I understand the logistics involved for the promoter.....if you have four of five bouts on your bill there have to be time restrictions otherwise you could be there till midnight. But who decides them and on what basis ? And best of three falls or just one fall or submission? I love looking at all the old posters you guys put up and I always check the number of rounds etc. It is fascinating one caught. My eye yesterday that was for FOUR rounds of TEN minutes duration them are long rounds. I remember reading on this site that Julian Maurice. felt if he had done 20 minutes in the ring that was his lot, I was not impressed. Towards the end of ITV coverage in the eighties even title bouts time limit became less and less........so they would be 12 or 10 rounds of three minutes duration when you take into consideration falls that occur they rarely went over 25 minutes. If you look on you tube at world of sport bouts even complete ones are rarely much more than this. What do you all think? I confess sometimes I feel short changed particularly as falls mainly occurred in the first minute or so of a round ( why was Kent eternally surprised at this?). I am watching a lot of the wrestling now from the late fifties early sixties from across the channel. A lot of them are ONE FALL and a lot DO NOT EVEN HAVE ROUNDS. What you get is continual mat wrestling uninterrupted. Personally I think this is much better there is a constant flow, the wrestlers themselves seem more into it as do the audience the atmosphere appears ....no it IS much more intense without rhe action stopping every three minutes sometimes in the middle of an hold. Most I have seen go 30 minutes sometimes even longer really exciting and tremendous value.
top of page
bottom of page
Well argued from the value of money point of view if matches do exceed 30 minutes Poolstead. I still think that a one fall match would remove the drama of a possible comeback, but on the other hand there is the sudden death element. I reckon value of one fall matches would be raised if surprising results were allowed to occur. Never mind Robinson-Campbell (Robinson 2 submissions to a fall) just imagine how McManus' television matches would have to be revised if they were one fall matches. No more coming from behind with a lucky knock out or injured opponent.
I often wonder what the result of the 1963 Royal Albert Hall drawn match between Robinson and Campbell would have been had it been over 8 x 5, rather than 4 x 10.
Some of the French matches require two falls to win but continue without a break until the first fall. Sometimes a knockout is achieved but the match still continues
Best of three ending in a 2-1 result did little for wrestling credibility and a 2-0 result would, you think be a more likely ending. I can understand your feelings on a one fall contest, so many would finish half way through round 4 of a six round bout so yeah it does feel short changed. The ones I am seeing at the moment mainly french professional from the end of the fifties loads are one fall contest I would go so far as to say 75% maybe more but lots go the full duration and end in a draw, or a submission or fall occurs after say 30 minutes so they are certainly good value! and as mentioned previously have no rounds. Provided they are not over in five minutes I like one fall contests generally. I like the idea that your going to have a WINNER or a full length draw result.
It was quite common up to the 1980s for matches in southern England to be ten minute rounds. When we discussed the topic years ago I don't recall anyone ever having a good word to say about ten minute rounds. In the rest of the country rounds were usually five minutes duration, though at Liverpool Stadium they were three minute rounds. I wondered if the Stadium, with it's boxing heritage, had a programmed three minute clock.
The reasons you don't like the rounds Poolstead are the reasons I do like them. The interruption of the bell could add drama, allowing the villain time to recover from almost imminent defeat. I haven't seen enough no rounds matches to compare, but rounds or no rounds a one fall match and I always felt short changed.
You're right though that wrestlers were accustomed to doing the required 20-25 minutes. Looking through pre war results it was far more common to see two falls to nil results, which I would have thought preferable to the predictable and unbelievable routine 2-1 matches we endured.
I agree entirely 100% just started watching them and there is no break in the wrestling lots, not all have no rounds
Some of the matches from France now on You Tube last up to forty minutes and are still very compelling
As mentioned I like no rounds all the ones I have seen so far flow much better and no stops at crucial stages by the bell when one wrestler is on the verge of gaining a submission or fall. Guess it’s horses for courses and room for both! Incidentally in all the ones I have watched from the fifties onwards right through to the WOS eighties they announce the time at regular intervals so Maurice would have no excuse on that score.
Let's not overlook the obvious: the wrestlers would have been glad of a break.
And all that bell ringing added to the atmosphere and gave Kellett and others the chance not to hear or to ignore the bell.
And then off tv and in our halls, the wrestlers could get up to all sorts of mischief with the bucket and the water and even the bell itself.
But for managing the likes of Maurice, the rounds were essential.
McManus put himself in 4x10 and sometimes 5x10 from 1968 onwards, and he knew he needed to do two full rounds + 2 or three quickies to ensure he did his own 25 minutes each night.
Too risky having wrestlers guess the length of their bouts. Rounds were the units of time to ensure a 120-150 minute show.
Personally I loved the rounds, also the fans needed a break in concentration.
Two falls to One was very predictable. Even a green novice usually got a fall against a tough old hand.
No rounds works great , but that came later and rounds were how it was.
The reason , probably to emulate Boxing , so we had to have the seconds with the towel etc , all to make it look like a real fight with a ref.
Thinking about it , It probably matters now if we could do it all again , but as it was in the old days , I don't think anyone ever thought about it being arranged differently. It was accepted by all.
If it had been three minute rounds like boxing , some wrestlers still could not have speeded up to provide an action spectacle. Wrestling is Wrestling.
Ten minute rounds , I thought immediately when I saw it , was just a way of cheating the public.