The biggest myth in wrestling-"burying someone"

[d_henderson1810]

There is a massive myth that seem to have permeated wrestling boards for years, and I feel it is time it finally needs to be addressed.

This is the myth-"A new guy or girl in wrestling, if they lose to a veteran or an established guy or girl, has been buried, and will now never become a superstar and Legend of the industry".

This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

So, let me get this straight, unless a new superstar gets a Goldberg-like winning streak for the first couple of years, then the fans will stop caring about this person, and they will never reach the top? Have I got this right?

I find this amazing. If your football teams is top of the table but loses a game to a lesser team in an upset, does that mean that they cannot win the Superbowl that year, even if they win most of their other games and contend for the Superbowl match?

Well, wrestling is pre-determined, so having someone lose may mean no more than advancing a storyline.

People care too much about wrestling results. I have heard people who obsess that Wrestler X has been buried, after putting on a MOTY performance.

Say, if Daniel Bryan wrestled John Cena, and it was the best match of Cena's career. It was MOTY, and both men bring their A-game. How good this match is, is forgotten if Bryan were to lose to Cena, even if Randy Orton ran in and RKO'd Bryan, meaning that Bryan didn't even lose cleanly. People would be angry at the result, rather than saying how great the match was.

Burial to me, isn't based on win-loss. It is if someone loses to a comedy jobber who has lost to everyone, and nothing more happens with it. If a wrestler is forced to wrestle in a dress constantly. Shelton Benjamin was buried when they had his "mother" as a character, not because of his win-loss record. Dolph Ziggler is buried because he is never used, not because he loses all the time. Maybe Dolph would love to lose matches, because at least he is getting TV time and part of a program.

If a new guy can be written off as a future superstar, based on one loss, then maybe they don't have what it takes to be over anyway. True superstars can survive any loss.

Did "Stone Cold" Steve Austin or the Rock lose to higher-ups in their first couple of years? I seem to remember SCSA losing to veteran Bret "Hitman" Hart twice, yet it didn't hurt Austin.

Take Daniel Bryan. Loses in 28 seconds and WM, still was cheered, lost PPV after PPV last year, was called a "troll" and his size and look were criticized, yet the fans still loved him. Losses didn't bury him. Why not? Because the fans CHOSE to continue investing in him, because they saw something in him. So, if Bryan can survive this, why can't the Shield, the Wyatts or Ryback?

"Burying" someone is just an excuse that fans use to explain why their fave isn't pushed, and what guys lower down the wrestling totem pole use to excuse their position in the card, when the real reason is that they lack charisma, don't carry a match or don't know how to perform.

I no longer listen to anyone saying "so-and-so was buried, by that result". A superstar will make it if the fans choose to invest in them, and if the superstar has the tools to deliver.

 

[Headman]

A burial is an intentional effort on a company's part to devalue a talent before releasing them or turning them into a regular jobber. A common example of a burial you'll see on the internet is Booker T vs Triple H at Wrestlemania. This example is incorrect. The people who use this example have no idea what they're talking about. John Morrison got buried at the end of his run. That is a real example of being buried. Losing to a more established star especially in a high profile match isn't a burial. It doesn't hurt these people. The idea that Booker T's career was any worse after losing to Triple H is insane. Booker T was in a comedy tag team with Goldust when his feud with Triple H began. He ended up co-headling Wrestlemania with one of the biggest stars in the company. You think Booker T saw that as a burial? But people are stupid and they're going to say dumb shit no matter what. So smartening up the "Smart" marks is a complete waste of time. I'll just stick to insulting them.

 

[klunderbunker]

This is something that comes up every now and then.

There's a difference between burying someone and not using them. Yoshi Tatsu for example isn't buried. He just isn't being used. Zack Ryder on the other hand was buried when he was still US Champion and was treated like nothing before being thrown down the card. He lost every match he was in without ever putting up much of a fight, lost his standing on the card and stopped meaning anything at all.

You also can't get buried in one match. That's a loss, not a burial. A burial takes months if not longer and means you lose your standing and are treated like a loser. That last part is important, because, as mentioned above, you can get a lot out of a match even if you lose. As the opening post said, Austin got a lot out of his two losses to Bret. No he didn't win, but they weren't designed to make him look like a loser. They were designed to raise him up the card.

For a more modern example, look at Sheamus. Yeah he used to be a main event guy, but now he's US Champion. That's not burying him at all, but rather saying he isn't good enough to be at the top of the company. Sheamus isn't being buried and is doing just fine where he is now.

Burying is indeed a term used too often, especially when it doesn't happen all that much.

 

[Robert Roode Fan]

I will give you an example of a burial. What wwe did to MVP, no one buys into him as anything worth a shit. A TRUE wwe burial is deadly, look at Chavo, does anyone think he is a decent wrestler AT ALL. Nope they think he pure trash now. Now if wwe buys tna, they will bury every big tna orginal joe, aj, daneils, kaz, and they will not be worth much anymore after wwe gets done. Daneil bryan losing to someone like orton is not a burial

 

[SoulTrain4]

It's an overused and mostly improperly used term definitely but most "insider" terms are.

