Why are wrestling matches so short?
by, 10-15-2010 at 01:41 PM (2512 Views)
It seems far too common that matches have the potential to be great if they were longer. It seems that every time I'm reading results or someone's post that someone comments that they wish a certain match could have lasted longer. In terms of what makes a great match, I think that match length is almost as important as the qaulity of wrestling between the two competitors. A match can last 3 minutes and have some great moves and chemistry involved but it always seems that just when the match is heating up, BOOM...finisher and this ones over folks.
One particular match that inspired my to write this blog was the match between John Morrison and Tyson Kidd this past week on RAW. These two in the ring together looked like they could really put on quite a show. Both showed amazing athleticism, a good amount of offense, and even some fresh movesets (I mean, c'mon, did anyone else watch Tyson Kidd russian leg sweep Morrison off the second rope?) This was the first time in a few weeks that I found myself glued to the t.v during a match, but just as I was really getting into the match, Morrison hits his finisher and ends it. I know that the argument can be made that this match might have been kept short because it didnt really push any storylines and niether one of them is particularly good on the mic, but I would really like this to go somewhere, but thats besides the point. The fact is that wrestling fans(and Im not talking about that 12 year old girls in the stands every night) respect guys who can put in memorable matches. The front office cant just stick a mic in a guys hand, get him to pull off some quick victories and expect him to be uber over with the fans, thats just not the way it works. Fans have to respect the wrestling ability of the wrestlers before they can fully support them. I think thats where the recent pushes of Kofi Kingston, Evan Bourne, and John Morrison have fallen flat. The front office just didnt push them right.
Go back to Wrestlemania 13 with Bret Hart vs Steve Austin with Shamrock as the special guest ref. I think you can trace back much of Austin's success to this one match. If memory serves me right( I was only a kid when this match occured), prior to this match, Austin was kinda just this annoying heel who wasnt really viewed as a potential star, just kinda someone in the spotlight for a few months. Just incase anyone forgot how this match went down, Austin and Hart went 30 + minutes in a very good back in forth match which saw both men get in a good amount of offense. IMO the key to this match and maybe the most important moment in Austin's career came when Hart locked in the sharpshooter on Austin. Hart had the sharpshooter locked in for a good solid minute before Austin finally passed out from the pain. But I think the fact that Austin put on such a great match and lasted 30+ minutes with Hart garnered him a TON of respect from the fans and catapulted his stardom. Would Austin have gained this much respect from the fans if this match only lasted 10 minutes?
I understand that a 2 hour show doesnt give the creative team a ton of time to fit in a lot of matches, but I would rather see a few lengthy matches than these 3 minute matches that take place every week coupled with about 45 minutes of interviews, backstage confrontations and this damn anonymous g.m. My solution, give these performers more than 5 minutes to make a name for themselves and maybe WWE will be more successful in pushing new talent.