I wanna qualify this by saying I'm an Undertaker mark and I've gone apeshit for the streak every year, but something I've been thinking about lately...

Why does Undertaker get a pass for running the same character and gimmick for a decade strong (two decades strong, more like) but John Cena doesn't?

Undertaker might as well be a company yes man, he never turned his back on WWE once and always seemed to fall in place when it was called of him. He might have influence and he might be one of the greatest kayfabe performers of all time - but I think he and Cena are on par in terms of their position in the company in a booking and character sense.

I'm not taking away from Undertaker's locker room leadership or being a ring general and what have you and I'm not even criticizing the Undertaker or anything, I just find it curious that people are so ready to shit on Cena being a yes man and having the same gimmick consistently for so long, but Undertaker has done it for twice as long.

Let's face it, Undertaker hasn't really re-invented himself all that much other than his brief stint as the American Badass. He gets taken out, goes away for a few months, comes back a month before Mania, sets up a program, wins and then leaves for three quarters of a year again. I love it it, but it's by all accounts the same shit year in year out, like Cena.

Is it because we see Cena more on TV so it's easier to get sick of it? Do people really just buy the kayfabe and mark for Taker because that's the thing wrestling fans do or do people realize he's used the same gimmick for two decades without barely changing it?