How do you view wins and losses for a wrestler?

[Michael J. Fox]

When it comes to wrestling, an overall good match can overshadow a win or a loss. Many a time has there been an instance where a loss doesn't affect a wrestler, keeping him strong in the eyes of the viewer. It's all about the performance, to me at least.

Win/loss records are not too important. I only think that because you never see it as a go-to stat when a wrestler is analyzed (on the show, not off-stage). The only time records were noted were Goldberg's streak, Taker's 'Mania streak, and the occasional undefeated rookie. I may have missed a few but you get the point I hope. These records are addressed as a selling point for each character, so it does not present itself casually ya know?

A win's a win, but a loss is a loss. And when a wrestler starts losing matches you'll see "buried" or "jobbing" thrown around. I'm talking weeks/months of losing, not one man losing one time and yelling buried because your favorite guy/gal lost. Losses can deteriorate any wrestler's momentum and hinder his growth in the company. They also begin making the wrestler look weak.

I suppose I have a few question:

1. How do you view a wrestler's win/loss record? Is it important overall?
2. Specifically, how many losses are needed for you to lose confidence or believe he is getting the shovel?

P.S. Faulty finishes like DQ's and count-outs piss me off anymore, some wrestler need to step up and take a pinfall. All thoughts welcome!

 

[L@RISANO]

When it comes to wrestling, an overall good match can overshadow a win or a loss. Many a time has there been an instance where a loss doesn't affect a wrestler, keeping him strong in the eyes of the viewer. It's all about the performance, to me at least.

Win/loss records are not too important. I only think that because you never see it as a go-to stat when a wrestler is analyzed (on the show, not off-stage). The only time records were noted were Goldberg's streak, Taker's 'Mania streak, and the occasional undefeated rookie. I may have missed a few but you get the point I hope. These records are addressed as a selling point for each character, so it does not present itself casually ya know?

A win's a win, but a loss is a loss. And when a wrestler starts losing matches you'll see "buried" or "jobbing" thrown around. I'm talking weeks/months of losing, not one man losing one time and yelling buried because your favorite guy/gal lost. Losses can deteriorate any wrestler's momentum and hinder his growth in the company. They also begin making the wrestler look weak.

I suppose I have a few question:

1. How do you view a wrestler's win/loss record? Is it important overall?
2. Specifically, how many losses are needed for you to lose confidence or believe he is getting the shovel?

P.S. Faulty finishes like DQ's and count-outs piss me off anymore, some wrestler need to step up and take a pinfall. All thoughts welcome!

1. I think that depends on the character being portrayed moreso than anything.
Take Ryback and Bray Wyatt, for instance... Ryback is seen as a Monster Face type who looks unbeatable thus having him lose too often will quickly make people take him more like a joke than anything. Wyatt on the other, is more a storyline character based character, and I feel he can absorb losses more easily than Ryback because his character's motivations haven't been based on winning a match at all. Likewise, a guy like Ziggler can lose match after match, yet once he gets to 'ShowOff', it is unlikely people will stop backing him.

2. Zack Ryder for the past year. That is the example of a burial.

 

[Navi]

While on the whole a win/loss record is of some importance, I think the most important aspect is how over the wrestler is with the fans. Most of us don't give a shit about how many times they've won or lost.

Look at Dean Ambrose. He's crazy over, but loses all the time. Fans get invested in a wrestler because of the character they portray and get behind them because of that, not because they win or lose. A better example might be John Cena. He's hated by most, not because he's a bad wrestler or is a bad guy, but because he's seen as winning too much. Well and the character is just a little stale. So you can be a winner in the ring, but a loser with the fans.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The only time records were noted were Goldberg's streak....

That's the first thing that came to mind when reading your topic. He won all those matches in a row and we realized it was a program (a damn long program) and not a factor that reflected the actual ability of the wrestler when compared to other wrestlers......and once it was over, it was over, leaving Goldberg never as big a deal as he had been during his streak (imo).

An example of a program that worked in the other direction was my favorite, Drew McIntyre, who never won another singles match on Raw or Smackdown after beating Hornswoggle, for crap's sake. But even losing a one-on-one to El Torito ("El Pequeno Bullshit") didn't point to a lack of wrestling ability on Drew's part; it was simply an aspect of the unfortunate character they had him playing......and we all saw how it ended up for McIntyre.

Here's another one: People have argued on this forum about the specter of Daniel Bryan squaring off against Brock Lesnar. I thought it would have looked absurd, yet if WWE wanted, Daniel could have beaten Brock (headslap). But tell me: what would happen if they had a shoot fight? Huh?

If Brock Lesnar, as well as many of the bigger wrestlers who fall to little Daniel week after week, could be told to lose to him, what meaning do wins and losses actually have?

Watching your favorite performer win will always be a fun thing to see.....but I would imagine any WWE star would trade his win streak for a higher salary.

The wins & losses are for us to worry about, not them.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

Yeah it's a non-issue in most cases. It depends more on how people lost - take for example, a straightforward squash compared to Neville's fighting efforts the last couple of weeks. Neville is being built and shown to be extremely competent in spite of recent losses coming off the back of an awesome debut.

