Does every wrestler lose his last match? (atleast with the WWE)

[Y2Jericho]

Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock - These men have probably alot in common, but there are two points that stand out the most:
1) Each is a multiple time world champion.
2) Each has LOST their 'last' match in the buisness.

As of Wrestlemaina, Triple H will be joining their ranks, because 'Taker's won that match before it even begins.

So why does WWE make these greats on the losing end of the stick in their last matches? If anything it makes their legacy seem slightly weaker.

Yes, to be fair, some of the matches have had stipulations for this, but what's the point? Shouldn't their major stars go out in glory? It just seems kind of stupid to me...

I'm aware that there are probably quite a few who have won their last match, but it's just something I've noticed with particularly large names such as these.

Thoughts?

 

[xcalypsox]

They pass the torch in their last match it's a way of giving back to the WWE on their way out. In Michaels case he just wanted to go out stealin the show at Mania and add to the Undertakers legacy.

But yeah most of the time big name guys will go out putting over a younger guy to help the future of the company.

 

[Father Uncle Oscar]

Goldberg won his last match in WWE. Other than that, I see your point. Nowadays, it feels like a Superstar has to lose to leave the company. And I don't like that. If you want to send a Superstar off the right way, let them win their last match, then announce their retirement. Not all great careers have to end in losses.

 

[Tech N9ne]

Not in every case. But as stated in posts before mine, it is a way of passing the torch. The guy that is going to retire puts in the effort of his career, and the usually YOUNGER guy is able to defeat the veteran in his final match, thus passing the torch to the "newer" guy as a show of respect for the "newer" guy AND the company.

 

[Richard]

No, not all wrestlers lose their last matches. Majority yes, not all.

I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan won the last match he wrestled in for WWE against Randy Orton at SummerSlam although I think Orton probably should have won that match. I can understand Hogan being Hogan and being unstoppable but it would have pushed the Legend Killer that much further as I'm pretty sure he was still the legend killer then.

Also, Trish Stratus won the match that she was in when she returned as Guest Host but as for her actual WWE career she won her last match before her retirement against Lita to win the Women's Championship I'm pretty sure, but I don't think you're talking about Divas here, just the guys?

 

[RatedRockstar]

They normally wanna lose, they wanna lay it all on the line going for the title, which adds prestige to the title, or they put over a young guy as stated above me, its not meant to be disrespectful, i understand your point, but its just an honorable thing, i mean i guess they could win some match and retire but if it was for a belt they'd vacate the title, and have a tourney, that'd happen too much, and if it wasnt for a belt they would have to find someone equally as popular, in order to not hurt someones push, you know? it just makes it more complicated and difficult, those are the reasons i have at least

 

[orton0384]

It is a time honored wrestling tradition. That's where the dispute between McMahon and Hart began. Hart felt he was above that. It is not just about belts either. It is about building and planting a seed for the future.

 

[amodernphoenix]

It's tradition that goes back to the earliest days of professional wrestling. People don't retire and quit the business on top, doesn't make sense in the wrestling genre. They fight until they can't fight anymore, giving everything they have to give... and then it's over. That's the major story for any true retirement match.

And the previous poster who commented on Bret Hart was completely wrong. Hart wasn't retiring, he was leaving. Of course any promoter would want someone to lose before sending them to a rival company. Why put someone over who is about to work for your competitor?

 

[Total Impact]

There is no retiring in wrestling. There will never be retiring in wrestling unless a person gets hurt, and even then they find a way to get in the ring. These "career' matches are just to sell buyrates as guy find a way back to the ring like Flair, & soon Shawn, Austin, Rock & HHH. Wresting is the only "Sport" were age is not a limit. So it takes the WWE guts to retire these wrestlers from the WWE but not wrestling.

HHH will come back, I can see Wrestlemania 28 as showdown with some WWE rising star & he will be back. Hell Bret Hart came back after retiring. Wrestlers never retire, it's like actors who never retire, what other job or skill do these guys have that can give them the same joy as wrestling in from thousands of fans.

Other sports have coaching as the end, but what does wrestling have to offer? So career matches don't mean nothing. Remember Nash in WCW, he retired for like 14 days.

 

[PanICattAck313]

Jeff Jarrett lost his last match to Chyna and she won the title off him and his contract was already expired so he just got paid to do the one night match. So i guess your theory is true. Like other people said though its a time honered tradition.

 

[The Madrid Slam]

Didn't Trish Stratus win her last match? Not including her sporadic appearances.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

A wrestler loses his last match because it does not make any sense to have him win. His legacy is not going to get tarnished by losing just one match anyway.

By losing his last match the wrestler gives a rub to an able competitor who might need it. That is the best way the wrestler who is going out can contribute to the business. He is not going to wrestle anymore and so he does not need the victory. So he lets the guy who needs the victory win.

Hulk Hogan might have won his last match in the WWE but I don't think that the WWE knew it was going to be his last match. Goldberg won because both him and Lesnar were going out and it made sense to give the victory to the bigger name. Anyhow the real winner of the match was Austin. He gave stunners to both men and was the only one celebrating after the match was over.

