Better In-Ring Performer - Hogan or Cena?

[Slasher]

I don't want to get painted the wrong way here. If anything, I would pick Cena over Hogan, because I think he is a better worker than Hogan, but the sense I get is Hogan was able to manipulate the crowds to react a certain way. Look at the ending of his match with Warrior. I am sure the crowd was supposed to root for Warrior, but Hogan did his "defeated but noble warrior king" act and garnered great sympathy from the crowd. Didn't help that Warrior was soon exposed as not being as good a champion, but regardless... I don't know if Cena has that ability to flip a switch completely on the crowd reaction like Hogan was able to. He gets great reactions, but it seems like it's a static reaction, if that makes sense.

[Loss]

He probably doesn't. I do think if you break it down to individual thing compared to individual thing, Hogan looks better. Both guys are cases, though, where the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts, which is why I think it makes more sense to compare them that way.

[NintendoLogic]

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.

This is a pretty bad analogy. Steamboat was in the WWF for less than three years, so of course that's not a fair comparison. And Hogan didn't just wrestle in 80s WWF. He also worked in the AWA, New Japan, and WCW, places that weren't exactly hostile to workrate. He had matches against the likes of Nick Bockwinkel, Randy Savage, Stan Hansen, Ric Flair, and Vader. The argument that Hogan didn't have the opportunities to show that he could go in the ring simply isn't credible.

[Matt D]

I'll say this. I think Cena would be just as good in 1988. In some ways, even better as a total act, since his promos would have been against the screen and shorter

[Loss]

It's interesting that when he was in developmental, most old-timers who saw Cena cut promos thought wrestling had found its next Ric Flair. That was how Cornette talked him up. He probably would have been better in the past because he would have taken more control of how he was presented and been allowed to speak off the cuff a little more.

[Slasher]

I know the WWE is a company filled with micromanaging OCD level paranoids, but WHY are they not letting Cena loose in terms of the stick? He's such a company man I don't think he would ever knowingly embarrass them if left to his own devices.

[Mad Dog]

I don't know. It feels like they've been out to screw him up from day 1. I have a hard time thinking of a top face being booked worse than John Cena has. It really is a miracle that he took off and sustained like he has.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

Ha ha, well if you're a matches guy and I'm "skills and attributes" guy, all I can do is say again why I don't think "great matches" are the be-all and end-all.

 

Crowd reaction counts a hell of a lot in wrestling. Face reaction, heel reaction. For me, any GOAT argument for any guy starts with that. What sort of heat did they draw? How over were they? That's why I've argued time and time again that in any GOAT conversation, stuff like your DiBiase basketball skit or your Rude promo at Superbrawl II has to be "counted" as much as getting ***** ratings from Metlzer and legion IWC reviewers.

 

For one thing, we've seen that ratings are subjective and tastes change. Is Tom Billington seriously still in the GOAT conversation? Are his so-called 5-star classics still considered 5-star classics? Common wisdom in 1998 would tell you that Dynamite Kid had lots and lots of great matches. Do we still think that?

 

But go back to Rude in 92 and those boos are as loud in 98, as loud in 2008 and they will be as loud in 2018. The crowd reaction was the crowd reaction. He did his job. He was effective. I can't even remember off the top of my head who he wrestled at Superbrawl II, but sure as hell I can remember Rude being really fucking over at that event.

 

Point is: there may come a day when we don't think the "great" Cena matches are great anymore. Tastes and consensus may change. The status of a match is seldom set in stone. The status of someone's overness is more concrete, more fixed, easier to measure.

 

--------

 

Anyway, these "out of ring" skills always already translate into "in-ring" skills. Working the crowd, psychology, charisma, persona ... all of those things feed into how the crowd is reacting during the match. So, assuming the noise isn't pumped in, a massive pop is still a massive pop and a dead crowd is still a dead crowd. There's an argument to say that a match that took place in front of a dead crowd didn't work. If they didn't care about Dean Malenko's innovative submission holds, they didn't care. He chose the wrong night to do it, and so he had a "bad match" -- at least in the eyes of the promoter, at least on the level of entertaining the crowd.

