It's pretty common to hear people complaining about jobbing when we see a fight that theoretically should be a stomp end up as a competitive affair. But is this always a bad thing? Should fights be written in a logically rigorous fashion or is it better that writers flex the rules a bit, or even a lot, so as to make for a good fight?Â
For myself I think I was a bit more of a "purist" back in the day but nowadays I think I see the merits of being a bit more laid back about such things.
Obvious jobbing is always a bad thing. It breaks suspension of disbelief. That, however, is not to say that the overdog should always beat the underdog. There is a plausible way to make most underdogs beat most overdogs. It's when it's really obvious that the overdog is being written magically much weaker and/or dumber than normal that jobbing is a bad thing. Technically, every fight is a jobbing, since these characters don't exist.