Worst excuse to get out of a job/angle?

[Guest JMA]

One of my personal favorites is when a top guy will job to a lower card guy (one with almost no chance of getting over) and then use that job as an example of him "putting wrestlers over." He'll get out of doing jobs to wrestlers with bright futures by pointing to this. And the best thing is this: If the lower card guy somehow does get over and becomes a true player, the top guy can point to the past job he did to said wrestler and avoid having to job to him again.

[cabbageboy 0]

You've pretty much analyzed HHH's run from 2000 to now. He'd job in pointless matches like to the Brooklyn Brawler or someone, but of course when it came time to job to Chris Jericho he wasn't feeling it.

 

And of course he jobbed to Shelton a few times but really where did that get Shelton in the long run?

[alfdogg 0]

A lot of the guys HHH has jobbed to did have a chance of getting over, but HHH made sure and crushed them enough times afterwards that that chance was gone.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It was a reference to the Bulldog / Michaels match from ONO.  Bulldog was going to win, but it got changed to HBK's usual politics saying he'd job right back to Davey Boy the next time they came to Manchester or wherever they were going to be in England.  Of course, it never came to fruitation.

 

Edit: Sorry, I fucked up, Its suppose to say "I'll job to the guy next time, I swear!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vince was the one who said that Shawn would put Davey over the next time they were in the UK. Shawn never said that.

[Karc 0]

The HBK since 2002 has only jobbed to guys that either Vince wants to push or HHH wants to be with in a main event feud (Orton, Batista, Benoit, Goldberg, Cena eventually). He's only there to appease their egos. Everyone else can go hang themselves now.

 

It seems like the real worst excuse to not job is that it makes a wrestler look like a loser. It doesn't seem to be of any use anymore. I mean, here you have all of these rather creative ways to get out of a job, but is seems to me that no one has recently dared to say that jobbing makes them a loser. Funny.

[Black Lushus 0]

I don't know if you can really knock 2002 and beyond HBK for any lack of jobs (other than WM 19)...if you think about it and look at it, he really has been winning at the appropriate times...vs. Shelton, yeah they could have had Shelton win, sure, but the match was booked so perfectly, Shelton got over even by losing (and of course the WWE did nothing with that)...I'm not an HBK mark by any means, but I can't think of too many times in the past few years that he should have been jobbing...

 

maybe you weren't knocking Karc and I just read you wrong?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

What is the reason for him going over Jericho at Mania when Jericho needed it the most? Answer: To put the dirt on the grave of Jericho's credibility.

[pochorenella 0]

Actually, I think Jericho losing that match was Jericho's own idea IIRC. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.

[Guest Dumb Monkey]

"I'm not feeling it" was a legit excuse for someone to get out of jobbing? I have to vote for that one, but Kevin Nash backing out of a match with a "heart attack" is a tight second.

[cabbageboy 0]

Jericho is a moron then. Never ever actively WANT to job in a match, unless it's something like Benoit insisting on jobbing to Bret in the Owen Memorial match. Jericho insisted on jobbing in a match that had a detrimental effect on his career.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

The HBK since 2002 has only jobbed to guys that either Vince wants to push or HHH wants to be with in a main event feud (Orton, Batista, Benoit, Goldberg, Cena eventually). He's only there to appease their egos. Everyone else can go hang themselves now.

 

It seems like the real worst excuse to not job is that it makes a wrestler look like a loser. It doesn't seem to be of any use anymore. I mean, here you have all of these rather creative ways to get out of a job, but is seems to me that no one has recently dared to say that jobbing makes them a loser. Funny

.

 

My problem with HBK is that he never wants to people over properly and I always bitch about that BUT he did job to Angle at Mania clean so I can't knock him as much as I do since he finally did it to somebody that truly deserved it.

 

Being that I'm the lowly, biased, ignore-worthy "HBK mark" you're referring to, allow me to discuss my side a bit.

 

I've never hidden my preference over Shawn Michaels on this board, nor do I think it is cause for shame or anything, although that's what many anti-HBK people here would like to think. I find it rich that favoritism over a particular wrestler is reason enough for being ignored.

