@Dramsss
Well, clearly you have evidence that there are many people like yourself who really dislike considering fighters who fight a good fight but who lost as having jobbed it. I think that is actually the corruption of the meaning of jobbing. I mean, you're saying that if Ippo had won his fight he'd be closer to a jobber. What does that even mean? I don't know how anyone would ever consider Ippo to be a jobber. His fight record is not that of a jobber and his status as a main character protects him from this, unlike some other boxers from his gym who are literally jobbers and I'm obviously not talking about Takamura.
I've said it before, but you seem to conflate jobbing once to being a jobber. Ippo was set to lose some fights because the author wanted to show that he was treading the wrong path and that there are also struggles and setbacks. I am perfectly comfortable saying that Ippo jobbed those fights, yet I don't see Ippo as a jobber. (Meanwhile his jobber gym buddies may have some interesting fights, and even fights they've won, but they still have a firm status as jobbers.)
I mean, you seem to have serious misconceptions or misunderstandings about how I view things. I think Gaolang is awesome and really strong. I love the character and I find it fantastic that he's shown such progression as a fighter. However, I'm not going to be in denial about the fact that he lost this match against Purgatory. Gaolang has been a Muay Thai fighter, a boxer, and a Kengan fighter - he should have been more aware than anyone on how rules can make a difference in a fight so seeing him lose like this is disappointing. He's known to be calm and calculating and yet he was the one used by the author to show off the ruling issue? And he lost against a scrawny ass dude? When I'm saying that he jobbed that fight, I'm not saying that Gaolang sucks, I'm saying that he lost for plot reasons. The Kengan fighters may have remarked that he got stronger, fought remarkably well and would have won under Kengan rules, but the most important thing they pointed out was that anyone of them could have lost in the same way because none of them took the difference in rules seriously. Remember that I view jobbing as the act of losing a fight that is essentially fated (in a wrestling match, it would be arranged, in a work of fiction, it's decided by the author). Moreover, you could easily argue that in a tournament of this level, there aren't any jobbers. All the fighters here have won many matches that haven't been shown. Gaolang may be losing his matches while "on screen" but he's known to be a beast in a fight and none of the fighters, and I doubt even none of the Purgatory's fighters, think he's weak. That's just silly.
Meanwhile, while you're arguing that jobbing =/= losing, you're furiously denying that Gaolang is a jobber and making sure to point out that you really don't believe that Gaolang actually lost the fight. So who's the one here who actually sees jobbing as losing? All of those reddit upvotes come from people who have this understanding that jobbing is losing and losing is bad, and really the character didn't actually lose so they refuse to call him a jobber and that says everything about how they actually understand the word.
My definition of jobber is a character who fights in a work of fiction, and who the author regularly uses to lose matches. So no, your statements show you don't understand at all how I view things. I actually value the result of a fight much less than you which is why I'm willing to actually say that they've jobbed it. Gaolang has lost, and so what? Does that make him any less entertaining or awesome? When you're finding some warped excuses on why a character didn't actually lose, all that tells me is that you actually value the final result really highly and you want to state that it was a win. Gaolang had an amazing fight, but honestly I was also impressed by his Purgatory opponent who showed us a strong drive to win and some ridiculous skills to be able to handle a fight with a large weight disadvantage. Remember that there is no great match without a great opponent (and Rihito's opponent had to be a goofball, even if a very skillful one) and that mistakes are what makes things interesting so I do not care at all about the fact that Gaolang lost and I have no issue saying he jobbed that fight.
I still don't see how talking about the format of the tournament has any relevance on our discussion about the meaning of jobbing. I have nothing to say about that, so why are you bringing this up?
But let's conclude this; you do an incredibly poor job of explaining what you mean by jobbing, but reading through the reddit thread I see a simple and very acceptable definition: jobbing is losing to hype up another character. If that's the main view, I can definitely accept it and I would say that Ippo has jobbed twice (and I'm not talking about the Guevara fight, because Ippo fought so poorly he wasn't hyping up anyone). Indeed, when you consider the tournament format between Purgatory and Kengan, since fighters only have one match, there's no reason whatsoever to hype a fighter because we're not expecting them to fight again so you could say that there will be no jobbing whatsoever this tournament (unless we discover certain fighters are linked to the nefarious cloning plot, in which case I expect they'll win and be hyped because they're going to have to be defeated later). (And please do note that I mention the tournament format and make a point about what jobbing means.) I still think that jobbing to describe authors using certain characters to lose fights is acceptable, and you'll note that there is no negative connotation for a fighter when I say they're jobbing, but as it's not the main view, then clearly I'm the one in the wrong. Next time, I'll say: "Is Rihito going to loooooooose?
" instead of job and I'll keep saying: "Gaolang lost in the lamest way possible." (as I believe I said something like that a few chapters ago) , and I'll use job when a character is actually being hyped by a loss.
And with that, I can say that I definitely didn't job this argument. B)