 

Coming back to Cena and Hogan then ... the argument here comes to: what sort of crowd reaction did Hogan have his whole career and what sort of crowd reaction did Cena have? Aside from a few occasions in 92, and a difficult stretch in 94-5 when he was, in my mind, very badly handled by WCW (needed a much firmer boss basically), can you really say there was ever a time when he wasn't over? If Hogan isn't demonstrably top babyface ever ever -- judging by IN MATCH crowd reactions -- then he's got a lock case for top 2 or 3. And DITTO on the heel side - he's gotta be in at least the top 5 or 6 conversation there too, if not higher.

 

Cena isn't touching top 20 for face and he's just not in the heel conversation at all. You can argue that's because he's been mismanaged or because he's working at a time when kayfabe is so broken that crowds are very difficult to manipulate in the way they once were, but the fact is there's never been a time when he was unambiguously over over. He was never Hogan over. Hell, he was never even Warrior over.

 

SOME of it will be down to angles, promos, and all the other "out of ring" aspects of the Cena package, but you've also got to say that the in-ring performances have to come to consideration.

 

Look at a Hogan match. Simplest wrestling formula going. Yet almost 6 years into that big WWF run he was STILL massively more over than Cena ever has been. Why? Surely there HAS to be a part of it that is down to the in-ring performance. The connection with the crowd, the ability to work the crowd.

 

My bottomline on this is that you can produce a list as long as your arm of Cena's greatest matches, but was he as over as Hogan was?

 

Did you ever play that game Total Extreme Wrestling? One thing Adam Ryland got exactly right there: two guys can't have an A* rated match if they aren't at least a B+ or A rated popularity in that territory. They can have As across the board, but if they aren't over that rating is going to be capped by their popularity. I honestly believe that you can't ever take overness out of the equation. You just can't, even when judging "in-ring performers"

 

I realise that could throw up lots of odd arguments:

 

Junkyard Dog or Dean Malenko? Well JYD smokes Dean for overness doesn't he, but obviously he had few good matches. You have to make a judgement call on how far Dean's matches and technical ability can outweigh the fact he was never that over. For many many fans, the JYD vs. Malenko argument is a no context. I think it's pretty close. I'M STILL TALKING IN RING HERE. JYD's overness counts for, A LOT no matter how shitty he was after 1983. It's a close call -- Dean probably shades it, just.

 

Hogan vs. Cena is nowhere near as close a call. The gap in technical ability is much narrower and much more debatable. The gap in great matches is narrower too (Hogan still has his share). But the gap in overness is huge, so the answer has to be Hogan.

[Matt D]

pay attention to my talking point!

 

Patterson vs Anderson! The guys laying out the big matches matter.

 

I'm only partially kidding.

[Loss]

For the record, I don't think it's ridiculous to pick Hogan over Cena, and I'm not dismissive of the opinion by any means. What I think is the far more interesting discussion is what people value in wrestlers, which can't help but become important when comparing them. I will never argue Cena - or really, anyone - as being a star at the magnitude of Hogan. But stardom is not everything.

 

Do you consider Ric Flair to be better than Hulk Hogan? Flair - a huge star in his own right - was not as big a star or as over as Hulk was. Do you consider Randy Savage better? Bret Hart? There are lots of guys we can discuss. My point is, if you do see any of them as better than Hogan, we have more in common than you think.

 

In praise of Hogan, he did have some great interviews and people can make dollars and cents arguments with Austin all the want, but Hogan created the template for Austin to be successful. He's the greatest pro wrestling star of our generation.

