionally forced. Hogan felt natural.

WWE was afraid to put Hogan in the ring longer than 15-20 minutes. Cena has wrestled 45-60 minute matches. If anything, WWE saw Hogan as the more limited wrestler.

 

Hogan didn't really have 14 PPVs a year to work with back in the 80's.

No. He had:

 

* Four PPVs a year (Eventually)

* Monthly televised MSG shows

* Monthly televised Spectrum shows

* Monthly televised Boston Gardens shows

* Network television specials every 4-6 weeks

 

Some of which were against guys like Randy Savage, Harley Race, Curt Hennig, Ric Flair and Ted DiBiase.

[Matt D]

I'll take attributes over output anyday.

Why?

 

Because opportunity matters to me. What the wrestler actually does with the opportunity given matters. You watch enough matches with someone, you see how they move, why they move, and you can extrapolate. It's the ten minute vs thirty minute match argument. So long as you have ENOUGH matches to work off, you can extrapolate. Some guys aren't put in a position to have as many great matches. Talent does not always rise in wrestling, because what the general audience is looking for isn't always what we're looking for.

 

Completely alternatively, isn't this argument, in some ways, Pat Patterson vs Arn Anderson?

[Loss]

Hogan obviously has the "performance" advantage over Cena because Hogan mastered the ability to connect with the majority audience (which Cena fails to do)

No one in wrestling gets the heat Cena does. How can you say he doesn't connect with a crowd?

 

I think he means in the context of getting the "right" kind of reaction in relation to his character alignment. Even if nowadays, "any heat is good heat", getting booed by half the crowd while playing a babyface is not necessarily a good thing.

 

Cena gets exactly the reaction he is booked to get. WWE has marketed the divisiveness, acknowledged it on television and programmed him against every top babyface they could find over the years.

 

When a top guy isn't over, people just tune out. Look at all the wrestling companies that have died because the guys on top turned people away so much that they couldn't pack arenas anymore. WWE is down from their peak, but they can still do 10,000+ for a show.

 

When I think main eventers getting the wrong type of reaction, Cena is pretty far from the someone I think of. I think of Kevin Nash, Randy Savage and Sid sinking the main event scene in the summer of 1999, getting zero reaction and driving business down. You can't compare Cena to that with a straight face.

[Loss]

I'll take attributes over output anyday.

Why?

 

Because opportunity matters to me. What the wrestler actually does with the opportunity given matters. You watch enough matches with someone, you see how they move, why they move, and you can extrapolate. It's the ten minute vs thirty minute match argument. So long as you have ENOUGH matches to work off, you can extrapolate. Some guys aren't put in a position to have as many great matches. Talent does not always rise in wrestling, because what the general audience is looking for isn't always what we're looking for.

 

Completely alternatively, isn't this argument, in some ways, Pat Patterson vs Arn Anderson?

 

I agree with this. There are plenty of great wrestlers who sadly don't ever get the stage you wish they could have to show off what they could do. I can think of a dozen or so without trying too hard. But ... does Hogan really fit in that category? He had quality opponents. He had the booking focus. He was given time on big shows.

 

And is this thread to say "Who was better?" or "If all things were equal, who would have been better?" The former is actual, while the latter is hypothetical, so the answer to each question is different.

[Matt D]

I may have been speaking more generally.

[Slasher]

Hogan obviously has the "performance" advantage over Cena because Hogan mastered the ability to connect with the majority audience (which Cena fails to do)

No one in wrestling gets the heat Cena does. How can you say he doesn't connect with a crowd?

 

I think he means in the context of getting the "right" kind of reaction in relation to his character alignment. Even if nowadays, "any heat is good heat", getting booed by half the crowd while playing a babyface is not necessarily a good thing.

 

Cena gets exactly the reaction he is booked to get. WWE has marketed the divisiveness, acknowledged it on television and programmed him against every top babyface they could find over the years.

 

When a top guy isn't over, people just tune out. Look at all the wrestling companies that have died because the guys on top turned people away so much that they couldn't pack arenas anymore. WWE is down from their peak, but they can still do 10,000+ for a show.

 

When I think main eventers getting the wrong type of reaction, Cena is pretty far from the someone I think of. I think of Kevin Nash, Randy Savage and Sid sinking the main event scene in the summer of 1999, getting zero reaction and driving business down. You can't compare Cena to that with a straight face.

 

I'm not trying to compare these scenarios at all. Once again, I think it goes back to "any heat is good heat". In this era, I think the WWE would latch on to anything that gets a reaction. Do you really think when the whole anti-Cena movement started, that the WWE wasn't trying to manipulate the situation back into their favor? Who remembers U.S. Olympian Kurt Angle announcing to the crowd that USA sucked? How about turning Jericho heel to try to deflect the reversed crowd reactions to Cena and Christian? After a few years, the WWE gave in and made it seem like they INTENDED for these reactions for Cena. It does not mean Cena is a great babyface. It just means Cena is a great character, in a way. It reminds me of these statements I would hear about how heels are not doing a good job if they were getting cheers. How is this not the same thing?

[Exposer]

Cena for a lot of reasons. I'm on the side of Hogan being underrated too. However, Hogan-Savage, Hogan-Bockwinkel, Hogan-Warrior, and Hogan-Orndorff don't match up that great with Cena-Umaga, Cena-Michaels, Cena-Punk, or Cena-Lesnar. If one wants to look at attributes Cena wins that as well. Cena has had many superb selling performances and can bump much better. Cena pretty clearly for me.

[Loss]

First of all, it has been very rare that the crowd has universally booed John Cena. It has happened a few times -- Punk, RVD, Rock -- but it's not a regular thing. He has his supporters who are pretty loud and enthusiastic, and he has his detractors. He's a babyface to those who like him, and a heel to those who don't. The window where WWE wasn't purposely generating this reaction is very small. There were items in early 2006 WONs about PPV finishes designed to get Cena over as both a face and a heel.

 

Bret Hart was booked to be a heel to one segment of the audience and a babyface to the other. He pulled it off very well. The only difference is that the dividing line there was markets, and the dividing line with Cena is age and gender. So because of that, Cena gets a mixed reaction much of the time, because he has fans of both types in the same market.

 

I won't pretend there was this great WWE calculation behind it, and that it's something they thought of on their own, but they realized it pretty early in his push and started deliberately booking him to milk that reaction even more pretty quickly. Trying to kill that and get the crowd behind him more is a recent thing.