Could / Should WWE Go Back to Jobber Squashes?

[spman 0]

Do you think it would be conceivable that WWE could slowly start to shift back to the 80's and 90's model where Television is used to build up the mid-card guys as legitimate threats, while limiting encounters between Name Wrestlers to House Shows and PPVs that the fans have to pay to see? Certainly you could make the argument for both sides. Sure, more Jobber Squashes would mean a deacrease in quality of Television, and possibly lower ratings, but it would also in theory increase House Show Revenue and PPV buys so the fans can see the Main Eventers that don't wrestle on TV that often. It would also help establish and legitimize the mid-card guys more, as they wouldn't nescessarily lose on a weekly basis. On the other hand, it would probobly not work because monthly PPVs dictate instant feuds that have to be built up almost immediately. Was phasing out Jobber Squashes in the late-90's a pandoras box will can never be closed?

[Guest Princess Leena]

No.

 

TNA does this, and it's horrible.

[razazteca 0]

End the split, move all of the "superstars" that know the difference between a wristwatch and a wristlock to Raw and make Smackdown into the jobber squash b show.

[Guest Dam(o)nYankees]

I'm not going to waste two hours every Monday Night to see Chris Masters face Jaques Plisken.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Once squash per Raw/SD wouldn't be too bad. And if they have an upset win by the jobber every so often, people would get educated into paying attention in case they miss the upset they know can happen from time to time.

[Just John 0]

No. Wrestling, as well as any other form of entertainment, evolves over time. Going back is not the key to success. Who's going to want to pay to see a Raw or SD that's nothing but jobber squashes? That's what shows like Velocity and Heat are for.

[spman 0]

No. Wrestling, as well as any other form of entertainment, evolves over time. Going back is not the key to success. Who's going to want to pay to see a Raw or SD that's nothing but jobber squashes? That's what shows like Velocity and Heat are for.

 

Obviously if you were to scale back to more squashes, you'd ahve to change the format for TV tapings too. No one watches Heat or Velocity, mostly because they only ever feature jobbers, and they're only on the Internet. Jobber squashes would help legitimize the mid-card wrestlers becasue they wouldn't constantly have to job for one another on free TV due to the constraints of having PPV calibur matches every week.

[razazteca 0]

There was a reason why Heat and Smackdown is no longer on tv....nobody wants to see low midcard squash matches.

[spman 0]

There was a reason why Heat and Smackdown is no longer on tv....nobody wants to see low midcard squash matches.

 

No, they just didn't want to see Bob Holly, Val Venis, Tyson Tomko, and Gene Snitsky in squash matches. No one watched Heat and Velocity not because it was nothing but squash matches, but becasue WWE programmed it's viewers to understand that none of these wrestlers matter at all, so you don't have to watch becasue nothing interesting is ever going to happen.

[Just John 0]

What would make HHH squashing a jobber any more exciting than Bob Holly squashing a jobber? The fact is, fans expect competitive matches on tv and are not interested in a show where "nothing exciting will happen" which is exactly what Raw and SD would become with just squashes. You would still have all the "sports entertainment" that you get now, but with worse matches. How does that help anything?

[razazteca 0]

The fact is, fans expect competitive matches on tv and are not interested in a show where "nothing exciting will happen" is exactly what Raw has become with all the "sports entertainment" that you get now.

I am so sick of this "male soap" bullshit that is on tv today.

 

Jobber squashes would help legitimize the mid-card wrestlers

Wrestlers with bad gimmicks will never get over no matter what.

[spman 0]

Wrestlers with bad gimmicks will never get over no matter what.

 

A wrestler can very easily overcome a bad gimmick if they have the charisma and in ring skills to do so. For every Nailz and Akeem that go no where, there's at least as many guys like Triple H and Mankind that were able to overcome their shit gimmicks and get over with the fans. Hell, look at guys like Finlay and Boogeyman today. There's no reason on the planet why a drunken Irish Stereotype or a Modern Day Papa Shango should be over with the crowd, but I'll be damned if they aren't getting loud pops every week.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Yes, but no more than one a show.

[The Niggardly King 0]

End the split, move all of the "superstars" that know the difference between a wristwatch and a wristlock to Raw and make Smackdown into the jobber squash b show.

