Jul 8, 2024 20:44:20 GMT c said:

Felt to me like they said his run would start around the Rumble. He still has Peacemaker 2 to film IIRC, among other things.

I think his first appearance will probably be the first episode on Netflix. He mentioned it by name first and the Rumble is in February this year (I think) and the deal specifically starts in January.

Jul 8, 2024 15:57:39 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

“ratings/attendance/buyrates going down every single year for basically his entire run on top”

Yes, every metric is a steady line down, pretty much (2006/2007 had a brief moment of growth before continuing the downward trend). That's just a fact.  







And before it could be argued that ratings could never be as high as the Attitude Era because of a list of reasons (social media, YouTube, DVR, cord cutting, and so on), the 20 highest cable ratings of all time happened between 2007-2015, the bulk of the John Cena Era. WWE could have been in a new ratings boom with an ace the audience actually wanted. Instead, they forced John Cena, and ratings went down most years. 

I would also argue that if the WWE was still doing big PPV business, they wouldn't have been so quick to ditch it for the Network Model. But they weren't, PPV buys were going down every year during the Cena Era, so there was very little to lose to eliminate them as part of the Network subscription. It's worth noting that 16 of the 20 biggest Boxing/MMA PPV Buyrates of all time happened after WWE switched to the Network model, so WWE missed another boom by forcing John Cena as the guy. 

No ace in wrestling history did more damage to the wrestling business than John Cena. That should be his legacy. 

Cena's character really was just loyal soldier in the end. He got roasted for playing a marine. Fuck you dude to the machine he was the prototype. Hollywood did come knocking so he's got that to any former hater that claimed his loyalty was worthless since they didn't want him. The ultimate heel turn in the end. By time you finally embraced him (iwc as a whole) that's when he started moving on. Then he comes back and makes grown men cry.

He's an all-time great. Maybe not a Rushmore but def a monument.

HHH was the big internet heel in the iWC and then Cena ran with it for a generation. A real heel motherfucker.

"Turn heel!!!"

Cena: In your eyes I already am. *camera shrug* bad duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Graph the revenue of WWE during the Cena era and you get a different story. Cena was the face of the period of explosive growth for WWE.  That is kind of undeniable if you like him or not.  He was a massive money maker when it came to pitching WWE internationally.

Just have him beat Orton for the 17th title and get it over with at Mania. They never faced each other one on one at the big show, perfect way to troll the people who are like me that stuck around.

I lost all my passion to debate Cena 5 years ago ever since he himself turned into a part-timer, if you think he's the GOAT more power to you.

Jul 8, 2024 20:56:53 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

Jul 8, 2024 20:44:20 GMT c said:

Felt to me like they said his run would start around the Rumble. He still has Peacemaker 2 to film IIRC, among other things.

I think his first appearance will probably be the first episode on Netflix. He mentioned it by name first and the Rumble is in February this year (I think) and the deal specifically starts in January.

That makes a lot of sense.  I imagine that will be all hands on deck to make sure they launch hard.  

Jul 8, 2024 23:23:27 GMT c said:

Graph the revenue of WWE during the Cena era and you get a different story. Cena was the face of the period of explosive growth for WWE.  That is kind of undeniable if you like him or not.  He was a massive money maker when it came to pitching WWE internationally.

WWE just found different ways to market their product with Peacock/Youtube/terrestrial TV rights etc. It had nothing to do with the in ring product, WWE is a commodity.

Dude remember how MAD people were with his STF that first time against Masters?

Jul 8, 2024 23:23:27 GMT c said:

Graph the revenue of WWE during the Cena era and you get a different story. Cena was the face of the period of explosive growth for WWE.  That is kind of undeniable if you like him or not.  He was a massive money maker when it came to pitching WWE internationally.

