Doing Good Business

[XgringolocoX]

It's considered tradition in the wrestling business to put over the next "guy" before departing a territory or company. Various wrestlers have gotten flax for supposedly refusing to job.
HBK being one of the most infamous with his "I'll never do another job again" tirade back when. Then he does job for Austin on his way out, though there is a ton of speculation that Taker had something to do with that.
HBK comes back. On his way out, who did he put over? Taker? I'd like to hear an arguement that Taker had to be put over. Don't get me wrong, I loved the HBK-Taker story and matches the past 2 Manias. It just keeps sticking in my mind that WWE desperately needs to create new stars. How better than to have a legend help build one or two on his way out.
No, I don't think he really put over Dibase or Cody Rhodes.
THIS IS NOT AN HBK HATING THREAD! I'm a huge fan. Just using him as an example. Feel free to bring up other wrestlers you feel have done the same. Flair is another example. HBK didn't need to be the guy to end Flair's career.
SO I"m asking what your thoughts on wrestlers not putting over new talent on their way out. Also, some of our current wrestlers are getting up there. Who do you think they should put over? HHH for example. Who should pass the torch to whom?

 

[Ferbian]

Two of the examples you pose on Shawn I think comes down to their personal choice. Ric Flair and Shawn Michaels were very close friends. The fact that Ric Flair wanted to retire I think makes Shawn a shoe-in to make the retirement come true.

The same goes for Undertaker. They had a great match back the year before. Shawn wanted to retire. The fact that Undertaker and Shawn most likely have a great respect for each other. And are the two wrestlers to have stuck around in WWE for the longest period of time without converting to WCW. It gives them some kind of a bond I would imagine.

I think on the way out there's two ways it could be done. If it's on the way out of competition permanently I do not see the problem in allowing a close friend. Or someone you really loved working with in the ring. To be their final opponent.

The problem rests on those leaving the company. I mean that really fits them in a position where they should be forced (I know perfectly well that's a stretch or exaggerating the point) to put someone over on their way out.

Batista put over John. Now sure John was over already. But the fact that John Cena overcame one of the biggest heels. As well as one of the biggest opponents in terms of accomplishments and brute force in Batista. That's putting over no matter how you twist or turn it.

Triple H put over Sheamus on his way "out". Or at least out of active competition for a period of time. There's always gonna be some kind of putting over. Just as well as there's gonna be some kind of ending that is felt as appropriate.

So I think it all comes down to what kind of situation. Leaving the company = put someone deserving over. Leaving the business / retiring = Let a friend or enjoyable opponent put you over.

I'm not sure who should have gotten what torch passed. Or who should have put someone over. Because I feel that the people that were put over already by those career ending. Or job-ending matches were perfectly fine decisions.

 

[Cookie14]

I can see where you are coing from with this. However, I do think the way WWE has done things have, overall, been pretty good.

Flair was ended in WWE by HBK. HBK was retired by Taker. Flair and HBK are both legends, they had their careers ended on the biggest stage of them all, defeated by legends. These guys, and many like them deserve to go out on their own terms. If that means going up against someone you like or respect backstage, then why not let them do it? There is no real complaint to Flair vs HBK, or Taker vs HBK. Even the matches were some of the best Mania has offered up over the last few years.

I do agree though, that it could have helped a younger wrestler if they had been the one to retire HBK or Flair.

I think the reason that WWE chooses to have legends retire other legends is that, these days, most wrestlers only have relatively short careers. You never know who will be next in line to run off to Hollywood, or to MMA, or even give pro Football a try.

WWE used its big stars to put over young talent before they go, but not to actually make them go.

Look at HBK's final few years in WWE. He challenged both Orton and Jericho for the heavyweight title, but lost to both, helping to put them over. Ok, maybe not put them over, but certainly add creditability to them being in the main event. During his final DX run, he took a few losses to Legacy, helping to put that team over.

Taker or HHH will probably be the next ones to retire. Taker has spent years putting people over, but I dare say, his career will be ended by the biggest name in WWE whenever he decides to retire. HHH has been/is helping to solidify Sheamus as a main eventer, and he's done a good job of it.
Jericho and Mysterio will probably the the ones to go after Taker and HHH. Jericho has also been putting over countless people since his WWE return. Just look at what he is doing for Evan Bourne atm. Mysterio seems to be the only main eventer that could leave during the next few years that hasn't put anyone over, hopefully that will change before he does finally call it a day.

 

[The People's Peep]

This is pretty interesting. With HBK, I think he did put someone over. Before his feud with Taker, he and HHH had a very good feud with Legacy. I know the OP doesnt think so, but that feud really helped DiBiase and Rhodes. I mean, they had Shawn submit to Rhodes with the figure four. Thats a pretty big win if you ask me. After that feud, DX had a feud with Jerishow and then a mini feud with Show-miz, with the Miz pinning HBK to win the titles. I think this put The Miz over in someway.