 

[Pedigree1]

Burying means exactly what the term means being Buried as in your career being buried alive before your very eyes.. Booker T for an example was not buried,he went on to a great tag team with Goldie and some three years later,won the WHC!! Tatsu,isnt buried he is just not around,same with Justin Gabriel!

Zack Ryder though,is buried.. Was hot in 2011,won the US championship had his moment of fame,and now gets squashed without putting much of a fight at all.. Maybe we get a broksi boot but thats it.. Buried indeed is a term that gets thrown around way too much..

IMO you cant buried if your career never got off the ground

 

[Oneandonly_MJK]

Let be honest here the only real way to burry someone is not to use them on tv or house show or ever agaist new talents. winning or lossing are just used in storyline to build someone up not hurt the lossing guy for example gillberg or the Brooklyn brawler lost most of there matches in the wwf/e career but these gimmick losses never effected there career no they still big name they still make good money even own there own wresting training school if the company really want to burry anyone they keep them off tv like wwe is doing yoshi or jtg not make them loss in that case if lossing hurt anyone one why don't u give all the star , mid carder and everyone on the main roster and force them only face local talent all the time except for Ppv figure out how boring that will be just all squash match then complain how boring wrestling gotten then

 

[d_henderson1810]

Let me give you an example.

I suggested a few days ago that maybe they should have had Undertaker v Shield, 1 v 3 Handicap at WM, if the Streak were still intact. It would look like a major chance of Taker losing the Streak, having to fight three of the top young guys in the company at once.

I would have Taker win and keep his Streak, but not before beating Shield in one of the greatest WM matches ever. Shield would be enhanced by doing a "Undertaker at WM" match (of course, Streak is gone, so point for doing it is gone too).

Yet when I suggested this, some posters said that having Shield lose would "bury" them and "destroy" any credibility they had, even though C.M. Punk won a Handicap Match against the Shield at TLC last year, even though it would be a well-promoted match for WM, giving the Shield much airtime, and only one needs to take the fall, and this can be used further to create a breakup angle, when the one pinned is kicked out of the Shield. Yet people think the Shield losing to anyone other than the Wyatts (who are also new guys) is a burial of them, which is such bullshit.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Yet when I suggested this, some posters said that having Shield lose would "bury" them and "destroy" any credibility they had, even though C.M. Punk won a Handicap Match against the Shield at TLC last year, even though it would be a well-promoted match for WM, giving the Shield much airtime, and only one needs to take the fall, and this can be used further to create a breakup angle, when the one pinned is kicked out of the Shield. Yet people think the Shield losing to anyone other than the Wyatts (who are also new guys) is a burial of them, which is such bullshit.

The circumstances were different. During that time, The Shield were in the midst of a storyline in which it looked as though they about to embark on their expected break up. I suppose WWE could have done the same thing in a match with Taker, but the results could be pretty lackluster. While the Punk match was good, everyone knew the ending was coming while the success of the streak has largely depended upon creating some shred of doubt that it'll be retained. With The Shield at each others throats, I don't think they could accomplish it. Taker going up against The Shield while they're on the same page and still winning, however, wouldn't do them any favors. It wouldn't bury them, because that doesn't happen with just one match, but I don't see how it'd enhance them. Going up against Taker one on one, giving him a very tough fight and losing to him is one thing, but beating them in a handicap match while they're working as a cohesive unit does nothing for them.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Burial is something that is attributed to wrestlers when in reality it almost never is down to them.

Trips has a rep for "burying" competition, yet from his perspective it makes sense and always did, to build as many opponents up for him to knock down as possible. The confusion is that if he won't put them over he's "burying them"... no he's using his position or politicking and even then if someone has earned the spot he will put them over but he's not doing it for just anyone... he wants to do it only when it is good for him AND the company.

Ryder was buried, purely because he got over on his own and outside the companies control. Vince doesn't like that and Ziggler too has suffered ever since word of the Max Landis movie leaked... he clearly didn't go through channels so even if he could "technically" accept the role, it's damaged him to do so.

The best examples of a true 100% burial are the ones where something trivial or motivated by personal issues are at play. Look at Jake Roberts in the last 9 months of his original WWF run, he was buried into the ground and not just by Taker. He didn't get to be on Summerslam to culminate the feud with Warrior, he didn't get to be on Survivor Series to culminate his feud with Savage... and he got shitcanned at Mania because of personal issues backstage with Vince. Look at Cena/Orton and Kennedy - that was an immediate burial that occured offscreen not by the wrestlers but by Vince agreeing with them. The most petty one seemed to be "The" Brian Kendrick who was getting a strong push until Vince realised he was a smoker... cue end of push and eventual release... why? Cos Vince detested him smoking... petty, pathetic but a definite burial.

