To what extent does a guy need great matches to be considered an all-time great?

[S.L.L.]

Alright, a couple of things to say in response to this.

 

There's something about the matches/ albums analogy that doesn't quite work for me. And that's because I am not convinced that wrestling and music can be compared in this way.

 

Let's break this down a little bit: wrestling is a very strange thing. I mean it's the illusion of a real sports contest between people with larger-than-life personalities who, as part of their performance, do things to make the crowd love or hate them and say things to make their opponent want to beat them.

 

That bit I've put in italics there, in my view, is not detachable. It's a fundamental part of what wrestling is. The other aspects of what musicians do - album cover art, image and so on, are not fundamental. You could take Ziggy Stardust without the front cover and without any knowledge of Bowie and it's still a great album. The music is the thing, everything else is an attachment.

1. I was sorta going down the wrestling-to-music analogy road because jdw had already gone there and you weren't disputing it yet, but I can't really disagree with this specific point. The two are not perfectly comparable, and it is for these very reasons. So hopefully, I'll never have to talk about Tatu again. That took me to some weird places.

 

In wrestling, you can't do that. For me, Savage vs. Steamboat without the storyline -- without the context of Savage having attacked him with the bell, etc., without the knowledge that Savage is a borderline psychopath who'd probably kill a man who looked at his wife the wrong way and Steamboat is a nice, down-to-earth clean-living family man -- is meaningless.

 

What's the essence of wrestling? Is it the 15 near falls in Savage/Steamboat '87 or is it seeing that WITHIN the context of the above?

2. It's the latter, and I don't think you'll see anybody dispute that, which is something I'll get back to in a bit, but....

 

3. Consider the implication of what you've written. If all that other stuff can be classified as "context" for the match, doesn't that make the match the "text" by definition? Thus bringing us all back to "the marquee says wrestling". I mean, yeah, you strip Savage/Steamboat of it's context, I think you'd still have a good match since you've got two guys who really know how to play their roles in-ring and who execute their stuff well, but it certainly wouldn't have the same legendary status it does today. I know I wouldn't think of it as highly. But it would still probably be entertaining. But what if you kept the context and removed the match itself? I mean, I can think of wrestling angles where the context was more interesting than the text, but really, context surrounding nothing, context as an end unto itself, is not enough to compel me in any form of entertainment. It's important, sure, but by definition, it's only really valuable when you have text to attach it to, hence the emphasis on actual wrestling matches.

 

Let's get back down to Earth: for me the ESSENCE of wrestling is not the ***** workrate classic, it's the crowd going absolutely bananas when Virgil beat The Million Dollar Man at Summerslam '91. Or when some dork in the crowd was so incensed by The Million Dollar Man that he actually tried to jump on the cage and punch him.

 

This is why I'm still ranking Watts/Stagger Lee vs. The Midnights very high on the Watts set. There's nothing but punches in that match, two of the workers involved are basically immobile, but the crowd is just absolutely nuts. The post-match shenanigans with Cornette in the diaper are as much "wrestling" to me as the match itself.

 

For me, once you start taking that stuff out. Once you abstract it to who did the least botches and who's had the most 45-minute chain-wrestling epics, then you lose something of what wrestling is all about. I think you lose the very thing that got us all into it in the first place. You kind of take the joy out of it.

 

Ergo, if the "essence" of wrestling is not the matches but something else, then - back to the title of the thread - to what extent do you need great matches to be considered an all-time great?

4. Apparently, an awful lot. You say that the essence of wrestling is not the matches, but you illustrate that point by pointing to DiBiase vs. Virgil, DiBiase vs. Savage, and Watts/Lee vs. MX....three wrestling matches. So, yeah, I think it's safe to say that's where the essence is.

 

5. Here's the tricky part, which I had started to pick up on but no one else has really pointed out to you yet, though I think tomk may have been trying to....in downplaying the importance of "great matches", you talk about things like "***** workrate classics" and "who did the least botches" and "45-minute chain-wrestling epics", and you're classifying something like Watts/Lee vs. MX as not being a "great match" because "there's nothing but punches" and things like that. Basically, I don't think you're defining the term "great match" in quite the same way the rest of us are. I mean, the Mid-South set was put together by people on this very board, and they didn't put matches on unless they considered them "great matches", so by their aesthetic - and by mine, for that matter - Watts/Lee vs. MX would in fact qualify as a great match.