Most revenue came from exclusive television deals that surely would have been worth more if the ratings weren't going down literally every single year. The WWE merely discovered that they were extremely valuable to networks looking for weekly programming without overhead costs, which only the WWE could provide all year round, even as their audience was leaving in droves every single year. The deals were worth even more during the Roman Reigns Era. Why? Because the ace didn't matter on this front. Networks still viewed the WWE as cheap programming, and advertiser friendly with that PG rating, no matter who was on top, no matter how much of the audience was disappearing, and no matter how much the business was otherwise dying. So, this is not the feather in Cena's cap that you think it is.

Jul 8, 2024 23:01:21 GMT Kilgore said:

Jul 8, 2024 15:57:39 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

“ratings/attendance/buyrates going down every single year for basically his entire run on top”

Yes, every metric is a steady line down, pretty much (2006/2007 had a brief moment of growth before continuing the downward trend). That's just a fact.  







And before it could be argued that ratings could never be as high as the Attitude Era because of a list of reasons (social media, YouTube, DVR, cord cutting, and so on), the 20 highest cable ratings of all time happened between 2007-2015, the bulk of the John Cena Era. WWE could have been in a new ratings boom with an ace the audience actually wanted. Instead, they forced John Cena, and ratings went down most years. 

I would also argue that if the WWE was still doing big PPV business, they wouldn't have been so quick to ditch it for the Network Model. But they weren't, PPV buys were going down every year during the Cena Era, so there was very little to lose to eliminate them as part of the Network subscription. It's worth noting that 16 of the 20 biggest Boxing/MMA PPV Buyrates of all time happened after WWE switched to the Network model, so WWE missed another boom by forcing John Cena as the guy. 

No ace in wrestling history did more damage to the wrestling business than John Cena. That should be his legacy. 

How can you look at those graphs and form that conclusion? Look at how the bottom falls out of just about every graph in the years leading to Cena. Heck, attendance and viewership suffered more under Austin, Rock, and Triple H in early 2000’s than it did under Cena in the mid to lates.

Jul 8, 2024 23:44:37 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

Jul 8, 2024 23:01:21 GMT Kilgore said:

Yes, every metric is a steady line down, pretty much (2006/2007 had a brief moment of growth before continuing the downward trend). That's just a fact.  







And before it could be argued that ratings could never be as high as the Attitude Era because of a list of reasons (social media, YouTube, DVR, cord cutting, and so on), the 20 highest cable ratings of all time happened between 2007-2015, the bulk of the John Cena Era. WWE could have been in a new ratings boom with an ace the audience actually wanted. Instead, they forced John Cena, and ratings went down most years. 

I would also argue that if the WWE was still doing big PPV business, they wouldn't have been so quick to ditch it for the Network Model. But they weren't, PPV buys were going down every year during the Cena Era, so there was very little to lose to eliminate them as part of the Network subscription. It's worth noting that 16 of the 20 biggest Boxing/MMA PPV Buyrates of all time happened after WWE switched to the Network model, so WWE missed another boom by forcing John Cena as the guy. 

No ace in wrestling history did more damage to the wrestling business than John Cena. That should be his legacy. 

How can you look at those graphs and form that conclusion? Look at how the bottom falls out of just about every graph in the years leading to Cena. Heck, attendance and viewership suffered more under Austin, Rock, and Triple H in early 2000’s than it did under Cena in the mid to lates.

First of all, no one is calling Triple H The GOAT, so let's take him out of the conversation immediately.

As for Austin/Rock, their peaks were the highest in wrestling history, and their bottoms were very close to Cena's highs. Cena doesn't belong in the same conversation with them.

And now you're moving the goalposts from pretending what I said was untrue to now saying, well, it happened with Austin/Rock too. Well yes, everything peaks and then goes down. That's how things work. Austin/Rock's peaks just happened to be significantly bigger than Cena's, and so were their bottoms, because they were better, and the audience liked them more.

Like heel Austin was a disaster that everyone admits. And yet it was still drawing comparable ratings to Cena's peak. The worst Austin ever drew on television is comparable to the best Cena ever drew. So be serious.

