Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,208
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 31, 2018 18:28:59 GMT -5
Undertaker. Never has a character endured so long through so many incarnations without ever dipping in popularity. Cena is a modern legend, but he's a lot more replaceable than Taker in the grand scheme of things. This is going to sound really stupid, but for me, it came down to two words. "NOT YOURS."
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on Jul 31, 2018 18:35:23 GMT -5
Undertaker. Cena needed a belt to solidify his legacy. Taker held titles, but never needed any of them. If Cena stopped working Mania today, very few people would be affected by it- every year, people want Taker to work the biggest show, no matter how old he is.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jul 31, 2018 19:01:14 GMT -5
Taker didn't need a belt to prove a draw but I think about the early 90s when wrestling was at its worst, I feel Taker is the reason they stayed in business during the cartoonish era to until WCW brought the NWO angle. Cena was a big deal but WWE could still survived with out him.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jul 31, 2018 19:12:23 GMT -5
Undertaker was hugely popular during wrestling's most popular era. He stuck around and remained a main draw at wrestlemania for many years after the fact. People continued to pop harder than most others with the bell hit.
Cena was the forced face of the company during a time when the company was considered lame. He received a bit more popularity when he became an invisible man meme and a prank call vine video insert meme.
So, is it more important to be an insanely popular wrestler over three decades, or the face of the company during its dark period?
I'm going with Taker on this one.
|
|
|
Post by somsta on Jul 31, 2018 19:15:34 GMT -5
Clearly Cena has been “the guy” longer than Undertaker ever was. But I answer this question with, if you erased one guy from existence, who’s absence would be felt more. And to me it’s easily Taker. Taker’s character rose above everything else in the company for almost 30 years. Cena came to prominence in the era of multiple stars. Take Cena out and any number of guys could fill that role - Batista, Orton, Brock, Edge, and so on. Not to say Cena isn’t one of the biggest superstars in history, but I just don’t see anyone sliding into Taker’s role like they could with Cena.
|
|
|
Post by Macho Pichu on Jul 31, 2018 19:47:34 GMT -5
Cena was the focus of the company for a very long time, but Undertaker has been a constant presence since long before even then. The entire product is a very different thing without either of them. I can't really say if a world without Taker or a world without Cena is more drastic. I'd say they're equal. Pretty much every major star is equal in this regard, though.
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Jul 31, 2018 20:08:01 GMT -5
Cena for all the pushes and title reigns has never been half as compelling of a character or involved in half as many iconic moments.
|
|
|
Post by Porky's Butthole on Aug 1, 2018 10:46:50 GMT -5
No Undertaker: -No HIAC vs. Foley, HHH, or anyone else for that matter. -No Kane. Sorry, love me some Kane...especially back in the day. -Like someone said earlier, no 'NOT YOURS' -No "WHERE TO STEPHANIE!?! HAHAHAHAHA" -No gong. -No American Bad Ass character. Loved that too. -No APA I could go on..
No Cena: -No 900 matches vs. Orton -No 900 matches vs. Batista -No SUPER CENA -No Spoiler Cena Wins -NO GOD AWFUL SPINNER BELTS
Granted, Cena does a lot of charity and Make-a-Wish stuff, but WWE/F has always been involved in that stuff.
So if you take away what they brought and the memories they created, Undertaker wins this by a country god damn mile.
|
|