There is definitely a Flair formula, and to me, it's what makes him great. Your opponent gets the best of you early on (pretty much everyone), most of the time with a side headlock (Taylor, Reed, Sting, Steamboat). A change in momentum causes his opponent to miss a move or make a key mistake (Koloff, Sting, Luger, Steamboat), often times affecting the leg or knee, which creates an opening for Flair to begin working on the guy's leg to set up the figure four.
While in the figure four, he will typically hold the ropes when the referee isn't looking and get a few nearfalls off of it until the babyface finds the resolve to turn the move over, which the announcer will inevitably point out is the only known counter (Windham, Steamboat, Sting, Luger). In the middle of their comeback, the babyface will catch a thumb to the eye from Flair. Flair will then climb to the top rope, only to get slammed to the mat (Nikita, Luger, Sting, Kerry).
At some point, some chops may be thrown in. His opponents will either shrug them off (Road Warriors, Sting, Luger, Nikita), chop back (Steamboat, Garvin), or sell them and punch him in retaliation (pretty much everyone else). The next few minutes will see the babyface hit a series of offensive moves and get a *really* close nearfall, which will totally reel in the crowd. There may be a 10-count of babyface punches while standing on the middle rope in the corner (Sting, Luger, Kerry), after which Flair will walk to the center of the ring in a daze and fall on his face. Within a few minutes of this happening, Flair will find a way to win the match either with his feet on the ropes (Luger), his opponent's feet on the ropes (Kerry), or a handful of tights. The match will then be over.
There are slight variations on that, but that's basically the Flair formula.
It's great!
I understand pointing out that Flair is formulaic and repetitive, because he is. What I don't understand is the presumption that
(a) that's a bad thing
( that's somehow different from almost every other great heel who has had a similar role
© the matches are *SO* clung to that formula that if you've seen one Flair match, you've seen them all
I think a common problem with Flair matches is that they judge him based on those same few matches over and over. You know the ones, Harley Race at Starrcade '83, the Dusty Rhodes feud, and the Steamboat series. WWE is completely unaware he had any other matches or opponents at any point in the 80s. It's no wonder people are sick of them. They will occasionally throw us a bone and provide a rare match (Barry Windham on Worldwide) or a match that has never before been released (Ricky Morton) and sadly, no one talks about it. All anyone wants to talk about is fucking Wrestle War '89 and Clash VI. Enough. Please. I'm a huge Flair fan, and I'm sick of those matches. Move on.
But let's talk about each of those points:
(a) That's a bad thing
Why? Why is it bad to have signature spots or have similar archs in the way two matches are laid out? Flair wrestled a ridiculous schedule in the 80s, and to expect him to sit down and watch a bunch of Terry Gordy matches while he's in Puerto Rico because he's wrestling him the next night in Dallas at the Sportatorium is patently insane.
Seriously, look at this schedule, and tell me when Flair is supposed to study a bunch of tapes of his opponents:
http://www.wrestling-titles.com/nwa/world/...atches1985.html
Specifically focus on April and May. Also, keep in mind that schedule is probably missing some dates, and also doesn't account for flying to all the TV studios where he probably didn't even have a match, but had to catch a redeye to do a two minute promo to hype a show taking place in two weeks.
Yes, every NWA champ is bound to this schedule, so I think if someone is going to somehow state that this is bad thing, the onus is on that person to look at another NWA champ with a similar schedule, take a week or two week block of time where they were wrestling in a different place pretty much every night, and point out how different (and good) all of those matches are.
Flair's point of view, for the record, was always that because he saw Ray Stevens once live and was disappointed that he worked a "different" type of match and he didn't get to see any of the signature spots, he vowed he would always do the Flair show so fans weren't disappointed that they didn't get to see him do his trademark spots, some of which happened to be bumps.
( That's somehow different from almost every other great heel who had a similar role
We've discussed this. Every wrestler in the history of wrestling is repetitive. That doesn't mean there can't be variety, which leads to:
©the matches are *SO* clung to that formula that if you've seen one Flair match, you've seen them all
Sometimes the opening matwork was a side headlock, in the cases described above, and sometimes it would be a hammerlock or an armbar. Sometimes Flair would mix in some arm work (Wahoo, Luger at Wrestle War '90). Sometimes, he would throw in the "Let's both tumble over the top rope" spot, and sometimes he wouldn't. Sometimes he would be carefree and animated at the beginning of a match (Luger at Starrcade '88 and Clash XII) and sometimes he would be more serious (Funk at Bash '89).
If you look at the Garvin matches, you'll find that there are definitely differences between a Flair/Garvin match and a Flair/Sting match. They're barely alike at all. If you watch the Flair/Jake match from the Mid South set, you'll see a match pretty unlike any other Flair match you're likely to ever watch. You might also watch Flair get suplexed to eternity by Scott McGhee in Florida and have trouble finding a similar match.
It's worth taking the context of these matches into consideration as well. The goal was often the big picture, and Flair's job was typically to make the babyface look like he's good enough to be the world champion. Because Flair was so good at this is the reason he's talked about as the best wrestler ever -- you're not likely to find too many wrestlers in history who are on his level at getting over the big picture. You will find better mat workers, better fliers, wrestlers with more offense, wrestlers whose matches are generally much more internally logical, wrestlers who are maybe better and less annoying sellers, but who else is able to pull what they have together so well, in a way where they were able to produce consistently, in long matches against a wide variety of opponents?
If you're going to argue that as he entered the 90s, he failed to make changes in his style that might have kept him fresh, I'm inclined to agree with that. When I make the case for Flair, I make the case for the 80s Ric Flair, and I think when people make an argument against Flair by focusing on his 90s or 00s stuff, they're either missing the point and need to watch more Flair, which is probably the majority, or they're purposely using bad examples to make their point, which is probably a minority.
I think one of the problems, however, with overly focusing on how dated Flair's stuff was by the 90s, is that he was still better than the majority of those around him, and there was really no one pushing him to improve at that point. I remember very well the first time I saw Flair and thought he looked old, and it was when he was trying to keep up with Steve Austin and Brian Pillman at the June '93 Clash.
Going back to the 80s, I also agree that how Flair was booked made him stale by the time the decade was winding down. He needed fresh opponents in the worst way, and you do see new life breathed into him in 1989. It was the first time in ages (maybe it never even happened at all in the Crockett years) where the promotion not only decided they were going to treat Flair as their centerpiece, but also that they were going to seek out new opponents to come in and face him. They did that with Steamboat, then they did it with Terry Funk, and it revitalized him. Perhaps had he been booked to have new rivalries consistently during the Crockett era, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Talk about it when you get it here.