 

That wouldn't be good though, and would hurt the WWE more than actually help it.

[razazteca 0]

Its not like any of the tag team or midcard titles mean anything at the moment so why not unify the tag titles to make a real division of real tag teams on Smackdown. Raw can have Angle, HHH, Undertaker, Kane fight over the big gold belt while on Smackdown all of the directionless midcard wrestlers with no or bad gimmicks can attempt to get over in the tag team division.

[Guest wolverine1007]

I think that jobber matches might not be the worst idea for the WWE, but only if used in the right situation. Should Triple H, Benoit, Angle, Undertaker, guys like that be fighting jobbers? No, because they are already well established main event characters, and they don't need that kind of exposure.

 

But for guys who are trying to make a cnnection with the crowd, i think that jobber matches would be a good way for them to expose their moves to the TV crowd and to at least get a fair shot of developing a personality that people can get behind.

[Enigma 0]

RVD has been saying for years now that since the Monday Night War is over, wrestling needs to go back to jobber squashes/enhancement matches. It would allow some lower-card people who lose all the time (Val Venis, Bob Holly, etc.) to look better and the upper-mid carders/main eventers (John Cena, Ric Flair, Shelton Benjamin, Edge, etc.) would look even stronger.

 

RVD argues that no one really gets to showcase their talent anymore because 95% of the time, everyone has to worry about not completely burying the loser of the match.

 

He raises a good point. This is why I've always been against the resurrection of a Saturday Night's Main Event/Clash of the Champions type show. Every Monday and Friday, we get a show equivalent to what those shows were back in the day.

 

I do agree that the jobber squashes need to come back.

 

I remember when Batista jumped to Raw in the middle of 2002 and they had to feed Justin Credible and D'Lo Brown to him in matches that lasted less than 1 minute. I thought, "Why not just have a no-name jobber in there instead of lessening the value of people you're paying 5 figures to?"

[Guest droptoehold]

they will make a show of just backstage segments

and wwe will slowly develop to what they wanted

all along is truly a male soap opera.

 

but i would love for some jobbers to come out

because i think it would help mid level fueds.

it would havemore meaning because the w/l ratio

wouldnt be significant that you could really git

behind more mid level guys.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Hardly anybody wants to go back to jobber matches. Yes, having jobber matches makes the big matches more special but guess what? The booking in the WWE is still going to suck.

 

A few are perfectly fine but you just can't have too many.

[Downhome 0]

They should just go through with Vince Russo's idea from WCW (at least I think it was his) where he wanted to just totally do away with the ring.

 

Going back to shows full of only jobber squashes would be one of the things that make me not care about watching the shows anymore.

 

I didn't even like it "back in the day".

 

There is a time and a place for a few here and there, but not every single show, and for the love of God not an entire show full of them.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Yeah. RVD is really only half right. You can show off ALOT of talent in a match and still make your opponent look strong even if they lose. That is actually part of being a talented pro wrestler. You have to be able to go in there and have each person come out on fairly equal footing even though one wins and one loses. The only difference is that in the end the winner has to look like a winner to the crowd, unless the storyline of the match is one similiar to UT/Angle, where it was a skin of the teeth survival victory that showcased something more on the lines of skill and a little bit of luck for the victor to capitalize and pull off the win.

 

That kind of story is very rare though. Hell, most of the big upper-mid and main event level match storylines are just going through the motions until a big schmozz at the end. The only exception to that rule is when there is a great deal of TALENT involved and they can create something more.

[Downhome 0]

Hell, most of the big upper-mid and main event level match storylines are just going through the motions until a big schmozz at the end.

 

That right there is my biggest problem with that piece of shit John Cena. I've always admitted that many of his matches actually have a hot ending, like the one on the past RAW with his spot with TBS, but other than that his matches are made up of a whole lot of nothingness. That right there, the John Cena style of match, is my main complaint against wrestling today. I'm willing to put up with horrible angles if it actually leads to a fantastic match.

 

Of course, Cena shouldn't be in his posistion in the first place, so he can't really take all of the blame.

 

The only exception to that rule is when there is a great deal of TALENT involved and they can create something more.

 

And the problem, is that is very, very rare. There are only a few top talents around right now who have the talent to consistantly put together truly great matches these days. Hell, there aren't too many who can put together a great match just now and then.