Time Limits in Matches

[ProWrestlingFan]

WWE used to have time limits set for each match some years ago but nowadays WWE has no time limits for a specific match. TNA used it recently when Hulk Hogan made all Bound for Glory Series matches have 15 minutes time limits.

Time limits in matches would make the matches feel more realistic and sports type.

If WWE wants to make someone for example Ryback look stronger but wants to keep the belt on CM Punk then have Ryback dominate the match but end the match due to time limit thus Punk retaining the championship. It will make both the champion and challenger look strong. WCW did this with the WCW TV title matches.

Should time limits be used more in Wrestling (WWE) matches?

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Yes they should be used. It's one of those little nuances that I miss from today's product.

I don't know if it works for Ryback/Punk though. For the main title, time limits were typically 60 minutes. Can you imagine Ryback trying to pull off a 60 minute broadway?

For smaller matches though, where you can use a 15-20 minute time limit, then absolutely both have the limit, and make use of it from time to time. For the big matches like a Ryback/Punk, have the limit, announce it, but leave it at that. It would at least give the match a little more of a big match feel.

 

[Slyfox696]

Absolutely yes. Time limits are a tremendous advantage to pro wrestling and needs to be included in every wrestling promotion. The trick is to make a time limit which is reasonable and isn't limiting to the match, and yet a limit which can still be reached without stretching out a match too long. I remember when TNA had 10 minute time limit on their matches back when they ran Impact on Fox Sports, and it was just too short. A 15 minute time limit on TV matches and a 20 minute time limit for PPV matches is a good number for undercard wrestlers, and championship matches can get 30 minutes and 45 minutes. You save the 60 minutes for your Iron Man matches.

There are two major advantages to the time limit. The first is what the opening poster mentioned, the ability to settle a match, without one guy defeating the other. This can not only extend a feud, but also create them as well. The second advantage is the natural boost in crowd excitement and anticipation you get when the clock is running out.

Time limits are a tremendous advantage to pro wrestling and the WWE should bring them back. They won't, but they should.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Time limits are a tremendous advantage to pro wrestling and the WWE should bring them back. They won't, but they should.

This is so true. Just about every week on Raw and Smackdown, there is the big main event between two main eventers. It sounds exciting, but from the moment it is announced, you know it is ending with some sort of run in. A time limit draw can protect both wrestlers in addition to allowing a younger/lower card guy to be elevated by taking someone to the time limit. It blows my mind that WWE doesn't use this.

 

[sdelfin]

The time limit is something I wanted to see come back for a while now. It's a valuable booking tool when used correctly. It was an important part of making the NWA TV championship into something memorable. I think the only problem with a time limit is it might put unwanted attention on how unreasonably short so many matches are, but that's something about the overall booking philosophy that needs to be changed. Not saying every match needs to be 20 minutes, just that superstars losing regularly in 90 seconds does nothing to get anybody over.

 

[Pedigree1]

Hell yes i wanna see time limits come back! I have no idea when WWE abandoned the time limit matches but there a must. It helps the match,the story telling in the ring. Some Big guys cant go 30 40 minutes maybe they top out at around 15 or 20.

Now how long do you make matches? Well depends on the stars in the ring. To me it does no good when a match is over in less than two minutes no point in that. It would help with the story telling the feuds would be stronger IMO.

Im all for it! I remember when the ring announcer used to say the time of the fall "i.e" 5:28 the winner JYD!! I think going a little old school on that one would help the product!

 

[FlairFan2003]

1st, time limits on TV matches became non existant because in order to get more promos/backstage segments actual matches typically last less than Ten Minutes. Outside of the main event or some heavily hyped up grudge match, when is the last time you saw a Raw or Smackdown bout that lasted 20 or more minutes ? The push towards more pinfall & submission endings (uncommon in the 70s-early 90s) also makes time limits as a prop in matches obsolete. No need to have a 20 minute time limit in a match that will end in 8 minutes.

It was a commonly used prop, particularly in the NWA/WCW (not so much in WWE where wrestlers tended to be larger, muscle guys with limited athleticism). It was common when Flair was in his heyday for all his matches to have 60 min time limits and to last past the 55 min mark, heightening the crowd excitement for the anticipated finish. In 1987 Tully Blanchard ran a lengthy storyline based upon him giving 10 grand to anyone who could beat him for the TV Title, but he always set the time limit at 10 minutes. Eventually Dusty Rhodes was willing to put up 100 grand of his money for a title match but only with a 60 min time limit. Blanchard initially balked before being convinced by his greedy mgr JJ Dillion that the risk of losing was worth taking Dusty's money. It set up one of the Horsemen's greatest screw job victories of all time, stealing Dusty's cash (eventually he got it back)

Time limits have also faded as a match prop because longer matches typically draw poor ratings. Casual fans do not stay tuned for 45 or 60 minute matches. It was different back in the 80s when top stars rarely wrestled on free TV. Back then a 45 min Flair-Sting match could draw big numbers. Today with monthly PPVs and top star vs top star matches through out an average Raw, it is no longer special to see bouts like this. Book a 60 min Iron Man Match at a House Show or PPV and paying fans will be entertained. Put the match on Smackdown and most of the match will draw lousy ratings, only the last few minutes drawing an audience.

