Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

I'd define "playing the bitch" as working in a way that makes oneself appear to be a coward or a fool. When Flair gets thrown off the top, it isn't just Flair giving his opponent some offence/making his opponent look good. He performs the spot in a way that makes himself look foolish, in the way he climbs up the turnbuckle, and in the timing of the spot in the match, usually when the babyface is already in the midst of a comeback. Ditto for the 'run into a clothesline after corner bump' spot. The Flair flop doesn't make you think his opponent must be really impressive to have made him fall down like that. It makes you think Flair is a fool. Another spot that comes to mind when I think of Flair playing the bitch is his reaction when Luger or Sting or whoever would flex in his face. It goes beyond just begging off (and really just begging off from another man's posedown is inordinately cowardly), and crosses over into the ridiculous.

 

Lots of heels do bitching, but I think it has become so associated with Flair just because he had so many signature 'playing the bitch' spots.

[ohtani's jacket]

The people watching know that Flair isn't a coward or a fool because in every single Flair match the commentators put over how good you have to be to be the champion, how tough the travel schedule is, and how much his opponents want to win the gold. They also mention other things like the plane crash or how he's a sixty minute man. I don't think anyone ever had the impression that Flair was a fool. What Flair was was cocky and arrogant and what he did in the ring was get his comeuppance by being whipped from pillar to post. I don't see it as any different to people giving McManus' cauliflower ears a going over, Jim Breaks throwing a tantrum in the ring or Bobby Barnes being livid because some wrestler kissed him. You look at Flair's spots as a bit of humour or something that gets the crowd going, the question is how big a part of his work are they. If someone says that all Flair did was "play the bitch" then I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think it was a bit more nuanced than that. He's obviously synonymous with it because he's Ric Flair. I think it has more to do with his profile than how many spots he had. Tully Blanchard played the bitch arguably just as much as Flair with even less offense and nobody picks Blanchard apart.

[Matt D]

Presumably the issue is that Blanchard wasn't the champ? Or maybe that people aren't touting Blanchard as greatest of all time? Or that people aren't touting Blanchard as Greatest of All Time for his role as champ?

[El-P]

I don't think anyone ever had the impression that Flair was a fool.

Seriously ? Flair going to the tope rope only to get thrown out every damn time (as a heel at least), Flair choping no-selling Sting or Luger with him looking like a complete idiot and begging off like a clown, Flair bumping for the referee. Seriously ? Come on... ANd I don't even talk about the entire figure-four deal that John described in details earlier on. I never thought it made his opponent look technically sound to the point he could reverse the dreaded hold applied by the master, it only made Ric Flair look like a complete fool. In term of psychology, Flair's use of the figure four was not much different from "you can't powerbomb Kidman", really (which, surprisingly, hasn't annoyed me that much on rewatch). Flair was supposed to be the master, but anyone that was above JTTS level reversed it the exact same way to the exact same result. It didn't make the opponent look specifically good, it made for a fun spot that the crowd loved because Flair looked like a fool and he sold it like a bitch. Flair was the bitch of all bitches, and he was great at it.

[JerryvonKramer]

See, I think Blanchard mostly portrayed himself as a weaker heel than Flair. More cowardly, more chickenshit, more "bitch"-like. He's your bona-fide sneaky heel. Comes across even more when he's tagging with Arn and Arn is played up to be the power man of the duo.

 

My main problem with the talk of Flair-as-bitch is because I think it's based on a mis-reading of his character and his matches. Flair's kayfabe character was a guy who had all the bravura to want to go toe-to-toe with someone but he'd try every other trick in the book first (because his mantra was to win at all costs). If the tricks failed or if the opponent got on top, he knew he could back himself to go long, to take punishment, to play mindgames, to see the clock out, etc. etc. The begging off is just one part of this overall schtick. There are other layers there too.

 

Sometimes it's a mind game.

Sometimes it's him getting over confident.

