by Messiah » Mar 31, '14, 9:18 am
Randy Savage was better than John Cena in every shape, way, or form. How anyone can say otherwise is, in my opinion, baffling. In my opinion, this should not even be a debate.
"John Cena defines his era more than Randy Savage did." First, I don't believe this to be completely true in the first place. Despite the presence of Hulkamania, Randy Savage was still incredibly over. Savage fit the Golden Era of professional wrestling to an absolute tee. There is reason why the company continued to thrive, and even due better than it had done before, when Randy Savage was given the World Championship. While Cena is booed as a face, the cheers directed at Savage forced the company to change him from a heel to a face. Cena has been on the top longer than anyone has before, but I am befuddled as to why people consider that really much of a good thing. For one, wrestlers nowadays just seem to stay in one place a lot longer than before, so it is unfair to hold against guys in the past. Savage was 33 years old by the time he got to the WWF. By the time Austin won his first World Championship, he was 33 years old. The industry has changed and with the absence of "big time" federations for wrestlers to hone their skills for years or the lack of another company to really leave to, naturally you will see guys remain on top for a lot longer than in the past. It has been 10 years since Randy Orton won his first World Champion and he is, 10 years later, heading into WrestleMania as WWE Champion. You get the point. It isn't that much of an accomplishment.
Now, even if it was all true... is that supposed to be a plus for Cena? The era Cena defines is considered to be a boring, uninteresting, unimaginative, and never moving forward or innovating itself disappointment that refuses to give the fans what they really want. And shockingly enough, about all of that seems to apply to John Cena. He is the face of everything that is wrong with the WWE hence why he is booed. I don't think that should be used in his favor.
John Cena is stale. He has been, for the most part, the exact same character since 2005. There is nothing remotely interesting about him. At least back in '05-'06, he still had somewhat of that rapper brawler vibe to him. Not anymore. He is just a generic babyface. A lot of people will argue Cena has outstanding charisma. That is certainly true... but how often does he utilize it? Cena's cringeworthy promos, especially when he comes off a big feud (see: post WrestleMania 29), are not rare at all. Cena is absolutely capable of cutting the promo of the night, which he has in the past, but it is not often. His promos have crap content.
Cena's in-ring skills simply do not match the Macho Man's. Savage is in that Kurt Angle and The Rock mold where, for some reason, they are just capable of having great matches with anyone regardless of their size, character, card status, etc. We all know that is not the case with Cena. Now, don't get me wrong. I am one of the people who defend Cena when people unfairly criticize him for his in-ring skills. I am not saying Cena is bad in that regard and he has proven that when the time calls for it, he can put on an outstanding match worthy of being in the main event. But once again, this is not an often occurrence. Randy Orton is one of the best in-ring wrestlers the WWE has. He is ridiculously consistent in that regard. And yet, why does every Orton and Cena confrontation gradually grow worse and worse? Repetition plays a part in that but Orton/Bryan, Orton/Christian, etc. never ended up having a bad match and the WWE milked the fuck out of them (although they did it for Orton/Bryan with good reason). Cena is just not as diverse as a wrestler as Savage is.
Someone in the chatbox said John Cena has more classical matches than Randy Savage. This argument is flawed for a couple of reasons:
1. John Cena has been afforded far more opportunities than any wrestler in the history of the WWE sans possibly Hulk Hogan to have these kinds of matches. Randy Savage did not hold the WWE Championship for over a year. Randy Savage was not shoved down the throats of the audience when they were not in the mood to watch him.
2. John Cena probably has more "classical" matches than Steve Austin too. But this brings me to my next point...
3. Does John Cena REALLY have that many classical matches? As in, a match 10 years from now you will still be talking about? Punk/Cena '11 of course, and possibly Cena/RVD ONS '06. But what else? I think people got over his one hour match with Michaels on RAW from back in '07 (and that match is SO overrated IMO, just like almost everything Michaels did from 2007-2010). Cena/Umaga LMS and Cena/Edge TLC was great, but I would not consider them classical by any means. And that isn't anything against Cena, by the way. I just probably have high standards for what I would consider a "classical" match. Savage has his match with Steamboat at WM3 and Hogan at WM5.
I won't really go much into Savage because I feel he should win this and it will be better saved for the later rounds.
I respect anyone's opinion to pick John Cena, but I just cannot see how people can come to think that. Savage was better in every way possible and I don't think there should be any doubt that Randy Savage could have replaced Hogan as the biggest draw in professional wrestling history if Hulkamania had never existed. Savage was the perfect superstar for what the WWE wants.
It isn't that I think John Cena is bad, by the way. I don't mind him and I haven't really since 2011. He is just there for me and he hasn't been featured AS heavily as he used to be. But he just isn't Randy Savage.