Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[goodhelmet]

I watched this a few years ago when nominating it for the 80s set and these are my abbreviated thoughts...

 

Ric Flair vs. Lex Luger

- This was a great match and maybe Luger's best match up to this point. Compare this to the Nikita Koloff match from 1987 and tell me which one is worthy of being on this set. Luger collapsing because of the damage done to his leg was great and using the ropes for the win is classic Flair. Another easy nomination.

[rvd356]

I watched this a few years ago when nominating it for the 80s set and these are my abbreviated thoughts...

 

Ric Flair vs. Lex Luger

- This was a great match and maybe Luger's best match up to this point. Compare this to the Nikita Koloff match from 1987 and tell me which one is worthy of being on this set. Luger collapsing because of the damage done to his leg was great and using the ropes for the win is classic Flair. Another easy nomination.

Agreed. Basically they had a big match, and Flair was just smarter and better and he won. nothing wrong with that finish other than they never got to push Luger as the monster babyface champ to compete with WWF and Hogan. Although it didn't matter because Hogan has 100x the charisma and Luger could never touched him, even if they somehow learned to promote guys nationally. That just wasn't going to happen. not to mention the WWF machine was too big to touch.

 

Plus then we would never have gotten "The Trilogy" with Steamboat which was perfect. Steamboat winning the belt at Chi-Town Rumble was the right choice too. It put him right next to Flair as a wrestler, plus it makes history that much better that Steamboat was a World Champion.

[Matt D]

Listening to the Wrestling Culture podcast, I'll amend my statement somewhat.

 

I think Bret's better in ring. I think there are people better than Bret in ring. I don't think Flair's one of them.

 

Flair's a better WON HOF candidate.

 

Bret does the things that I care about in wrestling far, far better than Flair. I think other people do that better. Flair's not one of them.

 

If you ask me "WHO IS BETTER?" I say Bret. Because I care about what I care about wrestling, not what you care about wrestling. That's not subjectivity in the way that we've been talking about. It's not a favorite thing. It's honestly what I think is more important in a wrestler. It's not just what I like more.

 

That said, if i was going on the consensus of PWO, as best as I can figure out, and certainly on the terms of the podcast I just heard, Flair wins over Bret on GOAT on those specific standards.

 

That said, I am never, ever arguing about GOAT on this board, especially not on its general standards.

 

At best I'm arguing "greatest I feel like I can competently argue about on my standards." But I do think I frame every argument I make, or I try to. I think I explain what I'm talking about as much as anyone else on the site. And if people don't want to argue along those lines, that's fine. We can make our points separately and people can either find them interesting or not. I go half way when I can. I shut up when I can't.

[Loss]

Could you explain what you think is important in a wrestler? If you feel like you have before, could you point me to where that was?

[Matt D]

Ok, so this note http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=15302) was basically me vs the board on my feelings, until it became this weird, goofy thing about soccer (with some great JvK vs Loss subtext about whether a midget could beat someone up or something) but..

 

Instead of quoting a lot of stuff, I will sum up in a few paragraphs for the sake of everyone's sanity. At the end of this it still might make sense. If that's the case, I'm sorry. It's hard to explain why you like art sometimes, I guess. Here's my attempt.

 

What matters to me the most is that if you pick out a move in a match, the move means something. It makes sense. It fits into a narrative. That a wrestler is telling a story with every second of every match. That I think the wrestler always knows what they're doing and what they're doing has meaning and weight.

 

That's basic. That's the bare minimum. If you don't do that, you're not going to be a really great wrestler in my mind no matter how much action you put in your matches, or even how much the crowd is into things.

 

From there, to be really great, you have to build stuff between acts in a match, between moments in a match. Your transitions have to make sense. You have to sell what's happened beleivably so that it ultimately has meaning.

 

To be good, you have to be telling a story at all times. To be great, that story has to be well put together and compelling.

 

A wrestling match is like a novel, not like a sporting event. It's fiction. That's its strength and what makes it better than any artificially sportswritten narrative overlaid upon a sporting event could almost ever be.

 

The best wrestlers are crafting it at every moment. That doesn't mean they have the whole thing planned out. So long as everything is sold, and the selling matters and so long as things are built upon and reacted to in logical ways, it works.

 

Those watching just have to be able to connect the dots without too many extraneous parts.

 

I point out more specific things elsewhere. But that's the sum of it for me.

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?act=...amp;pid=5529146

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...t&p=5524467

 

Finally, I will say this: To hell with great matches. What matters to me is watching a ton of a wrestler in a ton of situations and seeing how he handles a specific situation over time. To see whether or not he gets it. What matters isn't whether or not a match is great, but whether every single thing a wrestler does is great.

[jpchicago23]

Listening to the Wrestling Culture podcast, I'll amend my statement somewhat.

