80's Jobbers.

[d_henderson1810]

I was watching some old WWE from the Network, and I remembered something from the 80's- Jobbers.

In the 80's, I watched "Superstars Of Wrestling". Every week, they would have five matches, pitting a superstar against a "preliminary" wrestler, or a jobber. The jobber was just cannon fodder to make the star look good. People like "Iron" Mike Sharpe, David Stoudemire, Steve Lombardi and others constantly forever saw the lights to the superstars of that era. Losing was their job.

Some others got the occassional touch of spotlight. "Special Delivery" Jones was at WM1 (before getting squashed by King Kong Bundy in nine seconds). Paul Roma only escaped the jobber role years later when he tagged with Hercules, and later with fellow ex-jobber Jim Powers in the tag-team "The Young Stallions".

One or two of these jobbers got a win. Barry Horowitz (AKA. he who pats his own back) pinned Skip at "Summerslam '95" and on two other occassions. Also, Mike Stone caused an upset on Jake "The Snake" Roberts when "The Model" Rick Martel squirt some perfume and blinded Roberts, which lead to a Blindfold Match at WM between Roberts and Martel.

My point is, there were guys who ALWAYS LOST. They had a job to do, and did it well. They didn't cry about not main-eventing or winning titles. They got paid to lay on their back.

Yet, today, these guys are a dying breed. Because today, these guys would have fanbases, who demand that their guy be "pushed to the moon", like they do with Zack Ryder (who would have been a jobber in the 80's). If you don't make their guy headline Wrestlemania, "WWE is burying them and Vince doesn't know anything about wrestling and should retire" you would cry.

I mean, yes, it is good that Kevin Owens pinned John Cena. The debate now is that unless Owens pins Cena EVERY SINGLE TIME, then the company is burying Owens, and he will never amount to anything. No one is allowed to job, unless they are multi-time world champions, or it will end their career before it starts, and you all then go and hate on WWE.

But unless Cena remains strong (as in, wins matches) Kevin Owens beating him isn't such a big deal, since Owens should have beaten Cena, if you got your wish, and Cena never won.

It is a strange mentality. Unless all new guys from NXT have Goldberg-like undefeated streaks, you will refuse to invest in them. One loss, and they are no good any more, and never will be. The established stars are supposed to lose all the time to the new guys, and only beat each other, and no-one else, no matter if it is better to progress a storyline or not, best for business or not.

Every guy who is an internet darling (Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose, Ryder and every single person from NXT) has to win 100% of the time, or else.

Which reminds me. Let's take Dean Ambrose. Here was a guy who was "buried" by Seth Rollins and Bray Wyatt. Yet he main-evented PPVs and is in the title picture again. Yet, unless he wins, and has a two-year title reign, he isn't any good. He must also beat Seth Rollins (who is a new guy, albeit a successful one), which, by your logic, wouldn't that bury him? But, I forgot, once someone wins the WWE Title, they must then start jobbing to all and sundry.

Too bad the internet wasn't around back in the 80's. "Iron" Mike Sharpe, David Stoudimiere, Steve Lombardi and "The Duke Of Dorchester" Pete Doherty. Then they could have fanbases who demand that WWF push these guys to the moon and have Hulk Hogan, Randy "Macho Man" Savage and the British Bulldogs get cleanly pinned by them, or they won't care about their "idol" anymore.

 

[MartialHorror]

The problem with modern day WWE is that defeating the jobbers no longer serves any purpose. Maybe it's because we know wrestling is fake now? When Rusev defeats Ryder or Bray defeats R-Truth, does ayone really benefit? It's not going to be an exciting match and we already know Rusev and Bray can trash these guys, so they add nothing. Back when I watched wrestling in the late 90's/early 2000's, I usually did find the jobbers to be more credible.

You're also exaggerating in regards to the fanbase. They just don't want to see their favorites being used as nothing but talent enhancement. It's one thing for Ambrose to lose. It's another for him to lose nearly every single PPV match he is in. Eventually that will diminish his stock as a potential main event draw. People see him as a potential Main Eventer. No one ever saw the Brooklyn Brawler as such.