Perhaps the worst example I remember is Honky Tonk Man in 1988. Remember how he screwed up the whole years worth of plans by refusing to job to Savage at Mania 4? Vince adapted and waited till Summerslam and then obliterated one of his top stars for the world to see. Warrior destroyed the longest running reign in mere seconds and Honky was never prominent again in the way he had been, not even getting a televised rematch. Sure he did the team with Valentine but he was very much a jobber for those last 2 years of his deal and was eventually given the indignity of being taken out of the ring altogether for the dreaded "colour commentator" spot. Even that lasted about a week to the point that he was literally forgotten until Santino began the Honky-Meter stuff and was, barring the odd joke appearance persona non grata for many years. THAT is burying someone.

Benoit is burying someone...

Basically it is erasing their achievements and anythng good about them in public so their best work, achievement or performances are reduced in value to the point where they are forgotten or insignificant... the longest IC run in history isn't even a footnote now... Benoit's mania moment is confined to the vaults and until VERY recently a lot of the great work done by guys like Warrior, Jake, Savage and Bruno were not even acknowledged, much less celebrated.

 

[berlinbrawler]

"Burying" is not a myth. It happens. However, it doesn't happen nearly as often as people claim. The Internet fans and even the self-proclaimed experts (looking at the LaBars and Isenbergs out there) use that phrase way too frequently and incorrectly.

Top of my head I think of Daniel Bryan. Remember a couple of years back when he surprised everyone and won the Money in the Bank briefcase? For the better part of a year he walked around with that briefcase but lost almost every single match he was in. Everyone was outraged. They were burying Bryan. He would never be credible as a champion. No one could take him seriously now. Wah, wah, wah!
Well, looking at Daniel Bryan right now he is looking pretty good for a damaged-beyond-repair buried guy.

Very few people (even fewer experts) demonstrate a real grasp of a long term perspective. They all think they do, but they place way too much importance on matches on TV or even PPV that no one will remember, let alone on the outcome of those matches. Wrestling is not a real sport, it's stunt theatre (shocking insight, I know) and the only variable that truly counts is if a performer connects with the crowd, no matter what he does or how he is being presented. On the long run that's what the WWE brass notices and gets behind (sometimes forciably so - look at Bryan again).

 

[lil steroid meat]

It definitely exists. You wouldn't take anyone from 3MB or Damien Sandow or Santino serious enough to be WWE champ. And you'd have no problem accepting Cena, Orton or Bryan.

What separates them? Nothing except for what a couple of guys sitting around a table decided. Wrestling is not a skill based sport, to be involved in the industry, let alone WWE, you already have to be a pro. So your success really relies on what someone else decides and how well you perform in that role.

That being said, everything isn't as sinister as Triple H holding down anyone who gets caught looking at Steph's titty meats. Pro wrestling is a televised circus act and someone has to play the clown.

 

[JJ15776]

It definitely exists. You wouldn't take anyone from 3MB or Damien Sandow or Santino serious enough to be WWE champ. And you'd have no problem accepting Cena, Orton or Bryan.

What separates them? Nothing except for what a couple of guys sitting around a table decided. Wrestling is not a skill based sport, to be involved in the industry, let alone WWE, you already have to be a pro. So your success really relies on what someone else decides and how well you perform in that role.

Ha, no. Wrestling is absolutely, 100% skill based. That skill is connecting with the crowd. There is absolutely nothing anybody sitting around a table can decide that will make crowds care about somebody they don't care about, or vice versa. Either a guy can entertain or he can't.

While wrestling may not be a sport, you can certainly aptly compare it to sports. In any sport, what comes first, production or playing time? Production, then playing time. Players produce, then they get more playing time. It's not up to coaches to somehow randomly decide which players get the playing time, and then those players produce more. A good player will produce will the most limited of playing time, and a bad player won't produce no matter how much he plays. It's the same thing in wrestling. People act like there's a few old guys sitting around a table throwing darts at a dart board and deciding which wrestlers they like, and then those wrestlers become stars because they have the good gimmicks and they get booked the best. That's not how it works. The wrestlers that have good gimmicks and are booked strongly earned that by performing well with lesser gimmicks and not so good booking. The Ringmaster outperformed his gimmick and became Stone Cold Steve Austin. Rocky Maivia outperformed his gimmick and became The Rock. Glenn Jacobs was too good to be Isaac Yankem and they made him Kane.

You could also compare it to acting. Is Denzel Washington a good actor because he gets good scripts and his movies have good directors and producers? Of course not. He's a good actor because, no matter the script or what's going on around him, he's good at acting. He gets good scripts, good directors, and good producers because he's a good actor, not the other way around. It's the same thing in wrestling. Steve Austin's name wasn't drawn out of a hat to get a bad ass gimmick and a feud with Vince McMahon. He earned that. They gave it to him because he deserved it.

