bumping or "selling" - which is more important?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Stopspot, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. In your humble (and some not humble) opinions, what is most important in a wrestling match, bumping or selling?

    To clarify so we have a definition:
    Bumping = The act of taking a strike or other attack from your opponent. To create physical reaction to your opponents offence. To be able to look like you were hit and like it hurts/is real. Prime example of a top notch bumper is Dolph Ziggler.
    Selling = The act of creating emotional investment and reaction to your opponents offence. If you get thrown out of the ring and into the announcing table back first you keep moving like your back is hurting for the rest of the match. In short: Bumping is physical reaction to a move, selling is emotional reactions.

    Which do you prefer in your wrestling? Do you prefer wrestlers who bump like champs but get up like nothing has happened or guys who sell a targeted limb for the rest of the match? And which part is more important for a wrestler to master?

  2. If they're planning to go with an injury, I think that selling would be much better. It helps by showing the injury throughout the whole match, and playing it off. Bumping is good for jobbers, or matches that they don't plan on selling injuries afterwards. As for which is important to master, that is one that is hard. In my preference I would say bumping, just because it makes the moves look better for the moment they are done.
  3. Not going to lie, I'm a fan of bumping. Selling is good for realism and all that, but bumps usually are key excitement points in matches. I'd rather see Rock do a backflip off a stunner than see him act injured.
  4. Bumping is much more important from a wrestling standpoint. You need the ability to bump if your goal in wrestling is to become a credible athlete. Selling is more important from an entertainment aspect, and also to make the fans believe that what you're doing is real. But for me wrestling > entertainment. Some people might say that selling is necessary, but I just think it's more of a side option to what you're doing. People like Davey Richards are over, even though he doesn't necessarily sell much.
  5. Bumping, definitely. Nothing like having that "holy shit, is he hurt?" moment.
  6. Selling by a long way, a bump is short term but great selling is magical.
  7. I'm a fan of both. Bumping is obviously essential if you want to be a professional wrestler since if you can't learn to take a backdrop or a suplex or a superplex or whathaveyou, you're in the wrong business. As for me, I love marking out for big spots and bumps that wow the crowd, but I also love selling when the psychology and story of the match is based on working a specific body part or injury. Like CM Punk working Randy Orton's right leg at Wrestlemania 27, Orton selling the arm bar injury at Hell In A Cell 2012, Del Rio going after Ziggler's concussion at Payback, when a wrestler walks into a match with taped ribs, when a person limps around after escaping being put in Shamrock or Angle's ankle lock for a long while, etc.
  8. Bumping, I suppose. But no-selling (ie Ryback, Cena, etc) is pretty lame to watch, so idk :hmm:
  9. If you become the all time greatest bumper, people will just confuse the two terms and call you a great seller. DZ proves that. So bumping wins.
  10. Bumping. Because still to this day I cannot believe Mick Foley willingly took some of the ones he did.