Would You Accept More Time Limit Draws in the WWE?

[Tenta]

Just about five minutes ago, KB and I were discussing a Wrestler's stamina, and how wrestler's used to last sixty minutes typically, without a peep. Now, most wrestlers probably consider that a fucking marathon.

That's neither here nor there. Anyway, most of the time, they wrestled sixty minutes due to time limit draws. It used to be an old tool to keep a rivalry fresh. Now, with so many predictable endings in the WWE, would you accept Time Limit Draws?

Let's go over why this method is effective, and why I therefore support.... Well, myself:

1. It gives the rivalry another chance to keep going. Got a hot rivalry, but don't want to blow it yet? Try a time limit draw. These tools are very effective for the fan supporting the face, who just came up a bit short, through no fault of their own. It allows for tragedy in wrestling without causing too much depression.

2. It keeps both wrestler's strong. It makes it seem as if these two are equals, and that there has to be another way to solidify the feud, and prove who's better. Not only does it keep the fans hooked, but it also allows for both wrestlers to stay strong, and appear as though neither are inferior.

3. It's a great heel tactic. Most fans would hate to see a heel get by on a technicality. It's an instant heat drawer, that makes sense. You accept that what has happened is right, but you still hate. It's very effective, especially when the heels claims to have beaten our dejected heel.

Anyway, those are my reasons. Would you support more time limit draws in the WWE?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

What an excellent thread topic.

I think if they are used sparingly, it would be another welcomed match finish. And it's an excellent way to setup for a PPV match if we have two wrestlers frequently going to the time limit and having a draw.

However, doing this is going to require people to be much more time conscious and therefore it will require more work and precise timing on the part of the wrestlers and referee ... since people will be more in-sync with the true time of the match. So there can't be screwups.

They are also going to have to start announcing time limits in the ring introductions and getting people used to it as a possibility of happening.

But I am ALL for anything that results in more possible ways for there to be a match finish, other than what we have today. Quite frankly, I think we have entirely too many clean finishes on the weekly shows as it is right now. This would only help alleviate that situation. Even though it may initially seem like a disappointing ending, it fulfills the purpose of leaving the viewer wanting MORE ... and viewers need to experience this just like they do with any TV Action/Drama.

 

[X]

A huge gigantic FUCK YES from me Tenta. The time limit draw rule led to some absolutely classic match-ups in both the WCW and WWF in the past (particularly in the WCW). Frankly I've never understood the downside---yeah you don't have a clean finish, but you've gotten to see the two men go at it for a good amount of time, and usually they deliver when given time to do their thing. Over the years Nitro in particular was the home of some phenomenal time limit draws between the likes of Mysterio, Guerrero, Malenko, Benoit, and Regal. There are some hidden classics of the 90s on those old Nitros, I'm telling you. The WCW always seemed to use the time limit draw more than the WWF ever did, particularly in the old JCP days when you'd frequently have two guys go sixty minutes in the ring (one of them usually being Flair) to a time limit draw.

Take two guys like Orton and Kofi, if you had those two fight to a time limit draw on Raw some week (say a 30 minute time limit) and you manage to bolster their feud without having a winner, and both men end up coming out of the match looking even better than before. Likely won't happen though, the seemingly lost art of the time limit draw is dead these days in the WWE. TNA used it quite effectively back on their special Super Impact episode where Kurt Angle and AJ Styles put on a classic bout. WWE could take a note from their (new) competition.

 

[cole924]

If I may retort... I just feel that there are a few minor flaws that would not work:

1) The fans would not be in favor of this. Nobody wants to pay good money to see a time limit cause the end of the feud. Even though it's the same as interference, dq, countout, etc... the fans still won't be satisfied that a time limit was the reason for a match ending as opposed to the other ways previously mentioned. Remember, the WWE has to reach out to the majority of the fans, not the solid wrestling fans who can remember the old days that this tactic was used. I concur that it's a pretty sweet way to keep a rivalry going, but unfortunately I am a realist and know that fans would absolutely hate it.