As for the Owens/Cena situation, I think that has more to do with Cena having a much longer career within the limelight at the potential expense of others. When you think about it, The Rock and Stone Cold were never at the top for very long. Hogan was, but didn't show up as much as people remember and...keep in mind, people felt he held a lot of stars back as well. Many are still resentful for the Bret Hart situation and he allegedly said 'nope' to losing to Mr. Perfect. People are just tired of Cena, tired of the presentation of him as an underdog.

 

[CyberPunk]

Okay. First off, stop clubbing everyone under the same umbrella. IWC is not a union. It is collective name given to people who discuss wrestling on Internet (at least according to me), which makes you a part of it. And people have opinions.

Now coming to the topic, yes, everyone has a favorite for whom they clamor. It, however, doesn't mean that the majority think the same. Zack Ryder or Adam Rose have their fan base, but their job on the roster is to make others look dominant. Every now and then, they'll get an upset, but that's about it. Because of internet, at least their fans can voice their opinions. Dies tgat mean Zack Ryder will main event tomorrow? I doubt so.

I do agree that people throw the term 'burial' a bit too casually. But you have to understand that wrestling has changed. The traditional role of jobbers have changed. With wrestling being not seen as a 'legit sport,' people put more emphasis on entertainment, and thus they get behind those guys who entertain them more. That means when their favorite superstar loses ever so often, they start getting frustrated and take up to the internet to vent. Does that mean that the so called 'internet darlings' should win all the time? Of course not. That's the thing about internet. Now everyone can express their opinions. I am very sure that an outcry in internet won't make WWE turn Cena or Orton into jobbers.

Eventually, workers who can make money will get pushed. And people will keep clamoring for their favorites. Don't get so workep up by opinions. In the end, these are just opinions.

 

[d_henderson1810]

The problem with modern day WWE is that defeating the jobbers no longer serves any purpose. Maybe it's because we know wrestling is fake now? When Rusev defeats Ryder or Bray defeats R-Truth, does ayone really benefit? It's not going to be an exciting match and we already know Rusev and Bray can trash these guys, so they add nothing. Back when I watched wrestling in the late 90's/early 2000's, I usually did find the jobbers to be more credible.

You're also exaggerating in regards to the fanbase. They just don't want to see their favorites being used as nothing but talent enhancement. It's one thing for Ambrose to lose. It's another for him to lose nearly every single PPV match he is in. Eventually that will diminish his stock as a potential main event draw. People see him as a potential Main Eventer. No one ever saw the Brooklyn Brawler as such.

As for the Owens/Cena situation, I think that has more to do with Cena having a much longer career within the limelight at the potential expense of others. When you think about it, The Rock and Stone Cold were never at the top for very long. Hogan was, but didn't show up as much as people remember and...keep in mind, people felt he held a lot of stars back as well. Many are still resentful for the Bret Hart situation and he allegedly said 'nope' to losing to Mr. Perfect. People are just tired of Cena, tired of the presentation of him as an underdog.

Cena has succeeded "at the expense of others". Who has Cena ordered to bury, or refused to job to?

You then bring up SCSA and Hulk Hogan, both of who succeeded at the expense of a lot of guys that they REFUSED to see the lights to. They even ordered that match finishes be changed so that they win, not lose. Everyone loved SCSA, yet he did very few clean jobs, yet is loved for it.

I have heard many, many criticisms of John Cena over the years, but I have not even heard his most ardent critic ever accuse him of actively politicking to keep down an up-and-comer, or refuse to job to anyone. SO, I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Okay. First off, stop clubbing everyone under the same umbrella. IWC is not a union. It is collective name given to people who discuss wrestling on Internet (at least according to me), which makes you a part of it. And people have opinions.

