Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[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.

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

 

 

There is nowhere on the podcast I said that.

 

There is nowhere in this thread that I said that.

 

I have never said "Terry Funk is a better candidate for GOAT than Ric Flair because Terry Funk had a good year in 1994." In fact I don't really disagree with Soup's appraisal of Funk in comparison to Flair in 94.

 

Please make reference to the multiple times I or someone else has said this in this. Since it's been done repeatedly it should be remarkably easy to find.

[Exposer]

I'm pretty sure Ziggler wrestled over 90 matches in 2012. 96 is possibly the exact number. Just a few shy of Sheamus.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

I'm not even sure how much it "hurts" Flair if we stick to the good points and ignore the bad points. I'm not sure it's entirely possible to do that, nor am I convinced it is somehow wrong to at least say "boy Flair sucked for a couple of years" when talking GOAT because All Time doesn't mean "whatever time period is best to help the guy I like most." I do think it would be wrong for that to sink the candidacy of someone with as much good shit as Flair.

[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.

 

 

There is nowhere on the podcast I said that.

On the podcast, you mentioned a time when you considered Flair the worst wrestler in the world, and created a contrast with all of the things Funk was doing around the same time.

 

Earlier in the thread:

 

Flair had his match. He had his shit he liked to do. He kept trying to do it when he physically couldn't anymore and when it became totally senseless to do so. He could have changed the way he worked and eventually did during his American Onita phase, when he had several good matches working the "Dirtiest Player In The Game" gimmick but with a different spin. No Ric Flair wasn't 35 forever (though really that's an odd age to pick for Flair since he was pretty great until he was 40 and pretty good until he was around 45), but he could have changed his ingredients and didn't and that effected his output in a real way.

Later in the same post:

 

Without Funk's freelance run in the 90's/00's I think he's a marginal GOAT candidate. Others may disagree, but I think it's that stuff that really puts him into the discussion.

If I had the wrong takeaway from that, coupled with you preferring Funk to Flair in this conversation, so be it.

[Dylan Waco]

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

So what? Why on earth is it on the yearbooks if it isn't even worth discussing?

 

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.

And Ric Flair has a lot more matches on tape than Sangre Chicana. That's not fair to Chicana so it's not fair to disqualify him from HoF conversations. Since we can only go on the footage we have of Chicana, it seems wrong to look at all the footage of Flair. We should just hack it down to a couple of dozen matches so the comparison is more fair. Right?

 

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

Not if that peak doesn't exist on tape or we only get glimpses. Better pair down that Flair output so we can get a fair comparison to Pat O'Conner. It's only fair.

 

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.

Unfortunately I am too at this point.

[Loss]

So what? Why on earth is it on the yearbooks if it isn't even worth discussing?

As I said before, it's the difference between something being worth discussing and something being worth discussing in the context of a GOAT debate.

 

And Ric Flair has a lot more matches on tape than Sangre Chicana. That's not fair to Chicana so it's not fair to disqualify him from HoF conversations. Since we can only go on the footage we have of Chicana, it seems wrong to look at all the footage of Flair. We should just hack it down to a couple of dozen matches so the comparison is more fair. Right?

I see the logic in this, but I think we both know that the scope of these discussions is footage we are capable of seeing. You are 100% right in the sense that it's completely not fair to Chicana. I wish we could compare them accurately. Flair might come out not looking as good as Chicana. If we had all the tools at our disposal needed to make a full career comparison, I think that would be awesome. Sadly, we don't.

 

Ric Flair may not be the greatest wrestler who ever lived. My arguments are based entirely on recorded footage. Chicana isn't talked about in these conversations because we don't have the footage available. We have it for Flair. We have it for Lawler. We sort of have it for Funk, although we would benefit from having more complete 70s footage.

 

Not if that peak doesn't exist on tape or we only get glimpses. Better pair down that Flair output so we can get a fair comparison to Pat O'Conner. It's only fair.

Rather than pair footage down, I'd rather seek out more Pat O'Connor. If we had the footage, I'd love to evaluate him.

[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.

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

 

 

There is nowhere on the podcast I said that.

