Echelon, this is getting ridiculous. I don't know if you're intentionally not understanding anything here, or what this is, but let's try clearing it up now.
This ought to be good...
First off, no one's been saying anything negative about Trish Stratus. It seems like you're very defensive of her. You have no need to be.
I never said anyone was. I merely said she's the best women's wrestler of all time, and better than Lita. Did you read the OP?
In Bret Hart's book, he mentions a time in 1984 right after he'd started with the WWF, and Angelo Mosca started giving him a hard time over how Bruce Hart had been booking Stampede. Dave Shultz took Bret aside after this and told him that he didn't have to take crap from anyone in the locker room, because he was as good a worker as any of them. He needed to work on his mic skills, but as a worker he was at the top.
As "good as a worker" meaning the ability to make money by putting on a match that caters to the match audiences want to see. Traditionally a wrestler has to be able to do this in both the lower and mid cards before they can be moved up to the main event.
If you interpreted my posts as suggesting that a wrestler automatically becomes a good worker and a moneymaker over night, then that's not what I meant.
Now keep in mind that this was 1984.
Yeah... back when kayfabe was still very much protected.
Before Bret "Hitman" Hart even existed.
So before his prime as a moneymaking top star.
He was a jobber who was putting different guys over every night, and if he was lucky, getting to have a 20 minute broadway with another jobber. He wasn't the guy drawing money (he was always billed as "and one extra match").
If he was a jobber it would have been awfully hard for Hart to have "put someone over" when he had far less popularity than the guys he was losing to.
In fact, it wouldn't be 8 years until he was the top guy on the card, and even then it can be argued that he never would have been given that opportunity if it wasn't for the steroid trials (Bret even admits this). Yet here was this guy Schultz... who was on the top of the card at the time, working with Hogan, who was telling Bret the jobber that he was one of the best workers in the company.
Seems like you don't know the difference between being a "jobber" and being a "midcarder." Jobbers aren't booked to look good, nor do they put anyone over. Their job is to help their opponent maintain credibility; not add to it.
A midcarder is a worker that has shown the ability to put on good matches, connect with the audience, and draw some money; but, they aren't ready to become main event stars.
The Hart you were describing was a midcarder; not a jobber.
Kind of goes opposite of what you were saying about who the best 'workers' are, doesn't it? Do you understand the context now?
Not really. I think it fits it like a glove. The best workers are always found at the top of the card. And it makes even more sense from a business standpoint since the best workers always draw the most money.
One of the best workers of the 80's was Brad Armstrong. You'll laugh, but it's true. Promoters liked using him to gauge whether or not someone could draw money, because they reasoned that if someone couldn't have a good match with Brad, then they weren't worth investing in period.
He was a decent midcarder, not a jobber. But if Armstrong was the one losing constantly to guys that were more popular than he was, that was the booker's way of deciding that he was not a good enough worker to carry the company.
Ted Dibiase was another career midcarder that was a great worker... he just never reached the pinnacle because we wasn't as good as a worker as Savage, Sting, or Hogan.
Yet Brad Armstrong spent his entire career solidly in the mid card.
Being a career midcarder is not a bad thing - it only means they aren't as good as the main eventers, but still nothing to be ashamed about. Thus I don't know exactly what you are trying to say.
There could be many reasons for that
I already gave you one.
but the main one (that I've read mentioned by those who worked with him) was that as a guy who grew up in the business, he understood better than most the importance for a guy like him being in that role the promoters liked using him for, and he unselfishly took it on.
Yeah... because he knew he wasn't good enough to be a marquee world champion and carry a company. I'm sure R-Truth, Kane, and Kofi Kingston all feel the same way. Now ask them if they'd change anything about their careers.
Yes the big thing for any wrestler first and foremost is how much money they can make.
So why are we arguing again? Going back to your Molly example, Trish and Lita drew more money than she did because they were main eventers and she was a midcarder. That's a fact.
They were better workers than she was. Also a fact.
That holds true for pretty much any profession you can think of.
That better worker = better draw = better wrestler? Yes, it does.
After all, that is why most people get into doing whatever it is that they do.
Good workers succeed no matter what. Look at Eugene. Some fans believe that gimmick was a waste of Nick Dinsmore's talents. But was it? Eugene was a midcarder and had several memorable moments. He didn't win any titles, but he connected to the audience. That alone made the gimmick successful.
Santino is the the exact same way.
But there's many factors that go into how well you succeed at that over the course of someone's professional career.
Sure, but what I have been saying has always, and will always be true... unless the promotion hates making money.
If your boss at the time decides that they want to use you in a position that may not lead to the top of the ladder, the truth is that most people will take that position because they still want to make a living for themselves and their family.
In the pro wrestling world that would mean the guy doing jobs to the top stars, but is still booked over the low card rookies and the jobbers. A "jobber to the stars" what a remarkable term.
Owen Hart for one was famous for not wanting to be that top guy.
LOL no. Owen is famous for having all the tools to make it; but died before he could.
He had the talent to be that guy. He could connect with the fans. He could do it all. But he didn't, because he didn't want it like his brother did.
Or it could just be... and I'm going out on a limb here, but not really... Owen wasn't as good as Bret, and came to accept that. That isn't a bad thing though, considering Bret is likely in the Top 25 of all time.
So in closing, when people here are saying that Lita was a better worker than Trish, or that Molly was a better worker than both of them... they are not talking about what you are trying to argue at all.
No, you and the other guy do understand the business somewhat, but you've got the role of a worker, and what makes them good or bad, backwards. An inferior worker cannot make a superior worker look better because the audience hasn't connected to the inferior like they have the superior.
The example I gave you of Trish carrying Molly and putting her over in their feud was spot on.
They're simply saying that their ring work was better, while not denying for a second that Trish had other assets that allowed her to be the one that got the biggest push.
How could Molly's in ring work be better than Trish's when more fans connected to Trish than Molly. You know what "connected" means right? It means the fans supported, cheered, flocked to see Trish - and Lita's - work more than Molly. And it's not like Molly wasn't popular... Trish did put her over.
I hope you understand now.
O hope I clarified all this for you.
. 
