Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[ohtani's jacket]

There's only a handful of Bret matches that tell a story in the proper sense of the word. I actually think the lack of narrative in your ordinary, run-of-the-mill Bret Hart match is the reason why Loss couldn't find too many interesting Bret matches outside of his big match performances. If he'd been a master storyteller like a Satanico or Casas then every performance would have been interesting, but your average Bret match is just a match and can't claim much of a story. I dare say there's more of a narrative in your average Flair match than there is in a Bret Hart match, but what I can't abide by is the insinuation that Flair was repetitive but Bret somehow wasn't. We're all familiar with Bret's moves and signature spots. I'm sure many of us could do a pretty good job at calling a Bret match. The sternum-first bump into the middle turnbuckle, the shoulder into the ringpost, sticking his knees up when an opponent came off the top rope, the times he played possum... all these things may be better or more logical than Flair's spots, but it's not like he did something new in every match. Whenever he'd debut a new spot (like the ringpost figure four spot) it would immediately become part of his repertoire. He was a guy who worked within his comfort zone and his matches were often slow, IMO, especially in WCW. I can understand being a mark for the guy and what he represented, but in no way was he a polar opposite to Flair.

[NintendoLogic]

There's only a handful of Bret matches that tell a story in the proper sense of the word. I actually think the lack of narrative in your ordinary, run-of-the-mill Bret Hart match is the reason why Loss couldn't find too many interesting Bret matches outside fo his big match performances. If he'd been a master storyteller like a Satanico or Casas then every performance would have been interesting, but your average Bret match is just a match and can't claim much of a story. I dare say there's more of a narrative in your average Flair match than there is in a Bret Hart match,

Yeah, I don't see this at all. What exactly do you consider a narrative?

 

but what I can't abide by is the insinuation that Flair was repetitive but Bret somehow wasn't. We're all familiar with Bret's moves and signature spots. I'm sure many of us could do a pretty good job at calling a Bret match. The sternum-first bump into the middle turnbuckle, the shoulder into the ringpost, sticking his knees up when an opponent came off the top rope, the times he played possum... all these things may be better or more logical than Flair's spots, but it's not like he did something new in every match.

The difference is that he didn't try to shoehorn them into every match. There were quite a few matches where Bret didn't even apply the Sharpshooter. By contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to find a prime Flair match where he didn't apply the figure-four and have it applied to him in turn. And he didn't do something new in every match, but he did consistently add new wrinkles and build off of previous matches. For example, he beats Bigelow at KOTR with a victory roll, but when he tries it against Owen, he gets countered and defeated. Another example: he does that reverse splash thing against Hakushi on Raw, but when he tries it against Davey Boy, he gets splattered. He was infinitely better than Flair at logically building up and paying off spots. I don't even see how that's arguable.

[cabinboy454]

This will be taken as complete sacrilege, but I would watch a best of Hogan before I'd watch a best of Hart.

 

Now, the worst of Hogan would probably be several tiers worse than a worst of Bret. But I'd still rather watch Hogan's best of at this point.

I agree, a Best of Hogan would be much more entertaining than a Best of Bret Hart.

[Dylan Waco]

There were quite a few matches where Bret didn't even apply the Sharpshooter.

There were FAR TOO MANY where he didn't win with his finish in my opinion. I said this in the other thread, but I always thought Bret should have had another finish in his arsenal and the over reliance on cutesy roll up/cradle spots is something that bothers me about him over the long haul. In and of themselves I like a lot of those finishes, but as a big picture the ace of the company/babyface wrestling machine who went to that sort of finish so much on the big stage is something that I don't think is all that different from "Flair does stock defensive spots" even if I can grant that they were more logical.

[ohtani's jacket]

Yeah, I don't see this at all. What exactly do you consider a narrative?

In pro-wrestling I would define a narrative as the ordering of events in a pro-wrestling match to create a dramatic effect through the structure of the plot. I suspect if you looked at a Flair studio appearance from the 80s and compared it to a Bret TV match, Flair's match would have the stronger narrative.

 

The difference is that he didn't try to shoehorn them into every match.