What separates 3MB, Damien Sandow, and Santino from Cena, Orton, and Bryan is that Cena, Orton, and Bryan are better. 3MB, Sandow, and Santino have all had ample opportunity to make crowds take them more seriously, and they all failed. Cena, Orton, and Bryan have made the most of their opportunities and then some.


Back on topic, though, t's no secret that the idea of people getting buried is idiotic, and pretty exclusive to a certain portion of Internet fans. It's funny, because the "burial" talk is so predictable. That certain portion of Internet fans have the same wrestlers they like and the same wrestlers they don't like. If John Cena or a Triple H does anything good, it's stupid and boring and awful, if they beat anybody under any circumstances it's a complete burial. Anything bad that happens to them is brilliant and awesome, any match they lose was the right decision, the only problem is it didn't make them look bad enough and the only way it would've been better is if they were off TV altogether. If anything bad happens to CM Punk or Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler, it's dumb and predictable and horrible, and if they lose a match under any circumstances they were buried. Anything good that happens to them is genius and amazing, any match they win under any circumstances was long overdue, and they should all hold every title forever...or at least until this fickle crowd base gets bored with them.

John Cena makes fun of Wyatt's appearance, everybody cries about how he doesn't take anything seriously and he's making Wyatt look horrible. Rock makes fun of Cena's appearances, oh it's hilarious and it's so true, finally somebody speaking the truth.

John Cena takes on all three members of the Wyatt family, almost overcomes the odds, and still loses, Super Cena strikes again and it was atrocious. Daniel Bryan beats Triple H with one arm, gets attacked after the match and is injured so bad he shouldn't even be able to compete, then beats Orton and Batista despite interference from Kane and Triple H, it's one of the best moments in WWE history...even though he was "buried" by the Undertaker losing earlier in the show.

Triple H embarrasses Booker T, makes him look pathetic in the buildup to WrestleMania, wins at WrestleMania, he buried him and it was horrible and there's no way Booker T should've lost. Brock Lesnar/Randy Orton embarrass Triple H and makes him look pathetic in the buildup to WrestleMania, lose at WrestleMania, they were buried and there's no way Triple H should've won.

Part timer Triple H beats CM Punk, one of the worst booking decisions ever, complete burial, he destroyed his momentum, what a giant ego. Part timer The Rock beats John Cena, great decision, Rock had to win, we riot if Cena wins, thank god the WWE made the right decision.

It goes on and on. It's endless. You can call them the IWC or smart marks or whatever you want, but they're idiots and they're extremely vocal about it. These are the people that cry about guys getting buried. There's really no reason to take them seriously and, from my experience, no reason to even attempt to engage them in conversation because, no matter what you say, they're just not going to get it.

 

[lil steroid meat]

Ha, no. Wrestling is absolutely, 100% skill based. That skill is connecting with the crowd. There is absolutely nothing anybody sitting around a table can decide that will make crowds care about somebody they don't care about, or vice versa. Either a guy can entertain or he can't.

While wrestling may not be a sport, you can certainly aptly compare it to sports. In any sport, what comes first, production or playing time? Production, then playing time. Players produce, then they get more playing time. It's not up to coaches to somehow randomly decide which players get the playing time, and then those players produce more. A good player will produce will the most limited of playing time, and a bad player won't produce no matter how much he plays. It's the same thing in wrestling. People act like there's a few old guys sitting around a table throwing darts at a dart board and deciding which wrestlers they like, and then those wrestlers become stars because they have the good gimmicks and they get booked the best. That's not how it works. The wrestlers that have good gimmicks and are booked strongly earned that by performing well with lesser gimmicks and not so good booking. The Ringmaster outperformed his gimmick and became Stone Cold Steve Austin. Rocky Maivia outperformed his gimmick and became The Rock. Glenn Jacobs was too good to be Isaac Yankem and they made him Kane.

You could also compare it to acting. Is Denzel Washington a good actor because he gets good scripts and his movies have good directors and producers? Of course not. He's a good actor because, no matter the script or what's going on around him, he's good at acting. He gets good scripts, good directors, and good producers because he's a good actor, not the other way around. It's the same thing in wrestling. Steve Austin's name wasn't drawn out of a hat to get a bad ass gimmick and a feud with Vince McMahon. He earned that. They gave it to him because he deserved it.

What separates 3MB, Damien Sandow, and Santino from Cena, Orton, and Bryan is that Cena, Orton, and Bryan are better. 3MB, Sandow, and Santino have all had ample opportunity to make crowds take them more seriously, and they all failed. Cena, Orton, and Bryan have made the most of their opportunities and then some.


Back on topic, though, t's no secret that the idea of people getting buried is idiotic, and pretty exclusive to a certain portion of Internet fans. It's funny, because the "burial" talk is so predictable. That certain portion of Internet fans have the same wrestlers they like and the same wrestlers they don't like. If John Cena or a Triple H does anything good, it's stupid and boring and awful, if they beat anybody under any circumstances it's a complete burial. Anything bad that happens to them is brilliant and awesome, any match they lose was the right decision, the only problem is it didn't make them look bad enough and the only way it would've been better is if they were off TV altogether. If anything bad happens to CM Punk or Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler, it's dumb and predictable and horrible, and if they lose a match under any circumstances they were buried. Anything good that happens to them is genius and amazing, any match they win under any circumstances was long overdue, and they should all hold every title forever...or at least until this fickle crowd base gets bored with them.

