WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Professional Wrestling & General Discussion 2010 - Current » Bring back jobbers, argues a Yahoo columnist

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Bring back jobbers, argues a Yahoo columnist
Ordell
Member
Member # 6033

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ordell     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He makes a valid point. We've said this about Cesaro when he was IC champ and jobbing every week.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/pro-wrestling-needs-bring-back-real-jobbers-163600380.html

COMMENTARY | In professional wrestling, a jobber is someone who virtually always loses. In the past, jobbers looked like they had never entered a gym, had worse tans than vampires, and may have been mute because they never talked.

Today, wrestlers such as Robbie E and Zack Ryder rarely win, but they do not fit the image of yesterday's jobbers. However, it is vitally important that today's promotions bring back the old version of the jobbers.

As a writer who loves every aspect of old-school pro wrestling, I constantly have to fight the urge to proclaim that everything from the past is better than everything is today. This is what every adult generation has done in the past. And I don't want to turn into the old man sitting on the porch yelling at kids who make noise and play on my lawn. But it isn't just nostalgia that makes me believe that a small dose of real jobbers would be beneficial for wrestling today.

After entertaining fans since the beginning of pro wrestling, jobbers were phased out in the late 1990s during the Monday Night Wars. The head-to-head battle between WCW and the WWF made each promotion raise its game like never before. Even one squash match with an unimpressive jobber would cause fans to change channels to see if the competition had something better to offer. In 2013, talented wrestlers must fulfill the role of being jobbers.

The first reason why it makes sense to bring back the jobbers is that it would preclude talented wrestlers from having to be the designated losers. Under the current model, becoming a jobber is a temporary phase that most wrestlers go through while they aren't involved in a storyline. It isn't unusual to see a talented wrestler such as Wade Barrett look indestructible for several months then look like he couldn't beat a mannequin for the next several months.

Except for upper-echelon stars such as John Cena, The Undertaker and Sting, most wrestlers move back and forth between both stages. The problem with this is that it can be a career killer. After months of losing, how can a promotion then successfully push a wrestler into main-event status? Promoters try to do this all the time, and it usually leads to bland crowd reactions. And the promoters are left wondering why the fans didn't get behind the wrestler.

This leads to the second problem with real jobbers being extinct. I firmly believe that most promoters vastly underestimate the intelligence of most wrestling fans. I was horrified when Victoria, who had been the WWE's most impressive female wrestler, was suddenly losing to opponents who didn't know a headlock from a padlock. Fans know that the wins and losses are predetermined. But we need a good reason to willingly suspend our disbelief.

It just isn't logical that a wrestler could go winless for months, then suddenly be unbeatable, and repeat this cycle for years in the same promotion. At least when wrestlers were constantly changing gimmicks and managers were more prevalent, those could be reasons why their fortunes were changing. Jobbers could fulfill the necessary duty of losing, while also giving talented stars without a storyline the chance to keep winning on television.

I am not saying that WWE Raw should be two-and-a-half hours of squash matches with jobbers until the main event started. That would be a disaster for today's promoters looking to entertain ever-more demanding fans. My point is that unimpressive jobbers would help great wrestlers without storylines keep looking good in the public eye. And in turn, it would prevent those wrestlers from having to become jobbers until creative came up with something better.

In the "entertainment" version of today's product, the majority of shows such as Raw, Smackdown, and Impact would have to continue to be competitive, storyline-driven action. Jobbers would have to be a small part of each broadcast. But it would prevent great wrestlers from becoming temporary jobbers, which nobody believes makes any sense. Then fans would truly believe that the entire roster could someday become main event talent.

IP: Logged
davephlegmball
Member
Member # 5163

Icon 1 posted      Profile for davephlegmball     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love squashes. Seriously.

Jobbers are sadly missed here in the Phlegmpire.

IP: Logged
SomethingSavage
Member
Member # 49196

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SomethingSavage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Umm, squash matches have been "back" for a few years now. Remember when Umaga first showed up on Raw? He spent months & months on end, doing nothing but bulldozing over jobbers, with a few lower card guys tossed in for good measure. Same for Snitsky & loads of guys over on the ECW roster around the same time frame. I vividly recall the backlash from MOST fans online - on message boards like this - being mostly negative, before they eventually warmed up to it again.