Understand that it feels like only yesterday he was doing those smackdown raps.

20 years of Cena. It's crazy we still look back on the Umaga match.

Jul 8, 2024 23:49:07 GMT Kilgore said:

Jul 8, 2024 23:44:37 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

How can you look at those graphs and form that conclusion? Look at how the bottom falls out of just about every graph in the years leading to Cena. Heck, attendance and viewership suffered more under Austin, Rock, and Triple H in early 2000’s than it did under Cena in the mid to lates.

First of all, no one is calling Triple H The GOAT, so let's take him out of the conversation immediately.

As for Austin/Rock, their peaks were the highest in wrestling history, and their bottoms were very close to Cena's highs. Cena doesn't belong in the same conversation with them.

And now you're moving the goalposts from pretending what I said was untrue to now saying, well, it happened with Austin/Rock too. Well yes, everything peaks and then goes down. That's how things work. Austin/Rock's peaks just happened to be significantly bigger than Cena's, and so were their bottoms, because they were better, and the audience liked them better. 

You said “No ace in wrestling history did more damage to the wrestling business than John Cena. That should be his legacy.” But much of the damage was already done before he became the ace. He came in and was asked to stop the bleeding. Technically speaking.. that bleeding started while Austin, Rock, and Triple H were at the head of the table. Austin and Rock bounced before they had to hold their hands out and take responsibility for it.

Kilgore we obviously have to deal with hypotheticals here. John Cena took over the WWE when it was in a clear decline. It’s hot off the heals of what you said was Austin’s heel turn. But WWE retconned that and he went back face and the ratings continued to decline and stayed in a decline until he left the company and beyond until Rock left and Triple H was left at the helm. What’s your assessment of what would have happened with the ratings had Austin and Rock stayed? Because at the surface level.. it looks like the fans were done with WWE, done with Austin, Rock, and Triple H and were leaving and now Cena gets the blame for that.

Jul 8, 2024 23:55:54 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

Jul 8, 2024 23:49:07 GMT Kilgore said:

First of all, no one is calling Triple H The GOAT, so let's take him out of the conversation immediately.

As for Austin/Rock, their peaks were the highest in wrestling history, and their bottoms were very close to Cena's highs. Cena doesn't belong in the same conversation with them.

And now you're moving the goalposts from pretending what I said was untrue to now saying, well, it happened with Austin/Rock too. Well yes, everything peaks and then goes down. That's how things work. Austin/Rock's peaks just happened to be significantly bigger than Cena's, and so were their bottoms, because they were better, and the audience liked them better. 

You said “No ace in wrestling history did more damage to the wrestling business than John Cena. That should be his legacy.” But much of the damage was already done before he became the ace. He came in and was asked to stop the bleeding. Technically speaking.. that bleeding started while Austin, Rock, and Triple H were at the head of the table. Austin and Rock bounced before they had to hold their hands out and take responsibility for it.

What do you think Austin inherited? An even lower downward trend! Vince was selling off water coolers for spare change. Austin becomes the man, not only does the bleeding stop, but the business goes higher than it ever did, or ever has. That's what GOATs do. That's what Hogan did, too, by the way. 

Cena inherits a downward trend, which was not nearly as low as what Austin inherited, by the way, but a downward stretch nonetheless, and what did Cena do? Slight improvement for less than 2 years, just barely above the lowest period of the previous era, and then a far worse downward trend than he inherited, reaching New Generation lows in ratings and buyrates. Cena was a cheap band aid that just barely stopped the bleeding very briefly before coming loose and bleeding out far worse than any ace had seen since Shawn Michaels in 1996. 

I don't know what you're even trying to argue at this point. Most new aces inherit lows. That's why they're the new ace. If things were going good, they wouldn't be changing things. When compared to other WWF/E aces, Cena actually inherited one of the highest lows! A far better situation than Hogan or Austin inherited. And Cena improved things only marginally, very briefly, before becoming the face of the lowest of lows since the beginnings of Monday Night Raw.

