Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[Loss]

Well, the best way to point out those things is to cite examples of matches where he has done them, which brings us back to the output argument eventually, does it not?

[Matt D]

Well, the best way to point out those things is to cite examples of matches where he has done them, which brings us back to the output argument eventually, does it not?

Presuming you were replying to me there (there was a flurry), I don't think we shouldn't look at matches. I just tend to like to pick apart matches over time instead of just looking at great matches as a whole. I think there's plenty to learn from a 4 minute superstars jobber match, a bs first house show match of a feud, and from a great 25 minute classic, and from broken down segments of all of them. All of this stuff should be factored in when comparing wrestlers.

[JerryvonKramer]

ohatani, I'm not American but I'm taking the 5th on that.

[flyonthewall2983]

Bret had some pretty exciting matches I had the privilege of watching while they happened (his match with Austin at WM 13 is probably the single best WM match I've ever seen), and had decent programs with guys in his prime. There's no doubt that he had a strong fan base in America, Canada and abroad as well. Even with how his career ended, I could never consider his legacy too tainted by the choices he made.

 

But Flair's Flair.

 

I don't think Bret could have carried Western Canada the way Ric carried the Mid-Atlantic, and ultimately the southeastern part of the country. Bret would have had way too much ego (a charge levied at him by plenty of people he's dealt with) to allow a roster of people to rise up along with him. Flair not only made himself, but others too. Sting, Luger, Windham, and lots of other people he brought into that territory who would become name guys and eventually legends.

 

The question I think people should take away from this is, if Bret had never worked for McMahon, would we be having this conversation at all?

[khawk20]

The question I think people should take away from this is, if Bret had never worked for McMahon, would we be having this conversation at all?

I dunno about that. It's sort of like asking how we would rate Flair if he had never been NWA Champion, wouldn't it?

[Loss]

I do think if the NWA champ model existed into the 90s, Bret would have been the guy going all over the world and to various parts of the U.S. defending the title. And I think he would have done a fantastic job at it, possibly better than Flair himself.

[Matt D]

I think if we've made any really coherent decision as a group over the last few months, it's that "What Ifs" only get us so far, and "so" is not very at all.

[JerryvonKramer]

I do think if the NWA champ model existed into the 90s, Bret would have been the guy going all over the world and to various parts of the U.S. defending the title. And I think he would have done a fantastic job at it, possibly better than Flair himself.

I like this as an idea for a thread. Something like "If Flair had died in 1988, who would have been chosen to carry the can after that point?". Think Bret is one of about 5 or 6 possible guys in that timeframe.

[Loss]

I think if we've made any really coherent decision as a group over the last few months, it's that "What Ifs" only get us so far, and "so" is not very at all.

This is why Flair is better than Bret.

[khawk20]

re: Replacing Flair in 1988

 

Not sure if 88 is early enough that Bret would have been considered for the spot. I believe he was still 90% a tag guy, and the perception of a tag wrestler from the WWF coming in to win the NWA World Title probably would have excluded him from the thought process.

 

Any replacement for Flair at that time would have had to be established outside of the WWF and probably a singles guy to boot. Curt Hennig was the AWA Champion at that time and a terrific wrestler, for example, and I could see him being considered to step in.

[JerryvonKramer]

Should probably be a thread split by my thinking was Windham, Hennig, DiBiase, Rick Martel, Bret, Savage or outside bets like Tommy Rich or even Terry Taylor. This is assuming that any of the mentioned would leave WWF for the honour of being NWA champ.

 

Someone answer me this though: why not Tully Blanchard?

[Matt D]

I think if we've made any really coherent decision as a group over the last few months, it's that "What Ifs" only get us so far, and "so" is not very at all.

This is why Flair is better than Bret.

 

I personally think I, in general, do an okay job escaping the Great Matches paradigm without falling into the "What If" hole.

 

It's okay if you disagree, and sure, I admit I'm also an island unto myself with how I look at wrestling, but I like to think I back up what I say at least a lot of the time, even if it ends up in some strange backwards language.

[khawk20]

Should probably be a thread split by my thinking was Windham, Hennig, DiBiase, Rick Martel, Bret, Savage or outside bets like Tommy Rich or even Terry Taylor. This is assuming that any of the mentioned would leave WWF for the honour of being NWA champ.

 

Someone answer me this though: why not Tully Blanchard?

 

Blanchard: Sure

Rich: No

Martel: No, at this point in his career.

Bret: No, as per my other reply

DiBiase: If you get him pre-Million $$ man, possibly

Windham: Sure

Savage: No, already a McMahon guy and, like Bret, they wouldn't want someone from McMahonland due to the perception of it all (still a relevant factor in the choice to be made in 1988, IMO)

Hennig: Sure

Taylor: No

[Loss]

Rather than ask what would happen if Flair died, I like the idea better of asking who would be better to follow Flair at the end of his run when his time was simply over. Let's assume the territories don't die, and that there is still a need for an NWA champ who can travel from place to place and work with everyone.

