Stiff

[Matt D]

Stiff chops suck. Wrestling is fake.

[El-P]

The whole "stiffness sucks" is so 2008.

[Loss]

Stiffness doesn't have to be reckless. Recklessly stiff wrestling sucks, but guys laying in their shots most definitely does not.

[Matt D]

It's never necessary. And it's a shortcut. And a pretty imagination-less one.

[Death From Above]

Stiff chops in wrestling don't actually hurt. Not in any meaningful way.

 

Wresting IS fake.

 

I really don't know what to say to people that find stuff like that too violent for wrestling. Compared to every contact sport in the world it still looks like a pillow fight.

[goc]

I'm not saying I find it "too violent" it just seems really pointless to let someone chop your chest open until it bleeds or has huge welts when it's not a move fans buy as painful. It's mostly just seen as something that makes a loud noise.

[El-P]

Stiff chops in wrestling don't actually hurt. Not in any meaningful way. (...) Compared to every contact sport in the world it still looks like a pillow fight.

This.

Dropping an extremely fake looking legdrop for years has hurt Hogan's body way more than Sting taking a thousand of Flair's stiff chops.

 

Benoit wasn't about chopping people until they bleed either in WCW. The whole issue was Sid being an unprofessionnal bitch.

[Loss]

It's never necessary. And it's a shortcut. And a pretty imagination-less one.

Yes, wrestling is fake. If the goal of wrestling is to make its audience suspend its disbelief long enough to emotionally invest in something, one way of doing that is to work stiff, or at the very least, execute the moves well enough that people think there's some semblance of violence. Poor execution can take people out of a match, no matter how well it's laid out.

[Loss]

I'm not saying I find it "too violent" it just seems really pointless to let someone chop your chest open until it bleeds or has huge welts when it's not a move fans buy as painful. It's mostly just seen as something that makes a loud noise.

That's true now. It wasn't always true. I'm fairly sure everyone here has seen a chop that made them cringe at least once.

[Exposer]

It's never necessary. And it's a shortcut. And a pretty imagination-less one.

Come on Matt. You're a Bockwinkel fan. Have you forgotten that already?

 

I know we're specifically talking about chops here but if I'm not mistaken you're talking about stiffness as a whole here in this comment. I think it's blatantly obvious Bock wasn't just a worker who "made sense" and performed maneuvers and strikes "nicely." He was stiff as hell a lot of the time. Watch the Hennig feud or the Hansen match. He's kicking ass. Watch his tag matches with Saito. He's kicking ass and it's pretty stiff by most standards of what being "stiff" would be.

 

I think maybe you didn't explain yourself enough here in this comment because I know you usually harp on the "violence for the sake of violence" thing and you've said a few times that if the violence or stiffness "makes sense" within the match that it's acceptable. Am I wrong in this? I just want to make sure you're not contradicting yourself here.

[El-P]

I think this deserves its own thread.

[Guest Andrews]

The whole "stiffness sucks" is so 2008.

Ugh, it's so confusing to what is deemed cool these days. Are we still in the Mark Henry is great phase!? Said by the people who probably wouldn't be thrilled with a three disc comp of him...

[Frankensteiner]

I wouldn't say stiffness sucks, but it is completely unnecessary to having a great match. And I consider execution to be an important part of wrestling. The problem is when people call otherwise average/nondescript matches great simply on the basis of stiff/violent exchanges. It's a little like reading Meltzer-esque reviews. Only replace highspots with stiff punches and blood. I mean "this was a war!" is probably the most overused review comment at this point (I'm sure I've probably used it a few times myself).

[Childs]

I'm unclear on the context of this thread. Did it get pulled out of Bret vs. Flair? Anyway, arguing that stiff shots are unnecessary seems pointless to me, because nothing about wrestling is "necessary." Stiff shots are one kind of tool that can be used to amp up drama in a match. Flair's chops didn't come off as directly useful in winning a match, but his exchanges with Garvin, Pillman, Steamboat, etc. helped convey the intensity of competition in those matches. I don't care if it's unimaginative. It worked.

 

Many others have used stiff shots to great effect, from Hansen to Tenryu to Kawada to Finlay to Danielson.

 

Then there's a whole other level of wrestling violence -- say Ishikawa vs. Ikeda in BattlArts/Futen. Stiffness is intrinsic to their brand of performance art. And if you find it off-putting, that's fine. But I find it compelling and harrowing.

[El-P]

It comes from the WCW thread. I talked about how Sid was a giant unprofessional pussy for refusing to take Benoit's chops while even guys like David Flair took them. Made Benoit look awkward not using one of his usual and primary moves too.

[Matt D]

I'm unclear on the context of this thread. Did it get pulled out of Bret vs. Flair? Anyway, arguing that stiff shots are unnecessary seems pointless to me, because nothing about wrestling is "necessary." Stiff shots are one kind of tool that can be used to amp up drama in a match. Flair's chops didn't come off as directly useful in winning a match, but his exchanges with Garvin, Pillman, Steamboat, etc. helped convey the intensity of competition in those matches. I don't care if it's unimaginative. It worked.

Actually, I'll dial back and pretty much agree with this. It's a tool. Blood's a tool. Headdroppy offense is a tool. Legwork is a tool. Selling is a tool. Facial expressions are a tool. Jawing with the crowd is a tool. Wonky no-selling can be a tool. Stiffness is a tool.

