Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[Grimmas]

I think to determine the greatest wrestler of all-time you look at everything the wrestler did.

 

The greatest of all-time is different than who has the greatest for a period of time. If you want to just pick who was the best at their peak, then why not say the greatest of all-time is the wrestler who had the best year? The best month? The best week? The best day?

[Dylan Waco]

I think to determine the greatest wrestler of all-time you look at everything the wrestler did.

 

The greatest of all-time is different than who has the greatest for a period of time. If you want to just pick who was the best at their peak, then why not say the greatest of all-time is the wrestler who had the best year? The best month? The best week? The best day?

My guess? OJ doesn't think Satanico had the greatest week, month or year of all time so he's looking for a metric that will help his favorite.

 

I mean that's really what it all boils down to if you want to count everything right? Just trying to pick a good criteria for your boys? Can't possibly work the other way right?

 

Eh better not question his motivations, or challenge his poor arguments again. Don't want to be seen as childish.

[ohtani's jacket]

If you take a film director, you look at the films he made during his artistic and commercial prime first. You don't look at the films he made when he couldn't get funding or he was no longer given A-list projects. If he had a swang song, great, but if he didn't (and most don't), you throw it out. I have never seen an argument about film where a director's oeuvre was considered in its entirety.

Seriously ? I mean, maybe it is because here in France the auteur theory pretty much still is the predominant cinema critic ideology, but to me it's pretty much always what happens when discussing the merits of directors.

 

(this is a footnote in the discussion though, as I pretty much agree with a lot of what you're saying here. I've watched most of the famous Lawler matches in the WWE the last few years, and thought it was "fun for a 60 year old guy", but to hear about Lawler being a great wrestler in 2011/12 is just insane to me. I have seen some indy stuff he did from earlier in the decade too, mostly against Funk, and again it was "fun for what it was". Then again, I don't think Jerry Lawler is a GOAT worker either)

 

I don't think people are concerned with discussing Donovan's Reef or Cheyenne Autumn or Young Cassidy or Seven Women when discussing John Ford. A film critic or fan could watch those final four pictures of his and find things about them that are great or things that only John Ford could do, but using those films to strength Ford's case as the GOAT? I'm not buying it.

 

People don't expect directors to make great films forever and I don't think they should expect wrestlers to work great matches forever. If you have a favourite TV show and it peters out towards the end of its run are you going to consider it as worse than TV show you didn't like quite as much that never petered out?

 

Childs brought up the example of Kareem, but if Kareem's longevity were so impressive he'd be considered automatically, hands down the greatest player of all-time. Only he isn't, because some people consider Jordan or Chamberlain to be better at their peaks.

[ohtani's jacket]

I think to determine the greatest wrestler of all-time you look at everything the wrestler did.

 

The greatest of all-time is different than who has the greatest for a period of time. If you want to just pick who was the best at their peak, then why not say the greatest of all-time is the wrestler who had the best year? The best month? The best week? The best day?

We're talking about a ten year period or more, so you don't really need to undercut the argument to the best year, month, week or day.

[Grimmas]

I think to determine the greatest wrestler of all-time you look at everything the wrestler did.

 

The greatest of all-time is different than who has the greatest for a period of time. If you want to just pick who was the best at their peak, then why not say the greatest of all-time is the wrestler who had the best year? The best month? The best week? The best day?

We're talking about a ten year period or more, so you don't really need to undercut the argument to the best year, month, week or day.

 

For Flair it's a ten year peak, you stated.

 

However, you also said that the greatest wrestler of all-time is the wrestler with the greatest peak. There could be a wrestler with a greater peak, but its shorter. Where would they rank then?

[ohtani's jacket]

There was an idea floated around here the other day that his peak was in '85. I just think the ten year period works well for comparing these three guys as workers .

[goodhelmet]

If a really long, extended peak was all that matters, Buddy Rose would have been a part of the podcast but Loss hasn't seen enough Buddy Rose to take part in that conversation. Buddy had a crazy great peak from 1977-984 and then was in one of the best tag teams of the year in 1986. The only reason we don't include 1985 is because of a lack of footage.

