Time Limit Draws

[The Bearded One]

I was watching SummerSlam 1988 the other day and the very first match was The British Bulldogs vs The Fabulous Rougeau Brothers. The two teams wrestled a very good match, but before either team could get the win, the time limit expired. It got me thinking, why doesn't this happen in the WWE anymore?

Other companies, such as TNA and ROH, use time limit draws on a semi-regular occassion, and I think they use it effectively. Time limit draws can be a tool to make both wrestlers look strong without either of them losing. Time limit draws could also be used other than cheap DQ endings.

How would you feel if the WWE started implementing time limits on their matches again? How would you feel if some matches, maybe 3 to 4 a year, goto a time limit draw? Would you like dislike matches that end in a draw because the lack of a definitive winner? Insert any other questions you would like to answer as well.

 

[Thephenominal1]

I never real thought about this until just now. I think time limit draws could be a great way to get over the hill on some big fueds the WWE,TNA, and ROH guys do every year. Say it's been 2-3 maybe even 4 months of the same feud. The final match comes. Move after move nobody can get a pinfall. All of a sudden the bell rings and the announcer says this match is ruled a draw for time limit. the crowd would go nuts. This way they could have the final match played out in an iron man match, hell in a cell, last man standing or even a casket match or buried alive. What do the rest of you think about that?

 

[klunderbunker]

The problem with the theory is two fold.

1. There isn't enough time. By having a match go twenty minutes or so, you take up a lot of the time on the show. The problem with this is that you have so many people on the shows that there just isn't enough time to put a match at 20 minutes with no definitive ending to it. Also they're almost a guaranteed way to tick off an audience.

2. They make the ending predictable. WWE doesn't announce time limits so by adding one in you're more or less saying there's going to be a time limit draw out of it. The point of having a time limit is to make it exciting near the end as the falls have to come in at a certain time. If there's no heat on any of the falls because no one believes they're going to come since a draw is imminent, why should the fans care about the fall attempts?

 

[Auxlz]

Time limits are good to make two people look good in a match without having to make one lose, the problem with them is since ever match does not have a time limit, whenever they announce that one will be having one you pretty much know its going to end in a time limit.

Just like Klunderbunker said, it makes pretty much everything else in the match not really matter because u know w/e happens there is like a 90% chance no one will get a pin and it will just go to the time.

 

[darthbonkeys]

it depends how you use the time limit draw it is a good way to keep a fued going or you have some one going at the championship and you want to put him over but not give him a title you make it a time limit draw. Also I like one match last year kurt angle vs aj styles in a ten minute draw but they both went at it you just forgot about the time limit and where wondering who was going to win. I reckon also if you dont say how much time is left (like tna does which does ruin it) it makes it better so then you don't whether it is going to be a draw or someone going to win. It just really depends on how you use whether it would work or not

 

[LongLiveTheStreak]

Back in the day, I didnt like the time limit draws. The one that disappointed me the most was at Fully Loaded 1998. Triple H and The Rock, in a Best 2 out of 3 match for the IC title, wrestled to a time limit draw tied a one fall each. This ruined a great match because a 2-out-of-3 falls match is meant to bring out a definitave winner.

But today if WWE wants a match to end without a definite winner a time limit draw would be more believeable. Its way more believeable than having all these DQs and count outs(Orton has had 2 matches with Cena end in DQ, and 2 with Sheamus end in DQ) So it would be a nice break from all of the ridiculous DQs and count-outs.

But then again I agree with "klunderbunker" too, there is not enough time to have two superstars wrestle to a time limit draw in today's WWE programming. Maybe on a PPV, but not Raw or SD.

 

[Judah's Lion]

if EVERY match was announced to have a time limit during the opening announcements...

"this match, scheduled for one fall, with a time limit of 30 minutes, is for the Intercontinental Championship... weighing in at x pounds, from x city, state, here is the challenger..."

if every match was announced like that or something similar, and superstars got pins and submissions and DQ wins, etc, then when the time limit draw did happen, it wouldn't be so obvious.

i most certainly have watched old DVD's of wrestling back in the 80's and 90's and seen these kinds of announcements at the start of every match on a pay per view. and zero matches ended in a time limit draw on these DVD's. in fact, more often than not, it got me thinking "why even announce it? we all know it's gonna end before the time limit expires!"

so then, when it actually did happen, as noted earlier, between The Rock and Triple H, i was freaking blown out of the water. and it happened just as Rock was getting pinned after the Pedigree. if the time limit would've lasted just another 2 seconds, Triple H would have won the title.

but what did this do? did it hack off all the fans live and watching around the world? maybe. but i also remember that this built up the intensity of the feud, leading to the now infamous DX parody of the Nation. and it also led to the blow off match between these two guys at Summer Slam in a ladder match.

so yeah, time limit draws have their place. just so long as EVERY match is announced to have a time limit for a long time and without fail. then when matches don't go the full length of the time because they've already been decided via pinfall or submission, it'll make that much more of a surprise when it does happen.

like most posters have already said, it's a way to make both guys look strong without losing and to lengthen a feud. plus it's a way to get past the count out and DQ endings, which is getting a bit ridiculous these days.

and for those that say there's not enough time... would you rather see an amazing 20 minute match on Raw between Edge and Orton that either has a definite winner or goes to a draw and lengthens the feud, or would you rather see Hornswaggle beat Chavo in some stupid gimmick match put on by a random "celebrity" that has no business being in a wrestling ring? or maybe you'd like to see a squash match between Yoshi and Sheamus? or Santino dancing with Kozlov?

methinks that if we saw a better quality of wrestling match that was allowed more time to develop, we'd have a whole lot less to complain about in the long run.

