Does The Rock lack credibility?

[Kane Knight]

Or Mick Foley?

Eddie Guerrero?

People always bitch about how so-and-so lacks credibilty because he's a jobber, and nobdy would take them seriously ever again, and whatever. But did the Rock or Foley really have impressive win streaks? Did jobbing to Rey 18 times in a row hurt Eddie?

Why are win-loss records and belts so important to smarks? Especially when one of the biggest gripes is with Triple H, who has made it clear he doesn't need a belt to Main Event?

[RemyRed]

Yeah seriously, the whole win/loss record obsession is stupid. Especially considering that I don't remember Jericho winning one match on his own recently and he's the number one contendor, haven't heard anyone complain about that.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Are you implying that people should still be able to get over no matter how many times they have jobbed?

[Loose Cannon]

Yeah seriously, the whole win/loss record obsession is stupid. Especially considering that I don't remember Jericho winning one match on his own recently and he's the number one contendor, haven't heard anyone complain about that.

I've voiced out about that a couple times

he's lost so much cred over the past 2 years by jobbing in mid-card feuds that how can the fans buy him as the #1 guy right now? Does he feel like the #1 guy to you? Certaintly doesn't to me.

[Loose Cannon]

Rock held the IC Title and successfully defended it for a number of months. That's what got him over. Well that and his mic work, his taking over The Nation and his cocky attitude. He lost to HHH at Summerslam 98, but then built up another set of wins to get the belt at Survivor Series 98. He lost a few matches in between there by screwjobs from the Corporation. But you never saw Rock losing to Shamrock clean or anything like that.

[John la Rock]

ya Jericho losing to crap like Mark Henry and Snitsky really hurt his credibility

[The Naitch]

Rock holding the WWE Title the most times helps too :yes:

[jindrak]

A win streak does help get a wrestler over with the fans (see Goldberg).

A losing streak does does damage a wrestlers reputation with the fans, but it depends on how the losing streak aligns with whatever angles/storylines the wrestler is in.

The most recent example I can give is when Kane was on losing streak and Austin gave him an ear-full about being a "monster". This led to the unmasking of Kane, and the storytelling of a monster that wants revenge on the world that has outcasted him his entire life. In this case, a losing streak actually helped get the angle more over...more importantly, it was used as a contrasting element to the change in Kane's character.

[jindrak]

Rock held the IC Title and successfully defended it for a number of months. That's what got him over. Well that and his mic work, his taking over The Nation and his cocky attitude. He lost to HHH at Summerslam 98, but then built up another set of wins to get the belt at Survivor Series 98. He lost a few matches in between there by screwjobs from the Corporation. But you never saw Rock losing to Shamrock clean or anything like that.

WRONG.

The Rock lost to Shamrock in the finals of the KOTR tournament in 98.

[Kane Knight]

Are you implying that people should still be able to get over no matter how many times they have jobbed?

Because The Rock had a winning streak a mile long going into the "People's Champ."

Cena was unstoppable when he was getting over.

Undertaker may have a WM streak, but he's lost out NUMEROUS times.

Foley? He could get jobbed to HHH another 600 times in HIAC matches, and still get pops.

Even Scotty 2 Hotty gets a good reaction. Has he won a match in the last 5 years?

[Loose Cannon]

WRONG.

The Rock lost to Shamrock in the finals of the KOTR tournament in 98.

what are you saying WRONG to?

[Kane Knight]

I've voiced out about that a couple times

he's lost so much cred over the past 2 years by jobbing in mid-card feuds that how can the fans buy him as the #1 guy right now? Does he feel like the #1 guy to you? Certaintly doesn't to me.

Could be less because of his win-loss record, and more because NOBODY feels ready for the main event?

[Loose Cannon]

oh I see. I was refering to when Shamrock was in the Corporation, hence why I said Shamrock after a sentence about the Corporation

[Loose Cannon]

Could be less because of his win-loss record, and more because NOBODY feels ready for the main event?

yea, it's all of that.

He's been in the mid-cards the last few years

He's lost to guys that lose all the time

He hasn't had any big wins in the past few months.

But all of a sudden, he's a challenger.

[Kane Knight]

yea, it's all of that.

He's been in the mid-cards the last few years

He's lost to guys that lose all the time

He hasn't had any big wins in the past few months.

But all of a sudden, he's a challenger.

Well, he's being fed to Cena. He's not being pushed so much on his merit as a contender, as he's being pushed as the "authority." Or the lackey to the Authority.

That being said, how much of a fighter does he NEED to be? Doesn't it work better if he's coming form nowhere to be the contender?

That aside, this still isn't an issue of win/loss records or the belt. The belt doesn't even feel like it's worth fighting for. You feel he's bad not because of his losing record, but because he hasn't had key wins or high profile matches. that's kind of a diffeent animal here.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm one of the people who out alot into win-loss records. The Rock for example jobbed all the time, yet always stayed in the main event and I couldn't stand it. It's just no logical. I prefer when the actual "wrestling" part of the show is more like a legitimate sport where it is decided how good everyone is and they wrestle like that all the time. Not losing to a pull of the tights in 10 minutes to a mid-carder one night and then winning a 40 minute long world title match a week later. I wish you could predict matches based on wrestler's skill level as opposed to how you think the storyline will go.