On the podcast, you mentioned a time when you considered Flair the worst wrestler in the world, and created a contrast with all of the things Funk was doing around the same time.

 

Earlier in the thread:

 

Flair had his match. He had his shit he liked to do. He kept trying to do it when he physically couldn't anymore and when it became totally senseless to do so. He could have changed the way he worked and eventually did during his American Onita phase, when he had several good matches working the "Dirtiest Player In The Game" gimmick but with a different spin. No Ric Flair wasn't 35 forever (though really that's an odd age to pick for Flair since he was pretty great until he was 40 and pretty good until he was around 45), but he could have changed his ingredients and didn't and that effected his output in a real way.

Later in the same post:

 

Without Funk's freelance run in the 90's/00's I think he's a marginal GOAT candidate. Others may disagree, but I think it's that stuff that really puts him into the discussion.

If I had the wrong takeaway from that, coupled with you preferring Funk to Flair in this conversation, so be it.

 

 

You are the one who was talking about runs. I made reference to a run, not the year 94 in isolation. I made that as a comp to show why I think the nonsense about peak/runs/isolation is pretty obviously not something that is applied across the board. You still haven't answered why Funk's 94 shouldn't matter but his 86 should. You haven't answered why Flair with less output in 83 is included, but Flair in 90 with more output isn't.

 

I have been very honest about my feelings about Flair post-prime and that includes my view that he was fucking horrible for a couple of years during his WWE run. I have never said "Flair was not as good as Funk because Funk was good/great/whatever in 94." Ever. No such thing exists.

 

I do think it matters that Funk was able to have good matches as recently as 2011 and that the amount of bad Funk had in his old age is very, very small. I think it matters that he had good matches as a freelancer all over the place. I don't believe in pretending things don't exist so we can strive for "fairness" especially when that interest in "fairness" seems to only apply in that instance.

[Matt D]

As I said before, it's the difference between something being worth discussing and something being worth discussing in the context of a GOAT debate.

I just don't get this. Shouldn't a GOAT debate be MORE inclusive, not less?

[Loss]

If the point the entire time has been that a high-quality post-prime is a positive that should be allowed a place in these types of debates, I can accept that, as long as it's not at the expense of those who don't have it. If we're not holding once great wrestlers getting old and limited against them, so be it.

 

I have no problem using it as a positive. I have a problem using the lack of it as a negative.

 

If I had said that earlier, could we have saved ourselves a lot of time and frustration?

[Dylan Waco]

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

Yep. That's it. That's what the whole thing boils down to.

 

Hey how about that Flair in 83 with his ten good matches we can point to as good(assuming we are feeling charitable to Ric of course). What great evidence of a "run" and non-isolation that is required to even consider GOAT talk!

[Dylan Waco]

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.

You say Flair's post-prime is being used to tear him down but I have really tried to avoid that being the basis of any of this talk even though I think it is insane to pretend he didn't suck for a couple of years when he clearly did. The idea that I have harped on that is flat out bullshit.

[NintendoLogic]

I have to say that I find Loss' argument far more persuasive, to the point where I would now rate Flair above Funk on a GOAT list. So this discussion has served a purpose.

[Dylan Waco]

If the point the entire time has been that a high-quality post-prime is a positive that should be allowed a place in these types of debates, I can accept that, as long as it's not at the expense of those who don't have it. If we're not holding once great wrestlers getting old and limited against them, so be it.

 

I have no problem using it as a positive. I have a problem using the lack of it as a negative.

 

If I had said that earlier, could we have saved ourselves a lot of time and frustration?

Extremely early on I said that and was told it wasn't possible for it not to be a negative if it was a positive for someone else. That's not the case. This is not a zero sum game.

[Dylan Waco]

I have to say that I find Loss' argument far more persuasive, to the point where I would now rate Flair above Funk on a GOAT list. So this discussion has served a purpose.

This is the least surprising post in the thread.

[Loss]

Ok. I re-read some things. I'm hoping this puts a nice bow on this conversation. If it doesn't, it doesn't, but I am hoping it does. Part of this is changing my thoughts, and part of this is clarifying where I was coming from before.