It is an insult to Hogan and Austin to have Cena in the same conversation as them. 

Jul 9, 2024 0:07:17 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

Kilgore we obviously have to deal with hypotheticals here. John Cena took over the WWE when it was in a clear decline. It’s hot off the heals of what you said was Austin’s heel turn. But WWE retconned that and he went back face and the ratings continued to decline and stayed in a decline until he left the company and beyond until Rock left and Triple H was left at the helm. What’s your assessment of what would have happened with the ratings had Austin and Rock stayed? Because at the surface level.. it looks like the fans were done with WWE, done with Austin, Rock, and Triple H and were leaving and now Cena gets the blame for that.

I have very little interest booking hypotheticals because you're having a hard time dealing with the facts.

Jul 9, 2024 0:12:40 GMT Kilgore said:

Jul 9, 2024 0:07:17 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

Kilgore we obviously have to deal with hypotheticals here. John Cena took over the WWE when it was in a clear decline. It’s hot off the heals of what you said was Austin’s heel turn. But WWE retconned that and he went back face and the ratings continued to decline and stayed in a decline until he left the company and beyond until Rock left and Triple H was left at the helm. What’s your assessment of what would have happened with the ratings had Austin and Rock stayed? Because at the surface level.. it looks like the fans were done with WWE, done with Austin, Rock, and Triple H and were leaving and now Cena gets the blame for that.

I have very little interest booking hypotheticals because you're having a hard time dealing with the facts.

Well then have a good day champ.

Clicked play on the 1st page. He slid in the ring like usual and I backed out. I don't think I'm ready. Our time on PW coincides with all of the cena era. Maybe some older overlap mixed in. It's like a generation is officially ending.

As I was going down the rabbit hole I found something interesting I wasn’t aware of.

He is the all-time merchandise mover in WWE history.

www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/top-5-merchandise-movers-all-time-wwe

Jesus Christ. In what world is Cena a failure?

The thing about that incredible boom period that was The Attitude Era, and why it's called that instead of The Austin Era is WWF had the single greatest roster ever assembled early. And maybe, it even got even better come 2002.

At absolutely no point should that roster during that climate should have seen anything less than the massive popularity and success that is did. Not only was it a great climate inside the wrestling bubble, but maybe it was the only time in the history of wrestling did the industry have it's finger on the pulse of popular culture.

Cena's run as the man, who'd he have to work with.... Edge? Jeff? Alberto? Swagger? Punk? I'm not surprised John as bad knees and a bad back after doing all the heavy lifting for so long.

Jul 9, 2024 0:59:02 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

As I was going down the rabbit hole I found something interesting I wasn’t aware of.

He is the all-time merchandise mover in WWE history.

www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/top-5-merchandise-movers-all-time-wwe

Orton/Cena #69? No thanks...

Rock/Cena "thrice in a lifetime"? Mehhh....

Gunther/Cena? Could be cool...

Punk/Cena finish the story? Gettin' warmer now...

Jul 8, 2024 16:57:45 GMT Baker said:

He puts over LA Knight on the way out. YEAH! 

YEAH!!

Ladies & gentlemen, here is your winner!

Jul 9, 2024 4:04:30 GMT Kilgore said:

Jul 9, 2024 0:59:02 GMT jTjohncenaGOAT said:

As I was going down the rabbit hole I found something interesting I wasn’t aware of.

He is the all-time merchandise mover in WWE history.

www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/top-5-merchandise-movers-all-time-wwe

[img style="max-width:100%;" src="https://i.imgur.com/EOIWi68.png[" alt=""]

Thanks for the clarification. I obviously didn’t read it and just skimmed it as I was navigating through links. I stand corrected. But also ticked off because.. who makes a list and numbers it and doesn’t number it based off performance? But also.. who doesn’t read something and then shares it?