Rock was over despite it obviously but I think he could have been even more over had he not been booked to job so much. I think that's a big reason why he gets alot of mixed reations after he's been back for a while. That's why Brock Lesnar, despite beeing booked as the heel @ Summer Slam three years ago was obviously the favorite in the match. Lesnar was booked like someone who, if it was all legit, was a viable main eventer and The Rock lost half the TV matches he was in.

It's like in Rocky if the Rocky character was just an average boxer, it would have dramatically changed how people looked at the character. I think this is the same situation.

I do however think Eddie is being handled extremely well though. He has lost 6 straight times to Rey but they have been great matches. It puts over the fact that Eddie simply can't beat Rey. If WWE wants Rey to be over and to appear to be "better" than Eddie, then that's great. It doesn't make Eddie look bad because the matches are so good. It just makes him look like he's not quite able to pick up a win. IMO it's one of the better pure wrestling related storylines WWE has ever done.

[Loose Cannon]

OK, I understand the question more now.

It's not win/loss records or winning belts that really matter in let's say WWF/WWE.

It's all about perception. It's all about whether win or lose, are those guys made to look weak or strong after the match?

If a guy like Benoit wins 5 matches, but the anouncers don't play it up as a big deal, who's gonna care?

If Benoit loses 6 matches in a row and the announcers are all over it and play it up, people are going to see Benoit as some loser. Kind of like the thing Christian did a while back when he kept losing. What was the point of that?

Now take Rock losing to Hurricane. Did it hurt the Rock? No. Did it make Hurricane a main eventer? No. Did Rock's loss make people think he wasn't fit to carry the Title? No

Why? Cause it was made to be a fluke win. A win that was just a joke. It's happened before and it will happen again. Rock was so over anyway, to the point that he could of lost 100 matches in a row and he would still be as over. Cause he was the Rock. Few wrestlers have that security around them.

Perception is the biggest thing in wrestling

[The Naitch]

a fluke win but it also helped further his feud with Austin, and gave it meaning when Austin came out and "cost" him the match, distraction_style

[Loose Cannon]

yea exactly. I forgot about that. That was the "focal point" of that match, not Hurricane pinning Rock. The Austin interference was the thing that was focused on more.

[Rob]

There is nothing wrong with losing matches. However, if you are a big star, you need big wins from time to time against different opponents. Probably the same reason Jericho and Benoit didn't get over. The Rock and Mick Foley beat everyone so their losses mean less as they are established stars. It's harder to recover from losses when you are building your status.

[Pepsi Man]

Because The Rock had a winning streak a mile long going into the "People's Champ."

Cena was unstoppable when he was getting over.

Undertaker may have a WM streak, but he's lost out NUMEROUS times.

Foley? He could get jobbed to HHH another 600 times in HIAC matches, and still get pops.

Even Scotty 2 Hotty gets a good reaction. Has he won a match in the last 5 years?
Cena got quite a few key wins early on in his WWE televised career. Hell, Chris Jericho went from being the Undisputed Champion to cleanly putting over a "rookie" John Cena in a matter of months.

Undertaker was pretty untouchable back when he first started out with the WWF, even beating Hogan in their first singles televised meeting. Even as a heel back then, people couldn't beat him clean, including Hogan, who had to use the ashes out of the urn in order to beat him. When old school babyface Hogan can't beat a heel clean, that says something.

Foley made his reputation long ago, but he's probably your best point. I'll agree that losses didn't seem to hinder him, and in fact, became a part of what he was about.
OK, I understand the question more now.

It's not win/loss records or winning belts that really matter in let's say WWF/WWE.

It's all about perception. It's all about whether win or lose, are those guys made to look weak or strong after the match?

If a guy like Benoit wins 5 matches, but the anouncers don't play it up as a big deal, who's gonna care?

If Benoit loses 6 matches in a row and the announcers are all over it and play it up, people are going to see Benoit as some loser. Kind of like the thing Christian did a while back when he kept losing. What was the point of that?

Now take Rock losing to Hurricane. Did it hurt the Rock? No. Did it make Hurricane a main eventer? No. Did Rock's loss make people think he wasn't fit to carry the Title? No

Why? Cause it was made to be a fluke win. A win that was just a joke. It's happened before and it will happen again. Rock was so over anyway, to the point that he could of lost 100 matches in a row and he would still be as over. Cause he was the Rock. Few wrestlers have that security around them.

Perception is the biggest thing in wrestling
If you're talking about the same Christian losing streak I'm thinking of, it led to that angle with DDP, after he finally "lost it", and then DDP coached him into winning the European Title.

[Kane Knight]

There is nothing wrong with losing matches. However, if you are a big star, you need big wins from time to time against different opponents. Probably the same reason Jericho and Benoit didn't get over. The Rock and Mick Foley beat everyone so their losses mean less as they are established stars. It's harder to recover from losses when you are building your status.

I felt Benoit was more about the fact that this is how his title reign was treated:

JR:tonight we have a championship match between Chris Benoit and someone or other and bah gawd! Tonight's main event! HHH vs HBK!