Too much or too little?

[dawho5]

There are questions within this question. What is the match trying to accomplish? Does it overstay it's welcome? Are parts of the match that make it work cut short? Did the wrestlers run out of things to do that were relevant? Were there parts added that didn't fit the story the match was trying to tell? Were elements missing that needed to be there for the story to work?

 

It's pretty easy to figure out that I love Puerto Rican wrestling. Most matches in PR in the 80s don't make 20 minutes. The style is pretty simple and roughly 10-15 minutes feels like enough. Usually the babyface is beating the heel up at the end (happy crowd) or the heel got one over (angry crowd, more heat for next time). They accomplish what they set out to do and don't tack on needless extra minutes of guys punching and kicking each other.

 

That's just one promotion though. I've seen WCW tags from the early 90s that were really, really good. Bordering on great. But they were midcard matches or not given a ton of time and the heat gets cut down to almost nothing before the hot tag. The heels (usually the Midnights or DA) have plenty in the tank to make the heat last, but the time isn't there. So it can go both ways.

[cad]

I think that matches that are too short are more likely to impress me than are ones that are too long. In one I'm wanting more and in the other I'm ready for it to end.

 

Over the course of a career I'd prefer a wrestler feel like they laid it all out there. Quite a few guys have slipped in my estimation because they didn't aim for greatness enough. You can look at it as consistency or knowing your limitations, but it could just as easily be seen as playing it safe or not knowing how to take things to the next level. There are countless good wrestling matches. Great matches are rarer, so I respect the guys who try for those even if they have some big misses to go along with the hits.

[iamthedoctor]

I tend to prefer shorter matches. I hate 60 minute matches and I usually start losing interest in matches that go past 35 minutes.

 

I used to love long matches when I was younger but these days if I get bored of a match after a few mins ill skip it down to the last 5 minutes of a 30 min match.

 

The only exception is a iron man match.

[AstroBoy]

I should clarify also that I don't necessarily mean what is better between a short match and a long match. The more interesting question to me is would you rather watch a "good" or "fun" match that doesn't really reach greatness or do you prefer a great and ambitious match that forces you to deal with some bloat or melodrama or abandoned limb selling or whatever? Do you prefer the matches that build to the blowoff or do you prefer the blowoff?

 

More and more I just find myself more drawn to those minor matches or fun matches that don't aspire to classic status.

[shodate]

it is a case of value proposition someone sees the term Main event they expect long and exacting stuff or the feel Ripped off

[Boss Rock]

I should clarify also that I don't necessarily mean what is better between a short match and a long match. The more interesting question to me is would you rather watch a "good" or "fun" match that doesn't really reach greatness or do you prefer a great and ambitious match that forces you to deal with some bloat or melodrama or abandoned limb selling or whatever? Do you prefer the matches that build to the blowoff or do you prefer the blowoff?

 

More and more I just find myself more drawn to those minor matches or fun matches that don't aspire to classic status.

 

I usually prefer a great and ambitious match even if it has some fat around the edges in favor of a "good" or "fun" match. Good, fun matches happen all the time, but an ambitious epic, if pulled off correctly and doesn't drift towards self-conscious territory, is usually something special. But variety is also the spice of life and I like a series of really enjoyable, shorter matches that build up to that main event spectacle.

[Tim Cooke]

Going long for the sake of it or because "that's what you do" is silly, of course. But I still think having a great long match requires a higher skill level, especially one that builds slowly and keeps the people.

 

Completely agree with this. Just aren't enough truly skilled guys to pull off long matches. But you can say that about the top level of any performance or sport.

[iamthedoctor]

Id say favourite Iron man match had to be HBK/Bret but nowadays I won't watch half of it because I know the fall takes place after the 60 minute draw. So the one I would watch from start to finish has to be Benoit/HHH which was such a fun match they did on Raw, Steamboat/Rude would be a close second followed by Rhodes/Rude.

 

I do like the ending of the Rock/HHH one but the match spoils itself for me because Hunter wins.

[Riderman Hongo]

For me, it depends on the location on the card.

If it is as Lower card match, I am happy for it to go between 5-8 minutes.

Midcard Match Ten to fifteen is fine

Main event any were up to 60 in fine as long as the match Structure is make sense

Long for the sake of long is pointless.