2) This tactic basically has been swapped with count outs/DQs. Back in the day, most of the wrestling was strictly in the ring. Now wrestlers are outside just as much as they are inside when we have these rivalries that need to continue. Instead of a time limit expiring, why not simply just have interference, DQ, count out, or double count out? This way the fan is happy because the fight can continue even if the match is over and the rivalry continues.


3) As for a heel tactic, it's virtually the same as a heel just walking away from the match or purposely being counted out. Orton has done that a lot in the past 2 years and he draws serious heat. If he doesn't want to deal with a fight, he simply just leaves. There is no need to institute a time limit when it's a simple 10 count that can do the exact same thing.


As a wrestling fan, I would enjoy the time limit because it's something new that I haven't seen in my time as being a fan. As a realist, I just know people wouldn't be for it. For that reason, I would not support it.

I just don't see the WWE instituting this rule back in and the fans caring/making a big deal about it. They would just think it was a stupid way to end matches. Unfortunately...

 

[Tenta]

If I may retort... I just feel that there are a few minor flaws that would not work:

Ok, let's go over these, shall we?

1) The fans would not be in favor of this. Nobody wants to pay good money to see a time limit cause the end of the feud.

Where did I say that this would end a feud? If anything, I offered this idea to prolong feuds, not end them.

Even though it's the same as interference, dq, countout, etc... the fans still won't be satisfied that a time limit was the reason for a match ending as opposed to the other ways previously mentioned. Remember, the WWE has to reach out to the majority of the fans, not the solid wrestling fans who can remember the old days that this tactic was used. I concur that it's a pretty sweet way to keep a rivalry going, but unfortunately I am a realist and know that fans would absolutely hate it.

I'm not talking from a hardcore standpoint, just a casual fan's standpoint. I've said before, I've made a point to no longer watching the WWE. But trust me... Fans are going to pay to see the face give the heel his comeuppance. I promise you. Even if they have to wait, they will. Draws will invest them more.Fans will wait to see the face win, if the storyline is drawn up well enough. It's wrestling 101: Pro wrestling is built off the good guys winning, and the fans waiting until they win.

2) This tactic basically has been swapped with count outs/DQs. Back in the day, most of the wrestling was strictly in the ring. Now wrestlers are outside just as much as they are inside when we have these rivalries that need to continue. Instead of a time limit expiring, why not simply just have interference, DQ, count out, or double count out? This way the fan is happy because the fight can continue even if the match is over and the rivalry continues.

Count outs and DQs weaken a character very much. Resorting to cheating is code to the fans that the wrestler is inferior, and therefore has to resort to cheating. Here, the message is that the heel got by on luck, but is the equal of the challenger.

3) As for a heel tactic, it's virtually the same as a heel just walking away from the match or purposely being counted out. Orton has done that a lot in the past 2 years and he draws serious heat. If he doesn't want to deal with a fight, he simply just leaves. There is no need to institute a time limit when it's a simple 10 count that can do the exact same thing.

Yes.... But it's more effective, and hasn't been done to an infinite amount of times. You know how predictable wrestling finishes have become?

As a wrestling fan, I would enjoy the time limit because it's something new that I haven't seen in my time as being a fan. As a realist, I just know people wouldn't be for it. For that reason, I would not support it.

Well, with what I just said, now will you support it?

 

[JuviJuiceIsLoose]

I think it could work, but they would have to make it known that the match has a Time Limit.

Also, the WWE over the past decade has been saying "We're gonna go past 11:00" and "There WILL be a winner, tonight".

One thing that would have to happen is the networks would have to enforce stricter time restraints on the WWE.

If it says from 9:00 to 11:00, then that's what time it should end. Without going over 10-15 minutes like the WWE routinely does.

Obviously, in the JCP/NWA days, the Time Limit draw was done frequently. But, I think it's a different era, now.