 

It's just not a tool I tend to care for relative to the other tools available. That's subjective. Objectively, it's a tool and like anything else, what really matters how it's used. It's just sure as hell not an end in and of itself. It's a means. Like any of the other tools listed. I think it's a terribly uninteresting tool.

[jdw]

Stiff is a bit like Steve Garvey.

 

Garvey was never as good as he was pushed to be by the majority of the media, nor the millions and millions of fans around the country that voted him onto the all star team time after time. The development of better understanding of statistics found the holes in his game.

 

In turn, stats heads (of which I certain was one going all the way back to the early 80s) took such zeal in using him as one of the poster boys for overrated obsessions on certain stats that we... ended up going to the other extreme. Garvey wasn't a GREAT~! player. However, he was a good player, at his best a very good player. He also was durable and reasonably consistent. For the hole in his game (OBP/BB) that caused him to be overrated, there was a counter hole (brutal home park) that actually made his positive even better than some folks thought. His defense, which was praised that the time (Gold Gloves) then got slogged by early stathead analysis actually came out to be praiseworthy when even better statistical analysis game out. Not an all-time great defensive 1B (such as Keith Hernandez or Pujols), but a very good defender over the... so value added.

 

So over time, Garvey has fallen into the overrated / underrate categories.

 

Stiffness is overrated. It's far from the most important thing in a match. But it has a certain flash, it catches the eye, and once obsessed about it's hard to let go of thinking it's GREAT~! and those who aren't stiff are pussies. The performers themselves, like Garvey, can themselves get obsessed with the flash of stiffness and people's reaction to it, so focus on it that the lose sight of things that would / could / have made them better all around workers / performers.

 

On the other hand, like Garvey...

 

We can get so vehement is saying stiffness is overrated that we lose sight on the bigger picture: some of it can be well done, and be valuable to performance. Very valuable at times.

 

As far as what started this...

 

The Chop at this point, and for probably over 15 years, is a bit like 1984 Steve Garvey. It's no longer very good... it isn't even good... frankly, it sucks from being so overplayed and eventually getting the "WOOOOOOOO~!" chant when EVERYONE does it. It needs to retire, but list 1984 Steve Garvey it has people bamboozled into thinking it's still good, even if not still at his peak. No... it sucks.

 

Far too much stiffness today falls into that category of sucking. I honestly can't think of any stiffness at Mania that I thought was good.

 

Note: that isn't me waxing "I wish it was like the good old days in 1993 when they knew how to do stiffness right!" 90s AJPW Stiffness doesn't do a whole lot for me anymore when I rewatch it.

[Exposer]

I'm unclear on the context of this thread. Did it get pulled out of Bret vs. Flair? Anyway, arguing that stiff shots are unnecessary seems pointless to me, because nothing about wrestling is "necessary." Stiff shots are one kind of tool that can be used to amp up drama in a match. Flair's chops didn't come off as directly useful in winning a match, but his exchanges with Garvin, Pillman, Steamboat, etc. helped convey the intensity of competition in those matches. I don't care if it's unimaginative. It worked.

Actually, I'll dial back and pretty much agree with this. It's a tool. Blood's a tool. Headdroppy offense is a tool. Legwork is a tool. Selling is a tool. Facial expressions are a tool. Jawing with the crowd is a tool. Wonky no-selling can be a tool. Stiffness is a tool.

 

It's just not a tool I tend to care for relative to the other tools available. That's subjective. Objectively, it's a tool and like anything else, what really matters how it's used. It's just sure as hell not an end in and of itself. It's a means. Like any of the other tools listed. I think it's a terribly uninteresting tool.

 

This clears up my bit from earlier. I thought that's what you've always been saying.

[Matt D]

As for Bock, there's a difference between stiff and intense. That said, I don't think neither Wahoo vs Bock or Bock vs Hansen are as good as everyone else say. I'll probably have Bock vs Wahoo lower than anyone, though it's still barely cracking my top 50, I think.

[NintendoLogic]

Stiffness isn't something I seek out, but it's not something I have a problem with as long as guys aren't dumbasses about it. Stiff shots to safe areas like the chest and back are fine. Kicking someone in the head full-force is just stupid.

[Slasher]

Can't give credit to stiffness, personally. It is like saying it is okay to judge Harlem Globetrotters as a legitimate team. There are advantages existing that makes a certain event more interesting but it isn't fair to judge a match where both guys got to be stiff with each other whereas other wrestlers couldn't.

[Loss]

That's like saying it's not fair for a cage match to get MOTY votes because other matches happened that year that didn't have a cage. Every good match has advantages other matches don't. It's usually why they are good.

[Matt D]

It is however, one reason I tend to care about things other than "great matches."

[Loss]

Fair enough. I think we've hashed that out before.

 

Of course, one of those advantages can also be the participants.

[goc]

As for Bock, there's a difference between stiff and intense. That said, I don't think neither Wahoo vs Bock or Bock vs Hansen are as good as everyone else say. I'll probably have Bock vs Wahoo lower than anyone, though it's still barely cracking my top 50, I think.

Doubtful. Bock vs Wahoo is my biggest "I don't get it?" match of the AWA set where most everyone else praises it and I felt it was just ok really.