|
Post by lemonyellowson on Dec 7, 2011 20:04:18 GMT -5
i think in terms of all round star-power Cena wins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 20:09:30 GMT -5
Bill Goldberg. Whether you want to look at strictly peak or overall, it is still Goldberg.
When you get booed by half the crowd in every arena for six years as a lead babyface, you are not a big star. I won't even get into attendance, buyrates, ratings, etc.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 7, 2011 20:12:16 GMT -5
Bill Goldberg. Whether you want to look at strictly peak or overall, it is still Goldberg. When you get booed by half the crowd in every arena for six years as a lead babyface, you are not a big star. I won't even get into attendance, buyrates, ratings, etc. Technically if you go by Buyrate Cena headlined a Wrestlemania that had a bigger buyrate than any attitude era PPV. But I don't think that matters.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Dec 7, 2011 20:12:52 GMT -5
I'm surprised at the response. Personally, I don't see how it's debatable that Cena isn't the bigger star.
Goldberg's run as top draw lasted a year, if that, and while I'd agree that his own charisma/intensity is a large part of why he was such a huge star, I also feel the period in which he was a star is why he's perceived at a higher level. I mean, shit, you could argue that Kevin Nash was a bigger star than Cena, if that's the criteria, and he doesn't mean jack to the audience now.
I think Goldberg's WWE run did as much to dispel the myth of Goldberg as his bad booking once he got there did. You pluck Goldberg out of the Attitude era and put him, say, in the 80s, and he's the lug that gets fed to Hogan on SNME. Put him in the PG Era, as a brand new guy, and he could be huge in the way Randy Orton is huge. But I don't think he'd be a top draw in the company. If you dropped John Cena into the Attitude Era or the 80s, and I think he'd be every bit as over and marketable as he is now.
Ignoring all that though, Goldberg burned brighter but for a shorter period of time, while Cena has burning for far longer. Or let's look at it like this: Goldberg was never, at any point in his tenure, the sole reason WCW made money. The Wolfpack, Hogan, Sting, and others were pushing crazy merchandise, celebrities like Dennis Rodman, Karl Malone, and Jay Leno were getting the company mainstream press, and Goldberg hardly ever defended the title on PPV (although that was a weird WCW-esque trend that was started when the NWO first formed).
Meanwhile, John Cena hasn't been only the biggest star in the company, but also the biggest reason they've been doing as well as they have been. Granted, Cena wouldn't have been the sole draw had he been in Goldberg's spot, so it's somewhat unfair to hold him to that standard. But Goldberg had nowhere near the versatility that Cena possesses, both in and out of the ring. He wouldn't have had the longevity Cena has had, even if he loved the business and decided he wanted to stick around forever. He might have been on top for a while just out of inertia, but I don't think for one second he would have drawn consistently or well enough to justify it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 20:16:59 GMT -5
Bill Goldberg. Whether you want to look at strictly peak or overall, it is still Goldberg. When you get booed by half the crowd in every arena for six years as a lead babyface, you are not a big star. I won't even get into attendance, buyrates, ratings, etc. Honestly if you want to argue hypotheticals. One could argue that Goldberg was the last hope of a dying company and he wasn't enough of a draw to save it. If Goldberg were as a big of a star/draw as some seem to believe there would be way more examples besides: his match with Hogan had a good rating. Let's not forget that Hogan was still very popular at the time. If you want to argue attendance Goldberg wasn't a big enough draw to get WCW many sell outs after the streak ran it's course. Same with buyrates. In short I'm not sure exactly what you're point was. It's a matter of personal opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 7, 2011 20:21:36 GMT -5
EASILY John Cena. It's not even close. And I loved Goldberg back in the day and Cena isn't exactly one of my favorites. Goldberg peaked at a really high place, but his fire burned out quickly. The Fingerpoke of Doom and WCW's "inmates running the asylum" booking completely destroyed his career. Meanwhile Cena's been going strong for the last 7 years or so.
Another thing is that Goldberg was not THE top draw on WCW. Even on his undefeated streak he still took a backseat to Hogan and Friends, as well as Sting. Plus he had Austin and the Rock to contend with. And even the second tier main eventers in WWF like Undertaker, Mick Foley, Triple H, etc.
