Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[Matt D]

I know this isn't what anyone is saying, but I still feel that it's partially true. When arguing on as high a level as GOAT, isn't this true?

 

If you can't adapt to different limitations, isn't that some sign that you are not as good, in some ways, as a wrestler that can? It'd be one thing if no wrestler could manage that, but some people understood their craft well enough to manage it. And yes, that's a plus to them, but when we're directly comparing one wrestler that managed it and one wrestler that didn't, isn't that a minus for the other wrestler as well? They didn't GET wrestling as well as the first.

[Exposer]

Can we all agree that Dylan and Loss don't agree on this topic?

[NintendoLogic]

Being great into your 50s means you really GET it. You get wrestling. When the physical tools aren't what they were, the ability to still be great is one of those things I think might be the real sign of a great wrestler. At least by my criteria.

The problem with this is that I think it misinterprets what wrestling is. If you're saying that someone should be able to compensate for diminished athleticism by working smarter, you're assuming that wrestling is mainly a mental activity. But it's mainly a physical one.

 

With that said, I wouldn't discount matches after one's prime entirely, but I view them as roughly equivalent to bonus questions on a test. They can't count against you, only for you. But I wouldn't take them into account for head-to-head comparison purposes unless I thought their primes were close to equal.

[soup23]

I don't think the point is that Terry Funk's 1994 should be a leading note in his case for GOAT. I think it's that he had a hell of a year when he was 50 and 30 years into his career. That's not typical and therefore adds mass to his GOAT argument.

To me this argument is under contention. I would classify 1994 Terry Funk as fun. He was popping up all over the place. In my top 100 matches of the year he had two matches which placed for me ( vs. Sabu) and Wargames. He was amazing in both of those matches. That match vs. Sabu is the best Sabu match I have seen off memory. However, nothing else he did sniffed my top 100. I liked his WCW run a good deal. His SMW work was fair and his ECW stuff hit or miss.

 

Flair by comparison had both matches with Steamboat and the Hogan BATB match that ranked. I really liked all of those performances by Flair and would peg BATB as him taken a Hogan formula match and mixing in his stuff to making it great. I also didn't rank the Marquis of Queensbury stuff with Regal but it was fabulous and if it was one match together would have been in my top 50. He had plenty of other stuff that I think is comparable to Funks WCW stuff like the WCWSN tag on 7/28 w/ Austin vs. Sting/Steamboat. Even the retirement cage match vs. Hogan I thought was good. He really only had one dogshit performance and that was Suberbrawl from what we saw on the yearbook.

 

I know you watched that to Childs so it is probably just a difference of match preferences but I honestly don't know if I would say 1994 Terry Funk was better than 1994 Ric Flair. Realize I am probably in the minority on that but since I have recently watched the stuff, I feel pretty justified in that opinion.

[Loss]

I don't think the point is that Terry Funk's 1994 should be a leading note in his case for GOAT. I think it's that he had a hell of a year when he was 50 and 30 years into his career. That's not typical and therefore adds mass to his GOAT argument.

It has been presented as the reason he is a better candidate than Flair repeatedly.

[Loss]

I know this isn't what anyone is saying, but I still feel that it's partially true. When arguing on as high a level as GOAT, isn't this true?

 

If you can't adapt to different limitations, isn't that some sign that you are not as good, in some ways, as a wrestler that can? It'd be one thing if no wrestler could manage that, but some people understood their craft well enough to manage it. And yes, that's a plus to them, but when we're directly comparing one wrestler that managed it and one wrestler that didn't, isn't that a minus for the other wrestler as well? They didn't GET wrestling as well as the first.

If anyone argued that Flair didn't get it, I would disagree with that. Flair has plenty of good matches and good performances in the 90s. The difference is that in the 90s, it wasn't nearly as close to a sure thing that a Flair match was going to deliver. Surely you're not arguing that Flair was terrible after his best years were over. I thought the argument was just that Funk was better, not that Flair was awful.

[Matt D]

Being great into your 50s means you really GET it. You get wrestling. When the physical tools aren't what they were, the ability to still be great is one of those things I think might be the real sign of a great wrestler. At least by my criteria.

