goc Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I ask this question after thinking about the Stan Hansen vs. Curt Hennig (5/31/86) match from the AWA set. The match is only a 10 minute time limit and I'm wondering if this would almost automatically disqualify it in some people's minds from being a "top 10" match over something going 15-20 minutes long. For the sake of argument let's say we are only rating matches on the bell to bell match time even though that's not the case for me with the Hansen/Hennig match because it has an awesome pre-match brawl. It WAS the case for me during the Memphis set however, when I ranked this match the Jerry Lawler vs. King Kong Bundy "$10,000 challenge" match #1. It's about a 7 and a half minute match but I thought the use of the "$1,000 of Jimmy Hart's money for every minute" gimmick was worked great with Lawler just eating up time, and everyone's reaction to the announcement of another minute passed. Plus you have Lawler doing a great cat and mouse game with the giant Bundy and then ultimately getting caught. Lawler does one of his awesome comebacks but gets distracted by Rick Rude and then Bundy KOs him with a chain and splashes him for the FIVE count. I'm sure some people think it's crazy that I would rank that match over any of the Lawler/Dundee matches (and I still loved all of them) but on the first watch that Bundy/Lawler match was one of my favorite matches ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 If a match feels too short, it's too short. Sometimes, wrestlers can do a lot with a little time. Sometimes, wrestlers have a lot of time and can't do much. There's no definite answer here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Yes. (I know, that's a rather detailed answer) Usually when a match is too short to be *great* we use the *great 10 minutes match* or *great short match* line instead of simply *great*. It may be stupid, and it does lead to the idiotic conception that every great match has to be a 30 minutes epic (the HHH syndrome), but usually you have to go to a certain lenght to have the time to develop the structure and build to a satisfying apex. I don't think that lenght should be that long, 15 minutes is long enough to develop into a great match, and most workers should never even try for 30 (don't even talk about 60). But I'd say yes, at least to me. But hey, I love foreplays, so there is that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 If the draw had been set up just a little better in that Hansen vs Hennig match, it probably would have made my top ten for the entire 80s for the AWA. I know Dylan has it high. So... A great match is a great match. If a match can both use and overcome the limitations of that sort of time limit, then it's a great match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Two matches which immediately spring to mind are the Terry Funk vs. Stan Hansen match from the All Japan set, what was that? Barely 10 minutes? And the Ted DiBiase vs. Jim Duggan multiple gimmicks on a pole in tuxedos match which I believe is actually under 10 minutes (if it isn't, it feels like it), and finished #1 on the Mid-South set. One more match I'll point to is Arn and Ole vs. The Rock n Roll Express from Starrcade 86. It's all of 13 minutes but is basically perfect. The undercard of Clash 1 also has two REALLY good short matches on it: Midnight Express vs. The Fantastics and Arn and Tully vs. Windham and Luger. If either of them break 10 minutes, it's not by much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 A match tells a story. If they can tell a complete, meaningful story in that time then there's no reason it can't be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 This reminds me of something Abraham Lincoln supposedly said, when prodded about his excessively long legs: legs must only be long enough to reach the ground. There have been matches on the yearbook/'80s sets that ended just as they got going, and there have been matches on the sets that needed an editor. The first Larry Z/Bockwinkel match on the AWA set barely goes 5 minutes and Larry gets in all of one offensive move, but I could see it finishing in my top 25, because it told everything that it needed to tell in that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 If a match feels too short, it's too short. Sometimes, wrestlers can do a lot with a little time. Sometimes, wrestlers have a lot of time and can't do much. There's no definite answer here.This is how I feel about it. The Bundy/Lawler match felt the perfect length. On one hand, I felt like Hansen/Hennig could have been longer but I also know that's my desire to see the payoff finish of Hennig winning the title. That was never going to happen so I have to think that the match they had was the best they were going to have with the circumstances being what they were. I also agree with what Pete said about some matches needing an editor. That Buck/Regal match needed to be chopped in half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 To me, Hansen/Hennig wasn't even about wanting to see Hennig win the title. It was about the timing of it. It was about them building to a more frustrating (to the fans) final moment. A mad dash to beat down the champ while he was trying to get a solid win to put this kid in his place. A build to a moment where Hennig REALLY had him only to have it snatched away due to the time limit. I know Hennig couldn't really do his second rope dropkick in the confines of what they were working, but I didn't think anything that happened at the end there could have put Hansen away, and I needed that, especially at the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Masa Funaki vs Nakano from UWF in 1989 goes under 10 minutes yet it feels 'complete' and is undeniably great. So, no, it doesn't have to be long. That said, very few 'great' matches are under 15 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpchicago23 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 To me match length isnt really a concern. The benefits of a long match to me, if done well, are the payoffs from earlier in the feud or even just earlier in the match. If say a leg is being worked over repeatedly and is sold very well then at about the 30 minute mark the wrestler isnt able to