[Matt D]

Where was he in 85?

[goodhelmet]

From my Buddy set...

 

The Executioner vs. Tito Santana (Mania 3/31/85)

- WWF jobber early on

 

 

Buddy Rose vs. Steve Simpson (Portland 5/18/85)

Buddy Rose Interview (Portland 5/18/85)

Portland Talk Show w/ Buddy Rose & Mega Maharishi (Portland 5/85)

Buddy Rose vs. Roddy Piper (Portland 5/21/85)

Buddy Rose vs. Steve Pardee (Portland 6/29/85)

Buddy Rose & Mega Maharishi Interview (Portland 6/29/85)

Buddy Rose & Mega Maharishi Interview (Portland 7/6/85)

Buddy Rose & Mega Maharishi Interview (1985)

- Went back to Portland but we jhave very little Portland 1985 footage.

 

 

Buddy Rose & Ox Baker + Austin Idol (ICW 1985)

Buddy Rose vs. Billy Jack Haynes (Florida 8/85)

Buddy Rose vs. Tyree Pride (Arena Clips) (Florida 11/85)

- He had a cup of coffee in ICW and then went to Florida where we have little footage.

[Childs]

Just to be clear OJ, I wasn't saying Kareem should be considered the greatest because of his longevity. I was saying it would be weird to discount his long run of post-peak excellence when assessing his greatness.

[NintendoLogic]

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 universally agreed-upon set of criteria, so subjectivity is inevitable. Which is like I'd like to move away from speculation about people's motivations. Are people going to favor criteria that cast their favorites in the best possible light? Probably. But it's not really relevant whether you first decide what's important and then see who best fits the bill or work your way backwards to stack the deck in favor of the guys you like. As long as you're open about the standards you use and apply them consistently, I don't see the problem.

[ohtani's jacket]

Just to be clear OJ, I wasn't saying Kareem should be considered the greatest because of his longevity. I was saying it would be weird to discount his long run of post-peak excellence when assessing his greatness.

Understood, I was just saying that taking his longevity into account gets him into people's top ten, maybe even their top five, but not much further than that. Post-prime effectiveness may factor into some sports arguments, but in the main sports arguments always return to peak performance. To me, the post-prime argument in this thread is like suggesting that because Bob McAdoo won a couple of rings after his peak was over he must be a better HOF candidate than players who didn't win a ring as vets.

[ohtani's jacket]

However, you also said that the greatest wrestler of all-time is the wrestler with the greatest peak. There could be a wrestler with a greater peak, but its shorter. Where would they rank then?

Sorry, I didn't answer this before. I would have no hesistation rating the wrestler with the greatest peak as the greatest of all-time. How long that peak would have to continue for I'm not sure. At one point I considered Akira Hokuto the greatest worker I had seen and that was from a three year peak.

[ohtani's jacket]

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 universally agreed-upon set of criteria, so subjectivity is inevitable. Which is like I'd like to move away from speculation about people's motivations. Are people going to favor criteria that cast their favorites in the best possible light? Probably. But it's not really relevant whether you first decide what's important and then see who best fits the bill or work your way backwards to stack the deck in favor of the guys you like. As long as you're open about the standards you use and apply them consistently, I don't see the problem.

 

I think if you sat down and worked out some guidelines then you could agree to a set of criteria. This is sort of what happened in the podcast where there were areas that all three were examined in. So long as the criteria suits all of them then I don't see what the issue is.

[JerryvonKramer]

Just read through OJ's critical beatdown on Dylan from the previous page and I'm just trying to think of how GOAT discussions play out in other fields.

 

For example, in football no one cares that Pele went and played for the New York Cosmos in the menaingless US league in the 70s and spent most of the decade selling viagra. It doesn't affect his GOAT argument. No one cares that Maradonna was a coke fiend who ended his career largely in disgrace. There they tend to go back to a few amazing performances in world cups and in Pele's case point to career stats. They are pretty much judged on their peaks.

