mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,267
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Mar 2, 2014 10:20:43 GMT -5
When i watch these matches back on my dvds i was always dissappointed there was never a winner. I never seen the appeal and understood the booking of a draw after having the fans attention for a whole hour only to not have a winner crowned. Anyone else feel the same way? I know the old school fans will chip in and say well it was more to do with the story being told and the good quality of wrestling but none the less i mean cmon you want a winner, right?
Whats the appeal of an hour long draw? And do you think an hour is too long? I personally do think an hour is too long and i think wrestling is best captured in a time frame of no more than 20-30 minutes max because peoples attention spans tend to wane any longer.
|
|
theafricandream
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jan 15, 2014 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by theafricandream on Mar 2, 2014 11:14:16 GMT -5
No better way for a top heel to draw heat than to have him barely escape with the title due to a draw. That said, the practice wouldn't hold up as well today as it did in that era.
|
|
|
Post by wyleecyotee on Mar 2, 2014 12:02:23 GMT -5
I like it as a tactic to draw fans into a rematch but it should be used very sparingly as it is something that could piss fans off more than draw them in the more you use it and overdo it. But done right, it is an awesome story telling device in wrestling.
|
|
That 80s Guy
Main Eventer
Gnarly!
Joined on: Nov 6, 2010 14:29:43 GMT -5
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by That 80s Guy on Mar 2, 2014 17:11:15 GMT -5
-- I understand both sides of it - you want to see a clear cut winner after a long, grueling contest. But on the same token, if 2 guys (or 2 teams) have well enough chemistry to get away with going a full hour, and meeting the time limit - wouldn't you want to see the 2 going at it once again, to see who can truly "win the war" sorta speak..? The draw always appeals to me as the 2 both "living to fight another day" mentality - as if to say, no one won this battle: we'll meet again!
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Mar 2, 2014 17:50:26 GMT -5
Time-limit draws are more effective when the heel is the champion. Back then, draws meant something. You can build up to another match between the two (could be singles and tag teams as well) and extend the feud. Additionally, it made a ton of sense because it can draw more heat for the heels and continue the face to chase for the title. In the 1980's, fans were conditioned to matches/feuds like this. Sadly, time limit draws won't have the same appeal today than in the '80's. Today's fans aren't conditioned to hour long matches compared to the '80's.
The booking style JCP used was extremely effective to building solid heels and faces. Makes you wonder why a lot of names from JCP are still talked about today.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Mar 2, 2014 18:11:25 GMT -5
No better way for a top heel to draw heat than to have him barely escape with the title due to a draw. That said, the practice wouldn't hold up as well today as it did in that era. this! plus,the reverse - making a face by having him hang with and come THIS close to beating the champion.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Mar 2, 2014 19:51:17 GMT -5
Time limit draws are the easiest way to take a young guy or one who's green as hell and "hot shot" him into stardom without putting too much pressure on him too fast as well as not hurting the Champion he's in the match with. Take for example Sting in 1988. At the first Clash of the Champions he went 45mins with Ric Flair. Flair never lost the match, never lost the title, walked out the champion but Sting became HUGE after that because he went in and lasted 45 minutes with the greatest World Champion of all time.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Mar 2, 2014 20:30:59 GMT -5
Nivro nailed it. Read no further. No better way for a top heel to draw heat than to have him barely escape with the title due to a draw. That said, the practice wouldn't hold up as well today as it did in that era. Triple H sorta tried something similar back when they re-introduced the World title to WWE fans and he still gets backlash for it to this very day. Usually those who got the point enjoyed it, those who didn't wish death upon him often.
|
|
|
Post by HHH316 on Mar 3, 2014 0:36:19 GMT -5
No better way for a top heel to draw heat than to have him barely escape with the title due to a draw. That said, the practice wouldn't hold up as well today as it did in that era. I think the reason it wouldn't work today as well is because there aren't any territories. For example , when Flair toured everywhere & took on the local top guy, the hour draw made him look great, while Flair would be in another town the next night.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 11, 2024 1:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 3:56:40 GMT -5
No better way for a top heel to draw heat than to have him barely escape with the title due to a draw. That said, the practice wouldn't hold up as well today as it did in that era. I think the reason it wouldn't work today as well is because there aren't any territories. For example , when Flair toured everywhere & took on the local top guy, the hour draw made him look great, while Flair would be in another town the next night. That's definitely an issue, but attention span is another issue. Fans want huge spots, and nobody can do a spotfest for an entire hour. Personally, I'd love to see time limit draws come back; I just don't see it happening. Not only was it a good ending, but the idea that it could happen I think added to the excitement of all matches. It wasn't just win, lose, or DQ, it added an entirely different variable and psychology to it. There used to be heel champs who'd do their best to run down the clock, running out of the ring and so forth, so when the face challenger finally got his hands on him, there was a huge pop. That's a moment I miss.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 11, 2024 1:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 12:33:34 GMT -5
Time limit draws are the easiest way to take a young guy or one who's green as hell and "hot shot" him into stardom without putting too much pressure on him too fast as well as not hurting the Champion he's in the match with. Take for example Sting in 1988. At the first Clash of the Champions he went 45mins with Ric Flair. Flair never lost the match, never lost the title, walked out the champion but Sting became HUGE after that because he went in and lasted 45 minutes with the greatest World Champion of all time. Excellent post Nivro. You took the thoughts straight outta my head.
