|
Post by Lance Uppercut on Dec 27, 2011 2:11:28 GMT -5
Maybe but you have to build to it. First you start announcing time limits again. Then in a few weeks you have a draw or two. Then you get two wrestlers who you think can do it like Punk and DB. You have several 10-15 min draws. The kind where Punk is in the LaBell lock but close to the ropes so it could go either way and then a draw. Same with the next match with DB in the Vice. Then you hype the hell out of the 30 min one and same thing a draw. Next you hype 60 min. The only problem is that I think people might crap on a 60 min draw. Its just a little too long. you read my mind. Plus it would add a little variety to match ending where they clearly don't want one guy losing cleanly. Time limit draw much better than the obvious "one guy is going to get disqualified" route.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Dec 27, 2011 9:21:58 GMT -5
On WWE programming in 2011, 60 minutes is too long for a match to go without a resolute finish. It's literally a quarter of WrestleMania.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Dec 27, 2011 9:37:24 GMT -5
The Michaels/Cena match from London lasts 39 minutes. It obviously seemed longer due to ad breaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 10:09:46 GMT -5
A match should be no longer than 30 minutes.
I feel the same way about movies. My theory is, if you can't get to the point by 90 minutes, don't bother making the movie. Same with a wrestling match. No need to stall just to get to 60 minutes. The WM 12 Iron Man match was insanely boring, IMO. Whereas if they wrestled a straight up 30 minute match it would have been a hell of a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Dec 27, 2011 10:36:30 GMT -5
A match should be no longer than 30 minutes. I feel the same way about movies. My theory is, if you can't get to the point by 90 minutes, don't bother making the movie. Same with a wrestling match. No need to stall just to get to 60 minutes. The WM 12 Iron Man match was insanely boring, IMO. Whereas if they wrestled a straight up 30 minute match it would have been a hell of a lot better. Yeah, I agree to the most part. While there are special exceptions (Cena/Orton is a phenomenally structured match, they really made the hour as packed as possible, it benefitted a lot from the no holds barred structure), as a general rule, I dont think more than 30 mins is needed.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Dec 27, 2011 15:24:17 GMT -5
A match should be no longer than 30 minutes. I feel the same way about movies. My theory is, if you can't get to the point by 90 minutes, don't bother making the movie. Same with a wrestling match. No need to stall just to get to 60 minutes. The WM 12 Iron Man match was insanely boring, IMO. Whereas if they wrestled a straight up 30 minute match it would have been a hell of a lot better. The Punk/Joe trilogy, Triple H/The Rock Ironman, Angle/Lesnar Ironman, and the legendary 93 minute TLC match between Punk and Hero all say hello. As do the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, and countless other films and matches. It's about the story that the match/film/whatever tells, not how long it takes to tell it. If a match needs 60 minutes to fully explore the story that they're trying to convey, let them.
|
|
|
Post by AztecaDragon on Dec 27, 2011 15:48:45 GMT -5
The Punk/Joe trilogy, Triple H/The Rock Ironman, Angle/Lesnar Ironman, and the legendary 93 minute TLC match between Punk and Hero all say hello. As do the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, and countless other films and matches. It's about the story that the match/film/whatever tells, not how long it takes to tell it. If a match needs 60 minutes to fully explore the story that they're trying to convey, let them. I agree. I think booking Ironman matches in general is a bit pointless as it conditions people to not care but for the first 10 minutes and the last 5 minutes of the match. I don't understand why they just don't book those matches to one-fall and just have them go an hour instead. It'd be better than guys taking falls to things they never would if the match wasn't Ironman.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 27, 2011 15:56:27 GMT -5
I think it'd be a great way to put someone over with The Undertaker at WrestleMania while still protecting the Streak. Undertaker would never be beaten, but the other guy somehow survived The Undertaker at WrestleMania. That's instant credibility. Problem is, Undertaker can't go nearly that long. He's basically done for.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 27, 2011 15:57:05 GMT -5
60 minute matches are rare enough, I don't think they'd end any of them with a draw in this day and age. In the WWE, that'd just translate to the match being pointless.
|
|
andrewgilkison
Bubba Ho-Tep
Sound of 300lbs of crap hitting the fan?
Posts: 558
|
Post by andrewgilkison on Dec 27, 2011 23:33:25 GMT -5
As a side note, that Rock/HHH Iron Man match is really underrated. I find it vastly superior to the overrated Hart/Michaels Iron Man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 23:36:58 GMT -5
The Punk/Joe trilogy, Triple H/The Rock Ironman, Angle/Lesnar Ironman, and the legendary 93 minute TLC match between Punk and Hero all say hello. As do the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, and countless other films and matches. It's about the story that the match/film/whatever tells, not how long it takes to tell it. If a match needs 60 minutes to fully explore the story that they're trying to convey, let them. I agree. I think booking Ironman matches in general is a bit pointless as it conditions people to not care but for the first 10 minutes and the last 5 minutes of the match. I don't understand why they just don't book those matches to one-fall and just have them go an hour instead. It'd be better than guys taking falls to things they never would if the match wasn't Ironman. Not a fan of iron man matches either, for the same reason. Could even go a step further and do a really long 2 out of 3 falls match. Allows for some tension to build when one person goes ahead but without a clock telling you that you should expect at least 25 more minutes of restholds.
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Dec 27, 2011 23:43:47 GMT -5
How the shit do you keep a crowd's interest for 80 minutes!?
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Dec 28, 2011 2:36:24 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan did two, (I think he was scheduled three, but missed the third) back to back nights in RoH as champion and both were extremely good matches. Even the one he got injured badly in the first few minutes. I'd put D. Bryan in their with a hoss or legend. Triple H or Mark Henry in an Iron Man match would be perfect. Have him take three or four falls early just to show the other guy as so dominant and make D. Bryan the true underdog with a fighting spirit. Then have him lock in a submission the big guy doesn't want to tap he wants to go flawless. D. Bryan cranks tighter and tighter eventually for the big guy to tap. When he goes to get up his worn over limb fails and he falls. D. Bryan attacks it again and locks in a submission on the same limb. Instant tap. Have him catch back up by exploiting the new weakness, but runs out of time at the time limit with a submission locked. Big guy will look great for showing endurance will put over how tough he is and also put over Daniel Bryans toughness and tenacity. Everybody wins. Especially me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2011 2:46:29 GMT -5
What bugs me about Iron Man or Best of _ matches is, whoever wins the first fall in theory should be the winner of the match.
|
|