Now coming to the topic, yes, everyone has a favorite for whom they clamor. It, however, doesn't mean that the majority think the same. Zack Ryder or Adam Rose have their fan base, but their job on the roster is to make others look dominant. Every now and then, they'll get an upset, but that's about it. Because of internet, at least their fans can voice their opinions. Dies tgat mean Zack Ryder will main event tomorrow? I doubt so.

I do agree that people throw the term 'burial' a bit too casually. But you have to understand that wrestling has changed. The traditional role of jobbers have changed. With wrestling being not seen as a 'legit sport,' people put more emphasis on entertainment, and thus they get behind those guys who entertain them more. That means when their favorite superstar loses ever so often, they start getting frustrated and take up to the internet to vent. Does that mean that the so called 'internet darlings' should win all the time? Of course not. That's the thing about internet. Now everyone can express their opinions. I am very sure that an outcry in internet won't make WWE turn Cena or Orton into jobbers.

Eventually, workers who can make money will get pushed. And people will keep clamoring for their favorites. Don't get so workep up by opinions. In the end, these are just opinions.

But I read a story one time, about a Streetfight between Edge and Eddie Guerrero on "Smackdown" one night. Edge won, but both men got a standing ovation for their match performance, as it was a scorcher.

So what if your favourite loses matches, as long as they look good while doing it? I mean Cena beating Neville in a U.S. Open challenge doesn't bury Neville, as long as he still performs the moves the fans love him for. A fighting loss can look as attractive as a win.

I remember another match one time, where Kane fought Kurt Angle. Kane was in the Anklelock for ages, and tried everything to get out, but eventually tapped. It didn't make Kane look weak, because he held out for a long time, but even he couldn't hold on forever.

Now, imagine the same scenario with an established star and an NXT star. The NXT star looks brilliant in the ring, gets many chants of "This is awesome" yet just comes up short, but still leaves the match looking like a threat. In this scenario, people would still complain about him not winning, rather than how he lost.

If wrestling is scripted, then results don't matter as much. So, focus more on who entertains you, and be more concerned if someone like Neville doesn't bring their A-game, rather than whether he is scripted to lose to further a storyline.

 

[MartialHorror]

Cena has succeeded "at the expense of others". Who has Cena ordered to bury, or refused to job to?

You then bring up SCSA and Hulk Hogan, both of who succeeded at the expense of a lot of guys that they REFUSED to see the lights to. They even ordered that match finishes be changed so that they win, not lose. Everyone loved SCSA, yet he did very few clean jobs, yet is loved for it.

I have heard many, many criticisms of John Cena over the years, but I have not even heard his most ardent critic ever accuse him of actively politicking to keep down an up-and-comer, or refuse to job to anyone. SO, I don't know what you mean by that.

You missed my point...

I did say 'potential' expense. If Cena had retired years ago, who knows what could've happened. We do know he intentionally refused to put over Wade Barrett, which many fans see as a career crushing moment, but I actually disagree. To be honest, I wasn't around during most of Cena's reign, so don't mind his prevalence as much. I was referring to what other people thought of him. However, I do feel he shouldn't have been the one to defeat Rusev.

Whether Rusev is worthy of his push or not, Cena didn't benefit from his victory and Rusev has more or less become just another guy. If Owens loses to Cena, I wouldn't mind as much because Owens doesn't necessarily need to be unstoppable. It just comes down to the storytelling.

While SCSA and Hogan did refuse to job, my point was that they weren't around long enough to wear out their welcome (well, Hogan did kind of cross that in WCW). Austin's injury allowed the Rock and Triple H to fight over the top spot. The Rock going to make movies allowed Triple H and Brock Lesnar to rise, etc. Cena has just been over-exposed to the point where crowds have gotten sick of him.

Edit: For the record, NXT competitors are supposed to be rookies in the eyes of the WWE. So yeah, Neville and Zayn losing to Cena makes sense...although if memory serves, Neville's match was interrupted by Rusev. I think people tend to be more worried that these guys will end up being less like Rollins and Reigns and more like Rose and Dallas. I recall Charlotte practically being squashed by Nattie, even though she was NXT diva's champion. It's one thing to lose, but that seems like an intentional snub by the higher ups, whether that is the case or not.

