A Wrestler, no matter how big, will always do a significant job before retiring
 

We've seen it time and time again. A Wrestler, no matter how big they become, will always do one final job....or a series of consecutive jobs to a particular wrestler....before retiring as a full-time wrestler.

-Austin jobbed for The Rock
-The Rock jobbed for both Brock Lesnar and Goldberg
-Mick Foley did it for Triple H
-Shawn Michaels did it for Steve Austin (when we all thought HBK was finished)

And so forth.

Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Batista probably do not have much left in the tank. Undertaker's body is breaking down, while both HBK and Batista have gone on record saying that they won't be around for much longer either. All three men are over the age of 40. The question is, who should these guys do that one last significant job to?

Personally, here's how I think it will play out:

-HBK's final match will eventually be against Triple H, one-on-one, at Wrestlemania. Not sure which one though.
-Batista's final match will probably be against Randy Orton or John Cena.
-Undertaker's final match will probably be against Big Show.

Ideally, the WWE would use younger talents to be the recipients of these wins, but I don't think it will happen. What do YOU think will happen? What do you think SHOULD happen?

Hogan?

I think it would be fitting if The Undertaker's final match is against Kane. Or that he at least wrestles Kane on his farewell tour, and puts him over strong. It'd be fitting given their past, and Kane could really use the rub of beating his older half-brother cleanly.

Now I DON'T think that match should happen at a WrestleMania, but believe it or not, I don't think Taker should retire at WrestleMania. I think his streak should end, and that brings the come-down of Taker, where he goes about doing what is left for him to do.

Shawn Michaels will no doubt wrestle Triple H in another big bout, but I'd like to see HBK wrestle Chris Jericho one more time. It will also be quite sad if we do not see Shawn Michaels vs. John Morrison at one point, also. Shelton Benjamin and HBK could also have a follow-up to their infamous Gold Rush Tournament Match. I think a short run on SmackDown! would be good for HBK, because we can then get matches with random guys like Charlie Haas (who I think could use the same opportunity Shelton had) and Funaki (who is a MASSIVE fan of Shawn Michaels, apparently). Oh, and include David Hart Smith and Tyson Kidd in that list, as well.

But I think one we will definitely see, is HBK putting over Bryan Danielson. Now that AmDrag is in the WWE, I think HBK wants at least one of his students to get somewhere. Lance Cade and Brian Kendrick both had drug problems, but both got fairly big pushes towards the ends of their WWE careers (ironically). Danielson will eventually get a push, so hopefully he is the one who gets to go strong over his own mentor.

Batista is a lot "younger" in the business, so I can't really picture what he'd do. I think Dolph Ziggler would be a fitting guy for him to put over, though. Ziggler debuted his character in the ring against Batista, so why not have Ziggler show his improvement by getting a big win over Batista?

Hogan jobbed cleanly to Goldberg back in WCW.

During Hogan's WWE stint in 2002, he also put over The Rock, Triple H, Undertaker, Kurt Angle, and Brock Lesnar.

These may not have been Hogan's LAST matches, but no one can argue the fact that Hogan gave back to the business. Atleast in my opinion.

I know many people complain that Hogan didn't JOB for HBK and Orton, but think about this. If Hogan were to job TOO many times, then the novelty of going over Hogan would diminish.

Really the biggest case of Hogan jobbing "on the way out" was to Yokozuna. In all of the other cases, he was back to his usual place in the company in pretty short time. When he jobbed to Yoko, it was almost nine years before he returned to the WWF, and Yoko was dead by then.

And Hogan apparently pushed WCW to sign Yoko, I guess to get the win back.

been saying forever that Taker's final match should be against Kane and Kane goes over finally :y:

Kane would make the most sense from a storyline sense, but even retiring the Undertaker wouldn't bring his career back from the dead. The match would probably be on par with any other Taker/Kane match we've seen, and any benefit Kane received from beating his big bro would be gone in the next month when he jobs to Batista or stalks the Divas.

In terms of best match (like Flair/HBK) it would probably be HBK or Jericho. In terms of putting over an emerging superstar it would probably be CM Punk. The next closest would be Swagger or Morrison, but I think they're still a few years away from believably being ready for that match.

It would depend. I think Kane kind of hurts himself by being too fucking nice for the business. He doesn't want to be a World Champion, apparently, and he is happy putting younger guys over. This is awesome and everything, but Kane can do a lot of good by making himself look good, so that when he does put someone over it benefits them a lot more.

Kane has lost about three matches since going to SmackDown!. Michael Hayes obviously knows and respects the character. He's keeping Kane so strong, and while there isn't really too much direction there, I think Kane's losses are going to be kept more selective than they have been.

