To be established is to have a stronghold in what you do. What does John Cena do?
Come on man, I thought you were smarter than this, using the dictionary to justify terms created in the Sports Entertainment business... that's ridiculous it's a whole nother meaning, but I guess that can just be an opinionated statement which can be argued forever and ever, but I stand by my opinion of John Cena being very well established based on the time he's been in the WWE.
He wrestles as a face. To say that Cena has secured is position as a top face is what is idiotic. You want established? Bring in the Rock and see if he's cheered. Bring back Triple H, Stone Cold, Bret Hart, or Roddy Piper and see if they're cheered.
Cena has definitily secured has position as the
current day top face and I don't know how anyone could argue against that. Would you consider The Rock as being established 3-4 years ago? He had many boos as well, but not EVERYONE cheering one wrestler is what will make him established, because that will never happen, you can even hear some people who boo Hogan sometimes.
Bring back Cena and half the time he'll have more boo's than cheers. Granted, the cheers are beginning to get louder. However, that doesn't mean that he's 'established'. It means he's well-liked..
Saying half the time he'll have more boo's than cheers is a huge overstatement. There's hardly any boos at all from the majority nowadays and this has been constant for several months now. Of course only because he gets some pops from the kids doesn't mean he's completely established, I justified my reasoning with other examples as well. On a side note, in no way would I put Cena in the same category as The Rock, Hogan, Austin, HBK, etc. but you have to look at modern day terms... there's not much.
Yuo do realize that they're basing Cena's character, being him saluting and acting more like a tough guy, directly off of a movie character, correct? If you want to talk about the wrestling industry, then both Boogeyman and Cena are unique. If you want to broaden those borders, then neither are.
In a sense, yes, but based on that slim logic there is no and never will be a unique gimmick in the WWE.
The other arguements were to compare to how, simply because a gimmick belongs to one person only, doesn't mean it deserves merit.
Oh, and here's your exact quote:
"It's unique in a sense, have you ever seen a thuggish marine anywhere else (although he hardly even acts like the thug anymore besides the low shorts and chains/spinner belt, etc.)"
Not about unqiue gimmicks? Hmmm.....
Note the parenthesis man, it was more of a side on addition to his character which I through in. My argument was in no way revolving around that statement.