John Cena makes fun of Wyatt's appearance, everybody cries about how he doesn't take anything seriously and he's making Wyatt look horrible. Rock makes fun of Cena's appearances, oh it's hilarious and it's so true, finally somebody speaking the truth.

John Cena takes on all three members of the Wyatt family, almost overcomes the odds, and still loses, Super Cena strikes again and it was atrocious. Daniel Bryan beats Triple H with one arm, gets attacked after the match and is injured so bad he shouldn't even be able to compete, then beats Orton and Batista despite interference from Kane and Triple H, it's one of the best moments in WWE history...even though he was "buried" by the Undertaker losing earlier in the show.

Triple H embarrasses Booker T, makes him look pathetic in the buildup to WrestleMania, wins at WrestleMania, he buried him and it was horrible and there's no way Booker T should've lost. Brock Lesnar/Randy Orton embarrass Triple H and makes him look pathetic in the buildup to WrestleMania, lose at WrestleMania, they were buried and there's no way Triple H should've won.

Part timer Triple H beats CM Punk, one of the worst booking decisions ever, complete burial, he destroyed his momentum, what a giant ego. Part timer The Rock beats John Cena, great decision, Rock had to win, we riot if Cena wins, thank god the WWE made the right decision.

It goes on and on. It's endless. You can call them the IWC or smart marks or whatever you want, but they're idiots and they're extremely vocal about it. These are the people that cry about guys getting buried. There's really no reason to take them seriously and, from my experience, no reason to even attempt to engage them in conversation because, no matter what you say, they're just not going to get it.

I do agree that its somewhat based on the "skill" of proving your entertainment worth but it's a lot easier to prove your entertainment worth when you are given a chance to be in a stable and open/close RAWs with promos vs. dressing up in a Magneto costune or getting beat up by a midget.

So you're right in that it's based on who can entertain the best, but THAT is based upon what your gimmick is. And your gimmick IS decided by a bunch of dudes sitting around at a table. Granted Cena and Bryan both worked their way out of comedy gimmicks, there are also things which one's character just can't come back from.

 

[Headman]

First let me just say that I'm thinking about changing my screen name to Titty Meats. And second, getting over with management is a skill one must master in any line of work. If your boss doesn't believe in you you're probably not going anywhere, whether you're a WWE superstar or a guy who works at walmart. Work rate and all that good stuff are taken into consideration but I've heard all these guys who've made it say they had to take matters in their own hands and get noticed. When management hands you something stupid that's going to kill your career if you're really as good as you think you are you've gotta say "Ok, that's good. But what do you think of this?". Be respectful when shooting down creative. Don't be an ass because then you earn the label as a trouble maker or malcontent and that's when you start jobbing on Superstars right before you get bounced out of the company. You know, buried.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Burying means exactly what the term means being Buried as in your career being buried alive before your very eyes.. Booker T for an example was not buried,he went on to a great tag team with Goldie and some three years later,won the WHC!! Tatsu,isnt buried he is just not around,same with Justin Gabriel!

Zack Ryder though,is buried.. Was hot in 2011,won the US championship had his moment of fame,and now gets squashed without putting much of a fight at all.. Maybe we get a broksi boot but thats it.. Buried indeed is a term that gets thrown around way too much..

IMO you cant buried if your career never got off the ground

I don't see Zach Ryder as being buried, though.

To "bury" him assumes that he deserved the push he got to begin with. Just because people liked him and though he was cool, doesn't mean that he should be anywhere near the WWE U.S. Title.

Zach Ryder wasn't "buried". He was never going to sell PPVs or headline WM. He didn't have the right look, and dressed like a reject from "Jersey Shore".He never had the potential of that. So, I don't see some "push" done to please the fans, than what is "good for business".

 

[d_henderson1810]

Burial is something that is attributed to wrestlers when in reality it almost never is down to them.

Trips has a rep for "burying" competition, yet from his perspective it makes sense and always did, to build as many opponents up for him to knock down as possible. The confusion is that if he won't put them over he's "burying them"... no he's using his position or politicking and even then if someone has earned the spot he will put them over but he's not doing it for just anyone... he wants to do it only when it is good for him AND the company.

Ryder was buried, purely because he got over on his own and outside the companies control. Vince doesn't like that and Ziggler too has suffered ever since word of the Max Landis movie leaked... he clearly didn't go through channels so even if he could "technically" accept the role, it's damaged him to do so.