Sometimes he's genuinely scared.

 

It's not an either/or proposition, he's a multifaceted performer.

 

I don't want this to come off like a knock on Blanchard, who I think is amazing. But I think his character was much more towards being a Honky-Tonk-Man style heel -- that is, if HTM could throw amazing punches and sling-shot suplexes and bump like a maniac. Blanchard is like the best possible chicken-shit heel. Lawler plays a version of this as a heel too.

 

There's a definite difference between that and Flair's NWA champ character from 85-89 .

 

I think Flair in WWF Circa 92 was booked slightly more towards being HTM-style. Money Inc were booked like that too, as was the aforementioned Lawler in 93. WWF had a thing for chicken-shit heels at that time.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

The people watching know that Flair isn't a coward or a fool because in every single Flair match the commentators put over how good you have to be to be the champion, how tough the travel schedule is, and how much his opponents want to win the gold. They also mention other things like the plane crash or how he's a sixty minute man. I don't think anyone ever had the impression that Flair was a fool. What Flair was was cocky and arrogant and what he did in the ring was get his comeuppance by being whipped from pillar to post. I don't see it as any different to people giving McManus' cauliflower ears a going over, Jim Breaks throwing a tantrum in the ring or Bobby Barnes being livid because some wrestler kissed him. You look at Flair's spots as a bit of humour or something that gets the crowd going, the question is how big a part of his work are they. If someone says that all Flair did was "play the bitch" then I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think it was a bit more nuanced than that. He's obviously synonymous with it because he's Ric Flair. I think it has more to do with his profile than how many spots he had. Tully Blanchard played the bitch arguably just as much as Flair with even less offense and nobody picks Blanchard apart.

Well, I'm watching, and I think he's a coward and a fool, and that's part of the appeal. I mean, come on, seriously? Yeah, we also know Flair is good, we also know from what the commentators tell us that he's the 'dirtiest player in the game', yada yada yada, but let's not pretend he isn't going in there and making a fool of himself frequently.

[Frankensteiner]

The people watching know that Flair isn't a coward or a fool because in every single Flair match the commentators put over how good you have to be to be the champion, how tough the travel schedule is, and how much his opponents want to win the gold. They also mention other things like the plane crash or how he's a sixty minute man. I don't think anyone ever had the impression that Flair was a fool. What Flair was was cocky and arrogant and what he did in the ring was get his comeuppance by being whipped from pillar to post. I don't see it as any different to people giving McManus' cauliflower ears a going over, Jim Breaks throwing a tantrum in the ring or Bobby Barnes being livid because some wrestler kissed him. You look at Flair's spots as a bit of humour or something that gets the crowd going, the question is how big a part of his work are they. If someone says that all Flair did was "play the bitch" then I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think it was a bit more nuanced than that. He's obviously synonymous with it because he's Ric Flair. I think it has more to do with his profile than how many spots he had. Tully Blanchard played the bitch arguably just as much as Flair with even less offense and nobody picks Blanchard apart.

That's because Blanchard wasn't a world champion main event wrestler. Playing the bitch fit his character and position on card.

 

I personally think the announcers fawning over Flair seemed completely ridiculous given the way he wrestled. How can he be the greatest wrestler if he gets his ass kicked most of the time and rarely wins any matches (certainly not cleanly)? I mean Honkytonk Man called himself the greatest Intercontinental Champion of all-time simply because he managed to hang on to the belt longer than any champion before or after. But everyone knew that claim was bullshit.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't think anyone ever had the impression that Flair was a fool.

