He mentioned bringing eyes to the product as a reason of being a worthwhile part timer so well go with that. He said he wasnt "as good or over as the Rock" Super true. I get that. Rock was a top guy during a boom period. Made part time possible. No argument there. Cena though, no. In Cena's era they were losing fans. It was slow and gradual but if Cena was really on the Rock level that wouldn't have happened.
Roman didn't claim Cena was on the Rock's level, Im sure no one with a brain would claim that. In fact he actually made it point when mentioning Cena and Rock to only talk about drawing when it came to the latter.
Overness to me is about fan perception and longevity. Fans turned on Cena before WWE moved the goalposts with "the most polarizing WWE Superstar" schtick. Punk was never turned on. Sure Cena got an endless push and he was great for PR. Punk was not. But that doesnt make Punk less over, it makes him a moody a$$hole who cant deal with people long term.
See, here's our disconnect. Cena brought more eyes to the WWE than in the 3 years before he became the main guy.
Was he booed? Yes. He still got the biggest reactions for close to 5 to 7 years while at the same time anchoring House shows and TV shows. If he wasn't as over as he was, the product would've tanked 10 years sooner than it did, they would've change his shytty gimmick (like they did to Roman, who still can't move the needle either way, lol) or put someone else in that position.
Fan perception on Cena is incredibly high. Nowadays he's an established legend. Back then he was reveered by kids, parents and women. The people who despised him were still showing up and booing him. I don't equate those booes as being less over, I believe we will not see eye to eye on that subject
If you are talking about who is the most suited to be a top guy in WWE then yes everything you said makes sense. But nothing you said backs up Roman's claim.
I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying if someone wasn't increfibly over, they don't stick with him withiout marking any change like they did with Cena.
Low house show attendance or ratings isnt a measurement of overness with fans. Its interest in the overall product. The show isnt built off of one match. That kind of thinking is part of the reason WWE is in the shape its in now.
Company perception isnt a case of overness with fans. In fact it usually works against them.
How do you meassure fan perception then? Reactions gotta be the most obvious. Here it seems you put a lot of weight on half the fans booing Cena for so long. Which makes sense, but I do believe he's a special case.
When Cena wasn't on TV, less people watched and there were less reaction to anything the shows. When he was on TV, everything was at a higher level.
Punk had an increíble spark that grabbed the attention of some lapsed fans and more importantly, mainstream attention. It didn't last long because WWE fukked it up. That's the one moment he was the biggest Star in the biz and hugely over. That's not enough for me to say he was at a higher level that Juan at his peak.
Also lets not act like Dolph didnt get over multiple times.
Who is acting like he didn't??? fukking hell, man...
