Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

John Cena vs. Bret Hart


Wade Garrett

Cena or Bret  

85 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is better?

    • John Cena
      36
    • Bret Hart
      49


Recommended Posts

 

 

And it seems that more than a divide between modern WWE followers or not, it really depends on what you value more as to who you vote for: execution or symbolism.

 

I dunno about this. Bret built up a mythos around himself that he was a working class guy in a world of seven foot giants and four hundred pound monsters who overcame the odds because he was the best at what he did; the Wayne Gretsky of wrestling that the coal miners and the lumberjacks could relate to. And the thing was that he believed it. That's what made his heel turn so brilliant because blurred the lines between scripted TV and his legit bitterness. The problem is that he wasn't that gifted a performer in terms of charisma or projecting a presence, which means even the big title wins are more downbeat than you'd expect from a truly beloved performer. He was popular and had a following, but when Austin and Rock came along they eclipsed him in terms of star presence. A lot of Bret's stuff has some nice subtlety to it even if it's a bit boring to revisit. I'm sure a Cena fan could break down his character better than I can, but I think Bret is a bit underrated when it comes to persona.

So many people talk about 1997 Shawn Michaels as being one of the most hateable human beings in recent wrestling history (and for good reason), but I think 1997 Bret Hart is so much more fascinating and complicated as a character.

 

In a way, he could have been the best possible villain for the Attitude Era (outside of Vince himself, of course) because he was still so utterly convinced that he was the hero. But I also think the lines were so blurred in and out of the ring for both Hart and Michaels that I don't know if either character was truly built to last, even without their real-life tensions and Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bret's character worked best when he had a chip on his shoulder like at Survivor Series '95, post-Wrestlemania XII and the '97 heel turn. If Montreal had never happened, I assume we get the Hart/Austin rematch at Wrestlemania XIV and then they phase him out of the title picture as he begins to break down. I reckon he leaves anyway since Russo would have probably tried to give him some gimmick he couldn't live with. I suppose a face turn may have occurred, but I doubt he would have been happy being positioned at the IC or Euro title level ala someone like Ken Shamrock. Wrestlemania XIV feels like the end of the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Bret didn't have a character, or work it. I'm just talking about them as workers. Fundamentally, the goals they have in working a match, and the ways they go about accomplishing them, seem on the surface to be very different.

 

Bret values execution, the physical side of working a match. He's a smooth worker, he has lots of moves in his arsenal, he prides himself on being physically tight and working a physically believable contest. Bret wrestles like wrestling is a sport. And again that's not to say that there's no room for character work in that, of course there is.

 

If Bret wrestles like it's a sport, Cena wrestles like it's...a comic book. He's Superman, he's Captain America, fighting off all manner of Evil in the name of Good. And he works like that, where moves don't need to be executed physically perfectly as much as they need to convey the right message. Execution is the absolute last thing on Cena's mind.

 

Take it back to the limbwork question. You can easily see Bret Hart working a match around limbwork, around injuring an arm or leg, working on it, selling it, finding ways to work around it or overcome it, and having it play into a finish. It's that physical, sporting aspect of wrestling, where you have a physical injury you have to overcome. Whereas Cena, like I said above he rarely has matches that revolve around limbwork. Because the physical, sporting struggle of the contest isn't what Cena is most concerned with. In Cena's matches the struggle is symbolic, and often internal - the idea of Never Give Up and the hero overcoming adversity to triumph. Now that's not to say that Cena COULDN'T convey this with limbwork, just like I'm not saying that Bret's matches can't convey a symbolic Good vs Evil morality either. But fundamentally they seem pretty far apart as far as approaches to wrestling go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen of Cena so far, I will say that I did really like the Umaga match. (I didn't love it, primarily because of the finish, but that's not John Cena's fault.) I was definitely irked by the Michaels match, though, so I would love to hear the rationale for that.

 

The Bryan match is good too, but I would need to hear a very compelling argument to put it in the same ballpark as Bret/Owen. Maybe that match comparison thread is a good idea after all.

 

Bret values execution, the physical side of working a match. He's a smooth worker, he has lots of moves in his arsenal, he prides himself on being physically tight and working a physically believable contest. Bret wrestles like wrestling is a sport. And again that's not to say that there's no room for character work in that, of course there is.

 

If Bret wrestles like it's a sport, Cena wrestles like it's...a comic book. He's Superman, he's Captain America, fighting off all manner of Evil in the name of Good. And he works like that, where moves don't need to be executed physically perfectly as much as they need to convey the right message. Execution is the absolute last thing on Cena's mind.

I think this (and the whole post, for that matter) does a really good job of lining out their differences. I agree that it's a weird comparison: it's sort of like comparing the best possible Dean Malenko to the best possible Hulk Hogan. The approaches are so different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bret v. Owen is a very good match, but it's one of those matches that is enhanced because of what happens later. I'm not saying it doesn't work on it's own, but I honestly don't see it as this other wordly, all time classic. It's as good as it is because of the sibling rivalry dynamic, but what makes it all time level is Owen coming out later in the show when Bret wins the belt, and that's way to far removed to be called part of the match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a broader question with regards to Cena: if his strong suit really is symbolism, rather than execution, then how much credit goes to Cena versus the writing/production team that meticulously plot out the sequences and structures in WWE matches?