perform a standard move or finisher and it costs him the match then to me that length of time helped tell that story. Another benefit of having a longer match is to show the fatigue of the wrestlers and how much despiration is being put into every move or spot. An hour long draw if done well continues feuds and storylines very easily. However a match doesnt have to be long to be great. If the wrestlers involved are good at a fast paced sprint type of match and can still tell some what of a story without it coming off as a rushed spotfest than that to me is great as well. Take Owen/Kid from KOR 94 for example. A very fast paced match and might have been under 6 minutes. I was blown away by it and to me it definitely felt longer which means they did enough to suck me in during that short period of time. I always thought guys like Malenko and Mysterio would have great short tv matches with each other as well. Chemistry is more than likely the key component to a great short match. I'm sure there are many under 10 minute matches i consider to be great but thats just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I ask this question after thinking about the Stan Hansen vs. Curt Hennig (5/31/86) match from the AWA set. The match is only a 10 minute time limit and I'm wondering if this would almost automatically disqualify it in some people's minds from being a "top 10" match over something going 15-20 minutes long. To me a great match is a great match. At my ages the idea that a longer match is innately more deserving of that label than a short one seems insane. Some of my favorite matches are fifteen minutes or less. The match in question is one of them and is my number two on the AWA Set Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Nobody's named anything under five minutes. By simple mathematical probability, there must be a minimum amount of time for the wrestlers to do anything meaningful. I don't see anyone ever having a great half-second match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Nobody's named anything under five minutes. By simple mathematical probability, there must be a minimum amount of time for the wrestlers to do anything meaningful. I don't see anyone ever having a great half-second match. Lawler/Snowman is under five and is a great match. Brad Armstrong v. Vader is awfully close to a great match if not a great match and that's under five. I think Funk v. Eddie is a great match and that's right at five minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Nobody's named anything under five minutes. By simple mathematical probability, there must be a minimum amount of time for the wrestlers to do anything meaningful. I don't see anyone ever having a great half-second match. I just had one, but it wasn't taped. I'm sorry you missed it. I cut quite the pace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Nobody's named anything under five minutes. By simple mathematical probability, there must be a minimum amount of time for the wrestlers to do anything meaningful. I don't see anyone ever having a great half-second match. You just broke SD Jones's heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Brad Armstrong v. Vader is awfully close to a great match if not a great match and that's under five. I think Funk v. Eddie is a great match and that's right at five minutes. I don't think I would say they are *great* matches, but they most certainly are awesome five minutes matches if that makes any sense. Maybe it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Okay, then, wiseguys. Two minutes. Anything under that? That pretty much leaves us with only the shortest of squash matches, and I've never seen a short squash that I'd ever consider a "great match". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Is a great 10 minute match as good as a great 25 minute match? I would say no. Having a well worked opening portion, a well worked middle portion and a well worked stretch run seems better than just any one of the three. Most of the really good short matches I've seen have felt like the stretch run of an otherwise great match. The problem is, a lot of good stuff happens in the earlier portions of a great 30 minute match and that is missing in those short sprints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Is a great 10 minute match as good as a great 25 minute match? It depends on the matches you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 A match tells a story. If they can tell a complete, meaningful story in that time then there's no reason it can't be great. I'm with you pretty much all the way here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I'll add that quite often, a match is considered 'great' based on one spot or a particular sequence or a hot three minutes at the end. I've seen people call the Shawn vs Flair WM match an all-time great and it's clear that 99% is based on "I'm sorry, I love you". So, a match that's actually 5-10 minutes of great content from bell-to-bell can absolutely measure up to a 25 minute match with like 3-4 minutes of great content and 21 minutes of 'good'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 A match tells a story. If they can tell a complete, meaningful story in that time then there's no reason it can't be great. Wrestling matches rare tell complete and meaningful stories. They rarely tell stories at all. I think people get confused between narrative and story when trying to describe storytelling in wrestling, but anyway, a match should at least have a beginning, middle and an end. The Ted Dibiase matches I watched recently almost universally had a poor middle. They could have tightened up the middle, done better moves and sold more, but ultimately the matches felt too short. The beginning and the end are the easiest parts of a story to write and the middle is always the hardest. So too with wrestling, I think, but skipping or truncating the middle as so many Dibiase matches did is the worst approach. I think having the rounds system in Europe and the two-out-of-three falls system in Mexico is a big advantage when working match structure because there's naturally a middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Excuse me then. Great matches tell stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.