Yes and no. For a long time he was, rightly or wrongly, accused of always following the five moves of doom. My intention wasn't to defend Flair as such, simply to point out that Bret was a formulaic worker like Santo and Flair and many other great wrestlers.

 

He was infinitely better than Flair at logically building up and paying off spots. I don't even see how that's arguable.

I think maybe we are worlds apart on this because it's more important to me that the match pays off the angle than paying off a previous spot. Having said that, Bret clearly paid more attention to detail.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'll just come out and say flat out: I have no respect for anyone who votes for Bret here.

[El-P]

I've grown up on Bret. i loved the guy. Still do like him a lot. But Flair in the 80's squashes Bret's body of work. Bret didn't had the opportunity to work in a favorable environment, but in a way he beneficiated from it (like Shawn did) because his best matche stand out that much more than Flair's. I would have loved to see Bret work in WCW in the early 90's and see how he would have compared to Arn, Windham, Eaton and such in the same setting. Then there are those "solid but disapointing" performances. I agree with Dan when he says A Flair TV match actually was more engaging and had more of a narrative than a short Bret TV match, and to me it also comes down to Flair's character, who was that much stronger (at least compared to babyface Bret). For instance Bret had matches on TV against Pritchard and Jimmy Del Ray in 1994/5 and they should/Could have been much more fun than they were considering the talent of his opponents. They were just solid but by-the-number wrestling match. I would guess Flair working any of these two, even in a short TV match would have gone the extra mile to make it look more special (as he was doing against pretty much anybody that was a good worker at one time).

 

Then I can take into consideration the character, the promo ability and the presentation, and Flair wins easily too. Really, I like Bret a lot and think he was a great worker, but Flair has been so great for so long in so many territories, including after his prime (and really I was suprised how much I enjoyed the Vader match from Starrcade 93 and the Hogan match from GAB 94), that it's a no-brainer for me, has been for quite a long time now.

[khawk20]

I'll just come out and say flat out: I have no respect for anyone who votes for Bret here.

 

I voted for Bret.

 

 

Fuck you, too.

[khawk20]

....to add for those that don't mind a differing opinion than their own, I've seen tons of both guys throughout almost the entirety of their careers, both as it happened and later via video. I enjoy the work of both guys immensely, but Bret gets the nod slightly because he seemed more the "crisp" performer of the two. I'm not sure how to explain that better, to be honest, except possibly to say Bret's offense and how he took a move seemed to be more "Believable" in terms of the damage it did to either his opponent or himself.

 

Both guys are great and I love watching them both.

[JerryvonKramer]

khawk, you may know more about AWA than any living person, but this is a fucking disgrace.

[khawk20]

Jerry, sometimes I envision you wandering wround your house, wringing your hands and grabbing at your temples yelling "BRET HART!?!?! BRET FUCKING HART!?!?!? ARGLE-BARGLE-PODCAST-MUMBLE-MUMBLE!!!!" before collapsing in a heap on the floor, possibly in a puddle of some expelled body fluid.

 

I like Bret better right now and a I briefly explained why. I'm not big on long, deep explanations most of the time (save for the odd AWA diatribe), so you'll have to trust that my opinion is based on 35 years of watching wrestling and subject to change depending on the day.

 

If that seems disgraceful to you, so be it.

[Dylan Waco]

Look lets just all agree that Bock is better than Flair and Bret*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*not saying this is my opinion, just reading Matt D's mind

[khawk20]

Look lets just all agree that Bock is better than Flair and Bret*

 

*not saying this is my opinion, just reading Matt D's mind

 

Matt is once again correct.

[JerryvonKramer]

khawk, I don't dislike Bret Hart, I really don't. I just think that Flair is beyond comparison with him to the extent that I am slightly affronted that there is even a thread positing this question let alone people actually voting for Bret.

 

It's like Kevin Spacey is a good actor ok, he's good, really good. He may have one or two specific performances that are better than specific Robert De Niro performances, Spacey might even do something you like and De Niro some things you don't, but there is no question as to who is better, none. De Niro is beyond comparison with Spacey, he's at another level. Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier, Day-Lewis, Burton even and you might have some sort debate on your hands, but Spacey vs. De Niro is a non-contest from the get go.