The best examples of a true 100% burial are the ones where something trivial or motivated by personal issues are at play. Look at Jake Roberts in the last 9 months of his original WWF run, he was buried into the ground and not just by Taker. He didn't get to be on Summerslam to culminate the feud with Warrior, he didn't get to be on Survivor Series to culminate his feud with Savage... and he got shitcanned at Mania because of personal issues backstage with Vince. Look at Cena/Orton and Kennedy - that was an immediate burial that occured offscreen not by the wrestlers but by Vince agreeing with them. The most petty one seemed to be "The" Brian Kendrick who was getting a strong push until Vince realised he was a smoker... cue end of push and eventual release... why? Cos Vince detested him smoking... petty, pathetic but a definite burial.

Perhaps the worst example I remember is Honky Tonk Man in 1988. Remember how he screwed up the whole years worth of plans by refusing to job to Savage at Mania 4? Vince adapted and waited till Summerslam and then obliterated one of his top stars for the world to see. Warrior destroyed the longest running reign in mere seconds and Honky was never prominent again in the way he had been, not even getting a televised rematch. Sure he did the team with Valentine but he was very much a jobber for those last 2 years of his deal and was eventually given the indignity of being taken out of the ring altogether for the dreaded "colour commentator" spot. Even that lasted about a week to the point that he was literally forgotten until Santino began the Honky-Meter stuff and was, barring the odd joke appearance persona non grata for many years. THAT is burying someone.

Benoit is burying someone...

Basically it is erasing their achievements and anythng good about them in public so their best work, achievement or performances are reduced in value to the point where they are forgotten or insignificant... the longest IC run in history isn't even a footnote now... Benoit's mania moment is confined to the vaults and until VERY recently a lot of the great work done by guys like Warrior, Jake, Savage and Bruno were not even acknowledged, much less celebrated.

1) Triple H said in an interview one time that what looks like a burial actually isn't. He refers to his series with Jeff Hardy, as an example.

Triple H said that if he let Jeff win the title first time, then it wouldn't be as meaningful. But having Jeff chase, making the odds look stacked against him, and building Triple H up, then means that when Jeff Hardy won it, it is a bigger achievement, because you have beaten someone who had your measure and has beaten you as well. As a result, Jeff Hardy went from possibly having a meaningless title reign, to instead winning it, it meaning something, and being a big star as a result. If Triple H looked weak, then Jeff wouldn't look as strong beating him. But if Triple H looked dominant, then Jeff finally beating him after many months made him look world-class.

2) Ryder didn't deserve his position on the card, as was only a mid-carder at best. Popularity with the fanbase doesn't always translate to buy-rates, and for every Daniel Bryan who can deliver, Ryder and Dolph Ziggler lower back to their natural position where they belong. Not everyone can be a main-eventer.

3) Don't know much about the Jake situation, but I wonder if he had his drug and alcohol problems then. If so, booking him on a major PPV card might be a problem, due to unreliability. Besides, Jake came back to WWE and wrestled in 1996-97, so if Vince had issues with him, he wouldn't have rehired him, would he?

4) The Honky Tonk Man? The Honky Tonk Man? The Honky Tonk Man was the worst IC Champion of all time. So, you thought an Elvis impersonator, who got where he did because of his connections (friends with Hulk Hogan, friends with the Harts, cousin of Jerry Lawler) should have got pushed to the moon because he wears sequined jumpsuits and sideburns? Are you F... kidding me?

If anyone was buried, it was Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat. He was a world-class wrestler who beat Randy "Macho Man" Savage in a match talked about 27 years later (would like to know the last memorable match HTM had), yet Savage got pushed, despite losing, and Steamboat, the winner got "buried". They spend months having him chase the IC belt, and then had him drop it to HTM (who isn't worthy to tie Steamboat's bootlaces),in a short match, where Steamboat had one hand on the rope during the pin, because he wanted to see his son born. Fine, he is having time off, so have him drop the belt. But there was never a rematch, or a program where Steamboat gets his title back, and then, when he returned, he was dressed as a human dragon, with firebreathing, and never got another IC Title run. Yet, Steamboat is a HoF (which is the least WWE could have done for him, he should have been in earlier), and in his return match at WM25, he got calls of "You've still got it" and was praised at how, at 57, he was still nearly as good as ever. There has been no talk of a Honky Tonk Man HoF induction, and if he wrestled again, people would be bored by it. Honky Tonk Man got far more than he ever deserved, and Warrior beating him was a good way to get the foul taste out of my mouth and restoring some credibility to the WWF/E Intercontinental Title.

5) It was different with Benoit. They had to "bury" him somewhat, because the media held WWE responsible for his crimes. They felt to acknowledge him was to endorse his crimes.

It got to ridiculous levels when they talked about removing his matches from DVDs, and then changed their mind when it wasn't possible. So, now they acknowledge his title reigns (he has an entry in "The Encyclopedia OF WWE"), where his titles are listed, but nothing more is said about him, and his ECW, WCW and WWE matches are on the WWE Network (albeit with a disclaimer), so they have pulled back their "burial" of him to realistic levels, to now show that he did exist and achieve in WWE, but say nothing of him as a person, which is the better way to go then removing him from WWE canon altogether.

