What exactly constitutes a "clean" win?

[TheICChampion]

It seems like everywhere I read on this website, a lot of people are complaining their favourite superstars don't get enough "clean wins". So, what exactly is a clean victory to you? To me, it means that the superstar or diva won the match without using any dirty tactics such as low blows and/or grabbing the tights. Is the only way to win clean hitting your finisher and getting the 1-2-3? What about a distraction from the outside? Not straight-up interference, but someone just causing one of the wrestlers to lose focus long enough to get pinned? Does working on a body part in order to get a submission classify as a clean win or dirty? I'd be interested in finding out what you guys consider clean or dirty wins.

 

[Nate DaMac]

It's all about the degree to which the loser is protected.

As far as clean wins go, look at Lesnar's wins over Taker and Cena; both were 100% unprotected in defeat. Those were clean wins for Lesnar.

On the flip side, look at the HIAC match between Ambrose and Rollins. Though technically no rules were broken, Wyatts interference protects Ambrose in defeat. That's a dirty win.

Then there are some that are a little more cloudy. Take Cena/DB from Summerslam a couple of years ago. Some people don't consider that a clean win because Cena was protected in defeat because he came in with an elbow injury. I, however, consider it a clean win because the elbow wasn't the focal point of the match. In fact, when Cena went out to the doctor and the message was relayed to the announce team that the elbow was just fine, to me that was Cena putting that excuse to bed.

Some people consider the win Wyatt got over Ambrose at TLC clean because no rules were broken but the fact that the TV (stupidly) exploded in Ambrose's face while he was firmly in control of the match protected him in defeat. I don't consider that clean.

Everyone has different ideas over what constitutes a clean win but what really matters is what story the booker wants to tell with the finish. If they're clearly trying to protect the loser in defeat, it isn't a clean win in my eyes.

 

[Ultimate Randy Savage Fan]

It seems a roll up or small package win after a 10-15 minute one on one even offence/defense contest is not seen as a clean win these days because when ever it happens a re-match a week or two later is imminent

 

[Mustang Sally]

I once read that in pro boxing, the concept of a "one-punch knockout" is usually invalid since many punches delivered before the decisive blow added to the punishment that brought about the ultimate conclusion. The only way a one-punch KO could occur is if it were the first punch landed by one of the fighters that completely disabled the guy who got hit.

Similarly, a "clean" win in wrestling occurs if there's a pin or submission, but if the finishing maneuver was immediately preceded by a kick to the family jewels (that the stupid ref didn't see, of course) the pin or submission shouldn't be regarded as clean, although it counts as a win just the same.

On the other hand, a win can be considered clean even if a bunch of dirty tactics were used to get to the point in which the clean win occurred.

Timing is everything.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In pro wrestling, a clean win happens when a wrestler wins the match without violating the rules of the match or essentially wins the match through his/her own merits. As for matches that don't end in a clean win, it sometimes depends on what type of interference, how blatant it is and how it affects the overall impact of the match. For instance, using a foreign object in a match that's been pretty even and has been entertaining can be seen as acceptable by most fans, as is pulling the tights or using the ropes for additional leverage. I think that most of the complaints in regards to matches without a clean win come about due to outside interference.

In matches in which there are no disqualification, weapons and various other underhanded tactics are "legal" within the boundaries of that particular match. Outside interference is also legal but, again, that seems to be where most criticisms come from, especially if the match is a good one and both guys are working their asses off. I understand that because I get a little steamed myself sometimes if I'm watching a really compelling match and there are people who interfere. Minor interference such as reaching under the rope to trip a guy or hopping up onto the apron occasionally is pretty well tolerated. However, it's when you have someone actually physically getting into the match that can sometimes detract from it, especially if it's something that's been happening a lot in matches of some particular wrestlers. For instance, Cena vs. Rollins on Raw in a lumberjack match was kinda fun, but all the various interference detracted from the match for me because it's something we've seen too much of in Rollins' matches. We know he's capable and he's got the goods, we don't mind him using underhanded tactics, but interference should definitely be used in moderation and I think it's something that's used much too often in his matches.