 

[yeerandee]

i think that taker should lose his last match as well. even though i am one of the biggest taker fans ever(other than that ******ed badass era). it should be at survivor series, where taker made his debut, and lose in a buried alive match or at least a casket match. they should make it as that he really is gone for good. but since this stupid pg era is there is no way they would. i can believe they still have any of the violent gimmick types of matches honestly.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I'm watching Mania III right now for my next article, and I just witnessed Roddy Piper's "farewell match" and he won against Adrian Adonis. Granted, it definitely wasn't the last time we saw Hot Rod in a WWE ring, but the fact is that he won his "last match" at Wrestlemania.

 

[Chauncy Talon]

No, not all wrestlers lose their last matches. Majority yes, not all.

I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan won the last match he wrestled in for WWE against Randy Orton at SummerSlam although I think Orton probably should have won that match. I can understand Hogan being Hogan and being unstoppable but it would have pushed the Legend Killer that much further as I'm pretty sure he was still the legend killer then.

Also, Trish Stratus won the match that she was in when she returned as Guest Host but as for her actual WWE career she won her last match before her retirement against Lita to win the Women's Championship I'm pretty sure, but I don't think you're talking about Divas here, just the guys?

But the first time Hogan was out of the WWF, he lost the title to Yokozuna. I don't think the Rock lost his last match. He beat Stone Cold at Wrestlemania.

 

[Karaoke Superstar]

Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock - These men have probably alot in common, but there are two points that stand out the most:
1) Each is a multiple time world champion.
2) Each has LOST their 'last' match in the buisness.

As of Wrestlemaina, Triple H will be joining their ranks, because 'Taker's won that match before it even begins.

So why does WWE make these greats on the losing end of the stick in their last matches? If anything it makes their legacy seem slightly weaker.

Yes, to be fair, some of the matches have had stipulations for this, but what's the point? Shouldn't their major stars go out in glory? It just seems kind of stupid to me...

I'm aware that there are probably quite a few who have won their last match, but it's just something I've noticed with particularly large names such as these.

Thoughts?

It was probably their idea as much as WWE's. Their final contribution to the business is not only a great match, but one that puts over a wrestler who is still performing. I don't see how it hurts their legacy one bit, losing your retirement match against a great wrestler is not weak at all. They do it for the business and that loss is meaningful for whoever beats them.

 

[Brahma Bull]

As countless others have said loosing the last match is giving another guy the rub that you obviously no longer need. Flair lost to shawn, this put another feather in shawn's wrestlemania cap. Shawn lost to taker, which truly made the streak something else. (i never thought of it as unbeatable until hbk was retired by it.) SCSA lost to the rock, and finally gave the rock a win against scsa at wrestlemania, after the rock lost to austin twice. the rock (although he was not pinned) lost along with foley to flair, batista, and orton. of course flair didnt need it, but it definately helped boost batistas and orton's futures. hell dreamer lost to ryder of all people, so some rubs are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more wasted then others. lol

In a shocking turn of events, i completely agree with rattlesnake4ever when it came to the goldberg lesner match. goldberg may have won, but both men were beeing booed out of the building, and only scsa was cheered, and only scsa stood tall. so i wouldnt really say goldberg won anything.

and trish won, but really, who cares about the divas division after trish and lita left?

 

[SickJames]

I know ppl will say it's tradition, but really it isnt. You dont HAVE to lose your last match and you CAN get a rub losing a match. There really is no need to lose to put someone over, real greats can put someone over and win, and it has happened!

Taker is the only annual match at Mania that should have the ending known as him winning because it works so long as we are suspended in disbelief that this new targeter of the streak can break it, I thought maybe maybe they might let Orton just because of his gimmick and the RKO counter from the Tombstone position and the obsession with pushing a young star and he was special and then of course Shawn got me the most thinking he would do it possibly. I was there live for that at 25 and I was behind Taker but though damn it can end here tonight.

See now that is different and The Streak is a special feat held high on or even above titles to some, but just having Last Matches for ppl end with them losing is bad booking. It sucks and doesnt have the same elements as a Taker Mania match with a known outcome

Last Matches should be special, I was extremely happy Trish retired WITH the belt! And that is why every last match shouldnt end with a loss for the retireree. The fans want to see them go out in a blaze of glory so why not have it be possible they could win, instead of ALWAY doing the loss routine because that shit gets old.

ex: not this year, next year will be The Rock vs John Cena, a year's worth of build up for this huge match and I want to see The Rock win, he deserves it, Cena needs the rub you'll all say etc, passing of the torch, but again, Rock lost in a damn Handicap Match at WMXX, they should give him one more win, the people would want it

HHH shouldnt go out with a lost either, and I still DONT believe he'll retire until he goes pass 16 World titles. HHH, a guy who is gonna be around anyway after he stops wrestling, why have him lose when he can still give rubs being an on screen character which he will still be in a non wrestling capacity and might even get the itch to wrestle again


losses can be special moments- Austin made sense for his 3rd fight with Rock at Mania, Hogan made sense, JBL's last bout, but not everyone should go out in a loss