The Time Limit Draw was a huge part of the Joe v Punk series in ROH, but I don't know if it would work in the WWE.

 

[cole924]

Where did I say that this would end a feud? If anything, I offered this idea to prolong feuds, not end them.

That was my fault, I meant "end the match" not ending the feud. I accidentally typed the wrong thing.

I'm not talking from a hardcore standpoint, just a casual fan's standpoint. I've said before, I've made a point to no longer watching the WWE. But trust me... Fans are going to pay to see the face give the heel his comeuppance. I promise you. Even if they have to wait, they will. Draws will invest them more.Fans will wait to see the face win, if the storyline is drawn up well enough. It's wrestling 101: Pro wrestling is built off the good guys winning, and the fans waiting until they win.

I actually agree with you here. It makes more sense to have draws than it would to have DQs and count outs. You definitely have me sold but I am not your typical wrestling fan. I was with a few of my friends when I read the post and I immediately asked them how would they feel (them being average wrestling fans) and they failed to realize your point like I thought they would. It's not that the average wrestling fan is stupid, but unfortunately they wouldn't understand the intelligence behind a draw. To each his own I guess, right?

Count outs and DQs weaken a character very much. Resorting to cheating is code to the fans that the wrestler is inferior, and therefore has to resort to cheating. Here, the message is that the heel got by on luck, but is the equal of the challenger.

This is the only thing I disagree with you about. A double count out can work if it's a really good back and forth match with a pretty solid spot leading both guys to be hurt. It also sets up gimmick matches as well, whether that is good or not. Interference works w/ heels to push them over w/ heat. I love the fact that Legacy comes out and dominates with Orton (just as an example). It makes the group look strong and makes the face have to fight an uphill battle against a smarter group that will cheat to win. That's the point of a heel.

When this happens, I even enjoy the feud more because I know inevitably there will be one solid in-ring match to settle it once and for all.

Yes.... But it's more effective, and hasn't been done to an infinite amount of times. You know how predictable wrestling finishes have become?


Well, with what I just said, now will you support it?

You definitely have my support, but I just was taking a step outside the box and looking at it from an average fan's perspective. I enjoy reading your opinions and think you have a great mind for this business. I just don't believe that the majority will understand the reasons why this works. As an individual, I agree and support time limits. As a fan of the WWE and wrestling, knowing that it's important to keep the majority happy... then I'd have to say no.

 

[Midnight]

I think that time limits would work. Nowadays the only time we see draws is when there is a Last Man Standing Match. I remember I think back in 07 Batista and The Undertaker had a draw in a Last Man Standing match and really it was a thriller and was an awesome way to keep the feud going.

It could work a similar way in the WWE. Say at Bragging Rights Orton doesn't tap out and the clock runs out. Cena has to leave Raw because technically he lost the match because he didn't have more pinfalls than Orton. Imagine the heel heat Orton would get when he talks about how he beat Cena and ran him out of town.

I think that if sparingly used it can be very effective. However the blocking for a match like this would have to be perfect. Every move or fall would have to be blocked perfectly and that is certainly a con.

However I like the idea. If say Orton and Kofi had a time limit on their match at TLC, Kofi could draw Randy and let the feud carry. Sometimes for a good idea, you need to look back.

 

[And I'm Awesome]

Oh holy hell yes! Besides, what exactly does Mark Eaton have to do at ringside anymore? He's still there, and even Cole mentioned he was the timekeeper before he got tossed across the announce table at MSG by Sheamus. A draw finish is, to me, preferable to an intentional count out or DQ finish. (Yeah, "unintentional count outs" happen when guys just simply don't make it back in...but I'd like to see the "screw this" thing done with.)