Jul 9, 2024 3:58:29 GMT NATH45 said:

The thing about that incredible boom period that was The Attitude Era, and why it's called that instead of The Austin Era is WWF had the single greatest roster ever assembled early. And maybe, it even got even better come 2002.

At absolutely no point should that roster during that climate should have seen anything less than the massive popularity and success that is did.

Really? You think so? Because I thought the early Attitude Era roster was paper thin. Same era WCW smokes them in star power and roster depth. The pay per views in 98-99 are largely brutal. UT & Pete recently alluded to this in other threads. There are only 4 or 5 good ones out of 24. For a long time, they got by on Austin vs. McMahon + a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. Austin clicked with fans in a way few had and they stumbled ass backwards into his perfect foil in the Mr. McMahon character. So much of that run was Austin vs. Vince's Heenan Family Corporation.

Coming out of WM 14 they only had two bonafide superstars- Austin & Undertaker. That's it. Meanwhile, WCW has practically every major star of the past decade. WWF also had a great role player in Foley, a few washed former stars who had seen better days, and a whole lot of projects in Rock, HHH, Kane, New Age Outlaws, Shamrock, etc. who were still growing into their roles. The lack of main event depth was a major point of concern for WWF fanatics such as myself. They had clearly tapped into something with Austin. Great! But who is he going to work with? My theory going into WM 14 was they'd bump HHH up to the Bulldog B show spot for a few PPV challenges. Instead, they went with a hasty Foley turn. It worked! Because everything they touched for those two years turned to gold thanks to Austin being the golden goose. But there were worries...

Heck, WWF was so desperate to find heels for Austin to work with that Bossman, Earthquake, and Dr. Death were thrown around as potential Austin opponents. Bossman only lost the spot because he botched a run in at Survivor Series. A washed-up Bulldog did briefly get a main event spot. This is still a problem in the summer and fall of 99 as evidenced by them toying around with Billy Gunn, Jeff Jarrett, Val Venis, and Al Snow as top heels. Luckily for them, Triple H ultimately leveled up and locked down that spot. Then Angle came along. We in HoW have mocked the endless Austin/Taker matches during this era, but the truth is there were no better options, so Austin kept going back to his security blanket. 

Anyway, I'd comfortably take the 96-99 WCW roster (best roster ever assembled imo), 2000-early 03 WWF/E roster, and the 80s WWF roster when they cherry picked the territories over 98-99. I'd likely take the mid-late 2010s WWE roster* and 92-94 WCW rosters over 98-99 as well. 

*For sheer volume. They had 3 fully functioning brands, a ludicrous number of wrestlers under contract that probably even exceeded 96-99 WCW, and were now cherry picking the best talent from around the world. It would be like 98-99 WWF bringing in Kobashi, Liger, El Hijo del Santo, Aja Kong, RVD, Sabu, Taz, and the Dudleys. 

Not only was it a great climate inside the wrestling bubble, but maybe it was the only time in the history of wrestling did the industry have it's finger on the pulse of popular culture.

80s WWF and mid 90s ECW also did a good job of this. But you’re right about the climate. 98-99 WWF tapped into the zeitgeist and that’s why they were able to thrive in spite of a mid roster.

I probably should have been more specific Baker, as I was thinking more along the lines of the later Attitude Era, 2000 - 2001, and finally early 2002.

The roster come 2000 and into 2001, including some of the biggest names in history - Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Angle, Foley, Hunter, Kane, Jericho, Benoit among a stellar mid card including the TLC teams and so on, in addition to Trish, Lita and The McMahon family shenanigans.

Overall that main event scene at the time was undoubtedly one of the all time greatest rosters ever assembled.

John Cena didn't have the luxury of having that calibre of star power playing supporting roles, either as opponents or filling out the card.

I remember once upon a time, where I could watch the first 15 minutes of the show, leave and come back to see the main event and not miss a damn thing worthwhile. In comparison to the late Attitude Era, it was can't miss often from start to finish.

OK, we've spent a few days tearing down John Cena.