 

In other words, I'm saying that when you say "the name on the marquee" is wrestling, the word "wrestling" once deconstructed MEANS the heel/face dynamic, the characterization, the storylines and angles, and so on and then and only then the match.

You seem to be suggesting that reliance on the heel/face dynamic, characterization, storylines, angles, and so on precludes a match from being a "great match", but most of us think that that's a key part of most great matches. I mean, I've enjoyed plenty of syndie show "wrestling in a vacuum" in my time, but I don't really think of it as "great" wrestling for the most part. It's a major disconnect, and it makes your argument hard to follow.

 

Let me ask you something: If you had a choice between Benoit in his prime and Bobby Heenan for your promotion, and you could only have one, who would you take?

6. Heenan never murdered anyone, so I'd pick him.

 

I'd probably take one Bobby Heenan for ten Chris Benoits.

Well, if I didn't want one murderer, I certainly wouldn't want ten.

 

I'd take a lot of guys over Benoit: Piper, Jake Roberts, DiBiase, Rude, Hennig, could probably list about 20 more. Hell I'd take Shane McMahon over Benoit. I'm being serious.

Jake ain't perfect, but still, none of those dudes murdered anyone, either, so I'd probably pick all of them, too.

 

If I had to pick between Benoit and Snuka, I'd pick Benoit. If I had to pick between Benoit and Jerry Estrada...eh, that's a tougher call, but Benoit seems more reliable.

 

But all that aside, I get what you're trying to say, but it's an argument that presupposes that Benoit was a charisma-free, character-less drone who mechanically cranked out technically sound matches with no humanity or emotion for his entire career. But no actual Chris Benoit fan (insofar as any non-insane person would refer to themselves as a Chris Benoit "fan" these days) believes that. I mean, outside of guys like Mike Oles - and I don't know that he even posts anywhere anymore - I don't know anybody who really believes that's what makes for a great wrestler and great matches. Even guys who are fans of wrestlers who I actually do think fit that description don't actually talk about them in that way.

 

But then you have the GOAT discussion and Benoit, by virtue of his matches, is going to rank up there somewhere - and some of the others, by virtue of having fewer great matches, don't even rank. To me, that's a problem with the criteria and something of an absurdity.

7. Even assuming your definition of "great matches" (assuming I'm reading you right) is correct, it seems equally - if not more - absurd to judge context as being equivalent (superior?) to text just because you disagree with the way the text is being judged. That feels like a false dichotomy: we either judge wrestling matches on a purely technical level with no consideration for it's story or for the characterization of the wrestlers, or we judge it based on who cut the best promo before the match even happened. There's no middle ground there? There's not even an alternate way of judging the text? I mean, usually when a critic questions the validity of standard critical methods of judging text, he tries to find his own way of judging it that feels like it more accurately reflects the work and his feelings about it. He doesn't just throw the text aside and choose to focus on the stuff around it as being of equal or greater importance. That's just not how it works.

[Matt D]

I'd take Heenan over Benoit anyday, for lots of reasons, but one of the main one being that Heenan can work 2-3 times a night easily and probably cut two promos on top of that. And if this is a MSG show, hell, he could do commentary too.

[Jingus]

For some reason Disco Inferno comes to mind too. He's said on record that he loved watching Japanese tapes and tried to do all that stuff but he just looked awkward as hell doing it and he couldn't pull it off.

Disco's always just been awkward in general, and was never exactly the excellence of execution. I remember watching David Young teaching him how to do a superkick... in 2003. And have you ever noticed the odd way he throws his bodyslams? He switches his hand from holding one shoulder to the other, while he's got the other guy up for the move, and it looks like he's always about to drop the poor bastard on his head.