Seriously ? Flair going to the tope rope only to get thrown out every damn time (as a heel at least), Flair choping no-selling Sting or Luger with him looking like a complete idiot and begging off like a clown, Flair bumping for the referee. Seriously ? Come on... ANd I don't even talk about the entire figure-four deal that John described in details earlier on. I never thought it made his opponent look technically sound to the point he could reverse the dreaded hold applied by the master, it only made Ric Flair look like a complete fool. In term of psychology, Flair's use of the figure four was not much different from "you can't powerbomb Kidman", really (which, surprisingly, hasn't annoyed me that much on rewatch). Flair was supposed to be the master, but anyone that was above JTTS level reversed it the exact same way to the exact same result. It didn't make the opponent look specifically good, it made for a fun spot that the crowd loved because Flair looked like a fool and he sold it like a bitch. Flair was the bitch of all bitches, and he was great at it.

 

I don't think it made him look foolish. Maybe it embarrassed him at times, maybe he was scared he was going to lose the title, but Flair was no fool in the ring. A comedy worker like Billy Torontos, now that guy was a fool in the ring. When Ric Flair gets the figure four reversed (or put on him), it's sold as dead serious. Flair sells the absolute crap out of it. He sells like he's in agony not stooging. The crowd don't think it's a joke; it's a pivotal moment in the match that smart fans got tired of because they saw it a million times. If there were 20 odd Flair matches on tape, they might not be so cynical about it.

[ohtani's jacket]

That's because Blanchard wasn't a world champion main event wrestler. Playing the bitch fit his character and position on card.

 

I personally think the announcers fawning over Flair seemed completely ridiculous given the way he wrestled. How can he be the greatest wrestler if he gets his ass kicked most of the time and rarely wins any matches (certainly not cleanly)? I mean Honkytonk Man called himself the greatest Intercontinental Champion of all-time simply because he managed to hang on to the belt longer than any champion before or after. But everyone knew that claim was bullshit.

Well, they fawned over him because he was the champ. They'd be pretty lousy commentators if they didn't fawn over him, but are you saying that you can't play the bitch in the main event? What is the ideal NWA heel champ if not Flair?

[ohtani's jacket]

Presumably the issue is that Blanchard wasn't the champ? Or maybe that people aren't touting Blanchard as greatest of all time? Or that people aren't touting Blanchard as Greatest of All Time for his role as champ?

But if you have an issue with playing the bitch you should have an issue with it across the board. It seems strange to me that it's only an issue with main eventers or specifically Flair. I suppose everyone has their own set of expectations about how a world champion should wrestle and behave, but I kind of wonder how tailored wrestling is to the tastes of people who are bothered by theatrics.

[ohtani's jacket]

Well, I'm watching, and I think he's a coward and a fool, and that's part of the appeal. I mean, come on, seriously? Yeah, we also know Flair is good, we also know from what the commentators tell us that he's the 'dirtiest player in the game', yada yada yada, but let's not pretend he isn't going in there and making a fool of himself frequently.

He's a heel, he shows ass sometimes. But if you look at the whole package including the promos and the TV and everything, do you really think Flair gets ridiculed and humiliated in the ring during his pomp? Maybe he gets shown up from time to time, but it's the belt that makes Flair tick as Randy Savage said. Flair's a guy who can have his trunks pulled down and bare his lilly white ass and not act ashamed because he walked away the champion. I mean this was a guy who did do violent things to people both in and out of the ring. If he's a clown then so is Terry Funk or Stan Hansen or Negro Casas or Satanico or anyone who can actually perform.

[Matt D]

Presumably the issue is that Blanchard wasn't the champ? Or maybe that people aren't touting Blanchard as greatest of all time? Or that people aren't touting Blanchard as Greatest of All Time for his role as champ?

But if you have an issue with playing the bitch you should have an issue with it across the board. It seems strange to me that it's only an issue with main eventers or specifically Flair. I suppose everyone has their own set of expectations about how a world champion should wrestle and behave, but I kind of wonder how tailored wrestling is to the tastes of people who are bothered by theatrics.

 

Roles, my friend, roles. Sometimes something is appropriate. Sometimes it's not. I think one of the major arguments against Flair is that he would often do things whether they were appropriate or not, as if his presence alone MADE them appropriate. A flip side to this might be just how impressive it is that maybe, just maybe, just being Ric Flair DID make them appropriate, or at least made them "work."