 

I think Bret v. Owen is a very good match, but it's one of those matches that is enhanced because of what happens later. I'm not saying it doesn't work on it's own, but I honestly don't see it as this other wordly, all time classic. It's as good as it is because of the sibling rivalry dynamic, but what makes it all time level is Owen coming out later in the show when Bret wins the belt, and that's way to far removed to be called part of the match.

I get what you mean about Owen's appearance later on in the night being distinct from Bret/Owen itself, but I don't know if it's completely removed from the match's context; the WMX title bracket and the non-advancement stip for Owen sort of foreshadow the possibility of Bret celebrating a championship win after a loss to Owen.

 

Just for the sake of direct comparison, would you consider Orton's MITB cash-in to be distinct and separate from Cena/Bryan as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a broader question with regards to Cena: if his strong suit really is symbolism, rather than execution, then how much credit goes to Cena versus the writing/production team that meticulously plot out the sequences and structures in WWE matches?

 

Because, and forgive me for confusing the words here, but they can plan out anything they want in the back, he still needs to execute it in the ring. Otherwise all WWE main events and main event workers would be equal, which they clearly aren't.

 

Plus, Savage planned out his matches, and etc and etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the short answer is that I don't see it as compensating for anything. He just works in a different style. I don't think there's anything inherently inferior about what Cena does vs what Bret does. But then I'm not an execution-o-phile.

 

To the guy that asked, I found what I wrote about Cena vs Shawn the last time I watched it.

 

I have done a complete 180 on the leg sell. I now have my own theory about it. It was never ever mentioned in this way and I've never seen anyone else offer up the same theory, so this is just my way of making sense out of the match in front of me. But you know how in real life you can pop your shoulder or kneecap out of place, and then it pops back in? THAT is what this was. Shawn hits Cena at a bad angle and BAM, his knee pops out. He's immediately SCREAMING and pushing Shawn away and clearly something is very wrong. He wails as it gets worked over. I never thought about it until now, but its like if Shawn had put his Figure Four on him at this point, he would have tapped. But he didnt, and then at some point Cena lunges out of the way for a posting, something happened there because he tests out the knee, gets to his feet, puts weight on it, and its...OK. Its back into place now. Viewing it in those terms makes a lot of sense. Plus I've always loved Cena's hardcore screaming leg sell, and the way he slowly, carefully got to his feet and made completely sure he could stand on his leg before going BAM LARIAT was great. So yes, I am totes down with the leg work now.

 

So that's my basic point. It's not no-selling as much as it is deliberately-no-longer-selling, if that makes sense. It's a conscious choice to demonstrate that Shawn's strategy worked for a time, but is no longer working, which is the catalyst for Cena to mount a comeback and start competing with Shawn, when up until that point he was being dominated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've talked a lot over the years with Dylan and Loss about the difference between rating and ranking wrestlers and matches. Ultimately I think matches are easier. You need one sentence basically. Or at least I do.

 

"How well did the match present a narrative that was ..."

 

And then the next words are up to you. They could be "emotionally resonant," or "action-packed" or "hate-filled" or "clever" or "well-executed" or "the right match for the right night." You'll probably have some weighted mix of twenty things and you can apply that to most matches. The trick is being consistent.

 

It's harder with a wrestler, because you're judging the artist and not just a specific piece of art. Or you're not judging the artist but an entire catalog of art. Those are two different things.

 

Bret's execution is a side effect of his desire to make everything feel real and believable. That's not necessarily making it feel like a real sport, I think. They're close but not the same. It's never letting the viewer step out if what's he's watching. The solid execution is a side effect of that. Selecting transitions and finishes to maximize the audience's suspension of self belief was key to Bret: it was important he had enough familiar touch points in a match but also that he varied them up so the viewer couldn't be one step ahead. He managed to do that without making his matches too cute and while maintaining internal consistency, since that was a part of the realism too.

 

Cena, on the other hand, is king of the idea that wrestling is symbolic. His moves mean something not because they stress realism and are part of a carefully thought out and controlled tapestry but because they are built up over time and because he, his opponents, the announcers, and the company presents them as meaningful. In the ring he uses this to create a totally different sort of suspension of disbelief. That's why I think casual Cena viewers have such a hard time with him.

 

Bret presents internal consistency. Cena relies upon and taps into an external one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strictly in ring, Bret pips it for me. Cena has a fantastic body of work, if not a little one dimensional with the comeback elements. Bret's performance were more varied. Bret / Diesel and Cena / Brock 2012 would be a good example of this, both excellent matches but look at the endings. Bret was near defeat and he played sitting duck to sneak in a small package showing intelligence and vulnerability. He didn't pop straight up, in fact he got the shit kicked out of him after the match. Whereas Cena made a powerful comeback out of nowhere and then cut a long post match promo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Cena ending really a problem? It makes sense for his character; he's supposed to be a sort of superman.

