Should leaving wrestlers put someone over before the door hits them?

[Thriller Ant]

Ric Flair lost to Shawn Michaels.
Shawn lost to the Undertaker
Batista lost to John Cena
Tommy Dreamer lost to Zack Ryder

Which of these is different from the others? Flair, Michaels, and Batista lost to established superstars who will definitely be in the Hall of Fame someday. Dreamer, who admittedly isn't on the same level, put over a younger superstar and gave him some easy heel heat for a period of time.

There are really 2 trains of thought on the matter:

A) Most of these guys are high enough on the card that they should choose how they go out and who puts them out, no matter who it is.
B) The wrestler is leaving regardless, so why not make someone who is staying in the company look better before the wrestler leaves?

So should wrestlers who are retiring or leaving the company for whatever reason, put someone over who needs it on the way out?

 

[Money Inc.]

Well I think its depends on the certain person leaving of course.

I personally feel if the company made you a star and gave you the proper pushes through out your tenure there, than not necessarily you have the obligation to put some one over on your way out, but its almost a unwritten law of the business itself. (I always felt Scott Hall and Kevin Nash owed Vince McMahon a similar ending before leaving. Vince pushed them both to the moon, and it ended just like that)

Now you bring up the case of Tommy Dreamer..

With Dreamer I don't necessarily think he needed to put anybody over on his way out. Dreamer made his name in ECW and IMO fizzled out with WWE creative almost immediately.

So like i mentioned first, I think it depends on the superstar involved. It of course is the smartest decision for the company (paves a way for a "rub")

I'm very curious to see who the Undertaker lets go over him in the end. I don't think in his two decades with the company he's ever been gone over on in the end (yes, he puts guys over at first, but Taker always has the last laugh...IMO is needed of course)

I think that possible match has the most potential for a "rub" ... It won't happen at Mania of course.. but maybe he ends it at a Summerslam/ETC. I feel it has to be a believable monster/up and coming stud to get have it come out right.

A lot of people will say HHH or Orton.. but i really don't think they need that kind of "rub"

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Personally, I think that it's the proper thing to do. It's long been a tradition that someone leaving puts over someone else, whether the latter is a young, up and coming wrestler or not.

The Montreal Screwjob took place in large part because Bret Hart refused to drop the WWF Championship to Shawn Michaels. He refused partially because he didn't like HBK personally, something that's well known, and because they were wrestling in Canada. No matter which side of the argument you fall on, both sides have a point. It was a lousy thing to have done but Bret Hart was snubbing his nose at tradition, even though he was someone that had championed many of wrestling's long traditions.

The only time in which I've really got no problem with it not happening is if it's a mutual agreement reached by both wrestlers. The Undertaker offered to have Kane go over at their first match at WresleMania 14 but Kane, out of respect, declined. I know Taker wasn't leaving, but still.

 

[Ferbian]

I wouldn't necessarily think that it's the needed or right thing to do.

I really think it depends on how it's done. If it's a great talent like Shawn Michaels who leaves through retirement. I do not see it as a needed thing to do for the superstar to put someone over. I think that it's a matter of sending them away in the right way. Sending them into retirement with a proper match to honor and showcase their abilities one last time.

But there's also talents who are either just leaving, taking a short break. Or simply isn't at the level where a surefire match of the year / night is something that the talent deserves to leave with.

And before I get heat for saying Tommy Dreamer didn't deserve to leave with it. It's more of the fact that Shawn Michaels is a future Hall of Famer. Tommy Dreamer is most likely never gonna be in the (WWE) Hall of Fame.

So I really think it's all about who the person is to be put over. As well as to who there is leaving. And on what terms.

Also you have to consider the scenario. If the talent is going out at Wrestlemania. You want a giant ending. You want something that will honor the person worthy of it. As opposed to someone who retires at say - Summerslam.

And ultimately I would say it also depends whether someone wants to put someone over. Or whether the person wants to have his final match with a great friend or his overall favorite opponent. There's a lot to take hight for.

 

[Davi323]

Simple answer. If you are retiring for good, no you probably don't need to put someone over. If you are leaving to work for another company, yes you do. The tradition of putting someone over was mostly applied to those wrestlers swapping territories/promotions...it doesn't apply as much now. That doesn't invalidate the tradition, it just makes it easier to understand if someone doesn't.

 

[Leafy]

Of course.

What the hell does that leaving wrestler need? He's leaving, they're not coming back soon and even if they do returning wrestlers always get a huge pop. It's a good thing to do and if you don't, well that wrestler is a douche.

Why the hell do they need to be on top? Beating a retiring legend or just some mid-card wrestler can really help a wrestlers career. Look at Ryder as exampled by Thriller. Beating Dreamer got him some, well yes, "cheap" heat, but it was heat none the less. It helped put him over as a heel and progressed him in his career. They should always put over a wrestler at the end, done deal.