 

Somewhat related, does anyone else remember the online rant he posted about Danielson a couple years back? Basically, he said that crowds would always want to watch people like himself and Honky rather than a guy like AmDrag, because gimmicks and gaga are always more important than wrestling. Even aside from the narrow-mindedness of such an argument, it slightly astounded me that when naming examples of the best wrestlers in the world... his first instinct was to list his own name.

 

I'd take Heenan over Benoit anyday, for lots of reasons, but one of the main one being that Heenan can work 2-3 times a night easily and probably cut two promos on top of that. And if this is a MSG show, hell, he could do commentary too.

Oh yeah. A guy who can do multiple roles well is much more valuable than a guy who can only do one thing. Heenan could wrestle, manage, commentate, cut money promos, everything. He was certainly involved in more money-drawing angles than Benoit ever was, although there'd be room for debate over exactly how much Bobby had to do with said drawing in his managerial capacity.

[Victator]

I would want an army of Benoit's if I were a super villain.

[Dylan Waco]

Sub-argument I would make is that Benoit is one of the most overrated matches of all time and always was. He has no definitive match at all. I know others agree with me on this. I would rate him below a lot of people. He's still a great in ring wrestler, but I am not sure he would make my top fifty at this point if we were restricting just to that.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm far too tired to give my full response right now, but in a way I wish I had a better example than Benoit - he's an unfortunate example - but to me he captures the sort of "work-rate first" mentality I am criticizing here.

 

Very briefly SSL - the tough thing in this argument is that most of the posters on this board and the makers of the DVDR sets are - to my mind - among the most enlightened fans out there. So, of course, they are going to rate Watts/SL vs. MX highly. But then there are more than a few great DiBiase matches on that set too (I'm only on disc 2, but as I understand it, he had a lot in the top 20). Goodhelmet has made that point 3 or 4 times now already. This really backs up what I'm saying.

 

However, I don't make the text/context distinction you do - the promo, the storyline, the angle, the blow-off match, the post-match shenanigans and aftermath - they are ALL part of "the text" in the way that I see things. I only see the match as one aspect of "wrestling", "wrestling" being the whole product.

 

This is part of the problem though - no one who writes on wrestling on the internet is going to rate DiBiase vs. Virgil as a ***** match. No one. In fact, why don't I look it up. What did Scott Keith give that match? **1/2

 

As a match it was nothing, but the drama and story told were great.

What does that even mean? Let me see if I can find what Meltzer gave it. **

 

To my mind that match right there is the full stop to one of the great stories the WWF did in that era. Told and paced incredibly well. Teased for years. A poor man pushed to breaking point by his rich dickish employer. And that match has its part to play in that angle and it played it very well. Just like the Watts/SL vs. MX match. But the IWC doesn't give star ratings for things like that - to my mind, note "the essence of wrestling" - it just takes the match and says "oh that was 2 stars".

 

So a "Best of 1991" according to the two ratings above, wouldn't have DiBiase vs. Virgil on it. It is just a "nothing" match.

 

I believe this approach fundamentally misunderstands what wrestling is all about.

 

But I've just said that most members of this board and the compilers of the DVDR sets understand this, yes? They are "enlightened" as I've said and believe. Where the disconnect comes in is when we get to the GOAT discussion and all the names there are basically "workrate" names. That's not the same "aesthetic" (as you called it) that went into compiling and rating the Watts set. That's more the aesthetic of the likes of Kieth and Meltzer.

 

Ok, that wasn't very brief. I got carried away (again).

 

-------------------------

 

Aside: incidentally, in a way, I think the talk about the criteria and how we get there is more interesting that the discussion itself because ... isn't the answer just "Ric Flair"? I mean whichever way we get there, looking at it holistically or just at matches, the answer is Flair right? It's who occupies 2-50 that is more interesting. I see two very different lists being made if you go by the sort of criteria I've been trying to put forward vs. the pure matches one.

[Jingus]

Sub-argument I would make is that Benoit is one of the most overrated matches of all time and always was. He has no definitive match at all. I know others agree with me on this. I would rate him below a lot of people. He's still a great in ring wrestler, but I am not sure he would make my top fifty at this point if we were restricting just to that.