The problem with this is that I think it misinterprets what wrestling is. If you're saying that someone should be able to compensate for diminished athleticism by working smarter, you're assuming that wrestling is mainly a mental activity. But it's mainly a physical one.

 

With that said, I wouldn't discount matches after one's prime entirely, but I view them as roughly equivalent to bonus questions on a test. They can't count against you, only for you. But I wouldn't take them into account for head-to-head comparison purposes unless I thought their primes were close to equal.

 

I disagree. It's an artform, not a sport. It's one that involves athleticism, but don't you think that there is an argument that psychology matters more than execution? That it's a valid opinion at least? It might not be yours, and that's fine. To me, though, if someone doesn't have a good enough grasp on it to compensate when they can't rely on physicality then that's a negative mark against someone who does, in a direct comparison of two wrestlers on the highest of levels.

[Matt D]

I know this isn't what anyone is saying, but I still feel that it's partially true. When arguing on as high a level as GOAT, isn't this true?

 

If you can't adapt to different limitations, isn't that some sign that you are not as good, in some ways, as a wrestler that can? It'd be one thing if no wrestler could manage that, but some people understood their craft well enough to manage it. And yes, that's a plus to them, but when we're directly comparing one wrestler that managed it and one wrestler that didn't, isn't that a minus for the other wrestler as well? They didn't GET wrestling as well as the first.

If anyone argued that Flair didn't get it, I would disagree with that. Flair has plenty of good matches and good performances in the 90s. The difference is that in the 90s, it wasn't nearly as close to a sure thing that a Flair match was going to deliver. Surely you're not arguing that Flair was terrible after his best years were over. I thought the argument was just that Funk was better, not that Flair was awful.

 

Why wasn't it nearly as close to a sure thing?

 

If it's because he wasn't savvy enough to change his act when he couldn't deliver anymore when other wrestlers were able to manage changing their act to do just that, then it becomes a negative point relative to those other wrestlers.

 

Also it's not necessarily that the matches were terrible.

 

But if we're talking the Greatest of All Time here?

[Loss]

It wasn't as close to a guarantee because he was older and could no longer perform at that standard. That's Mother Nature, not Ric Flair. In the same way, no one would argue that Funk or Lawler were every bit as good in the 90s and beyond as they were before that. No one has argued that point.

 

I don't even believe that old Funk and old Lawler are better than old Flair. I've just never bothered to debate it, because I don't really care about it. But you seem more interested in tearing down Flair than building up anyone.

[Matt D]

I'm interested in comparing the totality of two or three wrestlers in the name of coming up with Greatest of All Time.

 

I think this is a factor.

 

I think we can learn a lot from it.

 

If Flair comes out as a better candidate because of it, great.

 

If Funk comes out as a better candidate because of it, great.

 

If Lawler comes out as a better candidate because of it, great.

 

I don't know. That's the point. I don't know and I think there's a lot to learn and I think it's an interesting aspect that we can learn a lot about when it comes to a wrestler's grasp of wrestling.

 

Please take any mention I have of Flair above as "A Wrestler" if it helps. The specific I had was what you said about Flair being less likely to have a great match as he got older. Or some of Dylan's points. Or what I've seen when it comes to late era Lawler.

 

I haven't seen late 90s Flair matches for too long.

 

I just think my general point stands. It's important to me at least.

[Exposer]

I would say Jey Uso's prime is probably middle 2011. He has some really fun tags on Superstars from that period. After that, he still had some fun tags but they might not have been really fun. It doesn't matter though because post-middle 2011 Jey Uso doesn't matter.

[Loss]

All three are wrestlers who had good matches in their 40s and 50s. All three are wrestlers who had much better matches in their 30s. Why can't we talk more about that?

[Matt D]

We can talk about everything! That's the point. We're not figuring out who was a pretty good wrestler. We're working on THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. There are a lot of factors. One of them, to me, is how well they were able to handle a loss of their physical acumen.

 

Why is that important to me? Not because it hurts Flair's case. I promise you that's not why it's important to me. Cross my heart, Loss.

 

It's important because to me, it shows how well they grasp how to put together a match with the tools they have. And that is a sign of being a good wrestler.

 

You can disagree. That's fine. Can you at least accept that I'm not coming from some duplicitous place?

[Exposer]

All three are wrestlers who had good matches in their 40s and 50s. All three are wrestlers who had much better matches in their 30s. Why can't we talk more about that?