 

Although I do think that Bret-Diesel finish is great and better than the Brock-Cena finish because of how it plays off the match long thing of Bret trying to get the upper hand on the gigantic Nash with his smarts and technical skills.

At first I was saying this to kinda disagree with you, but I guess I'm only disagreeing with you if you think that the Brock-Cena finish should have been like the Bret-Diesel finish.

Anyway both guys are awesome, but I think Bret is better largely just because of things I usually consider not that important like versatility and that he executes moves in a much less sloppy way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Cena ending really a problem? It makes sense for his character; he's supposed to be a sort of superman.

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away.

 

I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know people complained about that, but I guess it makes sense that they would, a wrestling move is as effective as it's portrayed to be so if people usually kick out of it the first time it makes sense that a monster like Rusev would also kick out of it the first time.

I have no problem with guys kicking out of finishers, not everybody needs to have a deadly move that nobody kicks out of, but I do wish that guys like Cena maybe had a Liger type repertoire of moves they sometimes win with, so that when an AA doesn't put somebody away the audience thinks that maybe the top rope legdrop will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is the Cena ending really a problem? It makes sense for his character; he's supposed to be a sort of superman.

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away.

 

I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher!

 

 

That was the environment that Cena came into. It's what was expected of him. It's what the fans were conditioned to expect.

 

I think a valid question to ask is the following: Should he be smart and canny enough a worker to go to great lengths to use his influence to change the in ring style of the WWE to better protect finishers. Should he have five years ago? Eight years ago?

 

People were complaining about Rusev taking only one AA because the last thirty people before him took two or three.

 

Should Cena get credit for having successful matches in an environment where excess is the norm or should he be punished for not trying to change and destroy that environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Cena ending really a problem? It makes sense for his character; he's supposed to be a sort of superman.

 

I didn't say it was a problem. I said it becomes a bit one dimensional. It's subjective to what you like, and offered an example to what I preferred in similar situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is the Cena ending really a problem? It makes sense for his character; he's supposed to be a sort of superman.

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away.

 

I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher!

 

This isn't really fair because you are treating all finishers as equal and you don't watch regularly. Yet at the same time you reference the Royal Rumble match where he does 3 of them in a row like a rolling german. Everyone kicks out of one AA now. Some finishers don't ever really get kicked out of (has anyone kicked out of Big Show's KO punch?) and some do.

 

We can argue how stupid that is (it's really stupid and I have been beating the "Cena needs a new finisher" drum for a while) but you can't just ignore how half the roster has kicked out of the first one, including a lot of guys that were lower on the pecking order than "undefeated for a year" Rusev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I want to point out is that we're comparing two whole careers, and while recently Cena has been using finishers more frequently in the last couple years, he wasn't always this excessive. In fact I remember years back that it was an anti-Cena talking point that he'd hit the FU (once) and pin everyone (which I think was a thing because the FU doesn't look hurty enough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the short answer is that I don't see it as compensating for anything. He just works in a different style. I don't think there's anything inherently inferior about what Cena does vs what Bret does. But then I'm not an execution-o-phile.

 

Isn't he playing to his strengths, though? Surely he works the way he does because his stuff looks better this way. Do you mean to say he could be better technically if he were less interested in symbolism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is the Cena ending really a problem? It makes sense for his character; he's supposed to be a sort of superman.

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away.

 

I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher!

I prefer this to the Bret trope of being unable to win with his finish against a slew of people so he has to resort to "clever" roll ups. I agree with your general point, but I'll take an ace with escalating finishers over a guy who is allegedly an ace/superior talent, who doesn't have a big stage way of finishing people off in a convincing fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OJ, would still like to know more about your Backlund comment. I can take that post in two or three different ways.

 

Backlund came from a legit amateur background and had a completely different style of working. There's that weird promo before one of the Adonis matches where he equates working a match to baking a cake, so let's call it a cake baking style. He worked a slow build style adding more and more ingredients or layers to the mix. I don't think Cena is anywhere near as slow or deliberate. Jerome says he's the best possible Hogan, but I think he may be a better Sting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Here's a broader question with regards to Cena: if his strong suit really is symbolism, rather than execution, then how much credit goes to Cena versus the writing/production team that meticulously plot out the sequences and structures in WWE matches?

 

Because, and forgive me for confusing the words here, but they can plan out anything they want in the back, he still needs to execute it in the ring. Otherwise all WWE main events and main event workers would be equal, which they clearly aren't.

 

Plus, Savage planned out his matches, and etc and etc.

All modern WWE main events may not not equal, but aren't they normalized into a similar shape and flow? JvK (Parv, right?) mentioned his dislike of the style and others have criticized it more broadly in and outside this forum, have they not? Is Cena that much farther ahead than, say, post-comeback Shawn Michaels or pre-comeback The Rock as workers of that style?

 

Also, as far as Savage goes, we know that he worked with his opponent to develop the script for their match. (And drove them up the wall in the process, if the stories are to be believed.) Do we have any indication of how much input Cena has in his matches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...