Watching some old WCW title matches and I thought it'd be a great thing for WWE to introduce. It would largely be irrelevant because people would get pinned before the time limit expired. But if there limit was (for example) 30 minutes, it'd protect both wrestlers, build towards rematches and save shows ending like they did during that Bryan/Orton series.
Should WWE Introduce Time Limits For Title Matches?
- Thread starter Y 2 Jake
- Start date
OYDK
King Of The Ring
WWE did use to put time limits on matches before and at the beginning of the AE. Like you said it was highly irrelevant because I can barely remember a match going over given time limit. IMO I would rather see a good match between two guys end because time expired rather than a BS interference like happens at least 3 times a week. But I also feel WWE would completely go over the top and have like every second match end in time limit... I'm good without it tbh.
Plus matches might feel rushed nowadays with the 3 hour RAW and all... Maybe like a half hour time limit would be alright because, at least at that point, you know that a match will rarely end in a draw.
Plus matches might feel rushed nowadays with the 3 hour RAW and all... Maybe like a half hour time limit would be alright because, at least at that point, you know that a match will rarely end in a draw.
ProWrestlingFan
Championship Contender
Yes.
There are two advantages of the time limits -
- The ability to settle a match,without one guy defeating the other. Neither guy comes out looking weak.
-Increases crowd excitement as the time limit is going to expire.
There are two advantages of the time limits -
- The ability to settle a match,without one guy defeating the other. Neither guy comes out looking weak.
-Increases crowd excitement as the time limit is going to expire.
The Butcher
ð¶
There's no good reason not to have them.
Hard Hit Prince
Not really working as a
That was one thing that I really enjoyed about FCW. The reason why Ambrose and Rollins had such a great feud in developmental was because of time limits. The matches were fantastic and as they progressed, the matches felt genuinely better - they had a 15 minute, a 30 and a 45 time limit match if I'm not mistaken. That makes me think FCW was truly underrated.
I always liked that kind of old school stuff. I wouldn't also be against interviews in the locker-room. Starrcade I debuted that and it felt genuinely better because of that. I was hyped for all the main event matches thanks to that. Great thread Jake, could have done okay in the non-spam section as well.
I always liked that kind of old school stuff. I wouldn't also be against interviews in the locker-room. Starrcade I debuted that and it felt genuinely better because of that. I was hyped for all the main event matches thanks to that. Great thread Jake, could have done okay in the non-spam section as well.
The idea of no time limit actually being a stipulation sounds great to me.
Sort of like a reverse Iron Man match...
I am pro time limits for title matches (love the Mid-South '30 minutes or remaining TV time' limits) to enhance creative possibilities, and for that reason I am also pro handshake at the beginning. For someone who has just switched on for the first time, it can help sell the relationship between the two men and the spirit in which the contest is to be fought. I know some people see it as a gimmicky ROH hangover but I think there's something to it.
There's a reason the time limit has died out in the modern era- it kills the match flat.
Unless you're prepared to make the clock a major part of your storytelling- meaning that fans in the audience are aware of it and hyped up when it gets low, meaning that the time limit is used often enough so that fans are aware of it as some actual thing instead of some abstract concept, meaning that you're building up to your finish for the time limit instead of stopping dead in a rest hold- it just doesn't work enough to be worth the rule, like WCW's old 'over the top rope' disqualification.
In storytelling there's something called "Checkov's Gun". It's a writing concept which says that if you display a gun in the first scene hanging on the wall, in the second scene someone has to fire that gun- else, don't bother with the gun at all. The time limit follows the same principle; yeah, it sounds cool in theory. But how many times can you write a good time limit ending? Americans (WWE's largest audience) fucking hate ties. How many times do you display that time limit on the wall versus how many times can you fire it?
It had its time in professional wrestling history when the focus was more on the competition and the fans were more patient. Today's professional wrestling is focused on characters and the fans have to be tricked into watching the same match for three months at a clip. It's just not the place anymore for time limits.
Unless you're prepared to make the clock a major part of your storytelling- meaning that fans in the audience are aware of it and hyped up when it gets low, meaning that the time limit is used often enough so that fans are aware of it as some actual thing instead of some abstract concept, meaning that you're building up to your finish for the time limit instead of stopping dead in a rest hold- it just doesn't work enough to be worth the rule, like WCW's old 'over the top rope' disqualification.
In storytelling there's something called "Checkov's Gun". It's a writing concept which says that if you display a gun in the first scene hanging on the wall, in the second scene someone has to fire that gun- else, don't bother with the gun at all. The time limit follows the same principle; yeah, it sounds cool in theory. But how many times can you write a good time limit ending? Americans (WWE's largest audience) fucking hate ties. How many times do you display that time limit on the wall versus how many times can you fire it?
It had its time in professional wrestling history when the focus was more on the competition and the fans were more patient. Today's professional wrestling is focused on characters and the fans have to be tricked into watching the same match for three months at a clip. It's just not the place anymore for time limits.
That's a slight misreading of Chekhov's gun, to be honest, it's just a cautionary tale on superfluous narrative elements in theatre. Extra mise-en-scene can actually deepen an understanding of a character, so I don't even agree with the 'rule'.
Time limits are a firm fixture in Japanese wrestling but I can only recall one instance of a draw last year, and it was completely appropriate: Tanahashi v Okada in the G1 Climax event. Both guys were 2-2 in their personal rivalry and the draw helped set up both the even match between the two guys, and made their title match later that year come with a finality stipulation (if Tanahashi failed to win, he could not challenge Okada for the title again). The clock wasn't ever-present, you just hear the timekeeper announce that there is little time left, have the referee do his job and communicate the finish to the workers, it's easy and simple.
If you do it occasionally, yeah, it telegraphs the ending. If you do it all the time, it's just an available narrative element.
Time limits are a firm fixture in Japanese wrestling but I can only recall one instance of a draw last year, and it was completely appropriate: Tanahashi v Okada in the G1 Climax event. Both guys were 2-2 in their personal rivalry and the draw helped set up both the even match between the two guys, and made their title match later that year come with a finality stipulation (if Tanahashi failed to win, he could not challenge Okada for the title again). The clock wasn't ever-present, you just hear the timekeeper announce that there is little time left, have the referee do his job and communicate the finish to the workers, it's easy and simple.
If you do it occasionally, yeah, it telegraphs the ending. If you do it all the time, it's just an available narrative element.
Isn't that what a time limit is if you aren't going to use it? The difference between professional wrestling and a play is that the play is at some point over, whereas professional wrestling has to keep reaching for the gun every few months.
As I painstakingly elucidated, if you use it occasionally then yes it is because it gives you a massive clue to how it will end. If it is an element always in play, then no it is not because you have a long established record of matches ending within limits to draw on. They have time-limits in real combat sports but it doesn't foreclose an ending within the timespan indicated.
therockiswwf
The voice of Michael Cole's headset
No
lil steroid meat
Unregistered User
This. On one hand, it can make it seem like a more legitimate contest.
However, on the other, I can see this concept getting Russo'd out really quick. And within 6 months of it's introduction, I can see the "You never beat me" thing to advance a feud being overused as fuck.
That being said, it'd be a cool thing to introduce for PPV World Title Matches only.