So, how does Bret Hart rate?

We're told how incredible he was, and he's often listed as one of the GOATs... but, using the same methodology in this thread, Bret Hart was a terrible Champion. He led WWF during it's worse period, so much so, WWF was convinced they were going put of business.

Let's say Hart is born 10 years later, maybe he reaches Chris Benoit or Eddie's level. But in comparison, he lacks Benoit's intensity, and certainly lacks Eddie's charisma.

If he's born another 10 years later, maybe he's at that same level of Danielson in WWE, but again.. he lacks personality. And at this point, the entire locker room are becoming just as good, if not better than peak Bret Hart.

You take Thuganomics John Cena and drop him into the WWF in 1999, he's a star. Remembering it's only a few years prior to that character debuting. Very quickly a guy like John Cena is a player in late Attitude Era WWF.

Potentially, if he's born 20 years later than he was, he's a blue chip investment from day one. A company like WWE in 2024 would strap a rocket on a 24 year old John Cena, and likely see a young Bret Hart as just another good hand.

The point being, John Cena is a star in any era.

Brush your mouth like colgate.

Nothing else, as a lover of theme music...

Jul 10, 2024 22:57:39 GMT NATH45 said:

OK, we've spent a few days tearing down John Cena.

So, how does Bret Hart rate?

Depends on what you value and whether or not you're Canadian. Very high indeed if you value in ring ability above all else, or are Canadian. Luckily for me, I fall into neither category. Found an old post from 2018 where I grudgingly rated Cena above Bret on a WWE GOAT list. I personally would rather watch Bret. I'd rather watch Bret's era. But head over heart, I had to hold my nose and vote Cena over Bret according to the metrics I set for myself. Still feel dirty about it.

I don't think "the entire locker room are becoming just as good, if not better than peak Bret Hart" is true. Bret's top matches still rate very high with new and old fans alike. Bret still does well on many a GOAT list. Wrestlers today still list Bret as an influence. But I'm not gonna say no to a little a bit of Bret bashing...

I've made the comparison before, but Bret was actually a lot like Cena for me personally in that I spent the first few years of their top guy runs thinking "really? this guy?? why???" before WWF finally wore me down and I just came to grudgingly accept them as the top guy. Like Cena, Bret's opponents (Lawler, Owen, Mr. Backlund) were often far more interesting than he was. Cena also has far more mainstream clout than the guy who appeared in The Simpsons that one time and showed up on the Lonesome Dove spinoff series a few times. Well, at least here in the States. I presume they have statues of St. Bret d'Alberta on every other street corner in Canada.

Bret is also an original example of the Ewing Theory. Quickie version is this is when a team never wins anything with their longtime star player and then goes on to great success as soon as that longtime star goes away. Bret's 92-97 run on top coincided with WWF's worst business run of the past 40 years*. WWF catches fire and WCW goes into decline within months of Montreal. Bret Hart was an albatross. 

*Worth noting that 5 year stretch is some of my favorite wrestling and I'd take 1997 Bret Hart over just about any wrestler to ever live. Too bad Cena never had an interesting late career heel run like that. 

Jul 10, 2024 22:57:39 GMT NATH45 said:

OK, we've spent a few days tearing down John Cena.

So, how does Bret Hart rate?

We're told how incredible he was, and he's often listed as one of the GOATs... but, using the same methodology in this thread, Bret Hart was a terrible Champion. He led WWF during it's worse period, so much so, WWF was convinced they were going put of business.

Let's say Hart is born 10 years later, maybe he reaches Chris Benoit or Eddie's level. But in comparison, he lacks Benoit's intensity, and certainly lacks Eddie's charisma.

If he's born another 10 years later, maybe he's at that same level of Danielson in WWE, but again.. he lacks personality. And at this point, the entire locker room are becoming just as good, if not better than peak Bret Hart.