Now, here's the thing. Does every bout need a time limit? No! Even in the good old days, there were bouts that were "set for one fall and no time limit!" Those were the matches that had us going past 11, running until the match was over. Time limits have their uses though. Most matches on RAW, for example, wouldn't get to their announced time limit. In general, a ten-minute limit on singles matches is more than what is even used now. Maybe fifteen for tag matches, and a main even match with no time limit. Sometimes have a bout with a longer time limit which isn't utilized, that way you can still have 30-minute time limit draws without giving away the fact that the match will end in a draw as soon as fans hear there's going to be a thirty minute time limit. I mean, hell, they used to announce most bouts with a 60-minute time limit on RAW, and we knew that was never gonna happen...

Now, the current, average fan (I'm saying the mostly under 20 crowd) didn't even grow up with time limits of consequence (that they'll have good memories of, at any rate). Would they be jacked at the first time limit draw, possibly feeling a wee bit cheated? Probably, because they've been spoon fed pins, DQ's, and count outs for most of their lives. However, IF WWE used them properly (to extend feuds which we truly care about), I think they would come to appreciate this old school bit of wrestling gold.

Of course, the current Creative department would probably give us a five-minute time-limit draw in a bout between Hornswoggle and Chavo, so...

Oh, and one other minor item; a side note, if you will, concerning old school wrestling happening in the ring, not so much on the floor. In the late 80's and early 90's, in WWE (when time limits were still used), the refs (mostly Earl Hebner, from what I've seen) gave a LOT of leeway in truly important matches. I've been watching Macho Madness and Star of the 90's the past few weeks, and Hebner let people get away with things in matches which would have everyone screaming foul nowadays. No count outs...hell, he followed the action out yelling at the guys to get back in the ring! But no counting. Someone comes down and whacks someone in the match in the head? Tough shit, keep wrestling, pansy! Hell, I was shocked by some of what he let slide, but it made for some highly entertaining bouts.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Just about five minutes ago, KB and I were discussing a Wrestler's stamina, and how wrestler's used to last sixty minutes typically, without a peep. Now, most wrestlers probably consider that a fucking marathon.

That's neither here nor there. Anyway, most of the time, they wrestled sixty minutes due to time limit draws. It used to be an old tool to keep a rivalry fresh. Now, with so many predictable endings in the WWE, would you accept Time Limit Draws?

I would indeed, but only in certain circumstances. Firstly, I would only accept them in small doses. Once every Tom, Dick and Harry and every single feud starts having a time limit draw where two men are perfectly matched, it begins to lose all meaning. The fact that both men push themselves and still cannot beat each other is a very strong statement, and thusly, we should have Goldust and Regal wrestling to a 20 minute draw on an episode of ECW just to build up both men. It takes me back to the Royal Rumble 2004 and the last man standing match between HBK and HHH. That match benefited strongly from a finish like this, and as you re-iterate later, Kofi vs Orton could benefit hugely from it also.

I also have some big reservations of where to use this on a Pay Per View. One part of me is screaming yes for it, and the thought of a bitter rivalry continuing like this is very promising. But at the same time, I would say that it poses the question of the logistics of this. Pay Per Views are usually built up to be the final stand, to end all the ambiguity. All the dusty finishes you want can happen on TV, but at the end of the day, a feud should be put to bed on Pay Per View. The problem this poses with time limits is that fans in attendance and who have bought the show may feel slighted. Although the 30 minutes of wrestling could make up for it, if it does not, then you will have some fans feeling robbed somewhat. Of course, the WWE does this anyways will heels slapping refs and whatnot, but I'm just brainstorming over here.

Let's go over why this method is effective, and why I therefore support.... Well, myself:

1. It gives the rivalry another chance to keep going. Got a hot rivalry, but don't want to blow it yet? Try a time limit draw. These tools are very effective for the fan supporting the face, who just came up a bit short, through no fault of their own. It allows for tragedy in wrestling without causing too much depression.

This is a good thing and I completely understand. A feud like Dolph Ziggler vs John Morrison would have benefited tremendously from something like this, as it would have kept Ziggler's credibility high. Unfortunately, all they could think of was clean pins. I think it definately works better for heels, with the hungry face fighting against all odds and what all the critics say. The whole story of taking someone to the limit just works better that way, or else the challenger gets over.