 

But basically, it's okay for Heath Slater as comedic name enhancement talent putting over legends to do something that it's not okay for Punk as world champion to do. Likewise, maybe Slater should not be able to do something that Punk can do. I call this the Helms Chokeslam Principle, though it's not limited to offensive moves by any means.

[Frankensteiner]

That's because Blanchard wasn't a world champion main event wrestler. Playing the bitch fit his character and position on card.

 

I personally think the announcers fawning over Flair seemed completely ridiculous given the way he wrestled. How can he be the greatest wrestler if he gets his ass kicked most of the time and rarely wins any matches (certainly not cleanly)? I mean Honkytonk Man called himself the greatest Intercontinental Champion of all-time simply because he managed to hang on to the belt longer than any champion before or after. But everyone knew that claim was bullshit.

Well, they fawned over him because he was the champ. They'd be pretty lousy commentators if they didn't fawn over him, but are you saying that you can't play the bitch in the main event? What is the ideal NWA heel champ if not Flair?

 

No I'm saying the announcers calling him the greatest wrestler in the world didn't fit how he wrestled. He was a cartoon. Would you agree if the commentators called HTM the greatest IC champion of all-time? Because the bar you're setting (barely hanging on to the belt) is there for both guys.

 

As far bitch wrestlers in main events, I'm not sure how to answer that. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other main eventers who played bitch to that extent and had long runs on top in any one promotion or territory.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Nobody's saying that all Flair was is a bitch or a fool, but I think it's patently obvious that those are roles he undertook quite often during the course of a match.

[ohtani's jacket]

Roles, my friend, roles. Sometimes something is appropriate. Sometimes it's not. I think one of the major arguments against Flair is that he would often do things whether they were appropriate or not, as if his presence alone MADE them appropriate. A flip side to this might be just how impressive it is that maybe, just maybe, just being Ric Flair DID make them appropriate, or at least made them "work."

Ric Flair hardly invented the role, so the argument must be that he somehow played it wrong or that the role was flawed in the first place. I think it's strange that Horsemen Flair, Tully and Arn who could bitch and stooge as well as they delivered a beat down aren't praised for their range.

[jdw]

I don't think anyone ever had the impression that Flair was a fool.

Seriously ? Flair going to the tope rope only to get thrown out every damn time (as a heel at least), Flair choping no-selling Sting or Luger with him looking like a complete idiot and begging off like a clown, Flair bumping for the referee. Seriously ? Come on...

 

I kind of dropped my jaw at that one.

 

John

[jdw]

And as much as I'm sure it seems the opposite is true, the purpose of me being so adamant about this is not to keep defending Flair. I'm a fan, but I have fatigue on going through arguments like these. Still, when Flair is held to a critical standard that no one else is, I'm going to speak up when I think those criticisms aren't being fairly applied to other wrestlers.

Good lord... Flair is hardly held to a critical standard. He's the GOAT of GOATS, and has been for close to 30 years. For almost all of that, Flair's GOATdom has been held to *no* critical standards, and simply been taken on faith because it was on the tablets handed by God to Mosezler.

 

Even people like me who've pointed out him doing the same stupid shit that mere Mortal Wrestlers get knocked left and right for, we have to bend over backwards to make sure that people know we still think Ric is a great, great, great worker. Then shake out heads when people think we hate Ric.

 

It's next to impossible to apply critical thinking to Flair like we do everyone else because fans of Flair get so defensive about him being treated like any other wrestler. You're pretty much 180 degrees the opposite of Flair Analysis over the past 30 years.

 

This is disingenuous. You know that I'm referring to discussion of Flair in the last decade, and on boards like this, DVDVR, Smarkschoice and tOA.