Thats when the feud with Taker started. Shawn didnt need to put over Taker, and Taker didnt need to put over Shawn. But Shawn is a legend and needed to go out in a big way. I wasnt watching when Flair retired, but I imagine that he had a feud with an up and coming star before HBK.

With such a big talent and legend, you dont need to put someone over as the last thing you do. Just do it before you leave. You can save the end for something bigger. I think the same will go for HHH and Taker. HHH will not be retired by Sheamus and Taker wont be retired by Punk or Swagger. But they'll put them over before the real end of their careers, where they'll be "put out" by someone bigger. Maybe HHH will finish Taker's career and Cena will finish HHH's career. Its not all going to be Tommy Dreamer putting over Zach Ryder on his way out.

 

[TCBT]

I never understood why people think a storyline where a newcommer forces an established veteran in the ring to retire is considered "putting someone over." It sounds like it makes sense, but it really doesn't.

Being put over, first and foremost, starts with the up-and-coming wrestler, not the person retiring. Sure, retiring a legend is a surefire way to get TV time, but after that program is over, if the wrestler isn't over with the fans, then he's back to square one. And should Ric Flair's last match really be against someone that's not a big name yet?

Want to see someone get put over? Watch what the WWE is doing with Nexus. That program is some of the best stuff I've seen in years. No one is retiring. They are beating up the bigger, more established names. But they are the biggest force in wrestling right now. After some time, the group will disband, and the ones that connected with the audience will continue to get a push and/or have a job.

 

[LegendKiller716]

I agree to a certain degree, but in the examples you gave, I don't think there was a young star ready for that big of a push. For some reason every body has been on a huge youth kick. Not every story line needs to put over a young guy. HBK vs Taker stole the show 2 years in a row. I know I would not have traded that for HBK vs Rhodes. As for Flair, he was at a point in his career where he was a mid carder at best, even if a young guy ended his career, I don't think it would have done anything for that person. I would have much rather had HBK vs Flair because that was one hell of a match.

To give an official answer it is a good way to get guys over, but WWE can't over do it. If there isn't a guy ready to step up you need to put on a good match.

 

[CorkscrewBackElbowDrop]

I agree with ferbian and most of the people on this thread, 1. if your retiring, you want to go out with a friend or respected opponent 2. being retired by someone doesn't make them over, for example, in the last months of ECW Zack Ryder retired tommy dreamer, and now zack isn't any more over than he used to be, all though now through some hard work hes getting there,
jeez, i think being paired with rosa mendes did more for him than that retirement match, thats saying something

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Jericho and Mysterio will probably the the ones to go after Taker and HHH. Jericho has also been putting over countless people since his WWE return. Just look at what he is doing for Evan Bourne atm. Mysterio seems to be the only main eventer that could leave during the next few years that hasn't put anyone over, hopefully that will change before he does finally call it a day.

I agree that Jericho has done his job pretty well (you could even throw in Wade Barret as another example), but Rey's gimmick has always been that of the underdog so I don't know if you can really bemoan the fact that he doesn't help put anyone over. His programme with Punk was pretty good, but I suppose you could argue that perhaps the only people left for Punk to be over with as a villain were the kids, as Punk's character is aimed at the adults in the crowd.

 

[StopIt]

The one that comes in mind is Rey Mysterio. He blantly refused to put over Dolph Ziggler. IMO, if had put over Ziggler, Dolph would have been an established mid-carder by now or even an upper-midcarder.

 

[Cookie14]

I agree that Jericho has done his job pretty well (you could even throw in Wade Barret as another example), but Rey's gimmick has always been that of the underdog so I don't know if you can really bemoan the fact that he doesn't help put anyone over. His programme with Punk was pretty good, but I suppose you could argue that perhaps the only people left for Punk to be over with as a villain were the kids, as Punk's character is aimed at the adults in the crowd.

I agree that while Rey is booked as the underdog it does make it more difficult for him to put people over. However, He could still manage it.

When he was IC champion, he was suspended for being in breach of the Wellness Policy. WWE wanted him to drop the belt to Dolph Ziggler, who he was in a fued with at the time, but Rey refused, instead passing the title to JoMo, who didn't need the belt at the time.

At WrestleMania this year, he was meant to lose to Punk and join the SES, again, he refused.

Two young wrestlers who would have been helped in some way if Rey had let them beat him, but he just seems unable to put anyone over. The Ultimate Underdog just refuses to be on the losing end of any fued, and so, refuses to put anyone over.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Depending on the wrestler, I think it's great for them to put somebody over on their way out of the company. Just look at Jeff Hardy, he was able to put over CM Punk in a very big way. Now Punk is one of the biggest superstars in the WWE. Another example of this is how people like Kurt Angle, and Chris Jericho were able to put over John Cena. Look at Cena today. He's the WWE's biggest star. As for people like The Undertaker, it's hard to tell who he will put over. It will most likely be a young superstar, that way they can get that "eternal" push, just because a legend in the business such as The Undertaker was kind enough to step down as a "top-dog" and let a new superstar take some spotlight in the WWE.