2. It keeps both wrestler's strong. It makes it seem as if these two are equals, and that there has to be another way to solidify the feud, and prove who's better. Not only does it keep the fans hooked, but it also allows for both wrestlers to stay strong, and appear as though neither are inferior.

Again, this is a great point. However, I would be very selective over how I would use this. If every WWE Championship feud has a match in which they wrestle to a time limit draw, then there is no point in it. But if you really want to establish a challenger, this is what you use. To really get the point across, you would utilise it to show that these two guys are the best in the world, that these two guys are so good that they cannot be beat. You would really want to drive home the guts and determination and talent of the wrestlers, but if you keep doing this, in every feud, then the fans would say, "gee, this isn't that great. So what if they've wrestled for 30 minutes and can't get a pinfall? He did that with so and so last month!" I would limit it to only a few times a year to really pinpoint the fact, and even then, use it as perhaps the second or third match finish. Randy Orton vs Cena would have benefited from this, instead of a constant flip flop of title changes.

3. It's a great heel tactic. Most fans would hate to see a heel get by on a technicality. It's an instant heat drawer, that makes sense. You accept that what has happened is right, but you still hate. It's very effective, especially when the heels claims to have beaten our dejected heel.

I think the match finish is an important thing to calculate. Firstly, the wrestlers have to time it perfectly and allow time for breathing. But quite honestly, I'll ask directly, how would you go about doing an ending to a match where you want to build the heel? Or perhaps build the face? WOuld you go the route of say Wrestlemania 12/13 and have someone locked in a submission maneuver until the time runs out? Would you have them run around the ring or roll out after a finisher in order to evade the last few moments? Perhaps you would have them both knocked out, exhausted from their battle? How would you convey that this brutal battle has taken place and still make it as though the heel has escaped? I'm interested to know.

Anyway, those are my reasons. Would you support more time limit draws in the WWE?

Certainly. But conditions would have to be met, and logistics worked out. However, it is a simple premise that would work wonders if utilised properly.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think it could be interesting to see more Time Limit Draws, but it would only work if it was not done often. If it happens rarely and a heel has suddenly retained a title through a Time Limit Draw, then that would be another great way for them to get the fans angry at them. All they would have to do is bring up that they won in such a manner. If they were going to do more of these, then they should not have them often, I think it would work best if only used rarely to either get heel heat for a hated heel, or possibly for a fluke win for an underdog face because those are the only two scenarios I really see today's fans accepting.

 

[LokiCobain1]

It would be a great way to keep feuds going and build talent. If you have, say, John Cena vs Sheamus, Sheamus doesn't have to beat or lose to Cena. By having a couple of matches end in a draw, it shows that Sheamus can keep up with Cena, and it boosts his legitimacy without taking anything away from Cena or having him lose. It's also a way to keep things like Undefeated streaks matter longer, and can build the Undefeated new comer (Kozlov) while building a resilient new comer (Bourne) against each other without hurting either.

It also adds to the thrill of it all, making it appear to be like a real competition. All competitions have time limits, and I think wrestling in general would benefit big time by having a time limit. They can still have squash matches, and it hurts them nothing to say before every match "20-minute time limit" or whatever they want. There's no reason not to have one, as they can always just say "40 minute time limit for championship matches", a time that none of them really go to anyway.

 

[The Sh4dy Legend Killer]

Well one of the best series of matches started of a time limit draw (Benoit Vs Booker T WCW 1998 For The television title Best Of 7 Series) and my opinion is that was an awesome set of matches it was sorta of a coming out party for book because at the time i think it was his first singles run ...but my point it it would creat classics like this

to see a john cena go time limit draw would make me respect him more then seeing him pull the same "5 move combo of death" but what can i say wrestling isn't in to telling a story with the match and it sucks cause i remember when they used to do that its coming back slowly and its gonna be go to see it come back

 

[CardiffCam]

I've got to say, I love the idea. I very much enjoyed the Styles-Angle draw, and it's left me wanting more, and im sure im not the only fan, hardcore or not, whos been left wanting a rematch.