 

I have no problem with Funk's old man act being part of this conversation, as long as it's not in the sense of specifically comparing it to Flair's old man act. The reason for that is not because Funk wins out, but it's because I think Flair has a robust case that has nothing to do with how he performed in his late 40s and early 50s. It's probably shortchanging Terry Funk to define him by his "middle aged and crazy" period, but maybe it would be shortchanging him not to mention it at all as well. I would hope no one would ever try to define Ric Flair by his late 90s and early 2000s. I am fairly sure most people realize that's ridiculous.

 

I could see someone reading my points before and thinking there were arbitrary cutoffs and time periods that should be completely discarded on a whim or to fit a predetermined candidate. I didn't intend it that way, but I can understand seeing it that way. In fact, and this is a change in position after having this conversation, I'm fine with someone including Flair's bad years in the conversation too, as long as they are not disproportionately weighing it against many more years where he was better. "Flair falls down a few notches because of a rough patch" is a perfectly reasonable point of view, even if it's not something I would go out of my way to bring up within this conversation. "Ric Flair's late 40s and early 50s are proof he was always overrated" would be more a point that I would challenge.

 

As long as we're defining the wrestlers who peaked high (not just Flair) at their best, I have no problem with including any time period in the conversation. I just don't want anyone to have the takeaway that Flair's decline is more important than his peak period. I don't think you had evil intentions, Matt, and I apologize if I gave the impression that you did. Dylan, I know you well enough to know better.

 

Is everyone else ready for this thread to end?

[Dylan Waco]

Yes. Unless that was a trick question. Then the answer is no

[soup23]

I have no problem with Funk's old man act being part of this conversation, as long as it's not in the sense of specifically comparing it to Flair's old man act. The reason for that is not because Funk wins out, but it's because I think Flair has a robust case that has nothing to do with how he performed in his late 40s and early 50s. It's probably shortchanging Terry Funk to define him by his "middle aged and crazy" period, but maybe it would be shortchanging him not to mention it at all as well. I would hope no one would ever try to define Ric Flair by his late 90s and early 2000s. I am fairly sure most people realize that's ridiculous.

 

 

Is everyone else ready for this thread to end?

I agree with this paragraph. If Funk in 1994 and beyond is a positive for your case as him as a GOAT, great and I can see that side of the coin. However, it should not be contrasted with him being much better than Flair especially in some of those later years.

 

On the question Loss poses at the end I will say this, I am currently studying for the CPA and have to critically think harder reading this thread than covering any material for my test.

[goodhelmet]

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.

 

My argument was never about the 90s but the 00s where Flair was in Dylan's words "The worst wrestler in the world" in 2003 and 2004. In the 90s, I agree that all three had highlights and lowlights. It is in the 00s that Lawler, Tenryu, Casas etc. shine as old men.

[Grimmas]

I have to say that I find Loss' argument far more persuasive, to the point where I would now rate Flair above Funk on a GOAT list. So this discussion has served a purpose.

I feel the exact opposite, Dylan has made it clear Funk > Flair.

[goodhelmet]

I laugh at all of you... Lawler is greater than both

[Matt D]

No.

 

I'm not conceding that.

 

If one wrestler does something better than another, as in one has a better post peak because of things that that wrestler does, then that is not just a positive one, but it factors in when comparing the two.

 

It's not just "X does this well"

 

It is "X did this better than Y."

 

If you are comparing two wrestlers, you are comparing two wrestlers and I don't know why in the world you wouldn't factor that in. I have no idea how late Flair compares to late funk right now. I haven't seen enough of it. Or how Late Funk compares to Late Lawler.

 

But it is a COMPARISON. You are comparing two wrestlers to figure out which of the two is the greatest of all time. If one does something better than the other then it matters and I don't see why in the world it wouldn't. They're not both fighting against the clock here or against some time in a race. We're aesthetically comparing two human beings and their bodies of work. There is a ton to learn from post-peak, just like there's a ton to learn from how a wrestler deals with certain limitations. If they can adapt.

 

Saying "This wrestler had the best great matches at the peak of his career" is so limiting a way of saying "This is the greatest wrestler of all time." It's not even close to the same thing.