I am actually covering that period as well in the point above: both that period, and the one before which caused the massive Consensus that Flair was the GOAT and above criticism.

 

 

Flair is absolutely held to a higher critical standard. Among some of the things he's been criticized for through the years:

 

* Having signature spots

This is a new one on me. Everyone has signature spots.

 

Are you sure that isn't criticism of *specific* spots.

 

Rock has signature spots. People tend to criticize a *specific* spot: The People's Elbow

 

 

* Having a general formula and preferred method of working

This is actually a criticism from the 80s and very early 90s in the sheets and from other wrestlers. There's nothing new to it, and it was largely dismissed by the Consensus. Others have given it more critical thought since then, some finding it a positive and some finding it a negative. But it's nothing new.

 

 

* Declining with age

Everybody does. He was 40 in 1989. How much longer did people expect him to continue to be a top worker?

 

Granted: the most myopic of fans of Flair don't want to admit that he was mediocre / poor even when he was 60 years old and pretty much a joke in there.

 

If this is all the criticism that's popped up in the past 10+ years, then we collectively are a pretty shitty group of wrestling analysts.

 

 

I don't think you hate Flair anymore. But there are other wrestlers who are talked about as great whose strengths and weaknesses I've never really seen broken down like they have been for Flair.

Oh... I suspect more critical words have been written about Shawn Michaels as a worker than Ric Flair. And hardly anyone says anything positive about Brody and Tiger Mask anymore, which is in contrast to the folks who make points about Flair while saying he was a great, great, great worker.

 

As far as why someone hasn't spent time on breaking down the strengths and weaknesses of say Lawler and Fujiwara, don't look at me. I don't give enough shit about either of them focus on it and really ponder their work. [i'm more interested in trying to figure out if people are overrating Phil Jones.] Perhaps you or someone else can. Or maybe people just want to say they're great, Always Great and GREAT~!, and not put much critical thought into them.

 

 

How many of those things could be applied to other wrestlers? How many of those things actually are used to criticize other wrestlers?

Having signature spots?

 

Everyone.

 

Having a general formula and preferred method of working?

 

Pretty much everyone.

 

Declining with age?

 

Everyone.

 

And actually are made.

 

 

Does anyone really critically break down Steve Austin?

Beats me. I haven't seen any discussions on Austin in ages. I'm sure they are out there, but I confess that I'm not totally interested since I'm not watching Austin at the moment.

 

 

Jushin Liger?

I could have sworn that 90s juniors style was thrown out on the woodpile a few years back. It's nice to see it's made a comeback in the yearbooks, but I'm not even sold that people are breaking down what Liger did *well* to much degree.

 

 

Vader?

Beats me. Yearbooks have been released that cover Leon's prime, along with the AWA and NJPW 80s sets that cover his start. I'd be interested to see if anyone has bothered to put much thought into his career after viewing them.

 

What we typically get are just short, quick thoughts about matches. Which is fine, but it's not really what you're looking for. On the other hand... it's also what *you* are writing about Vader, rather than something lengthy and in detail breaking down his work.

 

I'm at a loss for the complaints that people give enough shit about Flair to write about him and think about his work and think about his position as GOAT when you're not running off to do the same thing for Austin or Liger or Vader.

 

I did my job on Backlund. Don't make be do it for Vader.

[jdw]

Roles, my friend, roles. Sometimes something is appropriate. Sometimes it's not. I think one of the major arguments against Flair is that he would often do things whether they were appropriate or not, as if his presence alone MADE them appropriate. A flip side to this might be just how impressive it is that maybe, just maybe, just being Ric Flair DID make them appropriate, or at least made them "work."

Ric Flair hardly invented the role, so the argument must be that he somehow played it wrong or that the role was flawed in the first place. I think it's strange that Horsemen Flair, Tully and Arn who could bitch and stooge as well as they delivered a beat down aren't praised for their range.

 

Who said he invented the role or that he played it wrong?