 

The arguments for Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier or Day-Lewis over De Niro I can respect and even by persuaded by one way or the other, this is not the case with Spacey. The same is true of Bret vs. Flair, Bret being Spacey to Flair's De Niro. I am all for your right to state such opinions but don't ask me to respect them.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Instead of swearing at each other, let's talk more about the notion that Bret isn't repetitive.

 

Even 12-year-old nonsmart fan me thought Hart was VERY repetitive. Ohtani laid out some of his oft-repeated spots a few posts ago. I'll add the second-rope elbow and side russian leg sweep. Bret seemed to always go out of his way to get his signature spots in. If you prefer Bret over Flair, that's cool. But don't tell me that Bret wasn't repetitive.

 

(For the record, I love Bret, but he is not even in the same ballpark as Flair. Even if Flair never wrestled, the Nature Boy would get my vote on his promo ability alone.)

[El-P]

Anyone thear want to get all pissy at the "Brett" spelling ?

 

(oh, let's not get into wrestlers/actors analogy, it could get real ugly real quick )

[Matt D]

As everyone knows, the "great match" theory is relatively low on how I judge wrestlers (though I don't judge them on what could have been either). I think the big difference to me, so much else comparable if not equal, is this. If you look at the last 2/3rds of a Bret match and a last 2/3rds of a flair match, you can much more easily pull out why Bret is doing what he's doing than Flair. Flair does a bunch of shit just for the sake of doing it. It's not the repetition that gets me, but the fact that what he's repeating is done without rhyme or reason. With Bret, you usually get a sense of why he's choosing to do something that's a lot more logical and coherent, and that's important to me. I get that it's not important to everyone. That's fine.

[khawk20]

Instead of swearing at each other, let's talk more about the notion that Bret isn't repetitive.

 

Even 12-year-old nonsmart fan me thought Hart was VERY repetitive. Ohtani laid out some of his oft-repeated spots a few posts ago. I'll add the second-rope elbow and side russion leg sweep. Bret seemed to always go out of his way to get his signature spots in. If you prefer Bret over Flair, that's cool. But don't tell me that Bret wasn't repetitive.

 

(For the record, I love Bret, but he is not even in the same ballpark as Flair. Even if Flair never wrestled, the Nature Boy would get my vote on his promo ability alone.)

I like swearing (fuck fuck fuck)

 

I would never argue that Bret wasn't repetitive personally. Again, it comes down to how crisp Bret's moves were. Even in situations where it was the same move over and over, the way they looked over-rode the idea that it was a standard Bret spot. The face-first turnbuckle run, for example, looked painful and hard charging every time he did it (which seemed to be every match). Likewise with the elbow from the second rope you mentioned, and the leg sweep.

 

Not a lot of Flair's repetitive spots had the same effect of looking painful and/or as snug as Bret's did. When watching a lot of matches of someone, that factor makes a difference for me.

 

And, to note, my Bret vs. Flair comparison is based on matches I've watched alone. I'm not counting in promos or promo ability.

[JerryvonKramer]

As everyone knows, the "great match" theory is relatively low on how I judge wrestlers (though I don't judge them on what could have been either). I think the big difference to me, so much else comparable if not equal, is this. If you look at the last 2/3rds of a Bret match and a last 2/3rds of a flair match, you can much more easily pull out why Bret is doing what he's doing than Flair. Flair does a bunch of shit just for the sake of doing it. It's not the repetition that gets me, but the fact that what he's repeating is done without rhyme or reason. With Bret, you usually get a sense of why he's choosing to do something that's a lot more logical and coherent, and that's important to me. I get that it's not important to everyone. That's fine.

But the first 2/3s of a Flair match usually involves him bumping around like a pinball for his opponent.

[ohtani's jacket]

khawk, I don't dislike Bret Hart, I really don't. I just think that Flair is beyond comparison with him to the extent that I am slightly affronted that there is even a thread positing this question let alone people actually voting for Bret.