And whoeer said that dqs and countouts are better, i have to disagree. Not only to time limits make them seem equal, not just stupid, but you give the fans their moneyworth. Which would you rather see- Aj Styles and Angle go 3 minutes before Wolfe runs in and attacks Kurt Angle, or a 20 minute draw?

And who says you can't get heat out of a draw?
Lets say its Randy Orton vs Kofi Kingston, the announcer says there is a minute left before time limit, Kofi hits Trouble in Paradise, then Legacy pull orton to the outside to regroup, then throw him back in for the time limit. Massive heat.

 

[XgringolocoX]

I would def like to see time limits added back in. It adds that feeling of urgency for the challenger, and time slipping away for the defending champ.

As mentioned before I like the idea of a face challenger coming "THIS CLOSE" during a feud for a title before eventually, or not, obtaining that title. I also agree that it shouldn't be done every week, or at every PPV.

Bottomline is that time limits work and add to the product.

 

[DiscipleofWrestling]

I definitely agree with adding time-limit draws back into the WWE. But as several have said, I would use such finishes sparingly but often enough to where it is in the minds of fans during big matches (ie championship matches). This is where the WWE could really utilize the time-limit draw, especially if they want to promote someone without giving them the championship. If someone can take the champ to the limit, that would be enough to propel them to the next level in the eyes of the fans. Thus, you have another possible title contender down the road, and you can possibly start making more money off of the character. "Look, this is the guy that took John Cena to the 60-min. limit and had him beat."

But as several of you said, you have to pick the right wrestlers for these type of matches. I wouldn't want to see Chavo/Jillian go to a 30-minute time limit with Eve/Hornswoggle. But serious wrestlers (sorry, Chavo. Comic relief right now) like Orton, Cena, Edge, CM Punk (especially given his history), HBK, Triple H, and Jericho (among other serious wrestlers) are wrestlers I can see really utilizing the time limit draw. And to be honest, it could help the prestige of the championships if there were more time limit draws. John Morrison and The Miz could benefit from having several championship matches that go to the time-limit. Everyone hates The Miz as is. So why not portray him as the guy that keeps holding on by the edge of the cliff to his U.S. Championship? And have him come out rubbing it in the faces of the fans by saying he's never been beaten for the championship. That could do more for The Miz and the United States Championship than a match with John Cena could ever do.

This is why I miss the Television Championship concept used in ECW and WCW. The time limit draw was one of the rules in wrestling for that title. You had 15 or 20 minutes to beat the champ. And most of the time, you had that thrill that can only come with "2 minutes to go in the match... 1 minute to go in the match....." The WWE plays with the time limit a lot already with the Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Iron Man, Scramble Match.... Having the time limit in the match ONLY adds to the drama, especially if used in the right circumstances.

Hell Yeah on TIME LIMIT DRAWS!

 

[InterestingDrug]

I do not believe that time limits should come back. That's a thing of the past, like the over the top rope disqualification.

I do believe that "TV time remaining" time limits should come back though. I was so frustrated with TV time limits back in the day.. I think it's only fair that people of this generation share in my teenage angst.

 

[Dave]

I don't think I would be happy with time limit draws, Tenta.

The problem I have with them is that the time limits you are talking about are just not that common in the WWE and not welcomed, in my opinion. I have respect to all of the wrestlers who have been and gone an have wrestled for 60 minutes and have put there body through Hell for an hour at a time. There was time when wrestlers were doing this all of the time and this was considered to be the norm. However, things have changed rapidly in the WWE. I have only seen a few matches that have actually gone on for an hour and I honestly can't see the draw in them.