 

In that scenario, maybe Flair passes the torch to Bret, who holds it until 1997 before passing it to Steve Austin. Maybe guys like Shawn Michaels and Vader have runs during that time as well, but their time is more transitional. Local heroes like Sting may occasionally get their cup of coffee too.

 

1988 is an odd year to pick because the territories were mostly dead by that point, and Flair was more of a company champ.

[Frankensteiner]

What is this great Flair narrative that people are mentioning? Overconfident champ gets taken to the limit and becomes desperate to hang on? You would have to be one dumb son of a bitch to not learn your lesson over 15+ years.

 

I can easily see why people are such marks for the guy. Probably starts with people being marks for the gimmick. Flair also works an exciting style and if you’re into his carny shit, you’ll probably like his work too. With the current fascination with more violent-gritty matches, I can see why people would like Flair. In general, he’s a great character and I will freely admit that he’s easily my top guy as far as mic work is concerned. But that’s what makes his matches even more frustrating. I want to go back and enjoy them like I used to. Guess I’m still waiting for someone to give me different perspective to look at the matches. Most of the time Flair comes off as a guy running around with his head up his ass.

[Frankensteiner]

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.

This is 100% spot on. All of it.

[Frankensteiner]

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.

I think Flair likes to do Flair things in the ring. The fact that it adds up to the same and somewhat coherrent narrative is purely accidental.

[Loss]

If we're overrating Flair, you are seriously underrating him.

[Loss]

Ric Flair liking to do Ric Flair things in the ring is somehow a problem. What do you want him to do - pretend to be someone else?

[Loss]

What is this great Flair narrative that people are mentioning? Overconfident champ gets taken to the limit and becomes desperate to hang on? You would have to be one dumb son of a bitch to not learn your lesson over 15+ years.

 

I can easily see why people are such marks for the guy. Probably starts with people being marks for the gimmick. Flair also works an exciting style and if you’re into his carny shit, you’ll probably like his work too. With the current fascination with more violent-gritty matches, I can see why people would like Flair. In general, he’s a great character and I will freely admit that he’s easily my top guy as far as mic work is concerned. But that’s what makes his matches even more frustrating. I want to go back and enjoy them like I used to. Guess I’m still waiting for someone to give me different perspective to look at the matches. Most of the time Flair comes off as a guy running around with his head up his ass.

I'm not a mark for Ric Flair. My opinion is an attempt to be objective. I'd rather watch about two dozen other guys than watch Flair.

 

There's no "different perspective". You're simply tired of the existing one. Which is your problem, not Flair's.

[Loss]

I think if we've made any really coherent decision as a group over the last few months, it's that "What Ifs" only get us so far, and "so" is not very at all.

This is why Flair is better than Bret.

 

I personally think I, in general, do an okay job escaping the Great Matches paradigm without falling into the "What If" hole.

 

It's okay if you disagree, and sure, I admit I'm also an island unto myself with how I look at wrestling, but I like to think I back up what I say at least a lot of the time, even if it ends up in some strange backwards language.

 

The point is that the evidence is not there that Bret was better. It does exist in a fantasy land where Bret would have been NWA champ. It doesn't exist in his epic battles with Kwang on Coliseum Video.

[Matt D]

The point is that the things you feel makes someone better are different than what I feel makes someone better.

 

Using your criteria, I probably agree that Flair is better. But I value my criteria more than yours, understandably.

 

In a WON HOF note we argue things like drawing a lot more. Here, the criteria is different than even that. It ultimately means that we're talking about different things, but that doesn't mean we can't express our points and have a coherent discussion. There may be elements that I find in a Bret vs Kwang CV match that I find to be more appealing and more fundamentally impressive than in a Flair vs Windham or in Flair vs Koko or whatever.

 

The math in my head is different than the math in yours, and that's okay. I'm not saying you're wrong in how you feel. I'm just saying that to me, Bret is better.

 

This side of wrestling is the subjective side. The Art side. There just is no objectivity here. At best, there might be consensus.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss, believe it or not, I didn't pull 1988 out of thin air: that was the last time Flair was really doing out dates and defending the belt in territories other than Crockett (although these were slowing down compared to what he was doing in 84-7). It's in December 88 / early 89, coinciding with the Turner buyout and Dusty's removal as booker when the company REALLY starts to make Flair being the greatest champ ever as the focus for the promotion.

[Frankensteiner]

Ric Flair liking to do Ric Flair things in the ring is somehow a problem. What do you want him to do - pretend to be someone else?

I was pointing out that he uses his spots to fill time, not tell a story. The fact that it happens to look like a narrative in the end isn't really by design.

[JerryvonKramer]

What is this great Flair narrative that people are mentioning? Overconfident champ gets taken to the limit and becomes desperate to hang on?

The narrative is not always the same and even if it is the details are different. I said it in the other thread, Flair was an instinctual, organic sort of worker, storylines develop in his matches almost by accident rather than design. That doesn't mean that they can't be compelling.

 

I am not going down the road of discussing whether Flair was the same in every match again, I've sworn a vow of silence on it, but I will link to a post I made in the most recent version of that debate:

 

prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=7853&st=640&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.