To me, Benoit was always the king of the three-star match. Put him in the ring with any opponent who was even halfway good, and he'd usually have the MOTN on most average shows. But when it comes to really top-shelf stuff, it is hard to name what he's done in the five star range. All those bouts with Eddy were way less fun than they should've been, as was much of his Japanese stuff with opponents like Liger. It seemed like he was always stuck on a plateau: inevitably very good, but never truly great.

[MJH]

Eh. For me Benoit and (to a lesser extent in Japan) Eddy are the two '90s juniors whose work holds up to roughly what the consensus was at the time. I also have the '96 BOSJ-Semi as the best juniors match of the decade.

 

I've got no problem calling myself a "Benoit fan" still and I've never had a problem watching his matches since the murders. I still love Phil Spector's Christmas Album, I still love some Roman Polanski films, and had Brian Wilson done something similar when he was out to lunch it wouldn't make me love Pet Sounds any less, ditto had Pete Townshend been convicted or if Dylan/McCartney whomever decided to do a Gary Glitter either. I really doesn't bother me and I feel no "moral" incentive to distance myself from commenting positively on him.

 

I would not argue Benoit for "best ever". Best Canadian/Top 5 NA? Sure. The same arguments that've always been levelled against him still stand, at least to a degree as I define "charisma" as different to "showmanship" and he got over well everywhere. Nor do I factor promos (even if you speak fluent Japanese/Spanish, they're not as much of a focal point in Japan/Mexico). There're others who have more great matches, but Benoit was *blatantly* great for years, and at his best, no-one touches him for delivery.

[Dylan Waco]

There are people on this board who are very high on Virgil v. Dibiase, myself included.

[jdw]

Very high covers a lot of ground.

 

I'm very high on Hogan vs Orndorff at The Big Event.

 

But I wouldn't pimp it as ***** or even ****. I wouldn't pimp it as one of the best matches in the world in 1986... or even one of the best matches in the US in 1986... I'm not even sure where I would have it among the best matches in the WWF of 1986.

 

But it's something of a spectacle in the era before heavy PPV rotation. It captures that the feud was a Big Fucking Deal, the two work well together (Brain is good too), and it's pretty damn watchable.

 

I'm not even sure if it was a match any of us talked about much a decade ago, except from the aspect of "Hogan vs Orndorff was a big drawing feud" with this being the prime example.

 

So I'm very high on watching it nearly a quarter century after it took place and really getting a good feel for what was hot in the WWF at the time, and how this big match delivered for the fans.

 

There are tons of matches like that. I've long since dropped snowflakes to rate matches, and instead try to be descriptive in saying something is a match people should check out and why. But I'm not sure that's terribly helpful to folks trying to collect definative matches on why someone is an all-time great worker.

 

I'm high on Jumbo vs Animal. But I don't offer it up as an example of Jumbo being an all-time great, nor as one of his great matches. I've pointed to it for different reasons, very specifically to other issues people have raised about Jumbo ("Jumbo Was Lazy") and also how people can see different things from different matches ("I don't think Jumbo wanted it to be this good"). Thoseare wildly different from say offering up Jumbo-Kerry as an example of Jumbo being exceptional and Kerry being, at the top of his game, better than what a lot of us might have thought.

 

I think a lot of people like Ted vs Virgil. Folks liked it back when it happened, and the series got comments about being better than people thought it would be. But is it the MOTYC from Ted that people want to see?

 

John

[smkelly]

I would want an army of Benoit's if I were a super villain.

Benoit and Angle, man. Benoit and Angle.

 

Sub-argument I would make is that Benoit is one of the most overrated matches of all time and always was. He has no definitive match at all. I know others agree with me on this. I would rate him below a lot of people. He's still a great in ring wrestler, but I am not sure he would make my top fifty at this point if we were restricting just to that.

I disagree with the, "He has no definitive match at all." Sticking to semantics, Benoit's Super J '94 Finals match defined his career. Made WCW and the WWE want him. Inspired younger wrestlers. Needless to say, the '94 J Cup is probably in the top three of all-time bootlegged tapes. Not saying that makes my point, but it doesn't hurt my argument either.