 

I think Bret's better in ring. I think there are people better than Bret in ring. I don't think Flair's one of them.

 

Flair's a better WON HOF candidate.

 

Bret does the things that I care about in wrestling far, far better than Flair. I think other people do that better. Flair's not one of them.

 

If you ask me "WHO IS BETTER?" I say Bret. Because I care about what I care about wrestling, not what you care about wrestling. That's not subjectivity in the way that we've been talking about. It's not a favorite thing. It's honestly what I think is more important in a wrestler. It's not just what I like more.

 

That said, if i was going on the consensus of PWO, as best as I can figure out, and certainly on the terms of the podcast I just heard, Flair wins over Bret on GOAT on those specific standards.

 

That said, I am never, ever arguing about GOAT on this board, especially not on its general standards.

 

At best I'm arguing "greatest I feel like I can competently argue about on my standards." But I do think I frame every argument I make, or I try to. I think I explain what I'm talking about as much as anyone else on the site. And if people don't want to argue along those lines, that's fine. We can make our points separately and people can either find them interesting or not. I go half way when I can. I shut up when I can't.

 

I honestly agree with this statement full tilt. If there were specific criteria to go by then the arguments would be clearer. As is it goes on your own personal opinion of what you think makes a wrestler great. In certain situations i like Bret better than anyone else but i can see why Flair would be rated above him given the topics of discussion on the podcast.

[Matt D]

I realize shoots are not an end all, but I think philosophies are interesting.

 

Flair claims that it was his job to give the fans what they expected every night. They're there to see a certain show and it's his job to give them signature things so they don't feel cheated.

 

Bret claims that if it ever hits a point where the fans are watching a match of yours and they can predict what you're going to do, then you're not doing your job ("You don't want to do what the fans think you're going to do").

 

Now, I don't think that honestly plays out in all of their matches, but it's interesting to go on what they've said. That said, one of Dylan's big shots against Bret is that he overvalues innovation, and I'm not going to contest that. I think he does, but it's tempered the fact he's really shooting for logic most of the time.

[Loss]

I do think Bret Hart may be the best "finish guy" in the history of the company. He had a knack for doing clever finishes that were unique, satisfying and made sense within the storyline.

[soup23]

Another thing that I like about Bret is his ability to do callback finishes. Like the victory roll sequence and him getting caught versus Owen at WM 10 and his pins on Piper at WM8 and Austin at SS96. The finishes were really clever in that they were not obscure and really rewarded long term viewers. They also were not hokey either and just inserted to have a nostalgia moment.

[Loss]

I realize shoots are not an end all, but I think philosophies are interesting.

Shoots are interesting for sure. Flair's shoot made him out to be pretty dense. But I worry about putting too much stock in them. What's more important - being able to do good things, or being able to articulate why they did good things?

 

Bret no doubt put more thought into his matches than Flair. Flair, and I can really see this point of view, felt planning things out in advance was antithesis to actually working, where your job is to react in the moment and think on your feet. I don't think he puts much value in memorizing spots and sequences, because anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good.

 

There is a difference between working and performing. That's one of my favorite Steve Austin quotes. "Wrestlers no longer work. They perform."

 

Things have disintegrated in WWE to the point that Jericho took it as a major point of pride that he was able to call a PPV match on the fly against Shelton Benjamin. That meticulous planning started with the Savage/Steamboat series, continued with Bret and now, most wrestlers have no improvisational skills to speak of.

[Matt D]

I realize shoots are not an end all, but I think philosophies are interesting.

Shoots are interesting for sure. Flair's shoot made him out to be pretty dense. But I worry about putting too much stock in them. What's more important - being able to do good things, or being able to articulate why they did good things?

 

Bret no doubt put more thought into his matches than Flair. Flair, and I can really see this point of view, felt planning things out in advance was antithesis to actually working, where your job is to react in the moment and think on your feet. I don't think he puts much value in memorizing spots and sequences, because anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good.

 

There is a difference between working and performing. That's one of my favorite Steve Austin quotes. "Wrestlers no longer work. They perform."

 

Things have disintegrated in WWE to the point that Jericho took it as a major point of pride that he was able to call a PPV match on the fly against Shelton Benjamin. That meticulous planning started with the Savage/Steamboat series, continued with Bret and now, most wrestlers have no improvisational skills to speak of.

 

Well this goes back to a lot of what I always say. Warrior vs Hogan is a very well put together match. It might even be a GREAT MATCH (though I know you leaned more towards "effective" in your last watching, but there are other examples one could use). The point is this: Who gets credit for it and what sort? Hogan? Warrior? Patterson?

 

Also, if anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good, why aren't there more really good matches?

