Skip to main content

Doing the Job

You pointed out that Steve Austin did a crazy amount of jobs,
considering he was the #1 guy in the company. A while back, you
basically said the same thing about The Rock: that he could lose to
anyone, then go out and save face the next day with an interview.
So my question is: if The Rock and Steve Austin constantly did the job
(compared to the current era top guys) *and* became the biggest
mainstream wrestlers since Hulk Hogan, when / why did WWE change its
mind and decree that their top guys have to be virtually invincible?

I think it's less that they felt guys have to be invincible and more that they feel everyone should be booked even-steven, so that no one is able to become "bigger than the brand" like Rock and Austin did.  Really, the only invincible babyfaces left are Cena and HHH.  The guys on top still do lots of jobs, but now it's incredibly difficult to regain their heat right away because of the stop-and-start pushes and crappy promos.  


  1. Huh. A thought just occurred to me regarding the stop-and-start pushes.

    With some exceptions, we've seen a lot of superstars get a big push only to leave the company. The two big examples I can think of are Brock and Angle, both of whom left the company for bigger things. Angle is debatable, but you get my point. Then you've got a gaggle of Divas, most of whom became too big for the company and left because of egos (Sable, Chyna, etc), usually after posing for Playboy.

    I wonder - and this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea, so feel free to disagree - is the reason that they're unwilling to put someone new over because they don't want that person to become so big and popular that they leave WWE to use that stardom created BY the WWE to do other things?

  2. Larry Zybysko pointed out in one of those Scott Hall videos now that the problem with the WWE now is that "everyone is a superstar", when wrestling has always been about making one or two superstars and everyone else benefiting from that.

  3. You mean invisible heat wise. Cause as it's been pointed out on this blog a bunch of times recently Cena has done quite a few high profile jobs over the year. I think the only truly guy they still book as invisible is The Undertaker. Now he only does one match a year which he always wins.

    But I agree about the 50/50 booking. That shit is stupid.

  4. I still think it's a problem with WWE that many of their pushes and top guys are entirely too predictable.  Guys like the Rock and Mick Foley were so "giving" and willing to do the job for the sake of the story or match that it made for great drama.  The way the Rock was willing to put over HHH, Angle, and Jericho repeatedly, the way Foley put over everyone despite being an enormously and insanely popular #3 babyface (behind Rock and Austin) made for some of the most exciting times in WWE history due to how unpredictable their matches were.  They definitely should be commended for that in an era where it was still okay to pitch a hissy fit and refuse to job.

    I think guys like Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler, and Mark Henry need to be given pushes over fellas like Sheamus, Orton, and Cena. There shouldn't be any "outs" or excuses for when the unheralded guys win, either.  The established stars should be threatening revenge and be extremely angry that the  new top guys are taking their spot.  It shouldn't be an anomaly, smirked off, or forgotten about completely.  Instead, major happenings or matches are forgotten within days to protect the main draws.  It's almost like the WWE is too scared that their popularity/earnings might shrink that they don't expand and make new stars. 

  5.  "

    I think it's less that they felt guys have to be invincible and more
    that they feel everyone should be booked even-steven, so that no one is
    able to become "bigger than the brand" like Rock and Austin did."

  6. Yep. Hit the nail on the head. And don't forget about Lashley either. Essentially they want WWE itself to be "the draw" rather than one certain wrestler.

  7. And when they realize, that they have not enough stars, they bring back none other than Brock Lesnar...

    It's so stupid, because even if they leave, you can always make new stars. And when they come back, they are even bigger stars

  8. this again? Cena has done a lot of jobs, too. yes, they were not clean - but how many times did The Rock lose clean?

    I would be in favor of more top guys feeling a bit more of "invincible" instead of the mentioned even-steven booking. because as you could see with Cena and Punk last year, it's a lot easier to elevate somehim (or for him to elevate himself) if he can be put against someone who is recognized as a "megastar" (another example: if there would be more guys that would be presented as an "elite" few you might have had more than one choice as an opponent for The Rock).

  9. I don't remember Austin doing a lot of jobs in his heyday. He dropped the world title in a first blood match where it was impossible for Kane to bleed and then again in a handicap match to Kane and Undertaker.

  10. I think a lot of this seems to be revisionist history.  Or, at the very least, similar to this extremely strange "Randy Orton has been jobbing a lot" statements.  I'll give you Rock....he did lay down a lot more than most people in his position, but Austin's jobs were really no more frequent or clean than John Cena currently does.  Once he became "the man," his clean jobs were few and far between.  Really, they only came when he turned heel, but if that's the criteria then you could also say that Hogan jobbed a lot.  The only super clean losses, as a face, that I can recall were against Mick Foley in the triple threat at SummerSlam, Triple H at No Way Out and The Rock in his last match.  That's not a whole lot for a five year period.

  11. Even when Austin was on his rise to the top, he jobbed frequently but always in a way that made him look badass. Although, sometimes it also uneasily reminds of his wife-beating future. Right now, I'm watching Raw, 7 / 7 / 97. Austin v Helmsley.

    Vince: "I just wonder tonight if Austin will be politically correct tonight, he never has been... if Chyna gets in his way... I don't think Austin will hesitate to blast her -"
    Lawler: "Huh?!"
    Vince: "And I'm not proud to say that."
    Lawler: "You think Steve Austin would punch out Chyna?!"
    Vince: "Given sufficient provocation, he just might! If anyone would, here in the WWF, it would be Stone Cold."

    I love shoot comments, etc.

  12. Exactly - Austin jobbed the same way Cena jobbed, rarely and with tons of caveats.

    As for not being a "superman", how many times did Austin beat-up twenty people at once, giving them all Stunners, one right after the next? That's even worse than Cena winning two-on-one handicap matches, or beating up seven "Nexus" members at once.

  13. He lost to Triple H at No Mercy 99. Rock tried to hit HHH with a sledgehammer but hit Austin in the knee instead. Trips pinned him after that. Not exactly super clean but that's about as clean of a job you'd get in 99 WWF. As a matter of fact, outside of their match at Buried Alive 96, I don't think Austin ever beat Trips on ppv.

  14. Exactly.  How could you forget how the ENTIRE WWF ROSTER were getting dominated by the WCW/ECW Allaince.....and then Austin arrives and single handedly takes all of them out?

  15. I have to take issue with the diva issue being over egos.  Sable and Chyna did have egos, but they weren't any worse than their male counterparts.  They left because of money.  WWE has always treated its female performers as little more than disposable, even when they were draws, which both Sable and Chyna were.  They did the same thing with Wendi Richter in the '80s.  Probably would've done it to Madusa too had she not been smart enough to fuck them over first.  See a pattern here with WWE and its female talent?

    Point being, Sable and Chyna wanted to be paid in proportion to what they were doing for the company.  Vince saw them only as replaceable tits, so he replaced them.  I think it's unfair to chalk it up solely to their egos.


Post a Comment