Too much or too little?

[AstroBoy]

It struck me recently how much I enjoy matches that run a little shorter than you would expect them to go or where wrestlers leave a lot on the table. And I realized I prefer matches that maybe give too little as opposed to bigger matches that may have a bigger story, more ambition, more conclusion. In essence, I prefer the steps to the destination in a lot of cases.

 

Anybody feel similar? Does anyone feel similar or have a different view?

[Mad Dog]

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

[KawadaSmile]

I tend to like shorter matches, as in 10 minutes at best, when they are actually competitive. Matches like Oney Lorcan vs Drew McIntyre move at an insane pace and it look vicious from bell to bell.

 

However, I get why they aren't so common nowadays. Sprints nowadays usually feel like special matches, much like your 40 minute epics, and having both of those types featured weekly pretty much kills the impact they can have.

[Boss Rock]

I think it depends on the match and the story they're telling. I also tend to like a mix of both.

[brockobama]

Actually been thinking about this a lot recently because a few weeks back I happened to watch the two most famous film adaptations of the mutiny on the HMS Bounty, both the 1935 classic with Clark Gable and the fantastic Charles Laughton as well as the 1962 version with Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard. The latter's a pretty famous box office bomb that was also panned critically for decades, being seen as this overlong, aimless, unrefined retread of what was already a well-regarded film. Though I recognize the '35 version as much tighter and more cohesive, generally a better film in just about every way, I enjoyed the '62 version much more for how it reveled in its characters and relayed the passage of time and let things build to a boil naturally as opposed to all at once.

 

At the same time I've been reviewing 1996 WWF and have really enjoyed a lot of the RAWs despite their general lack of quality because they're so to the point. With most of these matches it's a real simple idea of "this guy is plain ol' better than this guy" or "this guy has a superior strategy" or "this guy can capitalize on the other guy's mistakes" or what have you and the quick, efficient telling of those stories is really enjoyable. It's been hard to go back and watch 2018 matches for the most part because I'll find similar ideas played out over two, three, four times as much time but done more lazily or aimlessly or just in a less interesting way. Not to say that Crush squash matches are better than the New Japan Cup stuff I've been trying to get through but Crush has the benefit of brevity and even if he's boring he's only boring for four minutes at most.

 

So I dunno. I think it's sort of an inverted bell curve where I tend to like the smaller stuff where there's little wasted time/space but I also tend to like the drawn out matches that go in a lot of directions. It's not always perfect on either end of the curve but I'd take a lot of those matches over the 20-40 minute matches that dominate most of industry.

[Mad Dog]

What I hate is how a show like RoH can go. You sit through a 20 minute match and then they follow that up with a 30 minute match. It gets old.

 

I really enjoyed Chikara and NXT for this. Shorter matches and shows you were out of in 2-3 hours. Chikara shows are really good for that leaving you wanting more. They run about 2 hours, the main event is usually about 20ish minutes and everything else can run short to mid range. Nothing tends to overstay it's welcome.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

I’m all about short matches. It’s the era of the sprint.

[shodate]

i like longer matches minimum 23-25 mins for main event or to put its better if there is reocenzed time litit pt th e match i like said match to go soem wat close to half the alloted time of the match.

[NintendoLogic]

It depends on the type of match. A match built around brawling and hate is probably best at 10 to 15 minutes. More scientific matches generally need at least 20 minutes to fully develop the story. It's quite rare for any match to need to go much longer than 30 minutes, though.

[fxnj]

Definitely too short. My time is valuable and guys wasting it just to go long for the sake of going long is one of the worst trends of modern wrestling.

[stomperspc]

Easily prefer matches that are shorter and/or end before the wrestlers have done everything I wanted to see them do compared to the alternative. In anything other than a definitive, top of the card blow off match, the goal should be to leave the audience satisfied but still wanting more.

[superkix]

Under 15 minutes is my sweet spot.

[Boss Rock]

A lot of my favorite matches have ended up being between the 20-30 minute spot. But a short, violent sprint like we saw from Brock pre-Braun match is a great change of pace.

[SPS]

It depends on the style and workers really but in general about 10 mins for guys I'm checking out for the first time is a good length and for established favorites of mine 20 mins is about my limit except for the odd special match like a big main event or like the Misawa,Kawada,Hase vs Kobashi,Taue,Akiyama 6 man I watched recently that was a 60 min draw which was not a chore to sit through.

 

I see it as kinda like eating for the most part I don't have time to sit through a 5 course meal but a few times a year it's enjoyable haha.

[Loss]

I say, if you can have an amazing match in five minutes where it doesn't feel shortchanged, have at it! If you need more time to have an amazing match, have at it! I don't really have a personal fixed rule on match length. Sometimes short matches feel too long and long matches feel too short. It's all relative.

[Boss Rock]

I say, if you can have an amazing match in five minutes where it doesn't feel shortchanged, have at it! If you need more time to have an amazing match, have at it! I don't really have a personal fixed rule on match length. Sometimes short matches feel too long and long matches feel too short. It's all relative.

 

Agreed.

[Mad Dog]

My rules vary by if I am there live or if I am watching at home. I want a live show to be 3.5 hours at the most. Past that and I'm more concerned about how much my back and butt hurt than I am with what's in the ring. At home, if a match is super long, I can always take a break and come back to it.

[concrete1992]

Shorter is better, no questions asked. It just is.

[Tim Cooke]

I always air on the side of shorter being better. Leave the audience wanting more.

[El-P]

 

I say, if you can have an amazing match in five minutes where it doesn't feel shortchanged, have at it! If you need more time to have an amazing match, have at it! I don't really have a personal fixed rule on match length. Sometimes short matches feel too long and long matches feel too short. It's all relative.

 

Agreed.

 

Thirded.

 

(although the trend is on most big matches going way longer than they really should, self-conscious epic syndrome)

[Jimmy Redman]

I've been watching years worth of nothing but short matches, mostly

[Mad Dog]

I will say that my enjoyment of CWF Mid-Atlantic has started to decrease as Trevor Lee's title defenses always go long. It was kind of cool at first but it's slowly become "oh look, a Trevor Lee match, bet this is going 35 minutes."

[Loss]

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.

[Boss Rock]

I do think guys like Okada and Trevor Lee are good at having those kinds of matches even if they drag or take a little while to get going. There are tons of folks who couldn't make a 30+ minute match engaging in any way.

[Mad Dog]

Yeah, I think it says a lot about Trevor Lee that it took 2 years for it to start getting old.