What Is A Jobber? Follow Up Question: What Is Jobbing?

["Sweet & Sour" ImSoFudginGreat]

Tried to make the title sound philosophical.

I read a lot “BLANK jobbed out BLANK” despite the match being in the main event, 25 minutes long, and competitive. I also read “BLANK is a jobber” despite them picking up wins on shows whether they are live, on the web or on TV.

In my 30+ years as a wrestling fan I always thought a jobber was a person brought in to lose, to make the star look good, and be as bland as possible. I’m talking Duane Gill, Barry Horrowitz, Ken Raper or Brooklyn Brawler.

So, why does the IWC use the term when a wrestler “isn’t doing well”? Is it just the internet being hyperbolic? (Shocking accusation I know) or do people actually believe that people are being “jobbed out” when they don’t win 1 or 2 matches?

[BorneAgain]

Damian Demento, if you please:

[champchumpchange]

A loser.

A talent, that no matter how good or bad, is put in a position to make others shine.

I don't care if you're presented as a threat - if you end up losing every televised match you're in - you're a jobber until further notice. If you win matches on shows no one watches, against talent no one knows, you're still a jobber - but you're higher on the rungs than the unknown talent that will never get TV time anyways.

[EoE: Well There's Your Problem]

Dude, I feel like I’ve spent most of my time as a hardcore wrestling fan trying to wrap my head around this whole thing, and it feels like it’d been have been more productive bashing it against a brick wall.

Yes, a jobber in its most technical sense (the best kind of sense) can be someone that loses any match, regardless of how competitive it may be. But conventional wisdom is that it is someone, if they’re on the roster, that loses most, if not all of their matches, often in a non-competitive fashion, or someone that is in brought in from outside the roster to lose matches in that manner.

Seriously, my kingdom for a wrestling fanbase that can comprehend how so much of what they want contradicts each other if you try and apply it all at the same time. You can’t crusade against dirty finishes to the point of zero tolerance AND claim that clean finishes kill careers. And it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for every single wrestler to win every match. Win and lose are mutually-dependent outcomes, neither can exist independently.

[tafkaga]

A jobber's JOB is to make other talent look good at their own expense. That's why they also call them enhancement talent.

In olden days, we loved seeing the Road Warriors destroy jobbers. There was no suspense. We knew Hawk and Animal were going to come out, annihilate two dudes in about 30-45 seconds, cut a promo, and leave, and we lived for it. The jobbers only JOB was to take punishment and make it look as legit devastating as possible.

[Milkman Norm]

It's a situation like the term mark where there is a historical definition and then a broader colloquial definition. Historically a jobber was someone who only wrestled on TV. They were paid for their time unlike the other wrestles who made their money off of the gates. Now it's been generified to mean a wrestler who loses a lot of matches. I think both could be considered accurate.

[XIII]

Jobbers are the eternal losers. Duane Gill, Steve Lombardi, etc.

Jobbers to the stars are the guys that will get an occasional win over some other low level guy but ultimately exist to have a shred of credibility for the real stars to get easy wins on.

[Ecks Ecks Ringout Ecks Ecks]

A miserable little pile of squash matches!

But enough talk, just pin me.

[Susan "Poison" Candy]

WHAT IS JOBBING?! BABY DON'T HURT ME, DON'T HURT ME. NO MORE!!!

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

Oct 12, 2022 8:40:03 GMT -5 Milkman Norm said:

It's a situation like the term mark where there is a historical definition and then a broader colloquial definition. Historically a jobber was someone who only wrestled on TV. They were paid for their time unlike the other wrestles who made their money off of the gates. Now it's been generified to mean a wrestler who loses a lot of matches. I think both could be considered accurate.

Oct 12, 2022 15:54:00 GMT -5 XIII said:

Jobbers are the eternal losers. Duane Gill, Steve Lombardi, etc. Jobbers to the stars are the guys that will get an occasional win over some other low level guy but ultimately exist to have a shred of credibility for the real stars to get easy wins on.

I think these two posts pretty much nail it. Jobbers in the true sense of the word are the local talents that show up to get eviscerated by the top talent, and right above them in the totem pole are your Serpenticos and Brandon Cutlers who would beat the locals, but would fare just as poorly against top guys. You go any higher, and you will find talent that even if their primary reason for being on the roster is to put people over, they are still doing other things and having feuds with other mid-level guys so they aren't losing all the time.

[auph10imitated]

"doing the job" is taking the pinfall for another wrestler - ie a jobber is someone who eats the pin alot

[Hypnosis]

There are jobbers, then there are choke artists who keep coming up short in title matches, which is far worse because it's hard to invest in those characters when I know what the result's going to be every time they're in important matches.  They're usually wrestlers who could have had top face potential if not for the booking, or also due to being a little too selfless.

[Jindrak Mark]

Something I've noticed over the years as part of the IWC is the negative connotation attached to the term "jobbed out" and when and how it's used. Like if someone you like loses a competitive 15-20 minute match you might complain that they've been jobbed out but if someone you don't like loses in the exact same fashion you'll just say oh no big deal, they just lost a close match.

Kinda like the term buried. If someone you're not a fan of wins all the time you might complain they're burying everyone but if it's someone you like doing it you probably won't use that word because it paints them in a negative light. You'll just say they're being booked strong and it's smart.

[eudypfohl]

One thing I've always wondered about is the offense that a jobber gets in (sometimes of course it's just to set up a devastating move that he has to take)

Some guys just get squashed, but I recall some matches with Flair around 91-92 in the WWF against jobbers that he would actually allow them to get some offense in. Mr. Perfect would too. As would Martel, Duggan. Some wrestlers actually let their jobbers not look completely pathetic

When you used to see things like this...is it pretty much the star trying to be a nice guy and maybe letting his friends and family in the crowd have a few moments before finishing him off? Like let his mother get a picture of him with Mr. Perfect in a headlock or something. I always thought these were nice gestures

[tafkaga]

Anyone remember 80's jobber Randy Barber?

He was hilarious.

He'd just hand the guy his arm for an armbar and then lay there and bellow "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!" without any discernible effort to escape.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

My favorites as a kid were pre-Credible PJ Walker, Barry O, Brawler and Jim Powers. Colin Delany was also fun as a punching bag during his WWE run.

[XIII]

I always wonder why those dudes were more than content to take ass kickings from the stars despite knowing that that’s all they would ever do. Did they just want to be a part of dis business? Did they think that they were going to get a big break? Were they masochists?

Some of the beatings that dudes like the Steiners doled out definitely weren’t worth whatever they were getting paid? lol