 

The same goes for Marlon Brando, whose GOAT case for acting, as far as I can tell, is based almost entirely on 4 films (Streetcar, On the Waterfront, Godfather, Last Tango in Paris). He made a lot of shit in his career, and post-Superman did little if anything of note except get fat. He is not even judged on peak periods, but on 4 individual instances of greatness (Apocalypse Now is typically seen as an aberration in terms of HIS performance and career).

 

But there are also cases based on longevity. Paolo Maldini is arguably the GOAT defender in football. His peak was roughly 90-98. But he played until he was 40 and won the European Cup 5 times. He holds the all-time appearances record for AC Milan and Serie A. He won the Ballon D'or in 2003 -- which is remarkable on two counts, 1. that he was a defender winning that prize and 2. that he was 35 in 2003. Even more amazing is that he captained A.C. Milan to another European Cup victory in 2007 when he was 39.

 

You can see how the case for Maldini being the greatest ever defender in football differs greatly for the case for Marlon Brando being the greatest ever actor.

 

I don't know that we HAVE to go one way or the other. Was Maldini the best defender in the world at any time during the 2000s? I don't think so, but the fact he was still turning in very good performances and winning major trophies that late in his career is undeniably part of his case.

 

But I don't necessairly think we need to hold The Score or The Island of Dr Moreau against Brando. I DO think that when having that conversation, the fact Brando is only on top top form in 4 films during the period he was a top actor is something you could hold against him. The person advocating Brando would have to try to shift the argument to saying something like no one else has ever been as good as Brando was in those 4 movies, or whatever.

 

Point is: I don't think Dylan is wrong to want to stretch out the period of time you consider for Funk and I don't think Loss is wrong to limit Flair to just the 80s. Every case is going to have a different shape. Maldini's achievements in the 2000s are exceptional in part because footallers are EXPECTED to retire around 35 and to have a sharp drop off after 32. So him bucking that trend is another string to his bow. The same is true of Funk. BUT that doesn't mean you can hold it against a footballer who retires at 35 and who dropped off after he was 32, there's no EXPECTATION to do so. I don't think you punish guys for not bucking expections, and so you can't punish Flair for the drop off. That doesn't mean you can't reward Funk for bucking expectations.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think it's wrong to do either. I just think if you decide you are going to pick a hard standard you should try and apply it uniformly. Most of the debate that sparked in this thread was about the fact that I didn't think things were being applied uniformly. Part of that was because I was misunderstanding and misreading points Loss was making. Part of it was because Loss points weren't fully fleshed out.

 

I tried to be pretty up front with my biases in this thread which I guess opens me up to charges that my entire framework for viewing the GOAT debate and wrestling in general is all about trying to score points for guys I am known for being a huge fan of. But at the end of the day I prefer that to living in a fantasy world where huge chunks of time never happened and/or don't matter at all.

[Guest aceman]

this has been mentioned once or twice before, all flair matches ARE THE SAME!!

[ohtani's jacket]

Aceman, now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm going to accuse him of trolling.

[goodhelmet]

He probably is trolling but this is not the time to start trolling when it comes to Flair.

[Matt D]

JvK, while I'm glad to go digging, if you were to represent me with the short list of Flair matches you wanted me to compare/contrast once again, I intend to do that this month and it'd make things easier.

[JerryvonKramer]

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5523143

 

I think Loss's post there about signature bumping is fantastic and analysis like that is one of the reasons why I post on this board every day.

 

Matt - I think you'll find that Flair works Garvin VERY differently from how he works, say, Steamboat. I'll chuck in a few others:

 

vs. Jumbo in All Japan (83)

vs. Garvin at Superstars on the Superstation (85)

vs. Nikita Koloff at GAB 85

vs. Sam Houston

vs. Jimmy Garvin at GAB 87

 

If you watch those five, plus the ones Loss mentioned, I don't think you can argue it's the same match again and again. Even take the two different Ron Garvin matches from 85 and Starrcade 87 they aren't worked the same.