I do believe that given the right amount of moderation and use, 60 minute matches can be very well executed. I look at the last match I saw that went such a duration (Cena vs Orton) and I can't help but be impressed. I thought that was an excellent match and felt as though I had been given a treat by seeing two of my favourite superstars for an hour. I then think back to the Iron-Man matches that used to frequent the WWE and I think that those were some of the best displays of pure athleticism and wrestling skill that I have seen in all of the time I have been watching wrestling.

I think it is about the outcome. I would not accept a draw in these circumstances. I personally believe that something as gruelling as those matches deserves to have an outcome, with a certain winner. I think that ending matches in draws is over-used and a cop-out. I like to see someone rewarded for doing well in the match and I am of the impression that having a draw negates this. I also think that the fans have changed since then and the fans nowadays would not accept a 60 minute match that did not end the feud. The time limit that fans have been trained to use has changed dramatically and this would not be allowed to fly, in my opinion.

 

[Blade]

Most definately. There's times when there's a match where, no matter the finish, either or both men will look like shit. Case in point: Undertaker vs CM Punk and Breaking Point. CM Punk had just won the title, so they didn't want to take it off him. But Undertaker had his return heat, and was arguably the biggest draw as champion on Smackdown with Jeff Hardy gone. WWE could've given CM Punk a different challenger for Breaking Point and let his feud with Undertaker have the blow-off at Hell in a Cell. Maybe even let Punk pin Undertaker in some sort of multi man or tag match on SD. That would've been good. But if having Undertaker vs Punk was absolutely necessary, then a time limit draw would've been perfect for their first match.

But no, WWE were determined screw up Punk vs Taker and it made both guys look like shit with the damn screwjob finish. Punk tapped within seconds of the Undertaker's submission and Taker allowed himself to be attacked from behind and put in the Vise after 2 offensive moves from Punk.

A time limit draw would've been a great way for this match to go. It would've made both guys look good. Punk would've looked like a credible champion who can go toe to toe with a legend, Undertaker would've looked like a worthy challenger who can still keep up with the young guns.

So yeah, in situations where a decision either way will make a wrestler look shit, then a time limit draw is definately a very good idea.

 

[Sean Valjean]

I'd love to see them used. For one, it'd be a nice change of pace as time limit draws never occur in a WWE match (outside of Iron Man matches).

As previously stated, it can be a great way to continue a fued and to keep both guys looking good without making one of them lose. It can also keep the fans interested in the fued, since usually draws leave the fans wanting more. Not to mention they can produce some great matches thanks loads of time the match gets.

As long as they're used sparingly, I see no problem bringing them back.

 

[johnbragg]

I think that you could definitely use time-limit draws on television. On PPV might be another story, as fans are conditioned to expect that you watch TV to see the feud develop, you pay your money to see the outcome.

I definitely think that ten- or twenty-minute time limit draws should be in the mix for feud-furthering outcomes, together with intentional DQs, intentional countouts, the various flavors of cheap pins where the ref didn't see X, etc.

I think you could also have short time-limit draws for some undercard matches (three minutes, five minutes) and call them "preview matches." This would help Evan Bourne, I tell you that. Instead of three minutes and a quick pin and a rematch next week because, er, the guy wants a rematch, three minutes and ring a bell. The next week, Teddy Long/the guest host gives them ten minutes, or an untimed match, etc.

Sometimes, you'd want to end a three-minute "preview match" with a pin or submission, just to keep the unpredictability. That one--no rematch.

Introduce the concept slowly--I'd even start with the three minute "preview match" idea between say Evan Bourne and Jack Swagger. Given their past results against each other, "Can Bourne hang in for the three minute limit", since Swagger has picked up quick wins over Bourne in the past.

I wouldn't start it the way TNA did, time limiting every match for one episode before a 20 minute draw between their two top stars, Angle and Styles. Just because the Other Guy just did that a few months ago.