 

[Dragonfirez]

I have always thought time limits made wrestling shows look more real, for example: WWE shows are on for 2 hours (1 for NXT and Superstars) but it always seems so fake when every match fits perfectly in that 1 - 2 hour(s) so if WWE added a time limit to every match, I believe it would seem a little more real. Sorry if you don't understand, I can hardly understand it myself

 

[Greydon]

Well...The WWE does it. Isn't a Beat the clock challenge almost like a time Limit? IMO yes it is. You have one man who sets the time, and everyone else has to beat it.

Was anyone else hoping that at Summerslam the Main Event reached it's time Limit? I thought being able to see "rookies" Draw the veterans/wash-up/Indy Darling team, would be priceless. Why? Because it shows that they could hold their own with the Main eventers (minus Hart and Danielson).

 

[Shadowmancer]

When I started watching wrestling about 5 years ago, seems like a long time ago know, there were time limits announced but the matches never got to that stage. I do however think that if you start announcing the time limits but don't get that long in the most part just making the time limit draws being a rare occurrence that can be used to build a wrestler up from out of the blue, e.g. putting a wrestler that is lower on the card lets use Evan Bourne, he lasts out, lets use the arbitrary time of 15 minutes against Chris Jericho, instantly there is a degree of credibility to Bourne that is not there before, it doesn't hurt Jericho's standing too much or at all because he didn't lose and could claim that he was on the verge of winning, could also lead to storylines down the road.

But basically what I am saying is that announcing a time limit and having time limit draws are two different things. And that both can be used to great effect in terms of helping wrestlers get heat. And RAW started out with having a shitload of Time limit draws when it started so there is a precedent that is already set, I think that the limit was like 10 minutes or something.

 

[Boondocks]

If they were to first announce the time limits for a few weeks/months, then actually make them play into matches once everybody is used to there being a limit announced, maybe. I only kind of like the time limits. I like it because it leaves another outcome for a match, when used correctly, thus making the match slightly less predictable. But I also dislike it, because honestly, take your pick: Brian Danielson and (insert good mat working WWE star here), in one of the best WRESTLING matches of the year, stopping abruptly after 20 minutes. OR: Brian Danielson and (Insert good mat working WWE star here), going 27 minutes and ending with a submission to prove who is actually a better wrestler. I'd much rather see the matches go to their full length, until a fall, and see hopefully a somewhat exciting finish, than risk a great match be cut off. WWE has enough good working stars, that time limits would ruin showcasing their talents.

 

[Jeff]

I think it is a great thing to do on Raw or Smackdown to build for the PPV, however I don't think any PPV matches should end in a time limit draw, unless it was a lower match on the card.

 

[The Bearded One]

The problem with the theory is two fold.

1. There isn't enough time. By having a match go twenty minutes or so, you take up a lot of the time on the show. The problem with this is that you have so many people on the shows that there just isn't enough time to put a match at 20 minutes with no definitive ending to it. Also they're almost a guaranteed way to tick off an audience.

There could be time on a PPV for a 20 minute time limit draw. Wrestlers wrestle for 20 minutes, or close to it, all the time on PPV so it would work. They could also say it was 20 minutes when it was really like 17 minutes and I don't think anyone would notice immediately. And for RAW and Smackdown, make it 10 or 15 minute time limits for undercad matches.

The problem is though that people might get ticked off. But I don't remember anyone complaining about Styles vs Angle or Joe vs Hardy from TNA going to a draw. It all matters how its done.

2. They make the ending predictable. WWE doesn't announce time limits so by adding one in you're more or less saying there's going to be a time limit draw out of it. The point of having a time limit is to make it exciting near the end as the falls have to come in at a certain time. If there's no heat on any of the falls because no one believes they're going to come since a draw is imminent, why should the fans care about the fall attempts?

Announce time limits before every match. Most matches are going to won by a wrestler, but every once in a while it will go to a draw. If they announce enough matches with a time limit that end before the time limit expires, then it becomes almost unpredictable.

 

[MammaJamma22]

I am actually a fan of time limit draws and have been dying for these to come back. If WWE were to actually ANNOUNCE the time limit at the intro of each match, then it wouldn't be obvious when one a draw actually happens.