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

I'm also in favor of this. WWE needs to put time limits on their matches. Nobody wants to see Wade Barrett face Justin Gabriel for 15 minutes. (I actually would not want to watch Barrett at all). I think this would also limit the number of squash matches too. Nothing like seeing Sheamus destroy Tensai early in on the show. Another reason why the WWE should time limit the matches is because then the matches would mean alot more than the typical oh Alberto Del Rio wins via DQ from Ricardo. The non-wrestling segments would be less filler and hopefully the WWE would put more emphasis on the wrestling aspect of it.

 

[The Brain]

I think people used to feel somewhat cheated when there was a time limit draw. When the crowd was abuzz as a match was reaching the climax a sudden bell out of nowhere would kill the energy a little. After watching twenty minutes of back and forth action people wanted a winner. Personally I loved the time limit draw for the reasons others have already listed. In my opinion a time limit draw always made both participants look good. I always looked at it as neither be beaten rather than neither being able to win. It’s a hell of a lot more satisfying finish than some sort of bogus run in. I often watch old house shows from the late 80s and early 90s on Classics on Demand and there’s almost always one match that has a time limit draw and it’s usually the best match on the card. In show business you’re always supposed to leave your audience wanting more and that’s exactly what the time limit draw does. Most recently I thought a time limit draw would have been a great ending to Cena vs. Punk at Night of Champions. I remember watching it live before the match was over thinking an old schoold time limit draw would have been appropriate there.

I think some people are missing the point of a time limit. A time limit is only relevant when a booker does not want a winner or a loser for a number or reasons. This would not prevent sqush matches.

 

[Slash-LN]

Absolutely yes. Time limits are a tremendous advantage to pro wrestling and needs to be included in every wrestling promotion. The trick is to make a time limit which is reasonable and isn't limiting to the match, and yet a limit which can still be reached without stretching out a match too long. I remember when TNA had 10 minute time limit on their matches back when they ran Impact on Fox Sports, and it was just too short. A 15 minute time limit on TV matches and a 20 minute time limit for PPV matches is a good number for undercard wrestlers, and championship matches can get 30 minutes and 45 minutes. You save the 60 minutes for your Iron Man matches.

There are two major advantages to the time limit. The first is what the opening poster mentioned, the ability to settle a match, without one guy defeating the other. This can not only extend a feud, but also create them as well. The second advantage is the natural boost in crowd excitement and anticipation you get when the clock is running out.

Time limits are a tremendous advantage to pro wrestling and the WWE should bring them back. They won't, but they should.

I fully agree with this. I can't remember too many matches off hand where there were time limit draws but to me that's the point. You leave the crowd thinking that the wrestlers have to pull everything out to avoid that. They are in a must win situation. That creates excitement.

I remember being a kid and hearing them announce the time limits. I definitely think they should do that again as long as draws aren't over done.

 

[jrush1978]

If its used consistently then yes. I remember times (obviously years ago) when all of a sudden randomly out of nowhere a time limit would be announced. That was basically advertising that the match was going to end in a draw and it usually did. But if they announced it all the time (across all shows) but only had it factor into the decision occasionally then I think it would be great.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I agree that it had its place yesteryear...which is when I was a huge fan. Nowadays, I check out RAW when I remember, search high and low for relevant articles on this site--come up empty usually, and watch Wrestlemania and Royal Rumble each year.

The problem, as another poster eluded to, is the weekly matchups of top stars. Back in the 80s and early 90s, you had weekly programs full of stars squashing jobbers. This showed the stars' moves and fed storylines. Special Report and interview segments-- like Piper's Pit, Snake Pit, Funeral Parlor, Brother Love and the Barber Shop--were also used as vehicles to further feuds. There were also occassional Saturday Night Main Events, which always brought battles to a head. BUT, to see these guys get their hands on each other...you waited for the Big 4! And a one hour match--time limit included-- would be exciting because if you didnt have a winner, you had to wait MONTHS for another chance at them to resolve the issue. As a fan, you NEEDED a winner, or at least felt like you did.

Today, you have top guy vs. top guy almost EVERY WEEK. That, along with less meaningful title reigns, takes that element out of it. Why watch a one-hour title match on a PPV when there will probably be some sort of rematch tomorrow on RAW anyway? In the "good ol days", when your guy won a title on a PPV, you knew you usually had a while to enjoy his reign. Or if they lost, you were crushed because it would take a while to get it back--but that was great too! Now, you just wait a couple of days for the next "main event".