 

Now, I'm throwing that out the window to answer the question posed in the thread, which was who was the better *in-ring* performer. The question was not raised of who was the bigger star. There is a difference. It is possible to decouple the points for the purposes of discussion and still acknowledge them as being interdependent. And I do consider all of those things that you mentioned to be extremely important. But crowd reaction is already built in for Hogan matches. Crowd reaction is not the result of anything he did bell to bell. He had it no matter what he did. That's a credit to his star quality. That is not at all in any way a credit to his in-ring ability. If someone could point to examples of Hogan taking a crowd that had been burned out after a long show and bringing them back to life by working a smart match, or taking a crowd whose booing/cheering was not aligned with the booking goals and steering the ship in the right direction, or investing a crowd in a match they didn't care that much about to begin with and having them rocking in the aisles by the end, I would consider all of those huge positives for Hogan, and that does absolutely fall under in-ring ability for me. I can point to Flair doing all of those things at various points. I'm not saying Hogan never did them, but I can't think of them.

 

My point is that Hogan's popularity, and the heat in his matches, was incidental to his ring work. It was not the result of his ring work.

 

While Hogan had all of those things laid out for him nicely in advance - well before he even came through the curtain - in most cases, Cena is fighting from behind to have a good match because his programs are so poorly booked most of the time. In a way, I consider that he has ever had any great matches an overcoming of the odds, because it's rare that he gets the same booking tricks and protection that top guys in WWE have historically received.

[Victator]

Before 91 Hogan is better, but after that I'll take Cena.

 

Thinking about it I think they line up perfectly strength vs strength. I think Cena has done way more with a lot less. He has nowhere near the supporting cast that Hulk did in his prime. He has been booked terribly and gets little protection. Which might sound silly, but I can't imagine Bruno, Austin or Hogan tolerating the crap Cena does.

 

 

Every time I think Hulk has burned out every ounce of what made him great, he pulls out something like the Sting match last year. Where for a few moments, he seems like the guy I worshiped as a kid.

 

 

Do you consider Ric Flair to be better than Hulk Hogan? Flair - a huge star in his own right - was not as big a star or as over as Hulk was. Do you consider Randy Savage better? Bret Hart? There are lots of guys we can discuss. My point is, if you do see any of them as better than Hogan, we have more in common than you think.

I see them as equal, but not better.

[FLIK]

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.

 

If you linked that as an example of Hogan looking sloppy or poorly executing stuff i'm not seeing it. Dillon took a C- lvl bump and didn't sell worth a damn but Hogan was fine on his end. I've seen plenty of examples of shitty Hogan execution but yeah, this wasn't one.

[Loss]

Hogan missed his face by about a foot, shook his own head when issuing a choke (which always looks fake when anyone does it -- I HATE IT WHEN MENG DOES THIS) and executed multiple legdrops without his other leg leaving the ground.

[Dylan Waco]

There is a lot more I would like to and will add to this eventually, but the Rude comparison is really a shitty one because Rude was getting the desired response in front of record low attendance. I love Rude in 92 - literally one of my favorite years any U.S. based wrestler ever had. But he obviously WASN'T doing his job as the companies top heel if that job is to make money. Hell Rude was less effective in that role where it matters (making money) than Cornette was in the same geographical area, at the same time, with a much smaller budget and working only as a semi-trained in ring performer. Is SMW Cornette better than WCW Rude? Using the Jerry metrics I see little argument for Rude.

 

I also think it's wrong to say Cena wasn't even Warrior - look at the gates and staying power. Cena was and is a lot more than Warrior

[Coffey]

I think the biggest problem with a thread like this is that at the end of it all, no one is going to change their opinion. Hulk Hogan is one of my favorites EVER and I DESPISE John Cena. So, yeah, I'm obviously biased but there's no argument in this life or the next that is going to get me to vote for Cena over Hogan. It's just not happening.