It helps put both wrestlers over and gets the crowd behind it. Think about it, they get so caught up in this one match and then suddenly the time limit expires -- they're rabid, they want more. Helps keep people interested because they want to see the score finally settled.

In regards to the TV time issue -- that's a crap excuse. Wrestling programs are 2 hours long and WWE has hours upon hours of programming each week. I think we could skip out on a lot of the comedy segments, pointless backstage interviews, constant "moments ago" replays, etc and give stars more ring time. A 20 minute match could totally work.

I notice some people brought up the best 2 out of 3 with Triple H and The Rock -- well that has NOTHING to do with the time limit draw and everything to do with poor booking. If it was a one fall match that lasted for an hour and had a time limit draw, then it would be a good finish. But to take a gimmick match designed to determine a clear cut winner and have it end in a time limit draw at one fall apiece -- stupid. That example has nothing to do with the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the time limit draw and more to do with some lazy writing.

I really think the usage of draws really helps bring an element of realism to the table -- which in turn, can make it more interesting. Besides, as someone pointed it, it would really cut down on some of the crappy, shenanigan filled endings we've grown accustomed to.

 

[Dhays9]

I have to say it just depends on one company uses the time limit draw. The company I feel does it the best is ROH. If no one has seen this match from 2 weeks ago here it is.

Spoiler

[youtube]nYeW38sycOI[/youtube][youtube]HepOJlJWPcQ[/youtube]

The reason that it works in ROH is the fact that all matches in ROH have a time limit so that you never know when its coming. Also, the time limit draws fits in the storyline. However, it hasn't been a staple in WWE so if they just start announcing time limit draws then all the sudden we know what will happen (kinda like what TNA is doing with Kurt). Also, it does not fit in with the current way WWE does stuff. Which is more promos than wrestling (atleast on RAW). Therefore if I see a match last more than about 9 10 minutes on WWE programming I know that either:

A.Time limit draw.
or
B.Interference from an outside source.

 

[The Brain]

The time limit draw is a good idea, but it has its flaws. I used to dislike the time limit draw as a kid but came to appreciate it over time. The fans may feel cheated with the draw, but it sure beats the cheap DQ. I don’t think anything pisses the fans off more then a ref calling for a DQ after getting shoved by a wrestler. I think the time limit draw is much more satisfying. The fans may feel cheated at first, but that feeling will quickly go away when they will realize they just saw a good match. So good a winner could not be determined. Most importantly it will leave them wanting more without compromising anyone’s credibility. Instead of thinking “I hope the heel doesn’t get the cheap DQ this time,” they will think “I wonder if one of these guys can get the win before the limit this time.” It adds another element to the match. The problem is the cheap DQ often comes in a championship match and championship matches usually demand a longer time limit. There aren’t going to be any sixty minute draws and even lowering it to thirty is pushing it. I suppose thirty could work, but twenty is ideal and twenty isn’t enough time for a championship match.

 

[MOExecution]

I can do without Time Limit Draws.
I remember watching TNA a while back it was Jeff Hardy vs Samoa Joe. The match was going GREAT! But then all of a sudden the match went to a Time Limit Draw which really irritated me... This irritated me because I thought that the match should have had a winner! And I think that is the thing that I won't like about Time Limit Matches. Have these matches ONLY to build up FUTURE rivalries! I couldn't stand for matches to end that way in a DRAW!

 

[TheCuttingEDGE]

I think that Time Limit Draws would be a great way to A) Have faces main event a PPV without having to have a Underdog, they can go the distance, and have a great match that people will be on the edge near the end, wondering if someone will be able to pull it out. B) Have heels gain more heat without having to have them get DQ every second PPV! This is getting stale, and having a 30 min match, that 10 minutes of it have the Heel leaving the ring or running from the other wrestler killing time. And C) Prolonging a feud without the carer on the line of having the loser having to find some whey into a title shot for the 3rd strait PPV.
It would be a great way to bring something fresh to the WWE, as long as it doesn't start to be over used, and also could lead to some Iron Man match's in feuds.

 

[ablestwin]

I think the main problem with the time limit draw is more or less the converse of what's being generally stated. In the 162 game MLB season, your team is going to lose. Your team is probably going to lose a lot. In fact, the best MLB team record-wise in history, the 1906 Cubs, still managed to lose 1/4 of their games. The best EVER.

WWE is very concerned with not making its wrestlers look weak, but it kills the weekly broadcasts to have 2 hours chocked full of five different 5 minute matches, none of which end with a clean decision (broad generalization). I'd much rather see 2 cats trade wins and losses (maybe even from one or the other outwrestling another on a given night) between PPV programs or whatever than see pointless match after pointless match until the next Buy-Me Show comes along.

The time limit factors into this for the A Listers, the guys too big to fail. If we saw a time limit draw maybe once a month in the main event, no one would be bothered. Seeing it become another cheap DQ/Count Out/Outside interference that isn't called but is a DQ in everyone's mind is really costing the outcome it's true meaning. These guys are so evenly matched no one could win. Instead, it's just annoying.