[Loss]

That's pretty much what I said. Or at least that's what I thought I said. If you want to compare Flair and Funk as old guys, feel free. Maybe it should be part of the conversation. But I'm not convinced that it should be an equal part of the conversation. When people think of these guys, first and foremost, they think of them on their best days, when they are fairly young, and when their stardom is at its peak. It's when they made their name and established their legacy. That's why I think it is more important. But I suppose it doesn't have to mean that everything else is unimportant.

[Matt D]

I can live with that concession. I'm not saying that post-peak is more important than peak, just that when comparing two wrestlers, it's a factor. Certainly, not the most important one.

 

We're good. Let's shut up and watch the Rumble.

[ohtani's jacket]

I like Funk's run in 94 a lot period, whether it be SMW, WCW, ECW, random indies, FMW, et.

Sure, you like it. You might even be a bit overexcited about it considering you think Terry Funk is possibly top 20 in the world for 1994, but what's the point? A Flair fan might think Flair's '94 was really good too. Unless we all sit down and agree that Funk in '94 was something that Flair was not and that this difference is important in determining whether one guy is better than the other it's just an additional talking point. Funk had better matches than Flair in 1994, that's all. You need to produce a more convincing argument of why it matters that Funk had better matches than Flair in 1994 instead of just throwing it out there as though we should all nod in agreement that this is one thing more that Funk has over Flair. You turned "Funk the roamer" into a positive, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but someone could easily turn around and say that Funk not having an extended run in the big leagues is a blot on his candidacy and that Flair maintaining his spot all the way through to '94 is far more impressive than Funk working indie dates. There's all sorts of ways you can twist this.

 

I am being told that 85-86 should count in his calculus because it's between 76-89. 90-97 apparently can't at all. Even 94 which we agree is a very good year for Funk (forgive me if "very good" is something you think is excessive) can't count.

If you want my honest opinion, I think you're overcompensating for the fact that there just isn't as much good Terry Funk from the period in question as there is Lawler and Flair. I think you want to extend it out to '97 because he helps fill out Funk's resume. The downside of Funk not staying in one place for long is that he doesn't have the string of matches that Lawler or Flair had so you have to argue that Funk's best matches are as good as Lawler or Flair's, or concentrate on performance or micro details or post-prime work in order to boost his case.

 

I'm not even saying he should have become American Onita in 1997, just that the "well what the hell was he supposed to do?" excuse doesn't carry a lot of weight with me (or truck...doesn't truck...that is the phrase right?).

I've heard you mention this American Onita thing before, but I don't understand what it means. Did you expect him to work deathmatches or ECW style brawls like Funk?

 

Hogan was the biggest babyface in the history of wrestling, when he got stale and people starting ripping his head off of their foam fingers he went heel and reinvented himself (which improved his in ring work too at that point if you want to keep the comparison tight). Surely you wouldn't argue that Flair adapting his work in mild ways to reflect his declining athletic skill set would be more difficult and/or radical than that?

Hogan had been the biggest babyface in wrestling for 12 years. Flair flip flopped between heel and face so much times there was no way he could reinvent himself a turn. Besides, it's not like Flair didn't work his age into his schtick. Oldest ride in the park, longest line, all that shit. There is a crazy old man period for Ric.

 

I think it's pretty clear that Bock is one of the best wrestlers of the 80's. I also don't even think it's open for debate that there were people who thought he was one of the best in the 80's years ago. It's something I have heard for years from a very select group of fans that grew up on the AWA and/or had actually watched AWA. The difference now isn't some sort of "veteran appreciation in reverse" gimmick being worked by message board posters. It's that people are actually getting to watch the matches. I don't want to speak for Matt D, but fuck it I'll speak for Matt D when I say that a guy like Bock is pretty his exact kind of wrestler. And I don't think that's because Bock was older then. Hell he sure doesn't look old in those matches.

Man, this is from the John D. Williams school of if "it happened once in living memory your argument is null and void." I already mentioned that there may have been a select group of AWA fans who thought Bock was great in his 50s. But the average internet fan wouldn't have bought it, just like they wouldn't have bought that the AWA in the 80s was good.