 

The hard part though is that I genuinely believe Hogan is better. But in this day and age, it's really hard to differentiate, at least for a me, an in-ring worker from everything else that they have done. When I think of Chris Benoit, as an example, I think of a man that murdered his family and then killed himself. It doesn't really matter how great a wrestler he was anymore. Just like with Hogan, I think of all the bad stuff surrounding his family and how he was pretty much my hero when I was a kid. John Cena I am just completely apathetic about, although I admit he's a great guy when it comes to things like Make-A-Wish and has had his fair share of good matches, like the previously mentioned Umaga match.

 

But I disagree with people saying that Hogan never had a great match. Wrestlemania V to me with Savage is a great match. So is his match with Warrior. So are a lot of his matches. But we're not all necessarily looking for the same thing from matches. Like, the Wrestlemania X-8 match with The Rock had me marking out so hard I damn near cried as a full-grown man. What the fuck has John Cena done? I'm sorry but I'm just horribly biased.

[FLIK]

Hogan missed his face by about a foot

Eh, you've gotta look really close to notice it, I watched it 3 times before I did. JJ's 55 yrs old at this point, can't blame him for not layin it in.

 

, shook his own head when issuing a choke (which always looks fake when anyone does it -- I HATE IT WHEN MENG DOES THIS)

Thought it sucked JJ just laid thear and didn't react but the head shaking's never bothered me.

 

and executed multiple legdrops without his other leg leaving the ground.

Well, he didn't exactly get a lot of height but he left the ground for em. I thought they looked fine all things considered.

[Dylan Waco]

I think the biggest problem with a thread like this is that at the end of it all, no one is going to change their opinion. Hulk Hogan is one of my favorites EVER and I DESPISE John Cena. So, yeah, I'm obviously biased but there's no argument in this life or the next that is going to get me to vote for Cena over Hogan. It's just not happening.

 

The hard part though is that I genuinely believe Hogan is better. But in this day and age, it's really hard to differentiate, at least for a me, an in-ring worker from everything else that they have done. When I think of Chris Benoit, as an example, I think of a man that murdered his family and then killed himself. It doesn't really matter how great a wrestler he was anymore. Just like with Hogan, I think of all the bad stuff surrounding his family and how he was pretty much my hero when I was a kid. John Cena I am just completely apathetic about, although I admit he's a great guy when it comes to things like Make-A-Wish and has had his fair share of good matches, like the previously mentioned Umaga match.

 

But I disagree with people saying that Hogan never had a great match. Wrestlemania V to me with Savage is a great match. So is his match with Warrior. So are a lot of his matches. But we're not all necessarily looking for the same thing from matches. Like, the Wrestlemania X-8 match with The Rock had me marking out so hard I damn near cried as a full-grown man. What the fuck has John Cena done? I'm sorry but I'm just horribly biased.

Man I do not like Mania V at all because fuck the finish to hell.

 

I don't agree with your first paragraph. The logical extension of that argument is "abolish message boards and internalize all thoughts."

[Sean Liska]

I would not argue the Mania 5 match as a great match, but I would strongly argue for some of their house show matches from 1986.

[Victator]

The problem with WM V was Savage and Hogan had perfected a match formula. But with Elisabeth in a neutral corner they had to start from scratch and WM V was their first match since the turn.

 

Savage and Hogan had more than a few great matches in 85/86. But I'm not a fan of the WM V match. I think Bossman/Hogan was a great series of matches. They clicked so perfectly almost immediately.

[Dylan Waco]

Bossman/Hogan matches were very strong and among my favorite Hogan matches.

 

I am partial to the Bock matches for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I am finishing up the AWA Set with Will and Kris this week so they are on my mind.

 

I do agree with Sean about some of the Savage house show matches though.

 

Honestly picking a Hogan top five would be tough for me because while there are a lot of Hogan matches I really like there are few that I would even consider putting into a wrestling canon if we are looking at work alone. Actually the Backlund match from Philly in 1980 is pretty close to that top tier of Hogan matches and that's not something I've seen mentioned (I think it's his best match as a heel). I'm also don't think I would rate it very well next to Cena's top matches.

