Frankensteiner

I didn't really think this was that good at all. The build in the match was pretty weak and there wasn't any real progression to their work. Other than the standing punch exchange, all the spots in the 2nd half of the match could have been done in the first and vice-versa without making much difference. Plus the selling and transitions seemed a little spotty and arbitrary. They flew through the 2nd part of the match too fast without creating much drama.

That was also my reaction to reading Loss' comments. I don't think it's that easy. And I would argue wrestlers have a more difficult time working smart than working hard.

In no particular order: Backlund, Bock, Martel, Hennig, Hart, Steamboat, Windham, Santana, Savage, and ? (could see this going to Vader, Dustin, Gordy, or even Slaughter or Kerry). I have not watched any Funk or Hansen in All Japan so I'm not including them on my list.

That Starrcade match was one of the most boring Flair matches I've seen. It was actually this match that caused me to re-evaluate Flair. The first 20 minutes are a complete waste. Nothing happens. I mean they do a lot of stuff but it leads to nothing. They start with Flair chopping and Luger pec flexing, then they fill a bunch of time, and then after going 20 they do a complete reset with Flair going back to throwing chops and Luger flexing his pecs. This was a 15 minute match stretched to 30 minutes, which I think is something you can say about a lot of Flair's matches.

If you're going to include Tito, there's a Tito/Dibiase a match from a 1988 Primetime episode. It's probably closer to each guy's prime than the 92 match.

I had a chance to watch a couple of the Flair matches Jerry noted earlier. The Sam Houston match was interesting. It was a studio match with the focus on Flair/Magnum. I believe Houston was only a jobber at this point and since the match was primariliy there to further an angle, you can't really compare it to your typical Flair match where he's left to his own devices. Still this was a lot of fun. The match against Ron Garvin was indeed your typical Flair match. I tried to watch it with Jerry's description in mind but didn't really see the same character traits Jerry pointed out. It was the same Flair match where he's overmatched/on the run and getting his ass kicked for the majority of the time. Terrible finish to boot but at least Flair telling David Crockett to shut up was funny. Pretty dull match in general. Also, the chop exchanges that people like so much with these Flair/Garvin matches are only there because a) Garvin (like Steamboat and Wahoo) can work good looking chop exchanges with Flair and b ) so Flair can ultimately get his ass kicked in the exchange. In other words, they're there to put the opponent over not make you think Flair is some tough guy.

When was it decided that Flair would be the Black Scorpion?

We have the match from Barcelona already on Bret's first DVD. I have not seen the Milan match but I would be surprised if it is worked differently than the one from Barcelona or KOTR. I would have included the HV match with Luger from 5/25 or the HV title defense against Bam Bam from 3/8 (if they really wanted to get a match against Bigelow). The KOTR and Barcelona matches are wildly different but I do get your point. Instead of the Luger match I'd include the handheld of Luger/Ramon vs Perfect/Hart. Can't they seize that stuff as their own? I agree the KOTR and Barcelona matches are different. The Milan match probably won't be like the KOTR match so I don't know why I even brought that up. Re: handhelds, I think the problem is they would consider it sub-par quality. It's like a band releasing an audience recording of a live show/song. For the most part, doesn't really happen.

Since Troy asked, these are the changes I would make I would take out all these matches. The world doesn't need another Bret/Perfect match on DVD. If they wanted to include something from 1989, they could have put on a house show match against Valentine or the PTW match against Martel. The other two matches I would just take out in favor of something from Bret's prime. We have the match from Barcelona already on Bret's first DVD. I have not seen the Milan match but I would be surprised if it is worked differently than the one from Barcelona or KOTR. I would have included the HV match with Luger from 5/25 or the HV title defense against Bam Bam from 3/8 (if they really wanted to get a match against Bigelow). Probably would have gone with the Raw match the following week and saved this for the Best of IYH release. This was okay but nothing special. I probably would have gone with the Final Four match where Bret wins the belt. There is a better Bret/Booker Nitro match from the following month on 2/22. The Sting match is kinda a WTF pick since it's only a tournament semi-final, barely 10 min, and nothing memorable. They had a better match on Nitro 10/19 with Bret challenging Sting for the belt that's around 14 minutes. Also, since I have room remaining after ditching the Harts/Towers and Hart/Misawa matches, I would have added the Bret/Yokozuna Survivor Series Showdown or the Cage match for HV. Blu-Ray I'm going under the assumption that the date is correct and this has never been released before. Which is cool, but if you're going to include a never before seen match for the hardcore fan, I'd rather see the Cage match against Lawler, or a singles match against Neidhart, or the Cage match against Hakushi. I mean we already have a good version of Bret/Yoko from the Showdown but there's no available versions of the matches I listed. I'd replace this with the Action Zone tag match. Part of the problem for me is that I'm looking at this from a mega-collector's perspective. I have 99% of the matches anyway, so I was hoping for some more things that were never before seen. That's probably unrealistic on my part.