Sure, all three did have these things. I personally feel that Funk and Lawler in their 40s and 50s had more good than Flair in his 40s and 50s. Why can't we talk more about that?

[NintendoLogic]

I disagree. It's an artform, not a sport. It's one that involves athleticism, but don't you think that there is an argument that psychology matters more than execution? That it's a valid opinion at least? It might not be yours, and that's fine. To me, though, if someone doesn't have a good enough grasp on it to compensate when they can't rely on physicality then that's a negative mark against someone who does, in a direct comparison of two wrestlers on the highest of levels.

I agree that psychology is more important than execution. But psychology can be taught. Worst case scenario, someone can lay matches out for you. But if you don't possess the requisite athletic ability to physically perform in a match, there's nothing that can be done. Look at Giant Baba. He "got" wrestling arguably as well as anyone who ever lived. But once he went downhill athletically, he relegated himself to comedy matches. And since we're talking about post-prime Terry Funk, remember that the guy was doing moonsaults in his fifties. He may not have been the athlete he was in his thirties, but he was objectively very impressive.

[Exposer]

Also, I want to point out that this isn't some mean attack on Ric Flair. I love Ric Flair. And I'm with Matt here. I don't care about post-prime because it hurts Ric Flair's case either.

[Childs]

I would take Flair over Funk and probably over Lawler. I just don't see why Funk's adaptability as an older wrestler should be excluded from the argument. I don't think a guy has to be wrestling at a GOAT level in a given year for it to add to his GOAT case.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think the point is that Terry Funk's 1994 should be a leading note in his case for GOAT. I think it's that he had a hell of a year when he was 50 and 30 years into his career. That's not typical and therefore adds mass to his GOAT argument.

Ding, Ding, Ding!

[Loss]

We can talk about everything! That's the point. We're not figuring out who was a pretty good wrestler. We're working on THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

Yet we're spending an inordinate amount of time discussing an era when they were all merely pretty good wrestlers.

 

There are a lot of factors. One of them, to me, is how well they were able to handle a loss of their physical acumen.

That's not a fair standard, because some wrestlers have to retire when they lose their physical acumen. Those wrestlers should still be considered in GOAT conversations if they had a career worthy of consideration. Jumbo Tsuruta retired when he got hepatitis. We don't know how he would have adapted. It's not fair to disqualify him from the conversation because he has no post-prime.

 

Why is that important to me? Not because it hurts Flair's case. I promise you that's not why it's important to me. Cross my heart, Loss.

 

It's important because to me, it shows how well they grasp how to put together a match with the tools they have. And that is a sign of being a good wrestler.

You can assess that just fine when evaluating a wrestler's peak.

 

You can disagree. That's fine. Can you at least accept that I'm not coming from some duplicitous place?

If you say you're not, then I will take you at your word. I am trying very hard not to make assumptions about intentions. I am finding that difficult, but I am trying.

[Childs]

I don't think anyone here would argue that Jumbo shouldn't be in the debate because we didn't get to see him work through his decline phase. You just don't get to count in his favor great old-age performances.

[Loss]

But Flair's post-prime has been used to tear him down. Repeatedly. When I have said it should be viewed as a bonus and not a critical part of the case, I have been challenged on that. I specifically asked Dylan if it was a bonus or part of the case, because I assumed it was a bonus. He said no, it was a part of the case. And he also said that Flair being bad when he got older should count against him.

[Exposer]

We can talk about everything! That's the point. We're not figuring out who was a pretty good wrestler. We're working on THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

Yet we're spending an inordinate amount of time discussing an era when they were all merely pretty good wrestlers.

 

There are a lot of factors. One of them, to me, is how well they were able to handle a loss of their physical acumen.

That's not a fair standard, because some wrestlers have to retire when they lose their physical acumen. Those wrestlers should still be considered in GOAT conversations if they had a career worthy of consideration. Jumbo Tsuruta retired when he got hepatitis. We don't know how he would have adapted. It's not fair to disqualify him from the conversation because he has no post-prime.

 

Why is that important to me? Not because it hurts Flair's case. I promise you that's not why it's important to me. Cross my heart, Loss.