I still maintain that this is the best Kane has looked in years. It's just that there is a lot going on over SmackDown! way right now to overshadow it. CM Punk has been a fantastic heel, John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler are on the rise, The Undertaker has come back, etc. Feuding with The Great Khali has sort of kept Kane's success under wraps recently. If Kane were being booked like this on RAW -- I think he would be one of the hottest acts in the entire WWE right now.

Kane should be one of the default guys Vince goes to when a champion gets hurt, or something. Kane is someone that can believably right them out of stories, and take the World Title and have a good monster run with it until they get back. He really should have been World Heavyweight Champion instead of The Great Khali back two years ago.

I think the problem with being a "monster" is that monsters are meant to be beaten. If you're a heel you get booked as threatening until someone comes along and slays you. If you're a face you're never allowed to win. The Undertaker and Nash are notable big men that escape this because they aren't really perceived as monsters. They're big men. Kane and Big Show, for the most part, fall into this description.

Do not end the Undertaker with a loss to Kane. Kane is useless.

I've heard a rumor he will get a new theme song next year.

Taker and Nash aren't big men or monsters, they're forces of nature.

Fact.

I sincerely hope you're joking. Man on Fire is a fucking brilliant remix of Kane's original theme, no matter what anyone else may claim.

<object width="500" height="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JsEanLhr6UM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JsEanLhr6UM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

Agree and disagree.

I agree that Undertaker's WM streak should NOT be ended by Kane. I also agree that Undertaker should not job to Kane on his way out. The problem with Kane, is that he's an old guy himself...and probably won't be in the WWE that much longer.

Furthermore, the character of Kane has been pretty much saturated....and I highly doubt that he'd draw that much interest as a top guy. It would have been different had Kane been the biggest guy in the WWE (as he was in 1997), but the truth of the matter is that Kane isn't the biggest guy anymore....and storyline wise, has been physically dominated on more than one occasion for a number of years now.

This is one reason why I'd rather see a guy like Big Show go over Taker. Big Show, while not young, still has a good number of years left in him. Furthermore, Big Show is the BIGGEST guy in the WWE and can easily be pushed as an unstoppable monster.


One thing I disagree with you however, is on the idea of Kane being useless. Kane is NOT useless. Kane is one of those few guys that can continuously job match after match, but can still look like a viable threat....and could conceivably just go out there and beat the shit out of any main-eventer.

Although there isn't much novelty in defeating Kane nowadays, it's just amazing how Kane's credibility never takes a hit....despite the number of jobs he may do.

The Rock jobbed to The Hurricane.

I agree with LC. Jobbing to Kane at WM is the way to go.

Hogan did put the rock over, but I think that was the only one he wanted to do willingly. I'm not sure he wanted to put Brock over.

I remember that. I also remember shortly after he'd been drafted to RAW some time back now, Shelton won not 1, not 2, but 3 consecutive matches on RAW against Triple H. Sure once was by count-out, and one by DQ, leaving only one clean win against Trips. But considering how early on his career that that happened, I'm frankly surprised the man has not yet captured a major world title in WWE.

Maybe, but we can't judge a man of what he may or may not have been thinking.

Ultimately, the Hogan was willing to do the job(s).

Throughout Hogan's career, Hogan has done significant and meaningful jobs when it has benefited the business (i.e. Goldberg, The Rock, Lesnar, etc.). For the life of me, I do not understand why Hogan gets criticized as much as he does. Hogan had his reservations and concerns about jobbing to Ultimate Warrior (stating that Warrior was too green), but ultimately did the JOB. As it turned out, Hogan was 100% correct.....and Warrior was in fact, too green.

The ONLY time where I feel that Hogan should have jobbed....and he didn't....was to Bret Hart.

Ultimately - Hulk Hogan was a business man. Hogan wanted what was best for himself, but is that a bad thing? There truly is a danger in jobbing too many times. If that happens, then the novelty of going over you wears off (unless you're a tremendous worker....which Hogan wasn't).

I think Hogan was a smart businessman that did what was best for himself, and also gave back to the industry that made him at significant and appropriate times.

True, but it was done in a very flukey way.....and ultimately, meant nothing. Triple H jobbed to the Godfather back in 2000 if I recall correctly.

There are monumental differences between a joke job, non-clean job, and a clean job.

Can you name one wrestler that Hogan didn't get the win back on TV?

Outside of Rock.

If I remember correctly, the story behind Shelton getting consecutive wins over Triple H was so that backstage people would stop complaining that he never puts anyone over or squashes everyone. I don't think he literally wanted to lose for the sake of helping out the younger wrestlers but to drop the heat he was getting backstage. Might have been during the 2002 - 2004 era where Triple H was hogging the title and squashing more than helping on RAW.