 

[FlairFan2003]

I was watching some old WWE from the Network, and I remembered something from the 80's- Jobbers.

In the 80's, I watched "Superstars Of Wrestling". Every week, they would have five matches, pitting a superstar against a "preliminary" wrestler, or a jobber. The jobber was just cannon fodder to make the star look good. People like "Iron" Mike Sharpe, David Stoudemire, Steve Lombardi and others constantly forever saw the lights to the superstars of that era. Losing was their job.

Some others got the occassional touch of spotlight. "Special Delivery" Jones was at WM1 (before getting squashed by King Kong Bundy in nine seconds). Paul Roma only escaped the jobber role years later when he tagged with Hercules, and later with fellow ex-jobber Jim Powers in the tag-team "The Young Stallions".

One or two of these jobbers got a win. Barry Horowitz (AKA. he who pats his own back) pinned Skip at "Summerslam '95" and on two other occassions. Also, Mike Stone caused an upset on Jake "The Snake" Roberts when "The Model" Rick Martel squirt some perfume and blinded Roberts, which lead to a Blindfold Match at WM between Roberts and Martel.

My point is, there were guys who ALWAYS LOST. They had a job to do, and did it well. They didn't cry about not main-eventing or winning titles. They got paid to lay on their back.

Yet, today, these guys are a dying breed. Because today, these guys would have fanbases, who demand that their guy be "pushed to the moon", like they do with Zack Ryder (who would have been a jobber in the 80's). If you don't make their guy headline Wrestlemania, "WWE is burying them and Vince doesn't know anything about wrestling and should retire" you would cry.

I mean, yes, it is good that Kevin Owens pinned John Cena. The debate now is that unless Owens pins Cena EVERY SINGLE TIME, then the company is burying Owens, and he will never amount to anything. No one is allowed to job, unless they are multi-time world champions, or it will end their career before it starts, and you all then go and hate on WWE.

But unless Cena remains strong (as in, wins matches) Kevin Owens beating him isn't such a big deal, since Owens should have beaten Cena, if you got your wish, and Cena never won.

It is a strange mentality. Unless all new guys from NXT have Goldberg-like undefeated streaks, you will refuse to invest in them. One loss, and they are no good any more, and never will be. The established stars are supposed to lose all the time to the new guys, and only beat each other, and no-one else, no matter if it is better to progress a storyline or not, best for business or not.

Every guy who is an internet darling (Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose, Ryder and every single person from NXT) has to win 100% of the time, or else.

Which reminds me. Let's take Dean Ambrose. Here was a guy who was "buried" by Seth Rollins and Bray Wyatt. Yet he main-evented PPVs and is in the title picture again. Yet, unless he wins, and has a two-year title reign, he isn't any good. He must also beat Seth Rollins (who is a new guy, albeit a successful one), which, by your logic, wouldn't that bury him? But, I forgot, once someone wins the WWE Title, they must then start jobbing to all and sundry.

Too bad the internet wasn't around back in the 80's. "Iron" Mike Sharpe, David Stoudimiere, Steve Lombardi and "The Duke Of Dorchester" Pete Doherty. Then they could have fanbases who demand that WWF push these guys to the moon and have Hulk Hogan, Randy "Macho Man" Savage and the British Bulldogs get cleanly pinned by them, or they won't care about their "idol" anymore.

You got it all wrong. The whole business model was different back then, no weekly live TV, no monthly PPVs, the touring business WAS the business, and you couldn't afford to showcase your top talents in matches against each other on free TV every week if you expected fans to pay money to see them live. Every once in awhile a WWE syndicated show like SuperStars or the NWA shows on TBS would show main event level matches but it was rare (and especially on the NWA programs they wouldn't show you the ending until next week when they did). You would get a handful of Sat Night Main Events or SuperStars Of The SuperStation specials (the precursor to The Clash Of Champions) but by and large the feds couldn't afford to give away quality matches on free TV if they expected fans to pay to see the show on tour on the house show circuit.

