The Face of the WWE, The Champ, The Doctor of Thuganomics, Fruity Pebbles. These are all names that have been used to describe John Cena at one point or another in his career and all have held true (hey, those are some brightly colored shirts.)
Still, there's one nickname that fans use most often. A nickname that insights groans from even the most hardline Cena fans, (myself probably being the only one who has actually grown to like it.) "SuperCena."
It's funny, because the term "Super" may have been coined in response to Cena's antics of seeming invulnerablity, and his ability to always "rise above and win," much like Superman. Still, there have been periods where we've seen the names "SuperOrton," "SuperPunk," and "SuperSheamus," all used, but they've never really stuck, for one reason or another.
Yet, throughout the years, we've never seen the "SuperCena" name fade. Out of habit, perhaps, but it seems regardless of what happens, Cena will always be Super to us. It's almost a mystery, but I know where it stems from. I think we've gotten to a point where we almost don't know any other way to address Cena, and it causes people to say things they probably wouldn't say otherwise.
Let's take the most recent example of Cena's Superpowers: The Royal Rumble. Now, personally, I was looking for a Ryback/Big Show feud, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit happy with Cena winning his second Royal Rumble. This was further exasperated, as The Rock captured the WWE Championship that night as well, leading to many peoples fears of Twice in a Lifetime, Once in a Lifetime II, etc.
What surprised me though, was the fact that people who knew Cena would likely be challenging for the WWE Title at WrestleMania, were starting to say things like "They could have just given Cena a title shot." That's what got me thinking, "huh...Is it really getting to a point where we're willing to throw logic out the window, and instead of giving Cena an actual chance and making him earn the title shot, people would rather WWE just announce the title match with Cena in it?"
Which makes me want to ask the question, do we take the "Super" aspect of Cena's character too seriously? I mean, it's gotten to a point where even the people who don't like Cena seem to think that at times, he can do anything.
Now, on a level, I think it has to do with the WWE's booking of Cena. I'll admit, there are some things I would change. Cody didn't have to lose that quickly last RAW, Dolph probably shouldn't be getting outside help and still losing, (I'd still have him lose, but just without help) and a few other things. So maybe it's that whole thought process that casual fans believe anything...maybe it's JUST now starting to affect the "smarter" crowd as well?
I mean, would we be upset or would it just be par for the course if Cena hadn't won The Rumble (let's get whimsical and say Zack Ryder won, and announced he was going to cash in for the World Heavyweight Title, starting a quasi-feud between him and Ziggler. Woo Woo Woo!) and the next night, Vince McMahon announced that he was signing John in for a WWE Title match at WrestleMania?
Would you be happy for Ryder winning The Rumble? Upset that there was no No. 1 Contender Match? Or apathetic that the WWE did what you would expect and handed Cena another opportunity to win the title?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, has the WWE finally won out on the critics? Have they "accepted," "SuperCena" as the reality of the current WWE product? Or is this perhaps just a series of isolated events?
I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the read.