Acceptable Sloppiness

[BillThompson]

The match between Alicia Fox and Alexa Bliss, and a conversation about it on the LAW podcast What's NXT? got me thinking about sloppiness in matches. For those who don't know, Bliss attempted a Standing Moonsault, but she came up short and ended up dropping her knee right into Fox's midsection. It's sloppy on Bliss' part, no doubt, but it's the sort of sloppiness that I think is perfectly fine.

 

A big part of the mystique of wrestling is that it's two people going at it in a rough sport, and a botch that still connects in a meaningful way reinforces that rough mystique. Blown spots that look horrendous, like the ref bump in TNA a week or so ago, aren't what I'm talking about. Blown spots that still connect in some way, that still look like they hurt are perfectly acceptable and add to the entire package of a wrestling match. If nothing else, it helps to strip away some of the heavily manufactured feel that can creep into a match from time to time when every move is hit just a little too perfectly.

 

Either way, thoughts on this topic? Are there occasional blown spots and bits of sloppiness that are acceptable, or do you need every move to be hit crisp and clean?

[DR Ackermann]

I was just watching the Steiners vs Gordy/Williams match from CoC XIX in 92 and thinking about this. The match is a little sloppy at times and that rough around the edges quality makes it seem much more intense and naturalistic like there's a real struggle. Some of the technical wrestling ends in a stalemate because there isn't a ton of cooperation and Gordy and Scott aren't able to execute a basic mat-wrestling spot and Gordy crushes Scott's skull into the mat. Its all really brutal and makes the match what it is.

[SomethingSavage]

Just as far as some RECENT stuff goes, yeah. Most of Big E's matches spring to mind immediately. His short series with Barrett has had its moments like that. The bout with Swagger from the Chamber PPV, too. But they felt like physical clashes, so it's something I find absolutely acceptable. In REAL displays of athleticism, you're going to see that. I prefer those matches of authentic explosiveness & intensity versus something that appears overly choreographed and rehearsed. But that's me.

 

The Vader/Mark Henry match from Fully Loaded '98 is a guilty pleasure of mine, going back a ways - for just that very same reason.

 

Bradshaw/Vader from that Fall also.

 

The Steiners had a lot of moments like that. Take away their "sloppiness" and you lose a LOT of their appeal, quite frankly. If you iron out ALL the wrinkles, well then you're just left with something flat every time. It's the mishaps that make the realism a very genuine factor in those situations.

 

The Faces of Fear are another team that leap out when I think about it. Heck, pretty much Meng versus ANYONE back in the day.

[ohtani's jacket]

Depends on the botch, and probably my mood and how I'm feeling about the match. It's obviously worse if it's at a major point in the match and the workers continue selling as though they hit it. I don't like it when they reattempt the spot either. By and large, I think a good commentator can cover for any mistakes. Kent Walton would always sell it as though the wrestler hadn't executed the move properly, but he'd do that if he didn't think they'd executed any hold well enough. That made botches seem relatively natural in the course of a wrestling match, however it's probably easier to put over in a style that's predominantly about going for holds.

[(BP)]

When I saw the thread the first thing that came to mind was Cena/Punk MITB 2011. It has so much going for it nobody remembers the sloppier spots.

[artDDP]

I prefer some sloppiness since I think it's too fake when everything looks as crisp and choreographed as Cirque du Soleil. Things like Punk vs. Elijah Burke, however, are just too much for me.

[anarchistxx]

Sloppy matches can be great, especially chaotic brawls. Better than some Christopher Daniels match where everything looks perfectly executed and choreographed and thus fake and rehearsed, like ballet without the emotion or investment.

[SomethingSavage]

Agreed on the point about taking acceptable sloppiness over supremely rehearsed, pre-planned & prepackaged spotfests that come across as TOO clean, too crisp, and too manufactured. Any day. Everyday. All day long.

 

Other hand? I also prefer the sloppiness of a brawl or an explosive, intense Big E/Ahmed Johnson (yes) type over the loose flips and dives of BAD lucha or indie wrestling. I don't want to see a chain of events where everything is light as a freaking feather and two guys barely touch or make physical contact. It comes across like a dance sequence.

[JerryvonKramer]

Tenryu is the guy that springs to mind here for me.