I hope, I know likely not happening, that Y2J goes out with a win, but I know what he'd say about that, he'll want to lose

hell, look at how losing your "last match" can be a travesty in the end- Flair


All in all whether you agree or not it would be better to NOT book them to lose more than win or it takes the fun out of watching, no one wants to see the same shit every time, like Tommy Dreamer has never beaten Raven, Hornswoggle/Chavo, (wonder if Hornswoggle will retire him, lol)


how would you feel if everytime there was a title match on SummerSlam the title never changed hands, in ANY title match, it'd become less fun to watch knowing what's gonna happen
the fact that the WWE title never changed hands in a steel cage until a year ago I think

Hell, if the Royal Rumble winner never won the title @ Mania (MITB winners have never cashed in and failed and that sucks!)

things get old

 

[Decarow]

There is no retiring in wrestling. There will never be retiring in wrestling unless a person gets hurt, and even then they find a way to get in the ring. These "career' matches are just to sell buyrates as guy find a way back to the ring like Flair, & soon Shawn, Austin, Rock & HHH. Wresting is the only "Sport" were age is not a limit. So it takes the WWE guts to retire these wrestlers from the WWE but not wrestling.

HHH will come back, I can see Wrestlemania 28 as showdown with some WWE rising star & he will be back. Hell Bret Hart came back after retiring. Wrestlers never retire, it's like actors who never retire, what other job or skill do these guys have that can give them the same joy as wrestling in from thousands of fans.

Other sports have coaching as the end, but what does wrestling have to offer? So career matches don't mean nothing. Remember Nash in WCW, he retired for like 14 days.

There is a difference between retiring and coming back full time. It's ok to retire and come back a few times. If it's not full time, they are still retired. My grandfather's best friend is a retired pastor and he still comes in once in a blue moon to give a sermon. If it's your passion it's hard to step away for eternity.

But the first time Hogan was out of the WWF, he lost the title to Yokozuna. I don't think the Rock lost his last match. He beat Stone Cold at Wrestlemania.

Yes, he beat Stone Cold at WM19. But at WM20 he teamed up with Mick Foley and lost to Evolution.

 

[DreamcastDriver86]

I don't think every wrestler loses his/ her last match in the WWE, as we've all seen there have been exceptions before. However, if they should lost their last match is a different question all together.
I believe they should for the simple fact that it does give a rub to the guys that are staying with the company, as opposed to making it look like the people in the current generation can't match up to those from the past generation.
I do agree with SickJames, and Josh Isenberg in the latest edition of the Chair Shot Reality that HHH will be retiring at this Wrestlemania. I feel it would make since for him to surpass Ric Flair's number of title reigns. Plus, it doesn't make since to me that he would come back for a little over a month only to retire at Wrestlemania.

 

[Calderownz]

It would seem that way. However, it's the nature of the business. It's supposed to be considered an honor to put over a guy that will remain with the company when you're about the leave the company for any reason.

You'd hope that some of the companies biggest stars would be sent off as winners. However, in a weird way, if done with some class, putting over a guy is the best thing you might be able to do as a true professional.

Still, it's a bit sad that they can't even win their last match and get sent out in style. Creatively, it also makes matches predictable when you know someone is bound to retire and the match is a "Win or Fired" match or something along those lines. Doesn't help that the internet leaks this.

However, they probably do this intentionally, knowing that fans will tune in to see this.

 

[Synner]

If you have ever watched the wrestling documentary / movie Beyond The Mat you would have heard it from Terry Funk himself saying that it is a time honored tradition to go out on their back. It has been something that the WWE didn't create. It is the one tradition that all wrestlers who love and respect the business they work for honor.

 

[C.K.O.]

Bret Hart technical loss his last match too if you don't count tha crappy Wrestlemania bout with Vince..

 

[ABMorales787]

It's a tradition is wrestling. If you're retiring, you give the rub to a guy who isn't. You have the choice to win, but it's been the honored tradition non the less. By booking logic, it's the best decision. Booking a man who's retiring over a guy who isn't can bury that character because he won't be able to get that win back. But since one retires and one stays, the one staying gets the rub in order to establish him seeing how the retiring wrestler won't need it.

There are some exceptions. Like Trish Stratus. But you can't argue with those decisions. It was her hometown against her long time rival, Lita. Who was also leaving.

So basically, by traditional standards, a wrestler always loses his last match and symbolically passes his torch. But that's not an obligation.

 

[mral82]

Not true Eddie technially won his last match before he died as that still counts leaving the wwe, this past fri edge won his last match before he was rehired. Kurt Angle won his i think against the Brooklyn Brawler. Lashley won he last wwe match against Mr. Kennedy, and speaking of Kennedy/Mr.Anderson he won his in the Denver debacle match. So no not all wrestlers when the leave the WWE lose there last matches.