FanPost

The Logical Fallacies Of Cenaphobia: The no-sell

J. Meric

Here's a joke you may have heard: John Cena is fishing on a boat in a lake. A member of the Internet Wrestling Community (IWC) is sitting on shore. An oar slips from the boat and drifts away. Cena steps out of the boat, walks on water, grabs the oar, and walks back to the boat. The IWC guy on shore sees the whole thing.

A few hours later, he runs into his wrestling buddy. "Guess what?", he says. "John Cena can't swim!"

I put this little piece of humor in my signature to make a point. I can understand and respect people who are not into Cena because he's basically been the same character for 10 years, or that his gimmick is geared towards the younger members of the WWE Universe. But there is that subset of Cena-haters that have become so consumed by their antipathy that they lash out at anything he does, regardless of whether it's logical to do so or not. I call these people Cenaphobics.

I plan to take on these logical fallacies one by one. Today, I start with this one: John Cena No-Sells.

Recently, this post put forth the idea that John Cena doesn't "sell" as well as one of the sausages that runs at Miller Park. In it, the writer of the post links to a video of Cena pinning Kane at Battleground, using it as an example of how John Cena "No-sells". There's just one small problem with that: That's NOT what No-sell means!

One manner of logical fallacy is to try to re-define what a term means. Here's a definition for No-sell I found on another wrestling site: "No Sell: When a wrestler gives a move or a strike by another wrestler no reaction as if it didn’t hurt him. Usually to give the appearance that they are "invincible". Wrestlers who have done this a lot in their matches are Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, the Undertaker, and Goldberg." Doesn't say "When a wrestler jumps up after pinning his opponent", or "When a wrestler kicks out at 2 after being hit with Brock Lesnar's F5".

So, in order for "John Cena No-sells" to be true, that would mean that any time an opponent, hits, kicks, suplexes, slams, etc Cena, he acts like nothing happened. In other words, he's one of The Road Warriors! But seriously, once you properly define the term, it becomes evident that the accusation is absurd.

Now, to address the complaint itself. Cena's character, for better or for worse, is a Superman. That kind of character is always going to be one who is like a Timex watch: takes a licking and keeps on ticking. You may not like it, and that's fine, but it's not him "No-selling". It's him playing his character.

Let's go back to the Battleground victory. The match was hyped as being one where Cena would be at a severe disadvantage, being that he's facing three other men, and doesn't have to be the one pinned to lose his title. In other words, he's going to have to overcome the odds stacked against him! And overcome them he did. Being the character he is, it would be natural for that character to jump for joy upon winning.

Furthermore, I'd lend more credence to this criticism if WWE matches were a little more old-school. By that, I mean matches that went 45 or 60 minutes. Put Cena in that long a match, and I bet even he would get legitimately blown-up by the end. But, alas, they don't.

So, what have we learned today? If you're going to use a wrestling term, use it correctly! Also, if you're going to complain about Cena not looking winded after matches, blame it on the character he's playing.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Cageside Seats readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cageside Seats editors or staff.