 

The thread makes it rather explicit that we think he played it great.

 

Christ... I even dropped the F40 in the thread.

[ohtani's jacket]

I think we've all made our point now, but the thread made it pretty implicit that not everybody thinks it's great.

[Matt D]

"I can understand ideologues. To some degree I even understand the party line crowd, even though I find it abhorrent. But I will never understand those so obsessively committed to a single man that all criticism of him, no matter how sensible or severe, is shouted down or attacked as if it is innately heretical to question him."

 

Dylan, on facebook. Sure his post before it was about drone warfare but we all know what he's really talking about here.

[rzombie1988]

Ric Flair had MOTY caliber matches against THE MIZ and Edge, when he was almost 60, so I wish more wrestlers declined like he did with age.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

When did Flair ever have a MOTYC with Miz?

[Ricky Jackson]

I don't remember him having one with Edge either.

[Exposer]

I think he may be referring to the TLC match with Edge on Raw in early 06. I also think he may be confusing Flair with Lawler as far as Miz goes.

[Loss]

"I can understand ideologues. To some degree I even understand the party line crowd, even though I find it abhorrent. But I will never understand those so obsessively committed to a single man that all criticism of him, no matter how sensible or severe, is shouted down or attacked as if it is innately heretical to question him."

 

Dylan, on facebook. Sure his post before it was about drone warfare but we all know what he's really talking about here.

I'm going to assume you are directing this post toward me, and all that I will say in response is that no, it's not "innately heretical" to question Ric Flair's greatness. I've criticized Flair myself. I don't think anyone here thinks any opinions on wrestling are sacred.

 

My only issue is whether or not the complaints raised against Flair -- or anyone else for that matter, as this thread stopped being about Flair a long time ago for me -- are fairly applied across the board. Calling Ric Flair the GOAT is high praise, and any opinions expressed in support of that deserve scrutiny. But to dismiss or disagree with that scrutiny is not to say that no one is allowed to raise counterpoints, or that any opinions that don't support Ric Flair being the best ever are stupid and a waste of time. If I honestly felt that way, I would have banned anyone who posts here that doesn't see Ric Flair as the GOAT, and I hope everyone knows I would never do that. The reason this thread irked me so much initially was that it was a comparison of a guy who many argue as GOAT to a guy that I've never seriously heard anyone argue as the GOAT except for that wrestler himself, and maybe some fans that pretty much only care about the WWF and/or American wrestling. Even in the defenses of Bret in this thread, not one person has called Bret Hart the all time best wrestler unless I've missed it. Some have called him their favorite, which felt like a very different thing, and I was frustrated that it seemed like people didn't know the difference. Round 2 was frustration over the phrase "playing the bitch", which seems to have originated as a phrase in Flair discussions at this board, and felt like a newly invented phrase that was too convenient and wasn't all that clearly defined. I sort of get what the definition of that is now (making others look great while making yourself look worse than you should), but it still seems like something that is just exaggerated, as the examples provided weren't really enough to convince me that Flair looked like an idiot. There is a clear difference between Flair and someone like Fuerza Guerrera, who really mastered the role of the bumbling fool. Even then, I don't think saying Fuerza "played the bitch" is quite accurate or fair.

 

Recently, I said I could see Stan Hansen unseating him in my mind after continuing to watch more footage. I also think there are others who definitely belong in the conversation. I am sure there are some who would have wrestlers in that realm that I wouldn't, and wrestlers I would have in that realm that others wouldn't.

 

Ric Flair is a flawed wrestler, just like every wrestler in history. The debate is not over anyone's right to acknowledge and comment on those flaws. It's a debate over the relevance and accuracy of those points, and if those points are enough to take him off the mountain. I don't think they are, but I don't have a monopoly on Right Opinions, so others can and do see it differently. I think it's also a debate on whether or not the positives are strong enough to overcome any negatives mentioned. So we debate it. That's what we do.