[jdw]

A Hogan Top 5 would be interesting, especially if one avoids trick answers like putting in all three available cage matches with Bossman.

 

Actually, a Top 10 would be more interesting (or screw rankings, just 10 To Watch in Chron Order), especially if "exact comps" are eliminated. By that I mean you keep only one of the Bossman cage matches, but if one of the earlier non-cage matches in the feud is worthy, then put it in... but not the same general match from MSG/Philly/LA/Boston. Same thing with Hogan-Savage: there are all sorts of matches from 1985-86 out there, but it's generally a series and you're trying not to be duplicative.

 

You'd likely get matches 20+ years aprart: Backlund-Hogan in 1980 and Hogan-Rock in 2002. That's... kind of impressive on a certain level.

 

Cena is one of those guys who is polarizing. I don't mind him, but he's even polarizing to me. I was bored shitless when we watched the MitB match... probably the only times in it when I wasn't bored shitless was when it raised to the level of annoying me. On the other hand, I enjoyed the shit out of the Rock-Cena match. Cena's generally been like that for me from the start: stuff that works for me, and stuff that's much more along the lines of a WWE-style self concious epic (or whatever the phrase Jerome came up with). I probably liked some of those *** Raw matches more than the ****+ epics that had people jizzing over themselves.

 

All that said, Cena has probably been the better worker. Hogan was (to run the cliche into the ground) a very effective worker. It would be a reach to say that Cena hasn't been as well, and at his best something beyond that.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

This will sound like a troll, but I'm not sure Cena v. Rock makes my top hundred Cena matches and I didn't hate it.

[jdw]

You like Cena and Modern WWE Style. I'm ambivilent to Cena (i.e. relative to Trip and Shawn), and Modern WWE Style bores me when it isn't annoying me. So it's expected that you have a few hundred Cena matches you like better.

 

I like Rock, did back in the salad days, and have grown to like his work even more on rewatch. So put him in a good match with Cena that's laid out well and has a finish that works for me... yeah, that's going to work for me.

 

But of course I was the contraian who at the time thought Hogan-Rock was terrific while Taker-Flair was sad / pathetic / embarassing, so my opinion on WWF/WWE stuff only goes so far.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I like Rock too.

 

Still kind of at a loss as to how Cena v. Rock wasn't modern WWE style. If anything I thought it was closer to modern WWE style than the Punk/Cena match that bored you.

 

I really wanted to like Rock v. Cena. Didn't hate it but the spot calling on camera was pretty god damned embarrassing, the match lacked flow, and Rocky was clearly gassed about four or five minutes in. Okay match, but even a Rock AND Cena mark like me has trouble finding enough quality in it to call it a truly good match.

[Victator]

Bossman/Hogan matches were very strong and among my favorite Hogan matches.

 

I am partial to the Bock matches for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I am finishing up the AWA Set with Will and Kris this week so they are on my mind.

 

I do agree with Sean about some of the Savage house show matches though.

 

Honestly picking a Hogan top five would be tough for me because while there are a lot of Hogan matches I really like there are few that I would even consider putting into a wrestling canon if we are looking at work alone. Actually the Backlund match from Philly in 1980 is pretty close to that top tier of Hogan matches and that's not something I've seen mentioned (I think it's his best match as a heel). I'm also don't think I would rate it very well next to Cena's top matches.

I really like the Backlund match but it felt like the "Bob" show with Hulk Hogan than a Hogan match. There is a good reason for that since Hogan was so green.

 

Watching the Big Show dvd and I think the first Hogan/Giant match was a great Hogan performance. Not a good match, but Hogan did a great job working with a guy as green as Giant was. Other guys could have made a more entertaining match, but I think Hogan did a great job getting him over as a monster.

 

Its hard to think of top five Hogan matches, mainly because I think of it more as

 

Kamala series

 

Savage series

 

Bossman series

 

Bundy series

 

So would need to go in and pick out the best of those.