>>10632967He's a good, not great, wrestler. He never had the star power of Hogan or Austin, despite what Vince wanted us to believe. Lesnar was the right choice for top guy of that era and onward, but we all know that didn't work out because Brock quit.
That said, Cena was a good number 2 pick. He was certainly a better worker and promo than Batista. And he had a great look. He got a lot better in the ring too. I absolutely hated his Super Cena gimmick and found it extremely cringey, but he wasn't for me. He was for the kids. Same with Sting back in WCW.
What hurt Cena was that Vince built up guys just to feed them to him. It created resentment and didn't help WWE long-term either. The same mistakes are being repeated with Roman Reigns, except he has a worse look that Cena, can't work as well, and isn't a good promo. But the options are far slimmer today, and while Lesnar is, again, the guy to build around, he's not going to commit to WWE and prefers the light schedule, so I understand why Vince went with Roman too.
Compared all time, Cena will be behind top stars from earlier, dimes eras. But Reigns won't even be remembered other than as a historical footnote.