He was a star in a boom period. But even in this down period, Cena is THE guy. Whether we like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonwolf on Dec 7, 2011 20:27:24 GMT -5
John Cena. No downplaying, Golderg was was a big deal in 1998, and is comparable to Rock and Austin when it comes to "notability" when it comes to the attitude, but at the same time, the guy is the epitome of a one-trick-pony. Not bashing Goldberg, but the minute he lost the streak, his character pretty much lost much of it's appeal.
Cena may be the "Shawn Michaels" of the current era (top babyface in a non boom period), but he was able to stay the top far longer than Goldberg.
|
|
|
Post by lemonyellowson on Dec 7, 2011 20:27:42 GMT -5
I'm surprised at the response. Personally, I don't see how it's debatable that Cena isn't the bigger star. Goldberg's run as top draw lasted a year, if that, and while I'd agree that his own charisma/intensity is a large part of why he was such a huge star, I also feel the period in which he was a star is why he's perceived at a higher level. I mean, s***, you could argue that Kevin Nash was a bigger star than Cena, if that's the criteria, and he doesn't mean jack to the audience now. I think Goldberg's WWE run did as much to dispel the myth of Goldberg as his bad booking once he got there did. You pluck Goldberg out of the Attitude era and put him, say, in the 80s, and he's the lug that gets fed to Hogan on SNME. Put him in the PG Era, as a brand new guy, and he could be huge in the way Randy Orton is huge. But I don't think he'd be a top draw in the company. If you dropped John Cena into the Attitude Era or the 80s, and I think he'd be every bit as over and marketable as he is now. Ignoring all that though, Goldberg burned brighter but for a shorter period of time, while Cena has burning for far longer. Or let's look at it like this: Goldberg was never, at any point in his tenure, the sole reason WCW made money. The Wolfpack, Hogan, Sting, and others were pushing crazy merchandise, celebrities like Dennis Rodman, Karl Malone, and Jay Leno were getting the company mainstream press, and Goldberg hardly ever defended the title on PPV (although that was a weird WCW-esque trend that was started when the NWO first formed). Meanwhile, John Cena hasn't been only the biggest star in the company, but also the biggest reason they've been doing as well as they have been. Granted, Cena wouldn't have been the sole draw had he been in Goldberg's spot, so it's somewhat unfair to hold him to that standard. But Goldberg had nowhere near the versatility that Cena possesses, both in and out of the ring. He wouldn't have had the longevity Cena has had, even if he loved the business and decided he wanted to stick around forever. He might have been on top for a while just out of inertia, but I don't think for one second he would have drawn consistently or well enough to justify it. yeah, this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 21:25:01 GMT -5
Bill Goldberg. Whether you want to look at strictly peak or overall, it is still Goldberg. When you get booed by half the crowd in every arena for six years as a lead babyface, you are not a big star. I won't even get into attendance, buyrates, ratings, etc. Honestly if you want to argue hypotheticals. One could argue that Goldberg was the last hope of a dying company and he wasn't enough of a draw to save it. If Goldberg were as a big of a star/draw as some seem to believe there would be way more examples besides: his match with Hogan had a good rating. Let's not forget that Hogan was still very popular at the time. If you want to argue attendance Goldberg wasn't a big enough draw to get WCW many sell outs after the streak ran it's course. Same with buyrates. In short I'm not sure exactly what you're point was. It's a matter of personal opinion though. First off, WCW went out of business for reasons unrelated to talent. They went out of business because they spent way more money than they brought in. Goldberg could not have saved a company that had as much overhead and sunk cost as WCW. The accountants and Bischoff messed that company up (along with Russo and AOL Time Warner). For Goldberg to save the company he would have had to generate 50 million dollars in revenue (or whatever their losses amounted to). Secondly, how can a big star get booed by half the audience in every arena in the world (some times booed by the majority of the audience)? Goldberg got backlash eventually from the audience but the peak of his popularity was far greater than Cena's. Even in the dying days of WCW he was still popular and had WWF crowds chanting his name when Vince bought WCW. WWE makes money for the same reason WCW lost it: cost control. WWE has it. WCW didn't. Cena is not keeping WWE afloat any more than Goldberg was hurting WCW. It is unrelated. As far as drawing ability, WCW was still making money in 1998, IIRC. Goldberg was their top star that time and he was up against insane competition (Austin at the peak of his popularity). Cena is up against nobody. WrestleMania sells itself now (hence why a PPV headlined by a Real World reject can generate 1 million buys), but all the other PPV's are having trouble drawing in North America. Popularity is down. Ratings are stagnate. Attendance is down. That is not all on Cena's head obviously, but there was no peak during Cena's run. It's been one continuous treadmill run. They make money because they know how to cut costs when necessary and keep production down depending on their budget. If the WWE was in real trouble financially in 2006, then Cena would have turned heel in 2007. But since they have no chance of going under any time soon they can pretty much do what they want, and that appears to be keep John Cena a face despite half their fanbase hating his guts.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 7, 2011 22:39:40 GMT -5
And yet in spite of half the audience booing him on a regular basis, Cena moves a ton of merch and constantly appears in the public eye as the representative of the company. Goldberg hasn't ever come close to being as marketable as Cena is.