 

Alfdogg, I have a surprise for you. I'm also a Bret Hart fan. Oh my God! How ...is that possible? If you're an "HBK mark" aren't you automatically a Bret Hart hater? Not in my case. I like to think I'm also objective on the matter of the much-discussed Montreal Incident/Screwjob. Dude, back then, when I read about Bret going to WCW I almost had a heart attack, and I was sure WWF would fold. That's how concerned I was with Bret leaving. Do I support Vince's choice in the matter? Yes, I do. As a boss you have to do what you deem necessary for your company's well-being. Could it have been resolved better? No doubt, but both sides seemed unable or unwilling to come to terms and the rest is history. Is HBK responsable too? To a degree, although he was doing what he was told, but some people like to make him the sole culprit or the mastermind behind it and I think that's not fair.

 

Was HBK an asshole to some wrestlers back then? Sure he was, I'm not denying it, although I'd like to hear about that huge list of wrestlers whose lives he wrecked. He's gotten out of a lot of championship match jobs. Michaels now seems a changed man, and he's been given a new opportunity to perform on a grand stage and I think he's doing that admirably.

 

On topic, Bret refused to job in front of his Canadian fans. Wether it was the main reason he refused or not doesn't matter to me. It was ONE of his reasons and that is a fact. I'm not saying Bret should be remembered by this incident forever, neither was I trying to imply that. His legacy goes beyond that particular moment. I was just answering a question posted.

 

I can see what you're saying, but let me put it to you this way. If it was the same exact situation with Bret and Shawn's roles reversed with Shawn's last match in the WWE involved him being the world champion and dropping the title to Bret somewhere in TX, I would HIGHLY doubt Shawn would do it.

[Frosty 0]

I can see what you're saying, but let me put it to you this way.  If it was the same exact situation with Bret and Shawn's roles reversed with Shawn's last match in the WWE involved him being the world champion and dropping the title to Bret somewhere in TX, I would HIGHLY doubt Shawn would do it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Bret wasn't asked to Job in Alberta. Bret wouldn't job in his own COUNTRY not in his province. Either way it would have been wrong, but that's an unfair comparison. Shawn refusing in the US would be the fair comparison and that would be completely obsurd as well.

[Guest Fiscusalicious]

I can see what you're saying, but let me put it to you this way.  If it was the same exact situation with Bret and Shawn's roles reversed with Shawn's last match in the WWE involved him being the world champion and dropping the title to Bret somewhere in TX, I would HIGHLY doubt Shawn would do it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Bret wasn't asked to Job in Alberta. Bret wouldn't job in his own COUNTRY not in his province. Either way it would have been wrong, but that's an unfair comparison. Shawn refusing in the US would be the fair comparison and that would be completely obsurd as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Refusing to job in the U.S. is a fair comparison to refusing to job in Canada? I'm not going to state my opinion on Bret's decision, but your "fair comparison" is hardly that. WWE is a company (especially at the time) that is predominately based in the United States. 90% of their shows take place in the U.S. I'd say 7% is Canada and 3% is UK/Tours.

 

Think about that percentage ratio. There is nothing fair about that comparison and it would be absolutely absurd for someone to refuse to job in a market in which they are in 90% of the time.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Besides Shawn DID refuse to job for the most part in United States, so even with this comparison...

[Guest JMA]

I can see what you're saying, but let me put it to you this way.  If it was the same exact situation with Bret and Shawn's roles reversed with Shawn's last match in the WWE involved him being the world champion and dropping the title to Bret somewhere in TX, I would HIGHLY doubt Shawn would do it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Bret wasn't asked to Job in Alberta. Bret wouldn't job in his own COUNTRY not in his province. Either way it would have been wrong, but that's an unfair comparison. Shawn refusing in the US would be the fair comparison and that would be completely obsurd as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Refusing to job in the U.S. is a fair comparison to refusing to job in Canada? I'm not going to state my opinion on Bret's decision, but your "fair comparison" is hardly that. WWE is a company (especially at the time) that is predominately based in the United States. 90% of their shows take place in the U.S. I'd say 7% is Canada and 3% is UK/Tours.

 

Think about that percentage ratio. There is nothing fair about that comparison and it would be absolutely absurd for someone to refuse to job in a market in which they are in 90% of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. It's not and has never been a fair comparison. If WWE held events equally around the world it would be apt, but that's not the case here.