So the trend from the 1990s....the more matches you lost likely meant the bigger the push😂. Alot of these losses came off screen especially house shows where they mostly book to send the fans home happy especially where heels were concerned. And probably look it up , many of the losses came from DQs, Count outs, some pins. Many times over the year you look up any rival losing to another every single night in a different city. Example in 1994 into 1995 Owen Hart got beat by his brother over 100 times in that span. Yet Owen still ascends as King of the Ring in 1995. Riding off one huge win over Bret in the opening match of Wrestlemania X where Brett still became champ that night.
well, a lot of matches happen on house shows and never air. When WWE is on tour they repeat the same matches and results over and over again, often with the simple finish of 'heel loses, happy crowd' or multi man tag matches. So it doesn't really indicate WWE burying a star or not having faith in them. It just shows that they are using someone very consistently in their programing which is a very good thing for a wrestlers career ...
Surprisingly that Bray Wyatt didn't make the list with how he used to get booked. However list shows it's always about how you finish not how you start
So whats this mean? They lost that many matches? I mean not everyone wrestles all the time. Youre telling me like the rock.. 115, that means he was on tv and recorded these matches and 115 were losses? In 365 days he lost once ever 3 days?? 3 days?? They wrestle like once a week or twice i believe. What am i missing?
Between tv episodes of raw and smackdown, several days throughout the week wwe would hold "house shows" these shows are not televised and there aren't any interviews, or backstage segments just matches and the occasional promo to work the crowd. House shows are one of wwes biggest sources of income by having shows about 5 days a week. And three of those shows save a lot of money since theres no need for production quality. House shows are not canon to wwe, as they are never mentioned on the tv episodes, despite the fact two wrestlers feuding wrestled almost every single day that week theyll act like they haven't seen each since the last tv episode. Since storylines dont matter in house shows, theyll do whats called the dusty finish where the face will almost always beat the heel to have a satisfying ending for the crowd. Almost everyone on this list were heels.
@@calebpresley8743 ahh gotcha. That crossed my mind but didnt seem right considering when we speak on matches usually, its the ones shown. But if these that aren't dont matter, begs the question.. who cares? Lol
It made sense for The Rock despite being Heel he was still scratching the surface as part of NoD but after losing the IC Title he got his stepping stone to Main Event status & World Title picture
What are you saying man🤦😱😂 There are 52 episodes smackdown and raw each and 12 PPVS WHICH MEANS a wrestlers maximum have 64 matches a year you know it is not possible for anyone to compete in all So assuming the half wrestlers could have 32 matches then how you can say 😂😂😂😂😂
I don't get how they can lose so many matches...like even if they fight every week (almost 52 times) + PPVs (let's say 25)... they won't be fighting that many matches in a single year , forget about losing
Obviously for every winner there has to be a loser. In this list there the majority are mid to upper card stars, who've all had big pushes and won belts.
It doesn't seem to crazy to say the people with high loses tend to be popular. I mean Curt Hawkins had a loss streak and that gained him the most polularity he had in WWE.
It's funny how many of these loss record holders are/were World Champions and/or HoF members/legends, yet fanboys still get their knickers in a bunch at Road Dogg saying that wins and losses don't matter.
Yeah they do. Stone cold went home based on losing one match. Hogan never was seen losing on tv in 80s neither roddy. Ask yourself how many times you say cena lose as world champion in his heyday.
Thats really interesting. it seems like as time marches on you see fewer jobbers losing the most matches and more main eventers losing the most matches. Still I'd sat its a crap shoot. if you lose 130 matches it could be because your just grinding out a paycheck as enhancement talent, or it could be that your about to be one of the most prolific wrestlers of your time.
Randy was booked against Triple H, Batista and Cena for 8 out of the 12 months in 2009. They were Vince’s guys, so he booked Randy to look weak against them, even though he and CM Punk were the two hottest guys in the company at the time.
@@dxfifa Roman Reigns with the Bloodline, Triple H with the McMahon-Helmsley Era and Evolution, Hollywood Hogan with the nWo, Bret Hart with the Hart Foundation, Shawn Michaels with DX, etc. Examples of wrestlers who were leading a heel stable and almost never lost. Yet for some reason, they had Randy frequently lose on PPV, TV and house shows in 2009, despite being arguably the top star and having Rhodes and DiBiase to back him up. Legacy were treated as an absolute joke. They never even won the Tag Titles while they were a stable.
where'd u get the stats for this? 365 days in a year ... 120 + losses... 1 every 3 days. aside from raw and smackdown and the random PPV, what else is there - 4 house events a week? sources please
a lot of these guys were heels, so they're going to have lots of DQs for breaking the rules (which leads to no disqualification matches). 2nd, the heel gotta loose.
Can someone explain me this We have 52 weeks in a year that means 52 raws and 52 SmackDown and we have max to max 10 ppvs in a year so that means total of 114 events even if Randy Orton or any other superstar fought on every event how is this possible that he lost 128 matches ?
These aren’t *THAT* shocking to me really… though it’s funny that WL kept dropping “staggering/stunning/etc” for loss counts in the 120’s but opted to just say “163 in total” for Tyler Breeze and merely “a ton of losses with 160” for Seth A good way to build a sniveling heel is to give them a bunch of losses and have them complain about it, but you also have heels get their comeuppance on a regular basis if you’re trying to build up a face that’s been put through the ringer Likewise a face can be handed relentless defeats and given an underdog manner of handling it to garner sympathy or relatability as they then face opposition from heels as they eventually build momentum I’m stunned that Curt Hawkins losing streak only made the list once with 128 losses, but I guess he was a good example of longterm booking since it took a few years to hit his still standing record of 269 consecutive losses There was also a TON of 50/50 booking through a lot of these years, so that adds up when you’re on TV constantly
2009 Orton specifically surprised me because 09 'bald' Orton is considered one of the most notable heels of all time yet lost that much shows how impactful his appearances were.
Shelton Benjamin's shocked me the least, because I remember how they booked him as the guy to help push the real person they're trying to push. Also he was pushed as a heel.
I think information is not correct....how it is possible....raw 52 days SmackDown 52 days ...ppv 12 days in a year....how someone lost 160 times in a year???
Longer answer: Because WWF/E has always held hundreds of house shows (live, untelevised events) in arenas around the country/world every year. For decades, this was a huge part of their business, where their real money was made - and it's still going on now, even though the company nowadays makes most of its money from its enormous broadcasting deals. So wrestlers could appear on TV (or PPV) once a week or month, but go off on exhausting tours in between, wrestling almost every night. That's where the numbers build up. If you ever hear old-school wrestlers describing how they were "on the road 300 days a year", this is what they're talking about. And generally speaking, all those live events in different towns for different audiences ran basically the same card. So one wrestler might easily lose to the same opponent (often, though not always, the main person they were feuding with on TV) two, three, four times in a row offscreen in a week. Or back in the day, when televised shows were fewer and further apart, a wrestler could rack up a string of 10 or 20 straight losses or more to the same opponent in house shows. Mostly, too, it's the good guys winning and the bad guys losing, to send the live crowds home happy. So if you were playing a heel in a storyline, you might quite easily lose five nights a week to your babyface enemy at live events, but then get one over on them on TV - and, in storyline, that would be the only one that would matter!
My question is how is this possible Because if you think about it , there's only two shows per week fifty two weeks in a year , so they must be counting house shows
150+ losses is ridiculous to have in one year. Especially for some of these guys who are top stars. Either the same guys get used too much at house shows or they just get booked to lose like every match. Pretty crazy.