 

[berlinbrawler]

I don't see Zach Ryder as being buried, though.

To "bury" him assumes that he deserved the push he got to begin with. Just because people liked him and though he was cool, doesn't mean that he should be anywhere near the WWE U.S. Title.

Actually, that is exactly what it means. Wrestling is but one big popularity contest. If people like you and think you are cool you get pushed. That's how it works. Or rather how it's supposed to work.
I would have to agree with those that say that Zack Ryder got buried. In Ryder the WWE had a kid that really wanted it and was prepared to go to lengths to get everyone's attention. So he started his Youtube show figuring that it would either get him noticed or fired. He got over despite the WWE brass having any plans to position him that way.
Instead of acknowledging his accomplishment and rewarding such gutsy initiative the WWE did its best to ignore him. Eventually they grudgingly gave him like a minute and a half of spotlight with the US title.
But after that they immediately fed him to Kane, making him look weak and pathetic. They turned him into Cena's weak little buddy who was there to get beat up by Cena's enemies. Afterwards he got sent right back into lower card purgatory. They never gave him a chance to shine. Instead of fanning the flames while they were hot they spotlighted him just long enough to communicate to the fans: "Hey, this guy is a loser. Stop wasting your cheers and attention on him." The "We want Ryder"-chants died out soon thereafter as the fans gradually accepted that the WWE just wasn't going to give him to them.

That is what getting buried really is.

 

[d_henderson1810]

First let me just say that I'm thinking about changing my screen name to Titty Meats. And second, getting over with management is a skill one must master in any line of work. If your boss doesn't believe in you you're probably not going anywhere, whether you're a WWE superstar or a guy who works at walmart. Work rate and all that good stuff are taken into consideration but I've heard all these guys who've made it say they had to take matters in their own hands and get noticed. When management hands you something stupid that's going to kill your career if you're really as good as you think you are you've gotta say "Ok, that's good. But what do you think of this?". Be respectful when shooting down creative. Don't be an ass because then you earn the label as a trouble maker or malcontent and that's when you start jobbing on Superstars right before you get bounced out of the company. You know, buried.

There is also the fact that some wrestlers, when presented with a dumb gimmick, actually embrace it, and make the most of it. Some wrestlers are agreeable and easy to work with, making management WANT to look after these guys ahead of ones who put themselves first, and the company second.

For example, the Undertaker, now Mark Callaway, when told he would be a mortician, could have told WWE to stick it, and walked away. No, he embraced it, made the most of it, and gets looked after as a result.

John Cena gets pushed because he does anything asked of him. It is human nature to look after those who do the best by you, and if Cena looks out for WWE, then they will reciprocate. I know that many of you see this as "brownnosing" or "being a suck-up" , but bosses favour workers (not always, but many times) who sacrifice for the company, rather than the ones who show up, punch in and punch out and do only the bare minimum.

Dolph Ziggler making his own movie deals, or talking against the company, isn't going to get him pushed. Say what you want about Triple H, and question his motivations if you will, but Triple H has never spoken against WWE, in fact, he has spoken for it. He didn't leave during the "Monday Night Wars". So he is listened to sooner than a Dolph Ziggler.

Also, some guys are just natural mid-carders. Look at Goldust. He will never get a main-event run, because of his age and weird gimmick. But he is one of the more popular and over guys on the roster, because he gives his all, even when he is covered in gold facepaint. Also, there is no talk that Dustin Rhodes has ever spoken against WWE for not pushing him, and seems happy playing his role, and putting on a good match. He is a respected veteran because of it, and not just because he is Dusty Rhodes' son.

 

[d_henderson1810]

It definitely exists. You wouldn't take anyone from 3MB or Damien Sandow or Santino serious enough to be WWE champ. And you'd have no problem accepting Cena, Orton or Bryan.

What separates them? Nothing except for what a couple of guys sitting around a table decided. Wrestling is not a skill based sport, to be involved in the industry, let alone WWE, you already have to be a pro. So your success really relies on what someone else decides and how well you perform in that role.

That being said, everything isn't as sinister as Triple H holding down anyone who gets caught looking at Steph's titty meats. Pro wrestling is a televised circus act and someone has to play the clown.

Cena and Orton get the crowd reaction, so they get pushed. Santino and Ryder get minimal crowd reaction, then it dies off, so they don't get pushed.

You know why Cena gets pushed. Because, every time he is in the ring, people yell "Let's go, Cena!" , "Cena sucks!". Never once have I heard a dead crowd during a Cena match. He gets reaction. People care about him. They cheer or boo him, but they don't go to the merchandise stand, or are deep in conversation with the person next to them, when he is in the ring.

People have to CARE about the wrestler. Booing Cena and Orton is preferable to dead silence from a crowd.

