Yeah, the other one.

 

Matches that leave you shaking your head at the stubborn-mindedness/rampant egotism/lack of self awareness in thinking they can keep a match interesting for that long.

 

Should we just disqualify HHH here to move onto other examples?

I think Steve Williams vs Kenta Kobashi on 9/3/94 is still going on.

Steve Regal vs Buck Zumhofe felt like an eternity.

Is anyone still able to watch a Buck Zumhofe match anyway ?

 

Yeah, every HHH main event match ever. Most one hour matches are too long.

To me, 25 minutes is ideal for a lengthy wrestling match. Obviously, there have been great matches which have gone longer than that, but as a rule I don't enjoy broadways. I always thought 60 minutes was too long for those All Japan draws, for example, especially for a tag match.

The Night The Line Was Crossed . Terry Funk vs. Sabu vs. Shane Douglas. It went on for 60 minutes . It felt like 60 hours.

All of those Ring of Honor scrambles from 2002-2006.

Surprised Loss mentioned Williams vs. Kobashi, while I would agree that went to long, I think WIlliams vs. Kawada from October a month later is a more egregious example of match going long. The first match that popped into mind for me was the Night the Line was Crossed as it was 45 minutes of uninspiring work all around.

 

I am interested to rewatch the Hero vs. Punk 93 minute match as I was a fan of it.

To me, 25 minutes is ideal for a lengthy wrestling match. Obviously, there have been great matches which have gone longer than that, but as a rule I don't enjoy broadways. I always thought 60 minutes was too long for those All Japan draws, for example, especially for a tag match.

I'm in the same boat. Once it goes past 30 my interest drops off quickly. I love a good sprint, particularly between heavyweights, but I'd say your standard/ideal main event on a major show should be about 25 minutes. Plenty of time to lay out the story but not so long that it becomes unbearable.

The Night The Line Was Crossed . Terry Funk vs. Sabu vs. Shane Douglas. It went on for 60 minutes . It felt like 60 hours.

 

When I first saw this about a year later I thought it was absolutely phenomenal as I had never seen anything like it previously. The post match interview and angle was exquisite too. However, I'd be the first to admit that it hasn't aged that well.

To me, 25 minutes is ideal for a lengthy wrestling match. Obviously, there have been great matches which have gone longer than that, but as a rule I don't enjoy broadways. I always thought 60 minutes was too long for those All Japan draws, for example, especially for a tag match.

 

I couldn't agree more. A match has to be awfully special for me to want more than 25-30 minutes. I know I said this in another thread recently, but "could've used more time" is an overused criticism. Ten or 15 minutes is fine for most matches, even good ones.

To me, 25 minutes is ideal for a lengthy wrestling match. Obviously, there have been great matches which have gone longer than that, but as a rule I don't enjoy broadways. I always thought 60 minutes was too long for those All Japan draws, for example, especially for a tag match.

 

I couldn't agree more. A match has to be awfully special for me to want more than 25-30 minutes. I know I said this in another thread recently, but "could've used more time" is an overused criticism. Ten or 15 minutes is fine for most matches, even good ones.

 

 

 

Put me in the 25 minutes club too.

lol, i always felt that way and i've long been used to seeing internet fans rave about flair/AJPW broadways (hell, even the WM12 ironman!). glad to see i'm apparently in the majority for once =)

 

even for the aforementioned ironman matches, i think 30 is the way to go for sure. just look at how well steamboat-rude has held up compared to WM12...

I feel like I should stick up for longer matches. I have no problem with 30+ minute matches as long as the action is compelling and a complete story is told. I can think of countless long matches that never would have resonated as much with me had they not done the opening groundwork.

I feel like I should stick up for longer matches. I have no problem with 30+ minute matches as long as the action is compelling and a complete story is told. I can think of countless long matches that never would have resonated as much with me had they not done the opening groundwork.

I think longer matches from the 80s and into early 90s are more enjoyable than their descendants. I'm comparing Flair and HHH in my head here.

I think matches can be too long at 12 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, or 25 minutes. It isn’t necessarily about going over a certain time mark for me, although I do agree that there aren’t many circumstances where a match needs to go 30+ minutes to reach its full potential.

A 12 minute match can overstay its welcome if the wrestlers work a solid match that builds to a climax at 8 the minute mark only to go on for several additional minutes. A lot of current US indie matches suffer from this problem. The match will build nicely to a peak move/sequence/near fall and then continue on for 5+ minutes after that point. Matches should get out on a high note and a lot of matches suffer from their inability to do that.

In addition to matches that go past their peak, there are matches that reach the “too long” mark when they are well underway but never got into any sort of flow. I wouldn’t necessarily say that a 5-minute television match that never quite gets out of the blocks went too long, but a 10-minute “nothing” match probably would fall in the too long category.

The same goes for too short matches. They can be all sorts of different lengths. It is all about filling the time you use appropriately.

They can be all sorts of different lengths. It is all about filling the time you use appropriately.

 

 

I think this is the best point. We shouldn't get too fixated on what a match is supposed to be, because there are so many approaches that work. It's up to the booker to give the wrestlers the right amount of time based on their place on the card, crowd interest and skill level, and it's up to wrestlers to wisely fill whatever time they are given. Matches are often too long, but I've seen great 60 minute matches and bad five minute ones too.

That Hero/Punk 90 minute match is about 60 minutes too long.

 

 

I think this is the best point. We shouldn't get too fixated on what a match is supposed to be, because there are so many approaches that work. It's up to the booker to give the wrestlers the right amount of time based on their place on the card, crowd interest and skill level, and it's up to wrestlers to wisely fill whatever time they are given.

 

Yes, but very few workers are able to fill 60 minutes without either going into long useless resthold and/or "dramatic" selling segments or equally useless endless series of spots and "dramatic" nearfalls. Sometimes smokes and mirrors and overbooking can work around that, like HHH vs Rock in 2000, but matches going really long is usually a sign of complacency in the modern days.

lol, i always felt that way and i've long been used to seeing internet fans rave about flair/AJPW broadways (hell, even the WM12 ironman!). glad to see i'm apparently in the majority for once =)

 

even for the aforementioned ironman matches, i think 30 is the way to go for sure. just look at how well steamboat-rude has held up compared to WM12...

 

My theory has been that most of them rave about those matches because they think they're supposed to. I think for some of them they need to justify the hour they spent. That's not everyone but I do see it crop up in certain groups.

I have no issue with very long matches as long as the persons involved know how to do one. That said, I think they should be very rare in a promotion - used sparingly enough that when the do happen they mean something.

Kobashi vs Kawada - 1.19.1995

 

Amazing match, but it really went on far too long. The draw was an important instance of storytelling, but it meant that the match had a hell of a lot of needless filler that messed with the action.

The easiest way for a longer match to not seem too long is for it to have multiple falls. I know that booking a match to be a 2/3 or a 30-minute ironman is going to seem stupid if it's only a justification for the match to be that long (and it will take away the "surprise" of seeing a match that does go long), but I think that it's obvious that if the match can be explicitly segmented to some extent that it won't feel that long.

I agree with that. Flair//Steamboat at the Clash was just under an hour and it doesn't feel like an hour.

Kobashi vs Kawada - 1.19.1995

 

Amazing match, but it really went on far too long. The draw was an important instance of storytelling, but it meant that the match had a hell of a lot of needless filler that messed with the action.

The 10/96 rematch was worse. Doing one broadway was plenty. I don't think I ever managed to sit through the second.