The show is 3 hours long and these main events start 5-10 mins before they go off the air...how good could it be?! You spend all night hyping a match that will, as mentioned, end in a run in or some lame ending. Thank God for DVDs and Coliseum Video. haha!

 

[Dirk]

I would rather they not have time limits on each match, rather on certain occasions. They use time limits anyway, so it'll take some of the excitement away from the match, because you'll know beforehand.

 

[midgensa]

I am completely for time limits on matches.

I think without them we are doomed to endless run-ins and pointless tag-team matches (or the even more pointless six-man tag team match).

A time limit allows for the participants to battle to a draw and not hurt either one of them really. It also makes championship matches more intriguing because the champ knows he just has to last oh so long to get the win.

In the end ... if you want a "no time limit match" you can always throw it in there ... I mean this is all scripted anyways right?

 

[HBsam31]

I honestly think that time limits in matches could aid in helping guys get over. I used to get so mad when the heel champion would retain the title via the time limit each time he defended. The WCW TV title was very good for this. Everytime you thought the face would win the belt the time limit would expire. Implement it into today's WWE, and maybe just start with the US and IC title. Lets use Cesaro for example. Week after week he retains the US title because the time limit expires. Each week the fans hate him more and more for the way he keeps holding on to the belt. Then when he finally is beaten the guy that beats him is going to get an extreme pop. If they use that to their advantage I think it would be a good way to get new faces over. Sometimes I think the fans did feel short changed when the match ended in a time limit draw, but I think it was and could be again a great tool in the matches especially if they don't want either guy to lose.

 

[LascoX]

Like everyone else I would like to see them bring time limits back. It's another tool in the trick bag for the booker and adds a real feel to the event. Its one of the old school details that got lost along the way in the WWE as they streamlined thier product. There have been a ton of great matches that have been built around the time limit. It use to be common for matches to be 60 minutes and have best of 3 falls. That didnt mean the match had to run 60 minutes but it could and you had the posibilities of going to a last minute cliff hanger win or a draw with one fall each. The shorter time limits matches also gave stars time to heat up the rivelry without either one losing face. Instead of a run in to interfer for the save there would be a run in to pull the wrestlers apart after the time ran out.

 

[BC1978]

Yes they should be used. It's one of those little nuances that I miss from today's product.

I don't know if it works for Ryback/Punk though. For the main title, time limits were typically 60 minutes. Can you imagine Ryback trying to pull off a 60 minute broadway?

For smaller matches though, where you can use a 15-20 minute time limit, then absolutely both have the limit, and make use of it from time to time. For the big matches like a Ryback/Punk, have the limit, announce it, but leave it at that. It would at least give the match a little more of a big match feel.

I dont think you understand the concept of a time limit. It means the match can't go beyond 60 minutes. If Punk v. Ryback were set for a 60 min. time limit the match could end after 1 minute.

 

[BC1978]

I would rather they not have time limits on each match, rather on certain occasions. They use time limits anyway, so it'll take some of the excitement away from the match, because you'll know beforehand.

You do realize the UFC and Boxing have time limits on Matches. UFC 3 Round Fight is 5 minutes a round.

Time limits just make the product appear more real. If used properly they dont give anything away. However if they spring up every now and then its a giveaway on how a match will end.

 

[enviousdominous]

Not having time limits means not having another excuse to screw you out of your ticket money.

I'd say that we need them only if the product was 100% genuine, like say the UFC. This way you get the most of the challenger instead of a cheap attempt to please both parties.

Imagine paying top dollar for front row seats to see a Bob Backlund vs Harley Race main event, a match advertised as one where only the true world's champion will emerge. It ends in a time limit draw, because this way neither person looks like less of a performer. Fuck the fans in other words, we want to look unbeatable in every match we're in.

Right now we have disqualifications and countouts for when Cena or Orton flat out refuse to put anyone else over. Both of which are complete bullshit when it comes to a PPV. If they granted them the option of time limit draws, that would be made the result of half the matches on the card.


Posted from Wrestlezone.com App for Android

 

[enviousdominous]

I disagree with anyone who says that adding time limits will make the product seem more real. I think it would make it seem ten times as ridiculous.

Imagine being told that your match is set for twenty minutes. Obviously you would want to use strategy to win as soon as possible, while cardio training to endure physical exertion for that time period.

But you play by the rules of pro-wrestling. So you check your brain at the door and offer yourself to your opponent in ways that look fucking stupid to an actual wrestler.

I realize that its an art form based around the suspension of disbelief, certain things would wreck any perception of it being legit.

If you have two minutes left in your title match, you're not going to stall in a headlock or an armbar so you can relay the next few spots to your opponent. Any idiot would know better than to do what you're expected to do as a pro-wrestler.

If its just a show, they can finish it without a fucking stupid draw. Just make one arrogant jackass swallow his pride and lay the fuck down or tap out.


Posted from Wrestlezone.com App for Android