If people were really behind Ziggler and Ryder, then why was no-one bellyaching about them not being on PPVs for months. The fans forget them. They would never forget Daniel Bryan, no matter how he was used. Maybe Ziggler would be pushed if people reacted to him being "kept down" like they did with Bryan being "kept down".

So, you know who to blame for who gets pushed or not. Part of it is the person you see in the mirror each day.

 

[Headman]

There is also the fact that some wrestlers, when presented with a dumb gimmick, actually embrace it, and make the most of it. Some wrestlers are agreeable and easy to work with, making management WANT to look after these guys ahead of ones who put themselves first, and the company second.

For example, the Undertaker, now Mark Callaway, when told he would be a mortician, could have told WWE to stick it, and walked away. No, he embraced it, made the most of it, and gets looked after as a result.

John Cena gets pushed because he does anything asked of him. It is human nature to look after those who do the best by you, and if Cena looks out for WWE, then they will reciprocate. I know that many of you see this as "brownnosing" or "being a suck-up" , but bosses favour workers (not always, but many times) who sacrifice for the company, rather than the ones who show up, punch in and punch out and do only the bare minimum.

Dolph Ziggler making his own movie deals, or talking against the company, isn't going to get him pushed. Say what you want about Triple H, and question his motivations if you will, but Triple H has never spoken against WWE, in fact, he has spoken for it. He didn't leave during the "Monday Night Wars". So he is listened to sooner than a Dolph Ziggler.

Also, some guys are just natural mid-carders. Look at Goldust. He will never get a main-event run, because of his age and weird gimmick. But he is one of the more popular and over guys on the roster, because he gives his all, even when he is covered in gold facepaint. Also, there is no talk that Dustin Rhodes has ever spoken against WWE for not pushing him, and seems happy playing his role, and putting on a good match. He is a respected veteran because of it, and not just because he is Dusty Rhodes' son.

That's certainly the other side of the coin. I of course was speaking about the guys who are confronted with gimmicks that they know will fail. Other guys see a gimmick and say "I can make this work.". And that's the important part. They find a way to make it work. That's the difference between the Undertaker's of the world and the Kevin Thorne's. Taker had that star quality and work ethic that can't be taught. You either get it or you don't. Management will take care of a guy who's easy to work with but you're not going to be a top guy unless you're over. No matter how much Micheal Hayes or whoever else is writing the show likes you. Still a good point.

 

[lowandmighty]

What about all those times The Undertaker got buried? He got buried by Mankind, Kane, Stone Cold, McMahon I think.

 

[Van Dam]

I do often wonder why would WWE hire someone, bury them but still continue to pay them money? Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[whoopin' ass]

A new talent losing to an established talent isn't burying them, it is paying your dues as everyone needs to start somewhere. However, how long does that person need to be there before they can get that win? You hear a lot of how just being in a match with so-and-so is a big deal but it comes to a point where that younger talent needs to win in order to make it to the next level. The problem with the wwe is they don't follow through and do that. Kofi is a great example - he does get buried as he is in the same spot he was 5 years ago when he was fighting guys like Orton. Orton has moved on and become a multitime champ yet Kofi still is bring used to put guys over. That's the problem.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Getting buried per se has little to do with winning or losing a match. It's the overall presentation of a character over a long period of time that does or does not "bury someone". Was Randy Savage buried by losing to Hulk Hogan in a series of matches in 1986 after he became IC Champ ? No, in fact his getting World Title Shots and aquitting himself well in the matches ELEVATED his character and made him a bigger star. Lex Luger certainly wasn't "Buried" losing to Ric Flair most of 1988, if anything that storyline (turning on Flair & The Horsemen and his World Title quest) elevated him further with fans, he was a legit main event star by the time that feud wrapped up. Same with Sting vs Flair. Sting didn't win many matches against Flair in 1987-89, and lost almost every major match between them, but the way his character was presented during those runs made him look like a huge star, which he became.

Some guys get "Buried" because they don't connect with fans. Shelton Benjamin got several big wins and major pushes but never became a top tier star. Randy Orton lost most of his high profile matches early on yet being competitive against the likes of HBK while being associated storyline wise with Flair & HHH elevated his character with fans, making him a main event level star. Much of the ability to avoid "buried" has to do with the individual performer connecting with fans and how they are behind the scenes, hard working team players are always going to get treated better.

Besides, you can "get buried" even when you win every match. Look at Goldberg, who after a huge win over Hogan to be crowned WCW Champ spent nearly four months on the undercard wrestling mostly mid card guys in under developed feuds while non champ Hogan was main eventing all the PPV in July, Aug, & Sept. Even when GB did get a quality opponent llike Sting it was a one of match on Nitro. GB won the belt in July of 1998 and it wasn't until OCT that he got main event status on a PPV (vs DDP, sharing Main Event Status with Hogan-Warrior II). How do you make a guy champ then give him secondary matches, almost exclusively against opponents who the fans view as non legit challengers for almost four months while the ex champ gets the top spot on the card and biggest storylines the whole time ?? That's "getting buried" 101 my friends.