NXT is filled with squash matches, too. Jobbers have been back in pretty prominent fashion, so this whole column seems a little dated to me, honestly. Heck, Ryback's entire gimmick last year got off the ground based ENTIRELY around the concept.

IP: Logged
CJ in Savannah
Member
Member # 26303

Icon 1 posted      Profile for CJ in Savannah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course they have jobbers, especially when they hold the Intercontinental title

--------------------
Why Tears for Fears would never be wrestling bookers? Because it'll always be head over heels

IP: Logged
Kid Chrome
Member
Member # 5607

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kid Chrome     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CJ in Savannah:
Of course they have jobbers, especially when they hold the Intercontinental title

[Smile]
IP: Logged
DhalsimJr
Member
Member # 230

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DhalsimJr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I spent some time yesterday downloading Youtube videos of Big Van Vader. I am looking forward to the WCW squash matches I downloaded. I might also start downloading Steiner brothers videos. As a teenager I really appreciated those televised matches and measured a guys worth by how stiff you were. I think true strong style was NWA/WCW it was the ultimate measuring stick.
IP: Logged
Norrin Radd
Member
Member # 78547

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Norrin Radd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there's one element of old school wrestling that I don't miss then it's unequivocally squash matches. I'm thankful that when I watch wrestling on TV I get to see competitive matches.

Squash matches aren't necessary anymore. The business model isn't about drawing crowds to house shows. It's about drawing crowds to televised events and getting a high rating. Nothing will kill ratings quicker than a three hour RAW chock-full of squashes.

--------------------
"I have seen men build... and destroy. I have seen this world, which could be a paradise, reduced to a planet of greed, and fear, and hatred! I have seen humanity with its heritage betrayed! I can stomach no more!" - Norrin Radd

IP: Logged
SaturdayWrestlingFan
Member
Member # 96861

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SaturdayWrestlingFan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Squash matches were horrible and boring. Only time they were any good is when people like the Moondogs turned their squash matches into Geneva Rights violations.
IP: Logged
PoorlyToldJoke from OH
Member
Member # 4397

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PoorlyToldJoke from OH     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and man did going to TV tapings back then suck. Having to sit through 2 hours of squashes for 2 separate tapings, just to get to the main event on a B show.

--------------------
I always try to win every match in such a way that the person doesn't want to see me again. So you not only have to win that fight, you have to win all the future fights that person could want to have with you. - Ronda Rousey

IP: Logged
Rob
Member
Member # 4213

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rob     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with the writer, case in point was the World Title match at this past Wrestlemania. No matter how good the storyline with Dutch added into the mix, how can I take Swagger seriously, after watching him get beat every week for months. Taking him off TV for a while did not remove the memory of him doing a job in under 2 minutes to Brodus Clay.

--------------------
I am always right, because I always listen to my wife.

IP: Logged
1bruiser
Member
Member # 2903

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1bruiser     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of the Moondogs.


IP: Logged
SaturdayWrestlingFan
Member
Member # 96861

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SaturdayWrestlingFan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's how squash matches should be!
IP: Logged
KobashiChop
Member
Member # 78522

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KobashiChop     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They (the WWE) need to maybe have a jobber or two to get squashed. Also need to do a better job of having a protected mid-card. The I-C and US champs need to have some crediblility. Since the "World Title" is basically the equivalent of the Crockett US title or the WWF I-C title, maybe they need to ditch one of those titles or the other.
IP: Logged
Blonde Adonis from Hamilton
Member
Member # 32332

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Blonde Adonis from Hamilton   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know it's been said before,but no jobbers HAS to decrease attendance at house shows.Copps Coliseum seats around 17,500 people.Now they don't even open the upper level.There are still a lot of open seats in the lower level.Whenever I go to a WWE show I buy the cheapest seat I can.I'll watch the first 2 matches and keep an eye on floor seats.Usually,I can move down and grab a seat on the floor.Last card I attended,There was a group of empty seats in the front row.I just walked down and had a seat.
Getting back to the topic-at these shows that I speak of,ironically there are usually a couple guys in the first two matches that I have never seen before,in my opinion,they are jobbers.

