When did "Jobber" become a Dirty Word?

[IrishCanadian25]

Every old school wrestling book I've read lately, from JJ Dillon to the Hall of Fame series book "The Heels" and on down the line uses the term "did the job" or "do the job." They tend to shy away from the exact term "jobber."

In fact, even the term "jobber" has been euphemized into the term "Enhancement Talent" to avoid the negative connotation of the aforementioned "J-word."

A thread in the WWE section explores the idea of "Jericho the Jobber." People are asking if Kane is destined to job to The Undertaker again.

And I want to take a few moments to ask why it's such a bad thing?

The idea of pro wrestling is based on any real sport - the existance of a winner and a loser, and the pursuit of success based around those wins. Every great storyline has a winner and a loser, even if the loser picks himselk back up to live another day.

In many ways, the loser of the match / feud is more valuable than the winner. I believe it takes far more to lose - keeping oneself strong, elliciting crowd reaction, and putting over the winner - than it does to win. Yet the term "jobber" is like being hit with bird crap rather than being regarded with the value it should carry.

Even the relatively new term "Jobber to the Stars" is negative, as if a way to suggest it as a place where yesterday's stars go to die. It's been used to describe a LOAD of former greats and Hall of Famers, from JBL to Big Van Vader, Bam Bam Bigelow to Mark Henry.

The sustainability of the business is based on the creation of newer, younger stars, and the best way to do that is to have them defeat an established veteran. There's no two ways about this.

Hogan became a mega-star by beating Andre. And Andre JOBBED to Hogan that night.

Warrior claimed the top spot by beating Hogan. And Hogan JOBBED to Warrior.

The Hogan / Slaughter feud occured because Warrior JOBBED to Slaughter, regardless of Savage's interference. He got pinned, simple as.

Flair jobbed to Savage, Perfect jobbed to Hart, Hart jobbed to Bulldog, Hart jobbed to Michaels, Michaels jobbed to Austin - get the idea?

Can we get off of the whole "jobber stigma" off our minds anytime soon? Or is the negativity of "jobbing" permanently etched onto the retinas of the IWC?

 

[Ferbian]

The problem is that jobbing or as you mentioned first "doing the job" wasn't considering someone being a jobber, a jobber in my eyes at least is really just being an enhancement talent.

Chris Jericho is considered an enhancement talent even though he's winning, everybody in some kind of way could be considered enhancement talent, because they're able to improve and make an opponent credible even if they're not loosing all the time.

Jobber is always gonna be a word that's gonna be around, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's always a negative way, but no matter how you twist and turn it, the true description of jobbing, or being a jobber, should, and I believe is: A talent who looses to make the opponent look better.

As Wikipedia so firmly states:

The act of losing is called jobbing and a frequent loser is referred to as a jobber.[1][2] It is a mark of disrespect to refer to a wrestler as a jobber

And because of the nature of that description, I do indeed believe that it will be around forever, but there's people who shouldn't be associated with it, and then there's people who should indeed be associated with it, Chavo Guerrero is someone who we could very well associate with the true origin of being a jobber.

But a guy like Chris Jericho as you mention, should not be named a jobber, he's jobbing, but it's not permanent, so even though even I have gone on to call him a "Jobber to the stars" it's not necessarily true, he looses a lot to the stars, and improves the lesser talent, but he is in a position where it wouldn't be considered him being a jobber, but more the actual "doing the job".

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I believe it's permanently etched. It's true that Hogan jobbed to Warrior and Flair jobbed to Savage. I think the reason why instances like that are not viewed as negative is that Hogan and Flair never lost as often as other superstars have or they were so great that the negative connotation could never be placed on them. The Rock lost a lot for a main eventer but because he was so popular with the crowd, we never thought of him as a jobber. Guys like Jericho and Kane were never as popular and when they lose a lot, that negative connotation is placed on them.

There's nothing wrong with Kane and Jericho being considered as jobbers to the stars. How do you think Edge, Cena, and Orton went from midcarders to maineventers? Somebody had to job to them to make them great. That's the way wrestling has always worked and I don't see most wrestlers having a problem with it today because they know how the business works.

 

[The Doctor]

Interestingly, I believe I can compare the words "jobber" and "jobbing" to the words "mark" and "smark". Yonks ago, I made a thread about how the terms have mutated in our vocabulary and have lost almost all of their original meaning. The same thing has happened to "jobbing". Instead of just meaning "losing", it means to lose so badly that the wrestler's credibility takes a big hit. And just like "mark"/"smark", members of the IWC love to throw the terms around based on faulty assumptions.

A wrestler has a losing streak stemming from a series of matches where he's looked strong? Oh, he's losing so he's a "jobber". A wrestler loses an over-the-top-rope challenge in a fluke victory? He just "jobbed" to Santino. It's because of these IWC members that "jobber" has lost all its original meaning and become a dirty word. It has become ingrained in our minds that "jobbing" means losing so badly that the wrestler gets knocked down the ladder, and I don't think there's any way to change that. Language and words change, and the more widespread the new connotations become, the harder it is to escape from them. It happens all the time, with all sorts of different words. Like the word "weird". It used to mean "Occult, creepy" but now it means "a little odd", and I doubt anyone you ask knows that it used to have much stronger connotations.

Things evolve, and the word "jobber" is no exception.

 

[MWats]

Jobber can be negative or positive depending on the situation and quality of a wrestler. Jobbers like Kane and Hardy are good because they enhance talent and make the other wrestlers look decent. Just ask McIntyre. Jobbers can also be good by keeping the product fresh. Think of how putrified the product would have been if Cena didn't job to Sheamus at TLC. Not much actually, but since we're talking about the IWC, things don't have to make sense in the long run. There are some jobbers like Santino Marella, who will likely never get anywhere in their wrestling career with their current gimmick, but can be appreciated for their humor, charisma, and over non-shittiness. There are some guys who made careers off of jobbing like Mick Foley or JBL, and were in important matches so much, they became main eventers by default. And then you just have shitty people like Zack Ryder, Chavo Guerrero, etc. who are probably not that bad at all in actuality, but can't make something entertaining out of the gimmick given to them, which guys like Marella and Lethal (while being a Randy Savage meme) are able to do. This is where the negative stigma with the lowly j-word (my fingers sting as I type that) comes from.