[Frankensteiner]

Also, if anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good, why aren't there more really good matches?

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.

[Matt D]

It's my major argument when people say "Well, that's the basic minimum of what a wrestler should do" when it comes to "playing a role well" or "storytelling."

 

It's pretty god damn rare that you actually see this stuff if you're looking for it. The reason why "playing a role well" is important is because so few people manage it. Guys like Mark Henry and John Tenta stand out because they do so many little things effectively when so many other of their peers don't. And they're not necessarily "hard" things, but they are things that take thought and concentration and that are logical but not always intuitive.

[Troy]

I'll admit Flair is better even though I voted for Bret

 

I'll watch Flair all day on the mic, but I'd rather watch Bret in the ring

[Loss]

Also, if anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good, why aren't there more really good matches?

Because there's more to a match than layout. There's also execution.

 

I have a feeling, Matt, if you and me were given two competent wrestlers, a finish and a timeframe to do it in, we could lay out an excellent match between them, provided we had the time and resources we need. That still doesn't mean it would be any good. The skeleton of a good match may shine through, but it may still have major flaws because of the limitations of the wrestlers.

 

That shouldn't be confused with what I said before. I do think every match has the potential to be good. But that doesn't mean it will be. It's not hard to lay out a good match in advance. But WWE doesn't always lay out good matches in advance, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that it will be executed properly.

 

I'm reminded of Doug Furnas hating working in the WWF, because he felt like having good matches was secondary to hitting time cues.

[Matt D]

Also, if anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good, why aren't there more really good matches?

I'm reminded of Doug Furnas hating working in the WWF, because he felt like having good matches was secondary to hitting time cues.

 

Don't you see that Great Matches might not be the best metric to judge wrestlers then?

[Loss]

It's the perfect metric, and it's a fair metric. Who had the better career? It just means it's impossible for a wrestler whose prime is primarily in that company to be a GOAT candidate. Bret Hart gets penalized for working in the WWF. Tough. I'm not going to pretend he didn't work there.

[Loss]

Assuming it's not the best metric, then the opposite must be true -- WWF wrestlers are not allowed to take pride in their craft, thus making any discussion of the quality of their work pointless.

 

I don't agree with that, but I also think we can only judge wrestlers by the reality of their careers.

[Matt D]

I don't think the "take pride in their craft" argument has anything to do with what we're talking about.

 

Alternatively, you can judge a wrestler on the micro, not the macro. And I think that this is one very strong argument to do so.

[Loss]

The same restrictions that exist in the macro exist in the micro. Remember, WWE banned DDTs and piledrivers, doesn't allow leg hooks for pin attempts that aren't finishes, etc. It's a skewed metric that unfairly rewards wrestlers for piss-poor matches.

[Matt D]

What does a wrestler do within those confines? Jerry Lawler had a ton of great matches doing nothing but punching people. Unless you say that using a DDT or other head-droppy moves is an essential part of being a good wrestler. And I know you don't feel that way. They had limitations. Absolutely. What matters isn't that they had limitations but what they did with those limitations. A great wrestler can work past them and do compelling things. Does it mean they're less likely to have great matches, absolutely, but I don't see how that makes them any less of a great wrestler. They just were dealing with different confines. And I think you can see this if you analyze their work, what they do in every single situation.

[Loss]

A great wrestler can work past limitations to put on a good match. If they can't, they're not great.

 

"Compelling things" should equal good matches. "Compelling things" do typically make good matches. If they don't, they were never really that compelling to begin with, right?

 

The point of doing "compelling things" is to channel them into a good match. That's the purpose. Otherwise, why do them? And if they don't result in a good match, they simply aren't that compelling.

 

It's not like Earthquake said, "I'm going to make a deliberate effort to stink up the joint, but I'll make sure to magnificently work this bearhug."

[Matt D]

A wrestler goes out there to do a job. If he does it well, he's a great wrestler. If a wrestler has the best match he can have within certain confines, he's a great wrestler. If you watch a wrestler enough, you can see what he does well or doesn't do well. Obviously some jobs are harder than others. Having 30 minutes to wrestle a match in a main event presents different challenges than having ten minutes to wrestle a match with agents breathing down your throat.

 

I'm not saying that I think Mike Jackson is a better wrestler than Ric Flair, but I'm willing to hear the argument if someone wanted to make it.

[Loss]

What is the job of a wrestler?

 

I'm not saying that I think Mike Jackson is a better wrestler than Ric Flair, but I'm willing to hear the argument if someone wanted to make it.

I'm not.

[WingedEagle]

If a wrestler has the best match he can have within certain confines, he's a great wrestler.

Not at all true. If I go home tonight and bake you the best cake I possibly can, its going to be awful. Just because its my best doesn't meant its any good. Can't grade everything on a curve.