Offense vs. Selling

[Microstatistics]

Complex topic but I pose a simple question: generally, what is more important to you, that a wrestler have good offense or they sell well. I ask this because I've observed that many people seriously value offense to the point that poor offense takes them out of matches or makes them hate the wrestler. But is it more important than selling?

[JerryvonKramer]

I suspect that "selling" will win this in a landslide, and it probably should, but I voted for "offense".

 

When I look at comparisons like Bobby Eaton vs. Ricky Morton it comes down to this: Eaton did swank as fuck tilt-a-whirl backbreakers, threw awesome punches, and innovates cool shit pretty much every match, Morton just rag dolled. So I'd pick Bobby every time.

 

In terms of what makes wrestling good, selling is more important by far, but to me it's like comparing brocolli and ice cream. You know brocolli is good for you, and has much better nutritional value, but don't you just love ice cream? For me, Scott Steiner hitting a sick-looking full-nelson suplex on a jobber is like ice cream, whereas appreciating a guy who can sell well is more like brocolli, unless it's big over-the-top selling a la Steamboat, Martel etc., then it gets more like ice cream again.

[Microstatistics]

I suspect that "selling" will win this in a landslide, and it probably should, but I voted for "offense".

 

When I look at comparisons like Bobby Eaton vs. Ricky Morton it comes down to this: Eaton did swank as fuck tilt-a-whirl backbreakers, threw awesome punches, and innovates cool shit pretty much every match, Morton just rag dolled. So I'd pick Bobby every time.

 

In terms of what makes wrestling good, selling is more important by far, but to me it's like comparing brocolli and ice cream. You know brocolli is good for you, and has much better nutritional value, but don't you just love ice cream? For me, Scott Steiner hitting a sick-looking full-nelson suplex on a jobber is like ice cream, whereas appreciating a guy who can sell well is more like brocolli, unless it's big over-the-top selling a la Steamboat, Martel etc., then it gets more like ice cream.

 

I was actually thinking about just labeling this Bobby Eaton vs. Ricky Morton

[NintendoLogic]

I would say that offense is more important in my evaluation of wrestler, but selling is more important in my evaluation of a match.

[Matt D]

Strong selling makes poor offense not poor. Weak selling makes great offense meaningless.

[NintendoLogic]

Strong selling makes poor offense not poor. Weak selling makes great offense meaningless.

 

If a wrestler's offense is strong enough (Vader), no one's selling can ruin it. If a wrestler's offense is weak enough (Raja Lion), no one's selling can save it.

[GOTNW]

I voted for offence simply because in most cases wrestlers aren't good or bad at selling enough for it to make a difference.

[Matt D]

 

Strong selling makes poor offense not poor. Weak selling makes great offense meaningless.

 

If a wrestler's offense is strong enough (Vader), no one's selling can ruin it. If a wrestler's offense is weak enough (Raja Lion), no one's selling can save it.

 

Were I to grant that as true (and I'm not feeling inclined to), it would be highly exceptional.

[elliott]

I kinda can't help but chuckle at Nintendologics comment about strong offense being able to overcome terrible selling and then citing Vader as an example since the rhetoric that has surrounded the Hogan vs Vader series is that Hogan's no selling of the Powerbomb hurt Vader's mystique.

 

I voted for selling and it isn't even close when the question is framed this way. But at the same time, I can't help but think they way we look at selling is flawed. To me, selling is about more than "ow, my X, that hurts." Selling exists in offense and body language as well as simply "OW, my leg." We never talk about it in this way and I think its a potential missed opportunity for some interesting discussion.

 

When HBK starts off a match against a bigger opponent and he is ducking out of the way for lockups and coming up with jabs on the other side to show how he's quicker & smarter than his opponent is selling his strategy. When Kazunari Murakami is staring down Yuki Ishikawa with the most preposterous sneer imaginable, he is selling his assholishness. When Stan Hansen charges at guys throwing wild blows, it isn't just Stan Hansen on offense way-laying dudes. It is the man Stan Hansen selling the wrestler Stan Hansen and that is how the wrestler Stan Hansen goes after people.

 

So yeah, I know we talk about selling in terms of taking damage and reacting to that damage, but I think there is more to it than that. Offense is intertwined with selling in more ways than simply taking a move and acting like it hurt.

 

But just thinking about how we normally talk about selling. It is so far and away more important than offense.

[WingedEagle]

Hope this makes sense -- I think its easier to produce a good match with strong offense and poor/minimal selling than one with poor offense, but selling is an absolutely necessary condition for and typically more responsible for producing a great match.

[Matt D]

re: Elliott.

 

I'd say selling is about creating meaningful consequence to everything that happens in the ring. It's reaction to every new bit of information. And that's to more than just "offense."

[joeg]

Selling. Unless its offense in a reckless dangerous, hurt people Maeda, Ogawa, Lesnar, sort of way.