 

[CH David]

Just about five minutes ago, KB and I were discussing a Wrestler's stamina, and how wrestler's used to last sixty minutes typically, without a peep. Now, most wrestlers probably consider that a fucking marathon.

Your lack of words cut me Tenta. Cut me real deep. I suppose I should have checked the WWE section instead of just General or Old School. Oh well, neither here nor there.

As for Time Limit Draws in the WWE? Well in our debate I believe I answered that. Anyway, I would love to see Time Limit Draws in the WWE. Used sparingly of course. We can't have every little feud ending up in a draw. Like I think Sidious said, they would have to start announcing time limits for each match, because I mean if you only announce it for a Main Event match, either on tv or PPV, people would probably get suspicious, or at least some of the older crowd might think a draw is possible.

How many times do we each get sick of DQ losses on Raw, or maybe in a filler PPV? I know I haaate it when it happens. Couldn't they come up with anything more original? "Oh, he feels aggressive, give him a chair, no one looks weak." What the hell is wrong with that? It got played out, and I am sick of seeing it. But we also can't have countouts, as we have seen those quite a bit as well. What about dirty pinfall wins? Again, we see it a bit, hell we saw Maryse do it on Raw to Gail Kim, and it looked horrible because I saw the ref look right at her with her legs on the rope. Lastly we can't have everything end cleanly right? That was the point of the time limit draws in our debate?

We got to talking Luger vs. Flair, among the many others back in the day, and how if Luger won or Flair won cleanly, it would lead to the premature end of that feud. They did countouts and DQs, as well, but the time limit draws made it different. Neither guy was better in those times. Imagine if we saw a time limit draw with Orton and Cena in their feud. It would have been refreshing on a stale feud. Neither guy would have had the upperhand.

So yes, Time Limit Draws would be great if used sparingly, and only for certain feuds. If there is a feud you want brewing so that it can be a great feud, change it up a bit. How many times do we see matches end in DQ? It gets monotonous, probably like how I keep saying DQ. Countouts show that the heel is too cowardly to keep going, or that the face got knocked out or distracted on the outside. A draw would keep both competitors looking strong, and, if it happens to be a title match, the title doesn't have to change hands, only to be brought back a month later. I know that is a big pet peeve we all have is the playing of hot potato with the titles.

 

[johnbragg]

I think ECW would be a good place to test the concept, or more accurately audience reaction to the concept.

Some week when Christian is not in the main event (say a Regal-Koslov vs JAckson-Dreamer tag match), book Christian in a three-minute "preview match" against say Vance Archer. Bill it as an upset when Archer lasts the full three minutes.

Next week, Archer gets a ten minute match against Christian, Christian locks Archer in a cloverleaf 10-15 seconds before the bell, and Archer barely makes the time.

Follow that with a twenty-minute match or matches--throw in a double countout or a cheap Archer countout win, a run-in from a Challenger X planting seeds for a triple-threat or for a Christian-X or an X-Archer feud.

If the feud is succeeding, the blowoff match could be a full-episode, 30-minute limit match. If not, just have Christian pin Archer clean in the third or fourth match.

 

[The Doctor]

Absolutely. I would love to see matches with time limits. It would make it more dramatic, to see whether or not wrestlers could finish within the time. It would give more ways of extending a feud. As long as it isn't overdone, it could be great.

 

[theviolentmessiah]

I think it'd be very helpful, keep you guessing a bit more, but I'd be interested to see what the average match time limit would be in the WWE cause I'd have to see them stretch out matches unreasonably to get to the time limit draw as I dont find WWE very good at pulling off long matches. But then if the time limit was too short the match would feel rushed. I dont think WWE main eventers could pull off a Punk/Joe hour long time limit draw at the head of a PPV but I dont want to see a 10 minute time limit on regular Smackdown matches like Wrestling Society X. Somewhere in between them would have to do, Maybe 20 minutes on regular TV matches, not sure about the extension for PPV main events.