You take Thuganomics John Cena and drop him into the WWF in 1999, he's a star. Remembering it's only a few years prior to that character debuting. Very quickly a guy like John Cena is a player in late Attitude Era WWF.

Potentially, if he's born 20 years later than he was, he's a blue chip investment from day one. A company like WWE in 2024 would strap a rocket on a 24 year old John Cena, and likely see a young Bret Hart as just another good hand.

The point being, John Cena is a star in any era.

Bret Hart is a GOAT contender in-ring only. He's not in the all around GOAT conversation with Hogan, Flair, Austin and so on. He just didn't draw enough, and this is a fixed business, so that matters. Bret is in the 2nd or 3rd WWF/E tier, with the Bob Backlunds of the world, as is John Cena. 

I think some things you said are incorrect, though.

Bret Hart didn't lead WWF during its worst period. That would be Diesel or Shawn Michaels, whom Bret outdrew both of as top guys. Bret, or Undertaker, were the best WWF draws of a dead era. Again, kinda like Backlund, kinda like Cena. 

I think it's ridiculous to do hypothetical comparisons with Benoit and Eddie when they were largely contemporaries with Bret Hart, and neither reached the heights, or drew like him as top guys. Yes, Bret got a head start on them, but while Bret Hart was wrestling on top, at no point was anyone thinking, "You know who would better in this role? Chris Benoit." 

You can talk Benoit's "intensity," but Bret Hart was more over as one half of a tag team than Benoit was for 95% of his singles career (omitting Bret's singles career just to give Benoit a shot), so that intensity isn't ever going to have Benoit drawing more dimes than Bret Hart. Which makes sense, because as it turned out, Benoit never did.

This is where Bret Hart is underrated. It often gets talked about like his being that over was an accident or a product of the time. Dude connected with a crowd almost immediately in ways that Benoit never did, and it took Eddie 17 years to even approach. That didn't just happen. Bret Hart did that. He was one of many undersized tag team workrate guys Vince didn't care much about and only Bret emerged out of that to become the Bret Hart of this conversation (maybe Shawn Michaels counts too, but my hesitation to include him is only in Shawn being in the second wave of that tag era). It's actually way more impressive than a blue chip prospect getting fast tracked, it's much more merit based.

This idea that Bret Hart didn't have personality or charisma is wrong, probably because it's being conflated with promo ability, which wasn't great, but Undertaker isn't great at promos either. No one would ever say Undertaker lacked personality or charisma. And Undertaker needed a whole lot more bells and whistles and gaga bullshit than Bret Hart. All Bret needed was fucking sunglasses. 

Comparing Bret to modern wrestlers is unknowable. I think Bret is incorrectly placed in the "technical wrestler" category when Bret's strength was in-ring storytelling, not technical moves. He just happened to be the best technician while constructing the best storytelling matches. This is why Bret connected more than Dynamite Kid as a tag wrestler, or even Shawn Michaels did as a tag wrestler, and certainly Chris Benoit did as a singles wrestler. The way Bret Hart is sometimes described is really describing 1996 Dean Malenko, who was truly a great technical wrestler with no-personality, but should never, and was never, a top guy because he could never construct matches or connect to an audience the way Bret Hart did. I think this is why in a sea of great "technical wrestlers" or "an entire locker room that is just as good" Bret Hart would emerge over them. Again. Very similar to the way Danielson did, who like Bret, it wasn't because he was the best technician (even though he was the best technician), but because he was the best in-ring storyteller too. All that being said, this is obviously unknowable.

The short answer is, everything I criticized John Cena for as a draw which disqualifies him in the all around GOAT category is also true of Bret Hart. They're in similar standing, I think. Cena the better draw, Hart the better wrestler, then it becomes a personal preference. I rank Bret above Cena because I think he's one of the greatest in-ring wrestlers ever, where I don't think Cena is one of the best at anything, so I'm taking what I perceive as the superior artistry over the superior drawing ability, since they're similarly the top guys of dead eras as draws anyway.

Great responses guys.