Just because they lose doesn't make them jobbers

[Trill Co$by]

Ok, I know that I make a ton of rant posts, but seriously this one is completely in the right this time.

The IWC has this sickening habit of throwing a word around when it's completely out of text. I mean just because someone's lost 5 matches in a row doesn't make them a jobber. I mean sure, Evan Bourne is a complete jobber and we all know that, but still doesn't mean that CM Punk is one just because he's lost a few matches.

A jobber is someone who does nothing but lose... CM Punk has been used on Smackdown very decently, and not once have I seen him be in a jobber position since HIAC.

I mean seriously, why can't a former World Champion lose to a mid carder? Have you people ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe the SD writers were trying to get the guy with one lame song over with the fans. Or how about the fact that the losses he's getting on SD is just to further a mask vs. hair storyline.

On Raw, just because Orton doesn't have the belt and he loses a few matches, he's a jobber? No! So why is that word thrown around so much?

Like I said, when it comes to someone like Evan Bourne or Michael Tarver, then it's ok... but when you can see that their losses are either building a storyline or just putting one rookie over for a few matches, that doesn't mean they're jobbers.

Right now Daniel Bryan hasn't gotten a single win in NXT, and yet I still wouldn't consider him a jobber because we know that something's about to happen... In my opinion, I think it's another Colin Delaney deal.


So yeah I just had to let it all off my chest because the word "jobber" and other forms are really starting to annoy me.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

There's being a jobber and then there's being treated like a jobber. Much like CM Punk was in two Raw matches late last year against Cena. In the first match eh lost in roughly 6 minutes, Cena allowed him very little offence, as he often does. In the second match Cena disposed of him in about two minutes. So yeah, Punk was a jobber in those two matches. I could probably come up with more examples if I wasn't lazy.

I'm also fairly certain Daniel Bryan is a jobber.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

No one says punk is a jobber, a jobber is used to elavate a superstar quickly, they get defeated more in squash matches, they hardly take part in storylines...look up the meaning mate...daniel bryan, sure he is 0-9, i don't, i most people in forums don't call him a jobber...

my definition is those not involved in storylines, and lose just to make their oponent look good.

 

[CobraVenom]

No one says punk is a jobber, a jobber is used to elavate a superstar quickly, they get defeated more in squash matches, they hardly take part in storylines...look up the meaning mate...daniel bryan, sure he is 0-9, i don't, i most people in forums don't call him a jobber...

my definition is those not involved in storylines, and lose just to make their oponent look good.

Um, if a wrestler continually loses, he is a jobber. Right now, Bryan is a jobber.

As for your "definition" of what a jobber is...Chavo says hi.

 

[Via Armbar]

"Doing the job''

That's where the term comes from. It means to put someone over. One loss doesn't make somebody a jobber but when they lose with no end in sight and they have no foreseeable plans outside of losing...that's a jobber. I suppose one could be a temporary jobber, but usually the title is reserved for someone who has no real bright future in the business other than putting people over. You can look at Daniel Bryan and know that he has lost every match except one. Unless they make something out of him now that he's gone from NXT, he was a jobber. At least in the WWE. If he goes on to do something, then his losing ways were more or less a storyline prop. It's been done before, most recently with Swagger.

Losing every couple of matches doesn't maker you a jobber. Losing a shit ton of matches and knowing that there is no light at the end of the tunnel...that's a jobber.

 

[Daniel]

If someone loses a match for the sole reason of making their opponent look good or furthering a storyline then they are a jobber. It doesn't matter how often they do it, if they lose one match for that reason they have "done the job".
There are serial jobbers and Evan Bourne is one. That's not to say Bourne is only good enough to job. He is a great jobber because he is superb at selling, which is an aspect of professional wrestling.
When I read the title I predicted it might be about something I have often thought which is: can someone be a jobber and win a match? For example, when Daniel Bryan lost 10 matches in a row on NXT, he didn't make his opponents look good or further their storylines. Quite the opposite, his losing streak storyline was furthered and he looked good. It could be said his opponents were the jobbers. Just a thought.

 

[AjStyles]

Daniel Bryan was only jobbing to put over all of the other rookies, but he always put on a decent performance, his first night in NXT, he faced Chris Jericho, sure he lost, but it was by far the best performance of the night, possibly in the history of NXT, but his purpose in NXt was to get the WWE audience familiar with him as he was fresh from the independent circuits, so sure his only win didn't count, but it was against four current RAW superstars

 

[shattered dreams]

Too many are missing the point. The critical distinction that people are failing on is the difference between doing a job and the debatable amount of jobs a wrestler needs to do to become a jobber. One match never makes someone a jobber, but they can do a job in it. Losing a few matches in a row that a wrestler is competitive in regardless of length does not make someone a jobber. It is too the point that anyone loses two matches in a row no matter what the circumstances and suddenly everyone is proclaiming a talent to be wasted as a jobber. That is crazy. I think part of the confusion is that putting anyone over, often accomplished through taking a loss, can happen anywhere on the card and can be referred to as doing a job. However, a jobber is usually reserved for someone who almost never wins and often gets squashed. A jobber is someone that almost always does jobs, not someone that occasionally does or is on a losing streak. Someone has to take the loss even on the mid to upper card and often that will be a young talent that is paying their dues on the way up(this is when people freak out). These wrestlers are not jobbers. Jobbers rarely get to wrestle established talent and would get zero offense in if they did.