This is why you had "enhancement talent" or "jobbers"....some of these guys skill wise were very good but they lacked the look or the charisma or the promo ability, sometimes all of it. George South was very good, given the chance in the ring he was very talented. Some guys like SD Jones managed to create mini gimmicks for themselves to make them more valuable "enhancement talent". The Mulkey Brothers may have been the all time best, they clearly had a fan following borne out of their seemingly weekly hopeless chase of a win, too slow, small, & weak to do anything but get brutalized by every bad a$# and mega heel in the NWA (When they finally got a pinfall win it was one the best TV moments of the 80s).

The advent of Monday Nitro changed this. By this time The old WWE Monday Night Wrestling Show on USA would show a few matches pitting star talent against each other but usually not the main feuds and rarely two legit main eventers. Often times it was a mid carder on the rise facing an established star, such as Shawn Michaels who wrestled important early matches in his singles career against Ric Flair & The British Bulldog (where he won the IC Title) on Monday Night. You didn't see HBK vs Brett Hart though, matches of that quality, IE matches you would pay to see live, rarely made their way onto TV. WCW was already pushing for more PPV events in the yearly calendar, looking at one every month, with a special focus on SuperBrawl, Great American Bash, & Starrcade. WWE had to follow suit with their various In Your House specials and the June King Of The Ring PPV while focusing much heavier on Royal Rumble, W-Mainia, S-Slam, and S-Series. Once Nitro hit TV WCW turned up the heat even more by all but eliminating "jobber" matches and pitting their roster of top heavy superstars against each other. It was a veritable round robin of Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Ric Flair, Sting, Lex Luger, & Arn Anderson all basically wrestling each other in various combos every week to drive ratings, pushing storylines faster to accommodate the monthly PPV schedule (this was actually in effect even before Nitro took off), now WCW in order to generate interest and buzz was having their biggest stars face each other on TV. Six months before the NWO storyline kicked into high gear Nitro was beating RAW multiple times, and drawing basically even the rest of the time.

This tactic, combined with the faster progression of storylines to accommodate monthly PPVs, meant an end to most of the "jobber matches" on TV....WCW couldn't afford to have fans change the channel while Savage faced unknown jobber guy and check out RAW so they booked Savage against Flair or Luger instead. As the ratings shifted WWE was forced to adapt and soon they were doing the much the same thing weekly on RAW.

There were jobbers who had their own distinct gimmicks, often as heels like Barry Horrowitz, although The Mulkeys were clearly portrayed as sympathetic and got cheers. Occasionally you saw guys who got pushes up the card and for various reasons failed, and they settled into this role. Brad Armstrong and Scotty Riggs are two that come to mind. Even in the late 90s while they were not plentiful they still existed, although with the needs of weekly live TV and monthly PPVs sometimes these guys would eke out a win, such as Val Venis & Disco Inferno, two enhancement talents that mostly existed in the Attitude Era to put over more established stars but won a few matches on their own periodically.

The lack of these today has nothing to do with "fans cheering" for them, it's just too hard to put the genie back in the bottle so to speak and take away from fans what they have been expecting for so long now.

As for guys needing to win to "not get buried" that is nonsense. Losing a match doesn't bury you, how you are portrayed in the storylines ling term is what does or does not "bury you". Was HHH buried by his numerous losses in recent years to Undertaker, D. Bryan, The Shield, and Brock Lesnar ? Absolutely not, he's maybe the best performer on the show, and he drives interest in everything he does. Likewise Bray Wyatt looked like a potential main event beast and superstar in the making during his feud with John Cena, and came out of the feud looking like WWE's next potential mega star even though he only won 1 of 3 big matches. Following that program up with a boring run vs Chris Jericho, a part time guy who never wrestles long term and has no significant value to storylines, now that buried Wyatt, even though he won most of the matches and dominated the TV time (he dominated the TV time with Cena too but people actually care about Cena, Jericho is so far removed from anything meaningful and everyone knows he isn't sticking around so there is no investment in him).