|
|
|
Post by stinger on Dec 7, 2011 22:51:31 GMT -5
There must be a lot of Cena hate here, because the easily is EASILY Cena.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 7, 2011 22:58:41 GMT -5
And yet in spite of half the audience booing him on a regular basis, Cena moves a ton of merch and constantly appears in the public eye as the representative of the company. Goldberg hasn't ever come close to being as marketable as Cena is. Cena's constantly in the public eye because the WWE puts him that position. It's not like he's the only guy on the roster that could represent the company. And Cena's a walking merchandise stand, so of course he sells more than anyone else. But if given the opportunity others are definitely capable of outselling him, as seen by CM Punk now and Nexus last year.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonwolf on Dec 7, 2011 23:01:04 GMT -5
There must be a lot of Cena hate here, because the easily is EASILY Cena. It's not hate. As much as I hate to play this card, it's Nostalgia Filter. Goldberg was a popular act during the peak of popularity of Prowrestling. But his star only shined brightly for a short time. Dude is completely synonymous with his streak, and the moment it came to an end, he was no longer the top guy. Hell, that much evident since when, thanks to the Russo/Hogan stuff at Bash at the Beach, Booker T ended up taking his spot as the baby face champion.
|
|
giffyjames
Bubba Ho-Tep
we'll be back!!
Posts: 620
|
Post by giffyjames on Dec 7, 2011 23:01:51 GMT -5
due to the fact goldberg was never booed......i'd say goldberg
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 7, 2011 23:04:21 GMT -5
By that logic Goldberg was bigger than the Rock.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 7, 2011 23:09:31 GMT -5
And by some people's logic, Cena's a bigger star than the Rock because he's been in the company longer.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 7, 2011 23:13:24 GMT -5
The longevity argument was used here in addition to other factors. I don't think anyone just said longer=better.
Goldberg's mediocre WWE run is telling. It basically puts him in a non attitude era WWE setting right along the same time Cena was coming up, and it shows that he wasn't that much of a boost for a big name,
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Dec 7, 2011 23:24:29 GMT -5
How can you guys honestly say that Goldberg is a bigger star than Cena? Cena's had a rap album (that was actually Pretty good BTW) and a couple of decent movies. Goldberg had what, "The Streak"? After he lost he pretty much became a WcW footnote that was so bad even his heel character was crap. It was so bad they tried to redo the streak again! This. Take away the streak, and Goldberg's allure, practically his entire character, falls apart. As an up-and-comer, Cena actually lost (hell, he lost his debut match), and he still managed to keep his relevance. Just how big a deal do you think Goldberg would have been if he lost his first match, even if it was against a main eventer? Without the streak, all you're really left with his presentation and delusions of grandeur.
|
|
mcmahonfan85
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 24,012
Member is Online
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Dec 7, 2011 23:45:10 GMT -5
Goldberg
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 7, 2011 23:48:29 GMT -5
Longevity wise, it's Cena hands down.
At his time on top, Goldberg was the bigger name sure; but for sheer number of years John is/will be the bigger star.
|
|