[Chess Knight]

Sometimes sloppy can look more realistically violent, and can make a spot better than it otherwise would have been. Works for bumps, too. I'm thinking of Yokozuna v. Virgil from Survivor Series 92, where Virgils bumps looked like they were from somebody who maybe hadn't been actually learned how to take a bump, but honestly that made it more reckless and awesome, It can feel much more organic.

[Matt Farmer]

For me it's good to have some slopiness, one of the things I enjoyed about older Japanese matches was the spontaneous feel to it. They didn't discuss spots, and were not always one the same page. For pro wrestling that is great, you want that feel to it. I believe if your good you could work in slopiness and have it add to your match.

 

A few things like sloppy punches and kicks, or sloppy basics bug me more. Even if it is something simple like RVD's inability to take a turnbuckle, or throw a punch. Or most diva matches where very few things look crisp.

 

The boys used to say that Bob Orton Jr needed to mess up in his match not to expose the business because he was so smooth in the ring.

[W2BTD]

Part of Sabu's charm was that you never knew when he was going to blow a spot. And to his credit, when he did, he would sell the fuck out of it, slowly get up, set his props back up, and do his stunt again.

 

This is why I love Sabu.

 

I don't mind sloppiness/blown spots at all, provided the participants do not ignore the fact that they blew it. Nothing takes me out of a match faster than a blown spot that gets sold anyway, or scrambling to cover for it.

 

This past weekend on the Dragon Gate iPPV from Korakuen, Flamita slipped a little on a springboard move, and barely touched Shingo. Shingo, thinking on his feet, didn't just ignore the strike, but he intentionally chest puffed as if to say "get that weak shit out of here", picked up Flamita, and tossed him with a throw. To me, that botch and the reaction to it added to the match.

[tholzerman]

Sloppiness is fine as long as the wrestlers work it into the match. What I hate are wrestlers scrambling to get into position to take a move, selling something that doesn't hit, or executing on a move so poorly that it looks like they're working impaired. Besides, the goal is to have the match look as realistic as possible, so some bumps in the road are to be expected. Just as long as the competitors sell appropriate/think on their feet/etc.

[Wolfman]

Just about every Piper match (esp. when he was a face) is sloppy.

[Sidebottom]

There are many wild Nasty Boys matches on tape from the late 80's / 90's which are as sloppy as hell, yet great fun to watch regardless. Wrestling doesn't need to be uniform, IMO.

[goodhelmet]

I can't stand watching Sabu.

 

I love Tenryu.

[Ryan Faulconer]

Matches with intricate sequences that look too hokey for some aren't supposed to look like a real fight or wild brawl. The fight sequences in movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon look awesome because they look so effortless. There are brawls in lucha or the Japanese or American indies. The good ones definitely look different stylistically than they would if they were having a big six man tag.

 

I'm all for sloppy brawling. Every punch in a street fight should not connect. A lot of WWE Attitude brawls looked goofy because everything either landed or was blocked only to be countered and then rinse and repeat. Vince McMahon would probably tell us that they weren't going for realism either and compare it to action scenes in movies. That's an instance where I think most of his wrestlers would disagree if they weren't having their cheques written from WWE. My friends who don't watch wrestling thought ECW was too violent because it actually looked chaotic compared to the carefully planned or somewhat restricted way that they execute their moves (no choking/not much actual cheating/etc).

 

Hasn't there always been a disconnect between what we (as fans) and they (as wrestlers) perceive to be stiff? The matches with light looking strikes are sometimes the stiffest and most violent in the ring. IIRC Jericho's book or Eddie Guerrero's book mentions it at least once.

[rainmakerrtv]

There was a match on a Schneider Comp, Gypsy Joe vs. Mighty Inoue (4/27/77) . A complete lack of crispness to it and I loved it, it enhanced the grubby intensity of the brawling.

[dawho5]

RF I can tell you from sparring that yes, sometimes when you throw something really light and effortlessly, it comes out really hard. It's one of those things that takes your expectations of how fighting works and makes you question the reality of it a bit. The more "stiff" something is in a muscular sense, the less it hurts if somebody knows how to throw it. Also, the higher pitched sounds of impact mean less penetration. So all those big, high pitched cracks are indications of surface hits. A dull thud hurts way, way, way more.