It's Cena by far. He's better in the ring, better on the mic, has more personality and character (even if it can get annoying after awhile). To be fair, Reigns is still early in his career, but the guy just bores me. He's going to need to jump far ahead of where he is to justify him being the face of the company.
Roman Reigns has been wrestling less than five years. Cena is a seasoned veteran. Why don't we compare Reigns' five years to Cena's (including developmental) to be more fair. Clearly, Cena was always a natural on the mic, while Reigns is more of the Batista mold. But in the ring is Reigns in 2014 any worse than Cena in 2004?
'04 Cena wasn't good in the ring but until he really hit his stride in 2007, he was trying to mix things up a bit and didn't stick to the same routine every match. Reigns barely deviates away his standard match formula.
Stupid question. Cena has more talent in his thumb than Reigns in his entire body and that's not even to say Cena is Stone Cold or Eddie Guerrero level.
NO MORE WHO'S BETTER/WHO WOULD WIN/GREATEST OF ALL TIME THREADS
Random comparison threads have been a major problem as of late, "(blank) or (blank)?" All these topics seem to compare two random wrestlers, without much argument and they all produce the same type of posts. The GOAT threads have become incredibly overdone as well with the same discussions and the same fan wars so they will be closed as well.
It'll just end in people getting pissy. They all do.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.