 

On this point the question was "were old guys getting significant praise over six yeas ago." And I think Flair, Funk and even Bock show that the answer is yes.

So, let me get this straight, in 1998 Hogan, Flair and Piper were considered better workers than Austin, Rock and Foley? Tenryu was considered better than Misawa, Kawada, Kobashi, Hashimoto, Liger, etc? Chigusa was better than Toyota, Kansai, Kong, Ozaki, et. al? The best luchadores in the world were the workers from the generation before Santo, Casas, etc., who were no spring chickens themselves? There hasn't been any shift whatsoever?

 

See above. I also wouldn't use WON as a metric of meaning in this discussion. I don't think it's ever been heavy on pushing Lucha, certainly not since the height of AAA. Even now I don't see Dave or his readers giving old guys any sort of push. Casas/Panther getting any kind of showing in this years Awards was a near miracle. WON readers don't give a fuck about IWRG, Jerry Lawler indy matches and care a lot less about Finlay than people who are on boards like this or DVDVR.

But you don't see a lot of awards going to old workers in the past do you? It doesn't matter whether it's the WON or the old rspw awards do you? You're not going to read a tremendous amount of praise for veterans from a guy like Mike Lorefice are you? In fact, most of the time you'll read him bitching about older workers and guys who stayed on for too long the same way a Bihari does. Ten or more years ago that was the prevailing sentiment.

 

I'm not interested in an even playing field. I'm interested in trying to see who I think is better.

A GOAT argument isn't about who you think is better. It's about determining who the greatest of all time is by using a set of objective criteria.

 

There is no objective metric and I don't really understand why we have to pretend we can get to one.

Sure there is, if you lay down the same guidelines for everyone.

 

The peaks of Funk and Lawler are longer than the peak of Flair according to you.

I already said that I was just guessing at the years. I chose '76 for Funk because of the Jumbo match and '77 for Lawler because of the Race match. I don't know if that's the earliest complete or useful footage. There's not enough 70s footage for it to be an advantage for one guy over the other, anyway.

 

That's not a "level playing field." At his peak I don't think Flair was near the level of El Dandy, but Dandy's peak was shorter (so far as the footage tells us anyhow). I guess if we are being fair we should isolate Flair's best three consecutive years with Dandy's so we can level that playing field.

I'd just take as much peak Dandy as there is available and compare it with peak Flair. Seems simple to me. I'm not sure that Dandy would come out on top, either.

 

There are a lot of people who thinks Funk's absolute peak were those six months in 89. Maybe we should scrap ever thing else for the purposes of the GOAT debate and look solely at the best six months of each guy in order to be fair and level the playing field. Then again that might not be fair either. We would need to make sure they wrestled the same number of matches. Even then you'd probably want to adjust for booking advantage, otherwise the playing field isn't even. Also might want to note who worked gimmick matches, how many studio matches there were, who the opposition was so we could make a straight comparison on the talent they were working with, et. Then we might get CLOSE to evening out that playing field. Maybe. But without knowing certain climate and environmental factors how could be sure? We would probably need to assess the pollen count in the Carolina's. Hey, Bock worked Denver, what effect does the high altitude have on the ability to work long? We can keep figuring and we might get close to even eventually.

Now you're getting childish.

 

Or we could admit that an even playing field isn't possible because people have different careers. You have to do the best with what you've got.

Flair and Funk's careers and primes overlapped enough for there to be a direct comparison. We're not trying to compare different eras here.

 

Where is the Flair footage from the 70's relative to the Funk or Lawler footage? That's not fair! We should probably toss that aside. Now they did basically go head-to-head with footage we can point to from 82-08 or so. But evidently head-to-head ONLY matters during prime years. Everything else is irrelevant or trivial. Sure there might be plenty of good stuff post-prime. Sure there may be years in a guys alleged "prime" where we have little footage (or at least little pimped footage), but hey it's in that arbitrary period where we are allowed to consider it in discussing ALL TIME performance, so we'll pretend that's not true or somehow doesn't matter. Sure there may be periods after a prime where a wrestler has better performances and more output than he did during periods in his prime, but that's just a quirk and we can't make exceptions in our objective assessment tool or the space time continuum might fracture. Sure there may be years after someone's prime when they manage to be one of the better guys in their country or on earth, but what can that really tell us about their prime and since prime is all that matters in a discussion about the greatest of ALL TIME, we have to be honest with ourselves and just admit those years didn't really happen.