Some of the greatest stars in the business got over and became huge by losing. Sting & Lex Luger became huge stars thanks to their programs with Ric Flair, but although they like Wyatt against Cena had dominating TV moments they lost most of the matches against Flair in those days, especially money and pay off matches. Randy Savage elevated himself into top teir status in WWE as the company's lead heel in 1986 during his first run vs Hulk Hogan, in which he lost every actual match (although he had some great TV moments and lots of great promos). Batista got over initially while being the "jobber" of Evolution, the heel from the group that put over all the fan faves on TV to protect HHH & Flair. Steve Austin got maybe the biggest bump of his career from LOSING against Brett Hart at W-Mania, just as Shawn Michaels, in very similar fashion to Sting (vs Flair) in 1988, got a huge lift from losing to Brett Hart at S-Series 92.

It isn't the won-lost near as much as the storyline, how you are portrayed, how many strong moments you are given, and what you're follow up storyline is. That's how you discern if someone is "buried" or not.

 

[FlairFan2003]

You missed my point...

I did say 'potential' expense. If Cena had retired years ago, who knows what could've happened. We do know he intentionally refused to put over Wade Barrett, which many fans see as a career crushing moment, but I actually disagree. To be honest, I wasn't around during most of Cena's reign, so don't mind his prevalence as much. I was referring to what other people thought of him. However, I do feel he shouldn't have been the one to defeat Rusev.

Whether Rusev is worthy of his push or not, Cena didn't benefit from his victory and Rusev has more or less become just another guy. If Owens loses to Cena, I wouldn't mind as much because Owens doesn't necessarily need to be unstoppable. It just comes down to the storytelling.

While SCSA and Hogan did refuse to job, my point was that they weren't around long enough to wear out their welcome (well, Hogan did kind of cross that in WCW). Austin's injury allowed the Rock and Triple H to fight over the top spot. The Rock going to make movies allowed Triple H and Brock Lesnar to rise, etc. Cena has just been over-exposed to the point where crowds have gotten sick of him.

Edit: For the record, NXT competitors are supposed to be rookies in the eyes of the WWE. So yeah, Neville and Zayn losing to Cena makes sense...although if memory serves, Neville's match was interrupted by Rusev. I think people tend to be more worried that these guys will end up being less like Rollins and Reigns and more like Rose and Dallas. I recall Charlotte practically being squashed by Nattie, even though she was NXT diva's champion. It's one thing to lose, but that seems like an intentional snub by the higher ups, whether that is the case or not.

Maybe the IWC is sick of Cena but he's still the biggest revenue producer WWE has by far and there is no one, not even HHH, that beating has more meaning to for a wrestler than beating Cena. He's the biggest star the company has, it would be absolute business suicide not to feature him prominently In storylines.

 

[FlairFan2003]

You missed my point...

I did say 'potential' expense. If Cena had retired years ago, who knows what could've happened. We do know he intentionally refused to put over Wade Barrett, which many fans see as a career crushing moment, but I actually disagree. To be honest, I wasn't around during most of Cena's reign, so don't mind his prevalence as much. I was referring to what other people thought of him. However, I do feel he shouldn't have been the one to defeat Rusev.

Whether Rusev is worthy of his push or not, Cena didn't benefit from his victory and Rusev has more or less become just another guy. If Owens loses to Cena, I wouldn't mind as much because Owens doesn't necessarily need to be unstoppable. It just comes down to the storytelling.

While SCSA and Hogan did refuse to job, my point was that they weren't around long enough to wear out their welcome (well, Hogan did kind of cross that in WCW). Austin's injury allowed the Rock and Triple H to fight over the top spot. The Rock going to make movies allowed Triple H and Brock Lesnar to rise, etc. Cena has just been over-exposed to the point where crowds have gotten sick of him.