--------------------
Wrestling Clips ETC.
http://cdre.webs.com/

IP: Logged
SomethingSavage
Member
Member # 49196

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SomethingSavage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Said it before, but NXT features jobbers on an almost weekly basis. The local guys they brought in & provided work for versus Ryback last year? All jobbers. Granted, guys with gimmicks & established acts like Zack Ryder maybe aren't portrayed as jobbers to some of you guys - but realistically, even back in the day, the jobbers typically had some sort of distinct feature or characteristic.

Or are we pretending that Rodz, Special Delivery Jones, etc. weren't jobbers? I mean, if you're featured almost exclusively as enhancement talent to showcase the other talent, then you're pretty much a jobber. Thus, I think guys like Zack Ryder, Heath Slater, etc. certainly qualify by today's standards.

And, like I said, even if you disagree & think that they don't - then there's the other examples that I referenced that most certainly WERE jobbers, in every sense of the word. Local guys - brought in JUST for the sake of losing to Ryback, Snitsky, Umaga, etc. in recent years - are definitely jobbers.

IP: Logged
okstampede
Member
Member # 10203

Icon 1 posted      Profile for okstampede     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll take a squash match over the same multiple 5-10 minute rehearsed promos usually cut by the same people every single week.

--------------------
"These matches are sanctioned by the NWA, the National Wrestling Alliance. Wherever you see that banner, you know you're seeing the finest in professional wrestling."

"Ric Flair, you're good. But you're no Buddy Landel."

IP: Logged
Richard Berger 1A
Member
Member # 2385

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard Berger 1A   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to go along with those who favor the return of squash matches. Depending on the creativity of a given promotion, it can help generate even greater interest to see two sworn enemies, who have been defeating and/or destroying jobbers, finally meet. Using that formula for a relatively small portion of the show would highlight someone's wrestling skills, be they baby or heel. Sure, the villain will demolish a jobber, but ideally he'll also display that he can wrestle if he so chooses. And if he doesn't (or can't), well, a complete Mulkeying™ will certainly get his ferocity over.

Thing is, when it comes to building towards a specific point (which is what squash matches do), today's fans will likely become bored within two minutes, IMO. The lack of patience and willingness to wait for the payoff would, most probably, cause mass disinterest in such matches. (That's not directed at wrestling fans only ... unfortunately, a short attention span has become the norm). The end result will, possibly, encourage that stupid "boooorrriing" chant, which ranks right up there with "what?" in my book.

It's a risky proposition, my friends.

[ 07-28-2013, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berger 1A ]

--------------------
"Jews communicate by mutually agreed interruption" - Simon Schama, author of 'The Story of the Jews'.

"Grammar: It's the rules what makes your mouth feel dumb" - Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, Oct. 24, 2013

IP: Logged
C.C. Milani from NY
Member
Member # 9769

Icon 1 posted      Profile for C.C. Milani from NY     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SomethingSavage:
Said it before, but NXT features jobbers on an almost weekly basis. The local guys they brought in & provided work for versus Ryback last year? All jobbers.

That's kinda not where the author was coming from, though. He's saying that when an uppercard wrestler needs a win have him get it against a jobber, as opposed to having a Cody Rhodes or an Antonio Cesaro do the honors in what's otherwise a meaningless match- filler on one of the two major shows, really.

But I still don't agree with the author. Think of it this way- every player in Major League Baseball is, on some level, a great player. If you're a pitcher you have to be one of the 500 best in the world just to take the ball. By that stretch every team is a great team and would destroy the best college team out there.

But the Miami Marlins and Houston Astros are the worst great teams, since they're playing even greater teams. Kind of like Zack Ryder and Justin Gabriel.

Then we get to the part where people will be changing channels during the squash matches.