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Mar 3, 2014 13:04:17 GMT -5
Time limit draws are the easiest way to take a young guy or one who's green as hell and "hot shot" him into stardom without putting too much pressure on him too fast as well as not hurting the Champion he's in the match with. Take for example Sting in 1988. At the first Clash of the Champions he went 45mins with Ric Flair. Flair never lost the match, never lost the title, walked out the champion but Sting became HUGE after that because he went in and lasted 45 minutes with the greatest World Champion of all time. Thanks for plugging the hole in my prior post. I genuinely appreciate that. I loved your example of Sting vs. Ric Flair. While Flair retained the title, Sting looked really strong in the end. I will say this over and over, JCP knew how to build up guys as well as feuds. Even after 26 years later, both Sting and Ric Flair are still recognizable names today. Another example of how time limit draws are effective, look at how the One Man Gang received a bye into the semi-finals at WrestleMania IV. Jake 'The Snake' Roberts and Rick Rude went to a 15 minute time-limit draw that allowed the One Man Gang to advance to the semi-finals. Funny how the both events I mentioned took place on the same day. Can it be a coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Karate on Mar 3, 2014 13:17:49 GMT -5
Those finishes won't work now. Just look at last years PPVs and the backlash they received. The last dusty finish I remember that went over well was NOC 12 with Punk/Cena and that's mostly due to the result.
I agree that Triple H used finishes like this amazingly in 02-04. Fans who don't enjoy 80s flair are the same fans who wanted to kill Triple H for his reign of terror.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Mar 3, 2014 15:11:07 GMT -5
People nowadays don't appreciate the art of wrestling. Just cause you lose a match doesn't mean you didn't gain from it immensely. Austin lost to Bret at WM13 but he gained from it. Sting didn't defeat Flair but going toe to toe with the champ for an hour built his status up.
Problem is today's wrestling fans would rather run to their keyboard to throw out the word "buried", instead of watching the craftsmen work.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 11, 2024 1:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 15:24:58 GMT -5
Problem is today's wrestling fans would rather run to their keyboard to throw out the word "buried", instead of watching the craftsmen work. I can't stand how casually that word gets thrown around. If someone doesn't win, they're buried, even if they keep getting high profile matches. "Buried" is what happened to NWA stars when they moved to WWF in the late-80s and early-90s, or when WCW stars went to WWF after WCW went under. They were given purposely bad gimmicks and never taken seriously. DDP was buried. Dusty Rhodes was nearly buried. Daniel Bryan isn't given wins. There's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by ricflair4ever on Mar 3, 2014 15:37:34 GMT -5
Problem is today's wrestling fans would rather run to their keyboard to throw out the word "buried", instead of watching the craftsmen work. I can't stand how casually that word gets thrown around. If someone doesn't win, they're buried, even if they keep getting high profile matches. "Buried" is what happened to NWA stars when they moved to WWF in the late-80s and early-90s, or when WCW stars went to WWF after WCW went under. They were given purposely bad gimmicks and never taken seriously. DDP was buried. Dusty Rhodes was nearly buried. Daniel Bryan isn't given wins. There's a difference. I agree with this. Those are some good examples that our friend from the Daredevil comics just gave us. I also agree with the statement above it about how most of todays fans wouldn't get it anymore when it comes to the use of draws. If Cesaro and Cena went to a draw (cause that's the most current match that had that kind of feel to it that I could think of) people would still be complaining because Cesaro didn't win. They don't understand that a wrestler showing that they can hang move for move with the established champion and not have either look bad, can mean just as much to a guy as a win. Sometimes more than one. People saw Sting as a main event player as a result of Clash #1 with Flair. But he needed time to develop more. That match laid the foundation, GAB 90 cemented it. The fans AND Sting were ready for the win and the title morseo in 1990. Because they had time to accept him and get into his gimmick/story after seeing him prove himself in that 45 minute draw in 88.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Mar 3, 2014 15:40:03 GMT -5
This is what I consider being buried... NOT losing a hard fought match with a top superstar.
|
|
|
Post by ricflair4ever on Mar 3, 2014 15:47:52 GMT -5
This is what I consider being buried... NOT losing a hard fought match with a top superstar. Bringing this up reminds me of that Legends roundtable they had on the network last week. I believe it was the bad gimmick/worst ideas episode. To hear Michael Hayes ( whom I like actually) claim that the reason Taylor failed as the Rooster was because Taylor didn't get into the gimmick enough was one of the stupidest/funniest things I ever heard. Hayes basically saying its Terrys fault.......what was he supposed to do?.........unleash his inner cock?!
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Mar 3, 2014 15:51:38 GMT -5
This is what I consider being buried... NOT losing a hard fought match with a top superstar. Bringing this up reminds me of that Legends roundtable they had on the network last week. I believe it was the bad gimmick/worst ideas episode. To hear Michael Hayes ( whom I like actually) claim that the reason Taylor failed as the Rooster was because Taylor didn't get into the gimmick enough was one of the stupidest/funniest things I ever heard. Hayes basically saying its Terrys fault.......what was he supposed to do?.........unleash his inner cock?! LOL. I remember that and though the same thing. Maybe he was expected to lay an egg on live TV or run around without his head?
|
|
|
Post by ricflair4ever on Mar 3, 2014 15:57:34 GMT -5
Bringing this up reminds me of that Legends roundtable they had on the network last week. I believe it was the bad gimmick/worst ideas episode. To hear Michael Hayes ( whom I like actually) claim that the reason Taylor failed as the Rooster was because Taylor didn't get into the gimmick enough was one of the stupidest/funniest things I ever heard. Hayes basically saying its Terrys fault.......what was he supposed to do?.........unleash his inner cock?! LOL. I remember that and though the same thing. Maybe he was expected to lay an egg on live TV or run around without his head? Oh he laid an egg all right.......everytime the poor bastard had to compete under that gimmick.......lol
|
|