Edit: For the record, NXT competitors are supposed to be rookies in the eyes of the WWE. So yeah, Neville and Zayn losing to Cena makes sense...although if memory serves, Neville's match was interrupted by Rusev. I think people tend to be more worried that these guys will end up being less like Rollins and Reigns and more like Rose and Dallas. I recall Charlotte practically being squashed by Nattie, even though she was NXT diva's champion. It's one thing to lose, but that seems like an intentional snub by the higher ups, whether that is the case or not.

Rusev didn't become "just another guy"....he was well on his way to being an even bigger mega heel, now a bitter one, with the likelihood of being an even bigger bad guy by turning on Lana, his run vs Cena was about to put him through the roof as maybe the company's #2 heel behind Rollins & The Authority but his injury killed that. That has nothing to do with losing to Cena.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Cena has succeeded "at the expense of others". Who has Cena ordered to bury, or refused to job to?

You then bring up SCSA and Hulk Hogan, both of who succeeded at the expense of a lot of guys that they REFUSED to see the lights to. They even ordered that match finishes be changed so that they win, not lose. Everyone loved SCSA, yet he did very few clean jobs, yet is loved for it.

I have heard many, many criticisms of John Cena over the years, but I have not even heard his most ardent critic ever accuse him of actively politicking to keep down an up-and-comer, or refuse to job to anyone. SO, I don't know what you mean by that.

Ive never seen one article about Cena plain refusing to put someone over. We do know that HBK refused to lose multiple times in the 90s which is why he had so many title forfeits and the legendary story about how Vince told him he'd never work in WWE again if he screwed up W-Mania vs Austin. Austin threw the IC Title into a river as a means of forfeit on RAW to avoid having to lose the title in the ring and walked out of the company when he was asked to put over Brock Lesnar. Hulk Hogan never put over Randy Savage, not even in a tag team match, via pinfall, and never gave Ric Flair a clean or semi clean win (although he did give Flair a title switch and 4 televised wins over him,more than anyone else ever got). Hogan is alleged to have refused to work with Brett Hart in both WWE & WCW & refused to put Sting over clean at either Starrcade 97 or SuperBrawl 98 as well as Flair at SuperBrawl 99.

I don't have a problem for someone sticking up for their character or themselves but letting the team down by refusing to play ball is a different animal,, it can be hard to determine the fine line between defending yourself and your character vs just being a selfish jerk though.

Always remember wrestlers are independent contractors who do not have no cut contracts, no health insurance, no retirement, and much of their pay is based on their match placement on cards which is determined in part by their popularity, which is influenced by how they are portrayed on TV. Its easy to see why some guys "refuse to play ball" when they don't think it benefits them. However, Ive never seen a story about Cena being like that.

 

[MartialHorror]

Maybe the IWC is sick of Cena but he's still the biggest revenue producer WWE has by far and there is no one, not even HHH, that beating has more meaning to for a wrestler than beating Cena. He's the biggest star the company has, it would be absolute business suicide not to feature him prominently In storylines.

Not disagreeing with you, but is the IWC half of the audience? Or sometimes all of them when the boos drown our the cheers? I think he's an all around polarizing figure. I'm in the camp that believes Cena should turn heel, not that he should go away.

Rusev didn't become "just another guy"....he was well on his way to being an even bigger mega heel, now a bitter one, with the likelihood of being an even bigger bad guy by turning on Lana, his run vs Cena was about to put him through the roof as maybe the company's #2 heel behind Rollins & The Authority but his injury killed that. That has nothing to do with losing to Cena.

I doubt this for a few reasons. It was setting up a feud with Ziggler and Ziggler isn't particularly relevant right now. Furthermore, I think Owens stepping up would've hurt Rusev as well in the same way that Brock's return hurt Ryback. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think love triangle usually work in wrestling and it's a big step down going from Cena to Ziggler.