 

It's like Kevin Spacey is a good actor ok, he's good, really good. He may have one or two specific performances that are better than specific Robert De Niro performances, Spacey might even do something you like and De Niro some things you don't, but there is no question as to who is better, none. De Niro is beyond comparison with Spacey, he's at another level. Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier, Day-Lewis, Burton even and you might have some sort debate on your hands, but Spacey vs. De Niro is a non-contest from the get go.

 

The arguments for Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier or Day-Lewis over De Niro I can respect and even by persuaded by one way or the other, this is not the case with Spacey. The same is true of Bret vs. Flair, Bret being Spacey to Flair's De Niro. I am all for your right to state such opinions but don't ask me to respect them.

I hope you realise liking all those actors is the equivalent of liking Bret Hart more than Ric Flair.

[Loss]

Here's the issue I'm noticing in this and other threads.

 

___ vs ___ can be read in a few ways. My way is so instinctive to me that it literally didn't occur to me that it's not how everyone sees these things. Insert your own jokes.

 

* Who had the highest quantity of great matches with the most people in the most places?

* Who would I rather watch wrestle?

* Who was the more talented wrestler?

 

Let's look at each of these:

 

* Who had the highest quantity of great matches with the most people in the most places?

This is my personal favorite approach, because I feel like it's the most grounded in reality. Yeah, wrestling, reality, quiet you. When push came to shove, who got the job done? Think of it like this. I used to be a corporate trainer by profession. One of my colleagues had been doing the job for over a decade and had trained for quite a few companies. I ran a few classes at my company. The people retained the material, I got good feedback and I was well-liked. I was able to make some changes that resulted in a better training program for new employees. She had some classes where she got positive feedback and some where she didn't. People liked her, but felt like they always knew exactly how each class was going to go. But she trained for Fortune 500 companies and startups alike. I used more role playing and games in my training classes. I used more humor. Every class she held was going to be PowerPoint presentations followed by a quiz. Some people may prefer to be trained by me, but career versus career, she's still a better Trainer. I can't be better than her because I'll never train for so many companies and be sought after in so many places. Maybe if I were going from company to company, I would deliver great training classes and surpass her. But I didn't. So I'm not better.

 

* Who would I rather watch wrestle?

I would rather listen to cheesy 80s synth pop than The Beatles most of the time. It's fun mood music. My play count on Soft Cell songs may be higher than my play count on Beatles songs. But I'm not going to argue that Soft Cell is better than the Beatles - just that I'd rather listen to them. In a thread like this, I'd still vote for The Beatles, because I can separate my personal tastes from the big picture.

 

* Who was the more talented wrestler?

Prince was an accomplished songwriter. He produced his own albums and sometimes played every instrument and did his own backup vocals and lead vocals. He has an incredible vocal range, encompassing some pretty high falsetto and a deep baritone. He has some amazing songs. He may be the most talented pop artist that ever lived. But is he the *best* pop artist that ever lived? He is a better musician than anyone in The Beatles, but should Prince rank ahead of the Beatles on anyone's all-time list? Prince is great, awesome and tons of other positive superlatives. But when I look at the run of albums and number one singles, I can't rightfully say Prince is better than the Beatles. Even if I'd rather listen to him, and even if I think he was more talented.

[JerryvonKramer]

khawk, I don't dislike Bret Hart, I really don't. I just think that Flair is beyond comparison with him to the extent that I am slightly affronted that there is even a thread positing this question let alone people actually voting for Bret.

 

It's like Kevin Spacey is a good actor ok, he's good, really good. He may have one or two specific performances that are better than specific Robert De Niro performances, Spacey might even do something you like and De Niro some things you don't, but there is no question as to who is better, none. De Niro is beyond comparison with Spacey, he's at another level. Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier, Day-Lewis, Burton even and you might have some sort debate on your hands, but Spacey vs. De Niro is a non-contest from the get go.

 

The arguments for Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier or Day-Lewis over De Niro I can respect and even by persuaded by one way or the other, this is not the case with Spacey. The same is true of Bret vs. Flair, Bret being Spacey to Flair's De Niro. I am all for your right to state such opinions but don't ask me to respect them.

I hope you realise liking all those actors is the equivalent of liking Bret Hart more than Ric Flair.