After that series of matches, they basically left Shelton alone instead of capitalizing on it with a good push to create a legit future main event. RAW has always been lacking in the younger talent as main event since the whole thing started.

Are you sure about that? Was there any outside interference of any sort? Was it a roll-up victory?

Also - a count-out victory and a DQ victory does NOTHING for a person's career. NOTHING.

To the WWE and Benjamin's credit however, he was booked in such a way that showed that he could hang with Triple H during those matches. At that point in his career, this was very helpful in getting him over as a viable face.

The theory is true but flawed in how you're trying to present it. EVERYONE does a significant job before they retire. If you mean JUST before they retire, then the hogan argument still stands.

I can't. To be honest, I only started watching the WWE regularly in mid 1997....and stopped watching on a full-time basis in 2005.

However - I will try and answer your question:

Ultimate Warrior --> 8-9 years in WCW, Hogan got his return win. However, who cares? It was a completely different era. Back in 1991 (or whenever Hogan/Warrior occurred), Hogan was asked to pass the torch and he did. The victory 8-9 years later is irrelevant....seeing as how Warrior had become a flop for the most part.

Angle/The Rock/Lesnar --> No return victory

Goldberg --> I am not sure.

Triple H --> Beat Triple H the 1st time, but then did the clean job.

Didn't Jericho beat Hogan too?

I get what you are saying, but I have to disagree. Kane's been damaged BECAUSE he goes out night after night and loses to guys. If you scrapped that philosophy about Kane, and had him look like a world beater -- consistently -- then I think people would change their minds about just what Kane can and can't do.

Kane is essentially there to get beaten by the heroic faces, fighting against the monster, but you have to make that monster look dangerous before it can mean anything. That is what Michael Hayes has been doing. I don't think Kane has been pinned since he has shown up on SmackDown!.

The biggest down-side to pushing Kane, is that he is older, as you said. The man is doing some really good work, though, and while retirement rumours pop up from time-to-time, the man has been given a relaxed schedule, and he probably understands that if guys like Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker are going, he may be needed.

I wouldn't put Kane over Taker at WrestleMania, but at a PPV like Backlash, it would be highly appropriate. Kane gets the last laugh on his brother, and while Taker won most of the battles, Kane ultimately wins the war, which gives him A LOT to take back. Especially considering Kane's original existence in the WWE was almost purely as a foil for Taker, and that a lot of what kept Kane back is that he did lose a lot.

Kane winning and defeating The Undertaker pretty much goes back to Kane's origins, and retcons the whole "Taker is better than Kane" thing which has been re-enforced by the WWE's respective booking of the men over the years. And it's not like you need Kane around for five years afterwards. He can stick it out for a year or two, hopefully win another World Title, and then drop it off to someone and make them, in turn, look like a massive star.

It'd just be raising Kane's stock temporarily so that the WWE can call him a "giant star" to be beaten; because while Kane is definitely reliable and credible, he's just not on the same plateau as a lot of other guys within the company.

I never saw it, but didn't Billy Kidman get a victory over Hogan? Was that ever taken back? How about Sean O'Haire?

Few things:

1) Noid - excellent post above. I think I pretty much agree with what you said.

2) I don't seem to recall Jericho beating Hogan. I think Hogan beat Jericho, but that's about it.

3) Hogan DID to an (ill-advised) job to Kidman. There is no way Kidman should have gone over Hogan at the stage that he did. If I understand correctly, Kidman hadn't been built up enough in order to warrant such a big win.

Hogan beat Kidman at Great American Bash and took Torrie from Kidman. Wasn't that the make up for the loss?

Also, Hogan took the pinfall in his last match as Mr. America from Big Show.

Did Hogan ever get the win back from Goldberg?

The finger poke of doom pretty much erased Goldberg's win.

Again, Yokozuna is the only one I can think of.

I wouldn't call that putting over wrestlers. He mostly lost to guys using like a million cheating techniques.

I half-ass agree..... have him job to Kane, but not at WM.....

Just what does the business gain by having Taker's big job be to Kane??? Not much, if anything IMHO.

Kane's only 2 years behind Taker in age - he'll probably be near to leaving himself.

Hogan may not have gotten his win 'back' from Yokozuna, but Yoko didn't win cleanly, and Hogan beat him in like 9 seconds at Wrestlemania 9. Hardly an accomplishment for Mr. Zuna.

lol legend. you do not agree with me you liar

here's the thing. This "business" as we all know it is dead. The days of putting younger wrestlers over and passing the torch are long gone. You know the WWE books shows for the moment these days. There's no long term booking. They'll take a guy and have him win for 2 months straight, then bury him for the next 2 months, then have him win again.

WWE loves to book these fun matches at Mania for the live crowd and I like Taker vs Kane. One last final encounter for both of them. Do you gain anything from it? No. Does it matter? No.