Do wins and losses really matter in pro wrestling? The Coach says no

Ex-WWE commentator Jonathan Coachman weighed in on the debate that’s entangled execs, talent and fans this week.

Seth Rollins vs. Jinder Mahal. Samoa Joe vs. Hook. In case you missed it, these two world title matchups have kicked up a lot of discussion this week when it pertains to whether certain wrestlers “deserve” championship opportunities. While some of it was exacerbated by high profile social media exchanges, there’s an age old debate at the heart of it all.

Namely, do wins or losses matter in pro wrestling?

In other words, is wrestling better off booking performers in a way that makes it clear they have earned a title shot by winning, like in unscripted sports? Or should a good story be the most important factor, win-loss record be damned?

There’s probably no universally correct answer to this dilemma, because presentation and context vary so widely from situation to situation. But a former WWE on-camera employee weighed in and made it known that for that company, at least, the narrative is the most important thing.

The ex-employee in question is Jonathan Coachman, a former WWE commentator who has returned to the world of traditional sports. Coachman quoted one of the posts made by Tony Khan suggesting that Mahal was a poor choice to challenge for a title due to his lengthy losing streak and threw his two cents in as a rebuttal.

We also used to get amused at fans who counted wins like wrestlers “earned” them. Hell if Vince wanted I could have been world champion. But the storyline didn’t support it.

No one opinion is going to sway everyone in the industry to agree on wins and losses, but The Coach certainly has an informed take based on his own experiences. One thing we can all agree on, though: It’s probably a good idea that Vince never gave him a run with a world title, because there probably isn’t a good enough story written to support that.