I personally think Rusev should've gone over Cena- not necessarily cleanly- and somehow got involved in the WHC scene. He burns the U.S belt for heat, wins the WHC and his streak is ended by someone like Reigns, Ambrose, even Ziggler if WWE got behind him. Admittedly it's a a complicated issue because there is no room for another WHC contender right now. But I don;'t think Rusev was on the right path after losing to Cena.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I loved having the jobbers around, It meant when the superstars did compete against each other at maybe a PPV or saturday nights main event it felt more special rather than seeing it for about the 20th time by the time PPV comes around.

 

[Lowdown]

I loved having the jobbers around, It meant when the superstars did compete against each other at maybe a PPV or saturday nights main event it felt more special rather than seeing it for about the 20th time by the time PPV comes around.

This is an excellent point. Back in the day in order to see two big stars or tag teams face each other you had to pay to go see them at house shows or wait for PPV's or Saturday Night's Main Event. They did good jobs of building towards a big match for months. Hell, some of the bigger stars like Hogan rarely showed their face on Superstars or Challenge.by the time the 90's rolled around the game was changing with the evolution of shows like Raw and Nitro where you could see big names compete on free weekly TV. Jobbers were then relegated to opening acts in the dark matches for filler shows like WCW Worldwide and Sunday Night Heat.

 

[justinept]

This is an excellent point. Back in the day in order to see two big stars or tag teams face each other you had to pay to go see them at house shows or wait for PPV's or Saturday Night's Main Event. They did good jobs of building towards a big match for months. Hell, some of the bigger stars like Hogan rarely showed their face on Superstars or Challenge.by the time the 90's rolled around the game was changing with the evolution of shows like Raw and Nitro where you could see big names compete on free weekly TV. Jobbers were then relegated to opening acts in the dark matches for filler shows like WCW Worldwide and Sunday Night Heat.

No - it's a terrible point that would basically kill Raw, Smackdown and hurt the overall interest in the product.

Raise your hand if you're going to spend three hours on Monday night watching 7 squash matches... Now raise your hand if you're going to spend two hours on a Thursday night watching the same thing.. and if no one is watching those shows, then the ad revenue goes down, and the networks aren't paying nearly as much for the programming.

Additionally, if you aren't invested in the TV shows, then why are you watching the pay-per views? And if you're not watching the pay-per views, then why do you even subscribe to the network?

The WWE is a television production company. That's what they do - they produce television. Are there other revenue streams? Sure. But the brunt of their business comes from their live television programming - either directly through ad revenue or indirectly by drumming up enough interest in the overall product so that people have a desire to put money into their other revenue streams (eg. The Network, merchandise, live events, etc.)

If you take away any reason to watch the television show, then you're effectively killing the business. And making Raw a series of squash matches would take away any reason to watch.

I get what you're saying, though - you think it's a problem that people have their favorites. However, I have no idea why you think that's a problem. If enough people want Zack Ryder to be pushed, then he should be pushed... and by that, I mean, if enough people are buying Ryder merchandise and showing a monetary investment in his character, then the WWE should be smart enough to try to profit further off that. The same goes for Daniel Bryan, John Cena, Ryback, Neville, Kevin Owens, Ambrose, Rollins, Reigns, Orton, etc... if the fans are investing in those characters, then it's the WWE's responsibility as a publicly traded company to produce them in a manner that maximizes profits. Burying the wrestler does not accomplish that - nor does putting them in squash matches against jobbers.

 

[relentless1]

Cena has succeeded "at the expense of others". Who has Cena ordered to bury, or refused to job to?

You then bring up SCSA and Hulk Hogan, both of who succeeded at the expense of a lot of guys that they REFUSED to see the lights to. They even ordered that match finishes be changed so that they win, not lose. Everyone loved SCSA, yet he did very few clean jobs, yet is loved for it.

I have heard many, many criticisms of John Cena over the years, but I have not even heard his most ardent critic ever accuse him of actively politicking to keep down an up-and-comer, or refuse to job to anyone. SO, I don't know what you mean by that.

Cena has been stated by Jericho and Edge as actively holding the Nexus back at SummerSlam that year, he was supposed to take the DDT on the outside and he refused saying it'd make more sense if he won