 

Other matches:

 

vs. Ohtani, 3-20-96

w/ Ohtani vs. Eddy & Sasuke, Junior Tag League Finals

vs. Angle, Royal Rumble '03

w/ Jericho vs. Austin & Hunter, 5-21-01

vs. Bret Hart, Owen Tribute

 

At any rate, Benoit has more recognizable definitive matches to a larger audience than Lawler, Rhodes, Windham, etc. Lawler's big matches are like Kopi luwak, whereas Benoit's are folgers. I find it doubtful that a wide audience has seen Lawler's Broadway with Race, even though I've uploaded it and spread it across the Internet in comparison to some of Benoit's heralded matches. The same applies to the Loser Leaves Town matches with Dundee. Or the hair vs. hair cage match with Idol.

 

I would rate Benoit below other wrestlers, but he would definitely make my top ten or twenty in terms of workrate. I'm having a hard time envisioning fifty better in-ring workers than Benoit. I'm curious though Dylan, are there any posts like this from you prior to the murders?

[Dylan Waco]

There is no Benoit match that resonates with me at all. He has GOOD matches and some great ones. But none that I regard as transcendent or must see matches in any way. He is one of very few "great" worker who I feel that way about.

 

I've been more critical of Benoit for some time. Thought Benoit was really great his last couple of years in the WWE, but generally speaking I have held him in lower regard than others pretty much the whole time.

[S.L.L.]

However, I don't make the text/context distinction you do - the promo, the storyline, the angle, the blow-off match, the post-match shenanigans and aftermath - they are ALL part of "the text" in the way that I see things. I only see the match as one aspect of "wrestling", "wrestling" being the whole product.

This might be more of a semantic argument than anything, but it's very hard for me not to see the match as "text" and everything else as "context", if for no other reason than because it is the specific defining feature of this entire genre of performance fiction. Theoretically, you could remove all the "other stuff" from wrestling and it would still be wrestling, albeit an extremely stripped down, less interesting version of it. If you remove wrestling from wrestling, it's not really wrestling anymore, is it? Ted and Virgil could wrestle each other with no story, and it wouldn't be anything I'd want to see, but it would qualify as wrestling. Ted and Virgil building up their rivalry through interviews and angles, and getting you all psyched up to see them duke it out, and then.....nothing happens? Or what if they did something different? What if they settled their differences in a game of backgammon? What if they had a rap battle? What if they raced on Dead Man's Curve? What if they agreed to disagree? Is this still wrestling? I don't think you're advocating this or anything, but there is a reason why the wrestling match became the preferred measured unit of wrestling, and it's a damn good one. There is context that plays upon it, and I think that's very important, too. I think in the right circumstances, context can turn a two-star match into a five-star one (not that I have much use for star ratings, myself), and I think you need to consider it when judging the text. But I still think the wrestling match, just by virtue of it's necessity to the medium, makes it the text.

 

This is part of the problem though - no one who writes on wrestling on the internet is going to rate DiBiase vs. Virgil as a ***** match. No one. In fact, why don't I look it up. What did Scott Keith give that match? **1/2

 

As a match it was nothing, but the drama and story told were great.

What does that even mean? Let me see if I can find what Meltzer gave it. **

What this means is that Scott Keith is a tool and that Meltzer is a guy you read for his delivery of the news, not his interpretation of it. I haven't watched that match in ages, so I can't really comment on it other than to say that I was just getting into wrestling when it happened, and I absolutely loved that whole feud, so you won't hear me badmouth it until I find reason to do so, which I doubt I ever will.

 

But I've just said that most members of this board and the compilers of the DVDR sets understand this, yes? They are "enlightened" as I've said and believe. Where the disconnect comes in is when we get to the GOAT discussion and all the names there are basically "workrate" names. That's not the same "aesthetic" (as you called it) that went into compiling and rating the Watts set. That's more the aesthetic of the likes of Kieth and Meltzer.

Two things:

 

1. Even if you feel those "workrate" names don't meet the criteria you're talking about (at least without extending beyond the confines of wrestling matches), the people who talk about them almost universally do. I've mocked opinions that certain people hold about certain wrestlers that I've thought were stupid, but generally, I don't think those people are being insincere about those opinions.