[shoe]

Strong selling makes poor offense not poor. Weak selling makes great offense meaningless.

Amen x 100.

[shoe]

I suspect that "selling" will win this in a landslide, and it probably should, but I voted for "offense".

 

When I look at comparisons like Bobby Eaton vs. Ricky Morton it comes down to this: Eaton did swank as fuck tilt-a-whirl backbreakers, threw awesome punches, and innovates cool shit pretty much every match, Morton just rag dolled. So I'd pick Bobby every time.

 

In terms of what makes wrestling good, selling is more important by far, but to me it's like comparing brocolli and ice cream. You know brocolli is good for you, and has much better nutritional value, but don't you just love ice cream? For me, Scott Steiner hitting a sick-looking full-nelson suplex on a jobber is like ice cream, whereas appreciating a guy who can sell well is more like brocolli, unless it's big over-the-top selling a la Steamboat, Martel etc., then it gets more like ice cream again.

Keep to DG.

[cad]

If Negro Casas yelling at the crowd in frustration is selling how unnerved he is, or Casas using holds in the first fall is selling how good a technical wrestler he is or how this match is a true test of skill, then of course selling is going to be more important, because it encompasses more things. That's such an expanded definition of the term that it makes it meaningless. Obviously the most important part of the wrestling match is going to be the part where you pretend it's a real wrestling match.

 

If it's offense vs acting out pain, then I think I have an easier time envisioning a good match with weak offense and good selling than vice versa. It goes both ways, though. I've seen matches in which the selling was good but I wasn't buying it because they hadn't done anything interesting to lead to the selling.

[overbooked]

Selling is the story and the offence helps tell the story. So, offence is just a means to an end, the end being someone being in so much pain that they can't kick out/choose to submit/walk away etc.

 

So, while they are both important I think selling is at the heart of what pro wrestling is. It brings an emotional connection that makes a match meaningful, as we can relate and empathise with pain and struggle more than we can with moves. It is what makes people care and believe.

[Matt D]

If Negro Casas yelling at the crowd in frustration is selling how unnerved he is, or Casas using holds in the first fall is selling how good a technical wrestler he is or how this match is a true test of skill, then of course selling is going to be more important, because it encompasses more things. That's such an expanded definition of the term that it makes it meaningless. Obviously the most important part of the wrestling match is going to be the part where you pretend it's a real wrestling match.

 

If it's offense vs acting out pain, then I think I have an easier time envisioning a good match with weak offense and good selling than vice versa. It goes both ways, though. I've seen matches in which the selling was good but I wasn't buying it because they hadn't done anything interesting to lead to the selling.

 

I don't think it's meaningless at all. I think narrowly cutting off a chunk of "reacting" and calling it "selling," thereby undervaluing the rest, as has been done for almost the entirety of the history of wrestling analysis is far more meaningless. I think that the fallacy here might be limiting offense in the same way. We should probably be shifting to an "action/reaction" duality instead of "offense/selling," as heel stalling that draws heat with the crowd or that frustrates a heel are just as valid as an action as a suplex.

[GOTNW]

I mean if you interpret this as selling in a broader way the debate is pretty meaningless since a lot more of what constitutes a wrestling match is selling than offence so naturally it's going to be more important.

[Matt D]

In the smaller, more traditional sense, selling is the idea of "registering the effects of physical damage." Why would you cordon that off as opposed to "registering the physical or emotional effect of anything that happens in the match." It's using your body to register consequence.

 

It feels like a really artificial fabrication to only look at how a wrestler responds to the effects of physical damage, even if that's the traditional metric.

 

I don't care if if invalidates the debate(though I mean, I do appreciate that concern. And I think it can be mitigated if we extend offense/selling to "action/reaction."). I'm arguing that we, as a critical community, don't define or examine the idea of selling correctly and frankly never have.

[Loss]

Can human joy exist without human suffering?

[NintendoLogic]

I kinda can't help but chuckle at Nintendologics comment about strong offense being able to overcome terrible selling and then citing Vader as an example since the rhetoric that has surrounded the Hogan vs Vader series is that Hogan's no selling of the Powerbomb hurt Vader's mystique.

 

Hogan/Vader drew well, so it evidently didn't hurt his mystique that much.

[Childs]

Can human joy exist without human suffering?

If you had locked the site forever after making that post, it would've been badass.

[concrete1992]

I chose fun, I mean offense.

 

I already feel uneasy about that vote but sticking to it. At the end of the day the matches that I can rip through on YouTube are the ones with enjoyable offense. Oddly, the best selling is sometimes when I don't notice it. While it is clearly the most important element it isn't the draw in many ways for my eyes.

[El-P]

 

Can human joy exist without human suffering?

If you had locked the site forever after making that post, it would've been badass.

 

The answer to your question is : yes, of course. Now you can lock the board.

[elliott]

Can human joy exist without human suffering?

 

Do we exist?