 

It's important because to me, it shows how well they grasp how to put together a match with the tools they have. And that is a sign of being a good wrestler.

You can assess that just fine when evaluating a wrestler's peak.

 

You can disagree. That's fine. Can you at least accept that I'm not coming from some duplicitous place?

If you say you're not, then I will take you at your word. I am trying very hard not to make assumptions about intentions. I am finding that difficult, but I am trying.

 

It's not a fair standard to completely ignore the people who did adjust with age. It's not fair to disqualify someone because they did have a post-prime.

[Matt D]

Very briefly.

 

We don't disqualify people because they don't have a post-peak. It's just one factor where we can't learn anything about them where we can learn in other places. It's not an end all. It's just another factor. When it comes to GOAT, the more factors we have to look at, the better, no? It's such a big argument? More data just helps so long as we look at it consistently. Of course, some people will weigh some things more than others.

 

And to say you can't learn something about a wrestler when they are put into a limited situation is an argument I disagree with. You can learn something different. I truly believe that. Lawler took different bumps at 25 than he did at 55. What does he do instead? How does he compensate. Can he still create a compelling match? You can learn something there.

 

And we're spending an inordinate amount of time talking about it? This board is about talking about everything. We've talked great matches through and through. This is another aspect that we haven't looked at as much. Why shouldn't we look into it?

 

Now we're not even talking about the actual wrestlers. we're talking about talking about them, really.

[Dylan Waco]

No, Ric Flair in 1983 is not one of the greatest single years a wrestler has ever had. Neither is Terry Funk's 1994. But the list of wrestlers better than Ric Flair in 1983 is going to be shorter than the list of the wrestlers better than Terry Funk in 1994. Ric Flair's best stuff is a perfectly good comparison to the other best stuff taking place that year, even if it falls short. Lawler/Dundee, MS-1/Chicana, the Freebirds/Von Erichs feud, "Forever!", Choshu/Fujinami and whatever Buddy Rose may have been doing. Do you consider Funk's '94 stuff in the same category as the J Cup, Misawa/Kawada, Vader/Takada in UWFI, Big Egg Universe, Queendom and the Tenryu/Onita feud? Or even the Flair/Steamboat revival, the Bret/Owen feud, the first ladder match, Bret vs Kid or the LLT match with the Rock & Rolls and the Bodies.

 

And besides, Flair's 1983 is not a run by itself. It's a chapter in a longer 8-year run. Funk was active in 1993 and 1995. Some years within that time period were better than others. Same for Flair. 1982-1989 was the run, and some years within it are better than others. But if 1983 is the worst year of his prime, it's pretty hard to take that as a major insult.

It's not meant as a major insult or an insult at all. But being the best or near the best in different years means different things. Not all years are created equally. Not all careers are the same. We don't have as much footage from some years and guys as others. That's the point. I have no problem saying Flair was great in 83. But if you are talking about smaller samples, runs, isolation, et I don't see how you can make those criticisms regarding post-prime Funk and not apply them to allegedly "prime" Flair. You can't strive for an objective calculus and then when problems arise with say "well I don't like the result, so I don't think it should apply there." That's one of the very reasons I don't try and kill myself coming up with some objective standard in these things. It's not possible. The are tools you can use and things you can try and assess but there is no uniform standard and can't be.

 

I actually think you can learn A LOT from smaller samples. Villano IV made tape less than ten times last year and Dolph Ziggler made tape seventy-five times or more if I had to guess (Exposer may actually knw the exact number). But I still think Villano IV was the better wrestler because his peak performances were better and in the particulars he brought more to his matches, with fewer flaws.

 

I get that Flair's 83 is not a run by itself. But neither is Funk's 94 and you could easily argue that he has more meat their than he does in 85 or 86, let alone the nothing that is 88. So why do those years "count" but not 94? Funk had a really solid 93 too actually. Love the St. Clair match to the point where I think it's a great, great match. Love the ACW match with Sabu to the point where I think it's the best of their matches together. I like his FMW stuff from that year a good bit. The ECW stuff is largely forgettable, but he was the best guy in the promotion. It's not anything you build a case on, but I can't see any reason why you would leave it completely out of the discussion.

[Loss]

No one has disqualified Terry Funk. There just hasn't been a huge case made for him outside of being good while old.