 

2. Even given #1, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of GOAT discussions. The most recent one I've seen was on this very board....

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=12779

 

....and the discussion really doesn't strike me as being all about counting the number of suplexes a wrestler does or judging the execution of high-flying moves like it was figure skating. I mean, yeah, guys regularly executing stuff badly *COUGH*Sayama*COUGH* are going to penalized, but that's a legitimate flaw, and I don't see it as being unfair. But it's definitely not treating wrestling as the cold, sterile, robot dance thing that you seem to be worried about. I mean, Terry Funk's name gets thrown out multiple times just on the first page. Does anyone think of Terry as a bland, generic workrate guy?

 

Aside: incidentally, in a way, I think the talk about the criteria and how we get there is more interesting that the discussion itself because ... isn't the answer just "Ric Flair"? I mean whichever way we get there, looking at it holistically or just at matches, the answer is Flair right?

I wouldn't argue against it, but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk, either.

[Victator]

Its Flair and not really close. There is nobody that is great in every category but Flair. Matches, promos, charisma, longevity, aura of being the man. Even when they tried to kill him off in the mid 90s he kept going strong. I don't know who else can compare to him across the board.

[MJH]

No one is going to roll their eyes at Flair as the default response as much as, say, the WWE using Shawn (which even he seems to disagree with), but calling it a "slam dunk" is silly, even just within the US. Flair's longevity as a "top level" worker was fifteen years at best (definitely ends in 1992; depends how early you want to start but it doesn't go too far back into the '70s) which isn't any greater than a lot of guys, and it's not as if people haven't been making very strong arguments for other people for years (Terry probably being the strongest, for me, though I can see cases for Eddy and Austin if one wants to figure drawing too, he's not *that* far down a list of "workers"... Lawler'd get his fans of course).

 

Flair's Top 10 (though you can pick apart his work easilly enough if one wanted to leave him out of that level), but I'm not the only one who wouldn't have him Top 5 much less an "obvious" #1.

[JerryvonKramer]

For me it's "obvious" because you just have to list the people he's worked with from Race to Shawn Michaels and there's your GOAT.

 

Pretty much every great name of the last 30 years, "anyone who is anyone", worked a match with Flair at some point, and most of them are "good", many many of them are "great".

 

I think those who argue against that take him much too much for granted and overrate the competition. He's the glue that connects three generations of wrestling. He's the man.

 

How can you draw the line at 1992? Steamboat in '94? Arn in '95 (feud as well as the match, PLUS the awesome double cross vs. Sting a few months later)? His stuff in '93 vs. Vader is great too, especially the "retirement" match/angle, that had me in real genuine tears. Loser leaves town vs. Hennig is not bad either. Some of his promos in late WCW are also amazing. Some of his Evolution stuff wasn't bad (I enjoyed the Carlito stuff) and was appaled by the HHH sledgehammer stuff. Taboo Tuesday was good. Shawn match was good.

 

On the holistic level, he's off the charts for charisma and for mic work, again, off the charts.

 

Best NWA champ, leader of the best stable, best US matches of the 80s, star of the best Rumble, a participant in perhaps 4 or 5 of the all-time greatest feuds and the star of at least a dozen other truly great ones (e.g. Savage in 92, not a GOAT feud, but it was memorable and awesome), you could go on and on and on and on and I haven't mentioned Steamboat yet.

 

Put me in the camp that says it's a "lock on" for Flair as #1. To the point where I'm not even sure I see a tremendous amount of value in discussing it. I think he'd have a strong claim to be number 1 if he had retired in 1993, the rest is just "bonus". And his "bonus" career still probably better than the best a lot of guys have to offer.

 

We like the music analogies, I think he's the "Bob Dylan of Wrestling".

[ohtani's jacket]

The way I see it the angles and promos are the set-up and the matches are the pay-off. Dibiase worked an era where for whatever reason the pay-offs sucked. I would love to know what set stuff like Slaughter/Sheik, Valentine/Santana, Savage/Steamboat and Savage/Santana apart in terms of delivering satisfying pay-offs when so many 80s WWF feuds had terrible matches.