 

Look at Flair's offence in the Jimmy Garvin match where he almost breaks his leg and compare it with the much much more technical style he works with Jumbo in Japan.

 

The stories in all these matches are different:

 

In the Houston match, he's overconfident and underestimates an underdog, but still ends up kicking his ass anyway. In the Nikita match, he's outpowered needs to changeup his game plan to get the better of his opponent. In the Garvin matches he's come to fucking fight.

 

I don't think you can really come out of it and say "oh they are all the same because he always does a Flair Flop and a Flair Flip".

 

Take 10 Hogan matches from the same period, then you can start to talk about formula.

Loss has a different list in that thread as well. I'll add 2 more to that:

 

vs. Luger at Starrcade 88

vs. Steamboat at Clash VI

 

I also think in all these matches you can see the different sides of my little thesis from earlier in this thread.

 

I look forward to seeing what you make of these.

 

Going back to the Bock comparison briefly, I've been thinking more on it today and I actually think they are two very different wrestlers:

 

- Bock has 3-4 different gears and he tends to pick a gear and stay in it for the whole match. He's a guy with a gameplan and a strategy and he'll try to stick to that gameplan.

- Flair also has multiple gears but he kinda takes each match as it comes and decides what he's going to do on the hoof. I don't see Flair the strategist like I see Bock the strategist -- which is just one more reason why the "he always has the same match" argument rankles with me so much.

[El-P]

Interesting back to back Bret Hart and Ric Flair matches against the same opponents on Thunder : Disco Inferno. It shows how different their philosophy of working was.

 

Bret Hart vs Disco Inferno happened just after Bret did the job to Booker T on Nitro. The match with Disco was pretty much a rpolongued squash, with Bret taking Disco appart and not giving him a lot of offense. The execution was perfect, and there was a distinct feel of ranking through the match : Bret is a much better wrestler than Disco and much higher on teh totem pole. Him taking his time to take Disco down very deliberately really showed how much he was rebuilding himself after a loss. Was the match entertaining ? Not very much. Did it make sense ? Absolutely, on pretty much every level.

 

Ric Flair vs Disco Inferno happened just before Flair was going to meet Hogan at Uncensored, in a match where he would have to retire if he lost, and get full-time control of WCW and the World title if he won. You'd think Flair would be ultra-intense because of the upcoming match which should be the most important of his life and destroy Disco ? Nope. Flair worked a routine competitive Flair match, complete with every Flair spot you expect from him, which really negates any ideas of ranking. If he has that much trouble with Disco how can he hope to beat Hogan ? He gave Disco tons of offense, got put into his own figure-four despite the fact Disco sucked at it. The execution was also pretty shoddy, as Flair looked old at this point. Was it an entertaining match ? Well, if you're not tired of the Flair routine by the number, yes, especially since it was pretty much back and forth. But it was a Flair routine match that wasn't any different from any other Flair routine match, with no sense of urgency nor a clear feel of Flair being on another level than Disco. Did it make sense ? Absolutely not, on pretty much every level.

 

So there you have it, Flair worked an "entertaining" competitive match which didn't make sense nor in the context nor in term of rankings, while Bret worked a much more dry match which totally made sense both in context and in term of ranking. I would rather watch the Flair match because of his character and the back and forth nature of the match, but watching it I couldn't get into it at all because it appeared to me that it was a pretty stupid watch when you think of it, and not worked very well in term of execution either. In the end, neither were compelling matches, I will keep neither on my hard drive and despite Bret's being not as entertaining on the surface, he was clearly right to work the match the way he did while Flair was goofy doing what he did with Disco three days before a major PPV.

[ohtani's jacket]

The moral of the story is don't watch Bret Hart or Ric Flair matches from 1999.

[El-P]

No. Bret vs Benoit from the same time period is excellent, maybe better than the infamous Owen Tribute match, he also carried Booker T to one of his best matches so far. Flair vs Goldberg was quite interesting and actually quite good too I thought.