Part 1
AJ Styles is great. I have been a fan for many years. He is not now, nor has he ever been, the greatest wrestler in the world.
Not sure we can agree, the man was fantastic on the stick, always entertaining in the ring and incredibly versatile.
I agree with you that for all his faults, Cena probably was, for several years, the best overall wrestler. Hugely over, capable of great matches despite being limited in what he could or would do.
I quibble over the idea he was "limited", for several reasons, but if we agree, we agree.
The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that getting over is entirely on the wrestler. It rarely is.
It almost always is. People accuse promotions of not getting someone over, but promotions just put the pieces into place. It is up to the wrestler to connect with the audience.
WWE has a longstanding tradition of booking new talent from other organizations poorly.
I disagree. The WWE's longstanding policy is to book talent from other organizations in a fashion consistent with the idea the WWE's audience is not familiar with the talent. Certainly there are some examples one could use to make the claim you are (Booker T vs. HHH at WM is a popular one), but when you truly go back and look, the WWE pushes talent that will make them money. In fact, the current trend is to overpromote new talent before relegating them back to the midcard if they, predictably, cannot hang onto the main-event.
In fact, booking is the biggest problem with WWE. Vince pushes people he likes, whether they can get over or not, while not pushing talent that is over.
Vince pushes people he thinks will make money. That's it. People complain about Roman Reigns, but ignore AJ Styles has been given great booking. People complained about Cena winning too much, but never seemed to have a problem with CM Punk's 9 month winning streak debut (or whatever it was). And no one claims Styles and Punk are the kind of guys Vince "likes".
Being limited by post count (and the understanding you understand wrestling), I won't detail the WWE's obvious booking philosophy, except to say it is money driven.
Some recent examples would include having Bailey and Banks drop the tag title in favor of a comedy team that is not over
Tag team wrestling doesn't sell. Hasn't for decades.
and will not be over(despite having far more talent than they are allowed to show), or pushing Lacey Evans(who has a real future and could be great, but is not ready), or pushing Reigns, or the absolute mess that is the tag division.
Reigns makes money. Tag divisions don't. Women's wrestling have only recently shown the ability to draw, thanks to a drastic change in society (and the UFC spearheading the movement).
What Banks and Bailey do in the women's midcard doesn't matter at all. Both have had their shots at the main-event and, unlike Charlotte, have not remained consistently compelling. Honestly, I've never found Bailey that compelling. Banks has a much better character, though rumors are her backstage attitude does her no favors. Lacey Evans? Has she even been on the big stage for six months yet?
Pro wrestling is about making money and the WWE does everything they do to make it. One of the best ways to get over in pro wrestling is simply long term exposure (see Kofi Kingston, or even Miz, for a recent example). But the greats make themselves great.
Undertaker is literally a character who buries dead people. Rollins and Reigns came to the ring in goofy looking tactical gear. Daniel Bryan got over by engaging in couples therapy with Kane. Cena was a white rapper.
The greats get themselves over. And if you're not great, you're not drawing money, so the WWE doesn't care.