If this is the correct date, this hasn't aired anywhere before. I'm thinking it might be the Survivor Series Showdown match though. The listing is kinda disappointing to be honest.

I think this is pretty interesting. One of my problems with Flair, although not the most important, is how weak he looks for a champion. If nothing else, Jerry is at least getting me excited about the prospect of watching these matches to see if I can re-evaluate Flair's entire act.

That was a very impressive delineation of the Flair formula. I don’t disagree that having a formula is bad. My point of contention is that a great wrestler can vary the formula enough to get across different stories. Flair has a big bag of tricks and an impressive moveset. He definitely had different sequences he liked to work with different opponents thus making the matches different mechanically. He doesn't use the same moves in the same order all the time but he relies on his signature spots and selling to the point where it’s ultimately always the same story. It doesn't matter if he’s working a chop battle with Garvin or if it’s Luger shrugging off chops and flexing his pecs. All of that is window dressing to the main thrust of the match: Flair is overconfident and eventually desperate and on the run. That is my impression at this time anyway. I still have to watch the Flair matches which Jerry pointed out.

Thanks for that. I will need some time to digest.

Well, instead of all the consternation, maybe you can point me in the right direction with some links. I don't read all the posts. And I usually try to avoid the Flair conversation in general.

This is more along the lines of what I'm looking for. However, all those things you list seem to be just the nuts & bolts of a match. They certainly are important as lacking in these areas could very well derail a good match but I'm looking for something more. Just because you have the right parts doesn't mean you can build a good engine. I would think there's enough guys who were good at those things as well. I liked your post above where you compared the five or so Flair matches against different opponents. I will try to watch the two matches against the Garvins and the Houston match later this week. I'm not too interested in watching Flair in Japan (v. Jumbo) or working tweener/babyface (v. Nikita) as those will obviously be different than the bulk of his work just based on circumstances. For the record, my complaint with Flair's repetitiveness is about his JCP work. I don't mind him working the same NWA touring champ style in different territories. It's not my favorite but I will make concessions because there's nothing wrong in calling the same match for different audiences. That actually makes sense to me, especially when you consider the revolving door of opponents. My main problem is that so much of his JCP work (v. Magnum, v. Dusty, v. Barry, v. Sting, v. Luger, etc.) feels the same and often times incoherent. But I will watch those matches you mentioned with an open mind.

I think you misunderstood me or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm asking what makes Flair's matches great. That entire post is a good summary but other than the bolded parts, not really a good argument for why his matches are great. If someone didn't believe the matches weren't very good to begin with there's not much there to convince them otherwise.

I'm not a mark for Ric Flair. My opinion is an attempt to be objective. I'd rather watch about two dozen other guys than watch Flair. There's no "different perspective". You're simply tired of the existing one. Which is your problem, not Flair's. So tell me, how do you see Flair matches? What is it that you like about them? Is it the moves, the pacing, the storytelling? Do you think he was telling different stories between his matches with Magnum TA, Dusty, and Luger? For the most part, all of the pro-Flair responses in this thread are "OMG how can you question Ric Flair!! There's no comparison. Bret was good but Flair is Flair!!" And it's "he had x amount over great matches over x amount of years with x amount of opponents." I'm trying to figure what about his work people find appealing. Maybe I can see what others see. I mean if I asked you about El Dandy, you would explain to me why you find him to be great without just throwing out that he's had a large number of great matches

I was pointing out that he uses his spots to fill time, not tell a story. The fact that it happens to look like a narrative in the end isn't really by design.

I think Flair likes to do Flair things in the ring. The fact that it adds up to the same and somewhat coherrent narrative is purely accidental.

This is 100% spot on. All of it.

What is this great Flair narrative that people are mentioning? Overconfident champ gets taken to the limit and becomes desperate to hang on? You would have to be one dumb son of a bitch to not learn your lesson over 15+ years. I can easily see why people are such marks for the guy. Probably starts with people being marks for the gimmick. Flair also works an exciting style and if you’re into his carny shit, you’ll probably like his work too. With the current fascination with more violent-gritty matches, I can see why people would like Flair. In general, he’s a great character and I will freely admit that he’s easily my top guy as far as mic work is concerned. But that’s what makes his matches even more frustrating. I want to go back and enjoy them like I used to. Guess I’m still waiting for someone to give me different perspective to look at the matches. Most of the time Flair comes off as a guy running around with his head up his ass.

WOOOO!!