 

As for whether a guy can be an all-time great without great matches, it really depends on how strict your criteria is. There's plenty of luchadores and European guys who I'd consider all-time greats despite the lack of footage. Technique goes a long way in my book. Unfortunately, that's an area that actually hurts Ted. Dibiase had great execution but what about his match building skills? That involves technique too.

[kjh]

I'm not sure I'd point to Flair's work after his 43rd birthday as proof that he's the GOAT. Not saying that there aren't some flashes of greatness, but Genichiro Tenryu blows him out of the water past the same age for consistency and being in a prolific number of high quality matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

Why this 1992 cut off point? Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Late 1995 seems more logical.

 

I mean the Savage wrestlemania match was after his 43rd birthday.

 

If I had to point to one show where Flair first REALLY looks like he's past his peak it's probably World War III '95.

 

His body really looks like it's on the turn in that match against Sting, he looks like someone past their prime.

 

I'd argue that in 1994 he was still in pretty good shape.

 

But I'm sensing a "common wisdom" here for dating it to 1992 and him being 43. Why? What's the reason?

[Log]

Or what if they did something different? What if they settled their differences in a game of backgammon? What if they had a rap battle? What if they raced on Dead Man's Curve? What if they agreed to disagree?

I now want to see a feud that ends with the wrestlers agreeing to disagree. Like, they are having it out in a promo and one guy is all, "I guess I see your point. I've done some hurtful things to you, and I apologize." And then that's it.

[kjh]

I suggested the 43 year old cut off more because of the comparison between Tenryu and Flair. 1993 was a banner year for Tenryu as the centrepiece of the hot New Japan vs. WAR feud. Flair's 1992 wasn't a patch on that although he still had a couple of high profile great performances. I think the cut off comes before late 1995, as Flair's feuds in '93 with Windham and Rude were really disappointing. Part of that can be blamed on Windham going into the Beach Blast match injured and Rude declining that year due to injury too, but it also shows that Flair wasn't the guy to carry a broomstick to a ****+ match anymore.

[kjh]

Or what if they did something different? What if they settled their differences in a game of backgammon? What if they had a rap battle? What if they raced on Dead Man's Curve? What if they agreed to disagree?

I now want to see a feud that ends with the wrestlers agreeing to disagree. Like, they are having it out in a promo and one guy is all, "I guess I see your point. I've done some hurtful things to you, and I apologize." And then that's it.

Sounds like something Gabe Sapolsky would book. :-/

[Loss]

If you want to look at the period where Flair looked every bit as good as he did at his best, then dropping the belt to Sting at the Great American Bash in 1990 has to be considered the end of an era. His match with Luger at Wrestle War a few months before that is his last great match in the way we typically think of great Flair matches -- 40 minutes of a defending world champion heel making a guy look great, getting over a storyline and keeping a match moving.

 

From 1991-1996 or so, I'd argue that Flair still had a lot to offer, but he had less each year than he did the year before. Flair could still really go from 1991-1993, but he wasn't at the same level he was just a few years before that. Call it positioning or changes in wrestling or politics or what have you. Regardless of the reason, he wasn't having consistently great matches like he was in the 80s anymore. I love some Flair stuff during these years -- a TV match with Pillman, the Ironman with Bret -- but those types of matches used to be the rule and by this time, they're the exception. The first time I thought Flair looked old was in his match teaming with Arn against the Blonds at the June '93 Clash. I have that match on deck to watch pretty soon, so I'm curious if it will still look that way this time around.

 

Despite having some occasional sparks where I enjoyed him, there's nothing I'd argue in his favor as a GOAT candidate after this. He was still a draw at times and still had some stuff left in the tank, but he had lost some of his athleticism, stamina and confidence, and it showed.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss - his promos were still electric though, right? Doesn't that do anything to moderate / mediate that view?

[MJH]

But, again, how can you include promos in the discussion when talking on a world-wide level? Even if you're fluent in both Japanese and Spanish, they're just not as important there. If you're limiting yourself to a US-based field, then sure. How does Kobashi's notoriously-awkward interviews affect him in any way?