 

Care to explain?

[ohtani's jacket]

As everyone knows, the "great match" theory is relatively low on how I judge wrestlers (though I don't judge them on what could have been either). I think the big difference to me, so much else comparable if not equal, is this. If you look at the last 2/3rds of a Bret match and a last 2/3rds of a flair match, you can much more easily pull out why Bret is doing what he's doing than Flair. Flair does a bunch of shit just for the sake of doing it. It's not the repetition that gets me, but the fact that what he's repeating is done without rhyme or reason. With Bret, you usually get a sense of why he's choosing to do something that's a lot more logical and coherent, and that's important to me. I get that it's not important to everyone. That's fine.

I don't get this at all. I don't think I've ever seen a Ric Flair match where I didn't get what he was doing in the last 2/3rds, at least not one that I can remember or sat all the way through. Particularly the final third, since the middle of any match can get messy. You make it seem like he's all over the shop. I don't see how he could be accused of having a formula if it as random as you're implying. And logical and coherent doesn't always mean good. It can also mean boring and standard. But I feel like Bret's getting a bit of a rough time here. If we restrict it to only US workers in the 90s, I think there are quite a few wrestlers who were better TV workers than Bret, who may have had one or two great matches on PPV, but who didn't really deliver the kind of big match performances that Bret gave. It may have been a case of having opposite stages to perform on, but I think it's a feather in Bret's cap and you could probably argue the case that Bret was better than a lot of his 90s contemporaries.

[Matt D]

Flair hits his shit for the sake of hitting his shit, because he feels he needs to get it in. He goes in and out of having a strategy. I think a lot of the time he lets the crowd define what he's doing instead of deciding what the crowd wants for them. And he was successful for that. it's a successful approach. Absolutely, probably even more so than Bret's. But I prefer the latter personally, on a subjective level.

 

Here's the issue I'm noticing in this and other threads.

 

___ vs ___ can be read in a few ways. My way is so instinctive to me that it literally didn't occur to me that it's not how everyone sees these things. Insert your own jokes.

The question in the poll is "Who is better?"

 

Bret is better at the things I care about, thus to me, Bret is better.

 

I think Flair's better using a bunch of other criteria, sure, some of it more mainstream, or more recognized as important by consensus, but using the criteria I care about, Bret is better. This is the criteria that I engage you people with whenever this sort of question is asked, however, so I'm consistent, unless of course, I'm in a note talking about the WON HOF or a GOAT note or something, at which point I use the criteria I think is important for that.

 

I took this as "who do I think is a better wrestler." and to me that usually translates to "who do I think is consciously or unconsciously showing that they know what they're doing the most in the ring."

 

That's the most important thing to me. If you do something, it should make sense. First and foremost. If it's interesting, clever, well-executed, believable, etc, then that's what separates the people who show that are doing things for a coherent, logical reason within the context of the match. Bret's excellent at that, especially in the second two-thirds of his matches. That matters to me. That's my starting point. I think he does other things well that takes him above other wrestlers who are good in the same way. Not all, but some.

[ohtani's jacket]

khawk, I don't dislike Bret Hart, I really don't. I just think that Flair is beyond comparison with him to the extent that I am slightly affronted that there is even a thread positing this question let alone people actually voting for Bret.

 

It's like Kevin Spacey is a good actor ok, he's good, really good. He may have one or two specific performances that are better than specific Robert De Niro performances, Spacey might even do something you like and De Niro some things you don't, but there is no question as to who is better, none. De Niro is beyond comparison with Spacey, he's at another level. Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier, Day-Lewis, Burton even and you might have some sort debate on your hands, but Spacey vs. De Niro is a non-contest from the get go.

 

The arguments for Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier or Day-Lewis over De Niro I can respect and even by persuaded by one way or the other, this is not the case with Spacey. The same is true of Bret vs. Flair, Bret being Spacey to Flair's De Niro. I am all for your right to state such opinions but don't ask me to respect them.

I hope you realise liking all those actors is the equivalent of liking Bret Hart more than Ric Flair.

 

Care to explain?

 

They're all boring actors.