There is such a thing as "Jobber's Victory" or so I call it, when like Heath Slater wins, so that the loser can get his screwy finish and his program/feud is furthered. Slater's win is ultimately meaningless.

 

[kadroan]

When it comes to wrestling, an overall good match can overshadow a win or a loss. Many a time has there been an instance where a loss doesn't affect a wrestler, keeping him strong in the eyes of the viewer. It's all about the performance, to me at least.

Win/loss records are not too important. I only think that because you never see it as a go-to stat when a wrestler is analyzed (on the show, not off-stage). The only time records were noted were Goldberg's streak, Taker's 'Mania streak, and the occasional undefeated rookie. I may have missed a few but you get the point I hope. These records are addressed as a selling point for each character, so it does not present itself casually ya know?

A win's a win, but a loss is a loss. And when a wrestler starts losing matches you'll see "buried" or "jobbing" thrown around. I'm talking weeks/months of losing, not one man losing one time and yelling buried because your favorite guy/gal lost. Losses can deteriorate any wrestler's momentum and hinder his growth in the company. They also begin making the wrestler look weak.

I suppose I have a few question:

1. How do you view a wrestler's win/loss record? Is it important overall?
2. Specifically, how many losses are needed for you to lose confidence or believe he is getting the shovel?

P.S. Faulty finishes like DQ's and count-outs piss me off anymore, some wrestler need to step up and take a pinfall. All thoughts welcome!

It depends on the wrestler and how they're being booked. Like 2012, when they pushed Sheamus to the moon, if he would have lost sometimes maybe he wouldn't have gotten so stale so far. Or like Reigns since his return, just because you win matches clean doesn't mean fans are going to like you. Then you got wrestlers like Bray who get build up winning matches then they lose the ones that matters.

 

[Punk_Aries_Daniels_Bryan]

In my opinion, I believe that the win-loss record of a wrestler does matter quite a lot. In addition to a good win-loss record, the quality of the matches and the star-power of the wrestlers they face makes a great impact as well. For example, a wrestler who has been preforming well and winning matches would start gaining momentum and attracting people; this applies to a wrestler who consistently loses in squash matches or short matches. Some losses can be taken without killing a wrestler's momentum, as long as they do not amount up to many, and the wrestler starts getting consistent wins as well.

An example of such would be:

Cesaro wins against Adam Rose: Nobody really cares, unless the level of the match was really good and attracted the audience. However, this can still count in a win-loss record, and is a plus point.

Fandango wins against Brock Lesnar (LOL): Everybody is wide-eyed, a lot of attention is now on Fandango and his next match will be closely watched. This completely demolishes Fandango's win-loss record and people will start to recount his matches now.

WWE needs to integrate more MMA into itself, in both wrestling style as well as the way the company works. Cena shouldn't receive another title shot just because of who he is; great back-to-back performances and consecutive victories should have him get another title shot.

Win-loss record matters. It makes professional wrestling be taken more seriously by the fans also adds some form of legitimacy for the title matches.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Like just about everything else in pro wrestling, it depends on the circumstances such as the wrestlers involved, the storyline, the driving force behind their program, what the potential benefits are for whomever wins or loses, how they win or lose, etc. A different view has to be taken with just about any given situation because a win or a loss could affect different wrestlers differently.

For instance, take some of the happenings at WrestleMania and championship ramifications. In the minds of most people, either Daniel Bryan or Dean Ambrose needed to leave as WWE Intercontinental Champion. In Rusev vs. Cena, most people believed that Cena would walk out as champion while Lesnar vs. Reigns had most convinced of Reigns winning and/or winning before being screwed over by Seth Rollins. Depending on personal tastes, star power, the future of the wrestlers involved and how over they are with crowds; you have to ask what you feel the best outcome is. In the Intercontinental Championship ladder match, there are virtually no complaints about Bryan winning. Even if some would have preferred Ambrose, or even someone else, even detractors know that Bryan's immensely popular and that means good things for the foreseeable future of the title. In Rusev vs. Cena, since most believed Rusev would drop the title, a lot would depend on how strong he looked in defeat. They put on a good match, Rusev looked strong in defeat and John Cena will most definitely elevate the US title. As for Lesnar vs. Reigns, people were to a FAR better match than they were expecting and one that was extremely physical. Reigns wasn't connecting with fans like officials hoped, yet they still made him look strong and upped his stock considerably by making him look tough. At the same time, a lot of fans were over the novelty of Lesnar popping up every 3 months or so o defend the strap, so they Seth Rollins enter the match and change it in a creative use of the MITB briefcase to screw over Reigns to keep him from getting the title and to also screw over Brock Lesnar to get the title off him in a way that protects his reputation as a dominant beast. In these particular scenarios, it can be argued that the right man won under the right circumstances and that those who lost were still elevated in the process.