--------------------
Who are the people that can skip a YouTube commercial in 5 seconds but instead say, "Hold on, let's see where Bud Light Lime is going with this"?

IP: Logged
the bear
Member
Member # 1565

Icon 1 posted      Profile for the bear     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""In 2013, talented wrestlers must fulfill the role of being jobbers.

The first reason why it makes sense to bring back the jobbers is that it would preclude talented wrestlers from having to be the designated losers.""


this would therefore mean less jobs for these talented wrestlers, but I mean jobs as in employment


reeplacing the talented guys he mentions with jobbers would just mean less talented guys get on tv

[ 07-29-2013, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: the bear ]

--------------------
Check out my Wrestling collection - Now over 14000 DVD's
http://www.freewebs.com/cbenee/

IP: Logged
SomethingSavage
Member
Member # 49196

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SomethingSavage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by C.C. Milani from NY:

That's kinda not where the author was coming from, though. He's saying that when an uppercard wrestler needs a win have him get it against a jobber, as opposed to having a Cody Rhodes or an Antonio Cesaro do the honors in what's otherwise a meaningless match- filler on one of the two major shows, really.

I see what you're saying, and I get where the author's coming from. But I just don't agree with it. For the most part, yes. There SHOULD be squash matches. And there are, which I've noted a few times already. So I won't go back into that. But yeah. They have their place, they're still around in some capacity, and they serve their purpose on that front.

But when it comes to these "filler" TV matches, with a credible or established mid-card guy doing the "honors" for a main eventer? I don't mind that a bit. In fact, I think it's almost necessary.

You hear the veterans talking about experience, traveling the road, grueling schedules of weeks & months on end with no time off, steady work, being in the ring on a nightly basis, etc.

But do you think they're talking about being in the ring every night with no-name enhancement guys? Nah. They're reminiscing about rubbing shoulders with one another, from one territory to the next. They're talking about pairing off in angles with guys & working the loops. They're talking about one-hour broadways with Funk, Brisco, Flair, Race, Stevens, Bock, or whomever.

And yeah. That's how they earned their stripes. That's how they learned to work. But you don't improve your skills or get better by working with guys that can't work. You improve & enhance yourself through working with the experienced guys, the guys who grasp psychology, the guys that can genuinely work, and so forth.

If you're Antonio Cesaro, do you REALLY mind doing the job on TV to a John Cena or Randy Orton? Absolutely not. Especially if it means working consistently with those guys.

If you're Cody Rhodes, would you REALLY prefer thrashing a jobber on TV each and every week, or getting the chance to perform with the guys that are drawing money up top? It's a no-brainer.

Yes. The mid-card guys lose TOO frequently and too often at times. But that's their place. It's why there's a pecking order. It's a food chain, and it's ALWAYS really been that way.

The problem (for me) exists in the way they book their mid-card champs. The US and IC Title are devalued by constant losses. I'll agree to that much & that much only. But mid-carders doing the "honors" for main event talent? No way. It's how things SHOULD be.

The fact that those mid-carders are getting the chance to perform consistently with the big names is a plus. For them, for the viewing fan base, for everyone...

Take a look at this past week or so alone. We got free TV matches of pretty darn good quality. Sandow versus Orton was good. Damien did the "honors" to Randy. Where's the harm in that? At this stage, that's how this match SHOULD be booked. Could they pair up and draw money later on with a more meaningful, substantial rivalry? Sure. But at this specific point in time, I have no qualms with this one being given away.

Fandango versus Randy? Same thing. Cesaro falling to Bryan at this time? Why not? Swagger losing to Christian? Where's the harm?

Like I said, my only issue comes from the instances where they had Cesaro (as US Champ) consecutively losing to Ryback (or someone) on TV each and every week. Or Wade with the IC Title doing the same.

But, right now, ya gotta hand it to 'em - they're booking both Ambrose (as US Champ) and Axel (as IC Champ) fairly strong. So even that could be remedied in the near future.

What's to complain about again?

[ 07-29-2013, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: SomethingSavage ]

IP: Logged
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3