Or we could just spit the dummy.

 

To you it's not important. I don't agree. At all. On any level.

Well, that's that then. I don't agree when you throw out hyperbole about stuff and then get uber defensive when people question it. Surely, it's not that frustrating to you that some people think there should be a cut-off point where comparing workers with one another.

 

I would rather talk about those things then pretend they don't exist.

Nobody's pretending that it doesn't exist. I don't think it's worth including in the debate, you think it helps Funk's case (whether you admit it or not), I think you haven't really evaluated the post-prime period with anything other than a eye to making Funk seem a stronger case than he really is.

 

All time isn't a synonym for 80's. If people want to talk about who was the best in the 80's of course you talk only about what occurred in the 80's. If people want to talk about who the best ever was (which is basically just code for "best guy we have enough footage of" to be fair but whatever), I don't think we should pretend "ever" or "all time" pertains to an arbitrary time period we assert as being the peak of their careers.

All three guys worked through the 80s. Whoever was the best in the 80s is likely the greatest of all-time, since it apparently boils down to those three. And since none of them were GOAT level after the end of the 80s, you might as well concentrate on the period where they were, y'know, the GOAT. The GOAT doesn't mean who had the longest or the best career or who could adapt or change or stay relevant. It means which guy was the greatest there's ever been at professional wrestling.

 

I was asserting my opinion in a thread filled with them. I wasn't dragging in WON Awards for unknown reasons. I wasn't pointing to the WKO 100 and saying "here is what people with a similar view on wrestling to me think." I was saying that Lawler in 2011 was an arguable top ten guy. You can take that as hyperbole, shitty opinion, short sighted opinion, praise of Lawler, indictment of modern scene, et. What I would prefer you not do is say "well it happened after the year when his prime ended so regardless of whether it's bullshit or something I would agree with, it's completely worthless nonsense that doesn't matter."

First you talk it up, now you talk it down. Either you think Funk was top 20 on earth in 1994 and Lawler was top 10 on earth in 2011 and it's this big earth shattering thing or you don't.

 

 

There is nowhere in this thread or any other discussion of GOATC's where I have ever said a good post-prime is required. There is nowhere in this thread where I have said that peak shouldn't be the most important part of the equation. But I reject the notion that something that adds to our understanding of a wrestler's career can have no bearing at all on GOAT discussion because it occurred outside of a prescribed time period. "All time" doesn't mean "some of the time, when we decide these guys were at their best."

Nobody's the GOAT for their entire career not even if the GOAT, whoever that is. The problem we're having here, to put it crudely, is that if someone's made up their mind that Flair is the best of the three they're not going to care that he got bad and they're not going to give a shit if Funk was marginally better at some point in the 90s or beyond. You're not doing a good enough job convincing Flair fans that any of the post-prime stuff you're arguing about matters.

 

Where is the fun in creating artificial rule sets that eliminate massive portions of guys careers WHEN THEY WERE GOOD? If we are looking for the "fairest way" why do we stop with peak and not make radical adjustments for other things that clearly play a role in peoples careers? Yes everyone gets a peak and a lot wrestlers don't even live til they are fifty, but it doesn't mean those who were very good after their peaks and into their fifties weren't very good after their peaks and into their fifties.

If Funk is so good in the 90s then maybe his peak didn't really end in '89. Maybe that's the way you should lay it out.

 

Honestly the difference of opinion is so massive here I don't think it can be bridged at all. I just don't get the argument on any level.

It probably can't be bridged, but that's the fun of messageboard posting. I like all three guys, but not as much as Satanico, Fujiwara, Breaks or McManus, so I'll step out here.

[Dylan Waco]

Not responding to all of that right now, but if you want my honest opinion your crowing about the motivations of others tells me I have no reason to respect your opinions anymore.