In wrestling programs, someone has to ultimately come out on the winning and losing end of things, but what's ideal is for both wrestlers to benefit. Neville has lost his last two matches, yet look at the performances he gave against a very over babyface and one of the most entertaining in-ring guys in the company in Dolph Ziggler and against the reigning WWE World Heavyweight Champion who looks as though he could be one of the top guys of the next decade in Seth Rollins. Neville lost, but his stock has wound up elevated dramatically all the same. If a wrestler wins a program and most fans feel he shouldn't, then it can be something of a time bomb waiting to go off if fans don't really like or want to accept said wrestler. If a wrestler who loses is someone fans have embraced, then booking him to ultimately come off looking like a chump instead of someone elevated by a loss, it's another potential bomb waiting to go off in management's collective face.

 

[SoulTrain4]

Circumstances matter but to be honest there are so many matches that take place people soon forget who won when and how.

Cesaro just lost a handicap match to Randy Orton but just last year he beat Orton clean by himself (while Orton was champ no less), how many people forgot that happened?

In WWE wins an losses aren't kept track of so they don't matter that much honestly. If they kept track of history beyond the current story they are telling then yeah it would matter and they do that occasionally but not enough to make a difference.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I suppose it depends on the match and how they lose rather than just the loss, I tend to remember who was in the greatest matches I have seen like Savage/Steamboat wrestlemania 3, Bulldog/Hitman summerslam 92 or Razor/HBK wrestlemania 10 rather than who won and the winners of those matches just seem irrelevant now.

 

[LuckyLouie]

The thing is, losing isnt bad at all. It depends on the match.
Like someone said before me, look at Cesaro. A year ago, he had 4 star matches, beat orton ( i dont remember that but ill trust someone on the internet ), won at WM, and had a hot streak. All his matches were long and really well done. His match with Cena was almost perfect. I could have seen Cesaro winning one or two times. Him losing that match is not taking away anything from him. While on RAW, he lost to Orton in less then 5 minutes, with the help of his partner. The match made him look weak and stupid. Thats when I lose hope for one of my favorite stars. His matches have been slow and sloppy lately. He loses more then he should. If they keep on winning people will start to like them again. But if you look at Wyatt, he has been losing for the past year. But to who? Undertaker, Jericho, DB, and other MAJOR guys in the WWE when Bray is an nobody in the wrestling world. He has a name now. But if he didnt lose to all these guys and beat mid cards instead. Who knows, he could have never been. So personaly I dont think the W/L recond matters at all when you dont butcher the character. Like Wyatt. But if you take a monster like Show or Kane and make them lose 95% of their matches, you are killing them.

 

[goalieman31]

Yea i totally agree with the OP on this. As long the wrestler can look strong in defeat it can help more than hurt. It's when decent guys lose a squash that makes them look weak. Not everyone can win all the time but certain guys like Cesaro need to lose by just a thread and at some point look like they are winning.

 

[The Samoan Heritage]

I had got into a similar discussion a while back and actually started to believe that wins and losses truly dont matter in the wwe, but that's just not true. Yea they dont count in terms of who gets title shots and when (depending on how you look at it), but they count in terms of relevancy. You can say they don't count to make yourself feel better about one of your favorites loosing, but they count.
If a guy is constantly loosing people lose interest. A good example would be Bray Wyatt. He is fresh and entertaining, but after so many strong promos and never backing them up many people have lost interest in him. Big Show and Kane are another great example, both are on par with each other in the sense of accomplishment and fan reaction. But at the moment Show is more relevant than Kane is because while Kane is booked to constantly lose, Show still gets wins and is made to look like a threat.
For the ones saying it doesn't matter if guys like Ambrose, Ziggler, Cesaro, etc lose as long as they put on a good show, are only kidding their selves. If it didn't matter it wouldn't be as many upset fans and hostile crowds.
Wins/losses are important because they give us our ranks. When R-truth, Ryder, Los Matadores, Adam Rose, etc comes out you know they are going to lose (jobbers).
When Swagger, New Day, Fandango, Harper, etc comes out you know they're going to put up an entertaining battle but in the end they usually lose (low card).
When Ziggler, Ryback, Miz, Barrett, Sheamus, etc comes out you really don't know, its all depending on the story. That is the (mid-card).
And Same with Orton, Bryan, Cena, (If its not another Main Eventer they are facing) you usually know they are going to win when they come out. The (Main Eventer).

To answer your second question I would say 6 or 7 losses back to back before I would consider him to be dropping down the ranks. My example would be Erick(?) Rowan- during the feud with the Authority he was a mid-carder with Ryback and Ziggler but after the feud with Show he has been put on the low card with no signs of rising up.

 

[Alastor]

Win/loss record can be used to build a gimmick. Winning streaks were used to build up Rusev, Ryback and to a smaller extend Bo Dallas in recent years and of course the famous Goldberg example. Losing streaks can be used to turn a character. I remember MVP and Christian having some build based on a losing streak years ago. And Taker lucked out on a Wrestlemania winning streak discovered by accident a decade ago that extended his career by half a decade.

Overall, I don't think too much importance is placed win/loss record as long as the story is well built. Someone has to do the job right? Fans have a short attention span so as long as they don't keep mentioning the losses it shouldn't hurt.

I think the loss aversion is due to fans conditioned to view pro-wrestling more like fighting sports that have only a few fights a year for the elites. Personally I view the record much like regular season of team sports. You can have awful losses and upset wins all the time when they fight so many times over the years.