Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[Loss]

Objectivity is not code for anything. It's just referenced here as recognizing the difference between personal favorites and best.

 

Ric Flair is not my personal favorite wrestler. I'm agnostic on those things, as I mentioned recently.

You're still defining what the "objective best wrestler" means and someone else might think it means something else.

 

So your best is your personal favorite. Good to know.

[jpchicago23]

It's really not hard to argue when it's all an opinion anyways. I mean there really isnt a right or wrong answer is there? It's fun debate but to me it just comes down to personal taste. I mean Flair could get 100 votes and Bret 3 making it look unaminous but to me Bret would still be better. I guess i dont have that filter on what i like and what i think is best

[Matt D]

Maybe my personal favorite is my personal favorite because he's my best?

 

I don't hold a huge emotional attachment when the bell rings, especially when watching something where I know the outcome coming in. It's one of my weaknesses as a viewer and probably why I like structure so much, because I jump straight to the analysis. I sure do like watching what I objectively think is good wrestling though.

[Frankensteiner]

Things Flair does well in his matches:

 

- selling. Yes it is theatrical but not to Hennig / Steamboat cartoony levels, he makes a lot of noise and cries of pain and so on and that adds to how convincing it is. You can be Lex Luger, Nikita Koloff, Ronnie Garvin, Jumbo or Ricky Steamboat and Flair can put on a match that will not only make you look like a million bucks but ALSO extenuate your strengths, so Luger and Koloff come off like supermen, Garvin like a guy who would clean your clock down a dark alley, Jumbo like respected star who has proved he can move onto the next level and be company ace by hanging with the world champion for 45 minutes, Steamboat like the best wrestler in the world.

 

- working the crowd. Look at the way he'll take time out to shout at a fan in the 5th row and call him a "fat boy", he's one of the best at that sort of thing. Look at his stalling. That sort of thing we take for granted, but Flair is seriously one of, if not THE best staller of all time. I'll give you a point of comparison: Barry Windham. Windham as a heel US champ does quite a lot of stalling. He's not as good as Flair at doing that in such a way that riles up the crowd and fires up the opponent. Flair is basically the master at the bailing / stalling stuff. We all take that for granted, it's not that easy to be GREAT at something like that -- and there are lots of examples of people who suck at it like Mike Rotunda.

 

- execution. Again, something we all take for granted with Flair but laud a guy like Bret for. Who else executes the standing vertical suplex as brilliantly as Flair? He doesn't have a SHIT TON of moves, but the ones he does, he does expertly. I don't think I'd put peak Bret over peak Flair for execution. I don't think I'd put peak anyone over Flair for that.

 

- offense and pacing. This is distinguished from the above by the fact I'm not talking about HOW Flair executes moves, but what he does when he's in control of a match. Flair is one of the BEST guys at transitions and switching gears, again something no one ever gives him any credit for but when Flair wants to move from 2nd into 5th you can FEEL the intensity turn up in a match. He can bring violence. It's not just about getting desperate in the final 3rd, it's about the way he is able to hone in like an assassin on one bodypart, it's about how he can flick a switch from stalling and begging off to pushing someone's knee out of joint and almost breaking their leg.

 

 

That's what I like about Flair as a wrestler. He was one of the greatest ring generals ever to lace up a pair of boots. There are little things we can all find annoying about his matches and I agree that structure is not his strong point (although his fundamentals listed above are so strong that he can overcome that), but these aren't enough to detract from what I find so great in him. To me Flair is at GOAT levels in each of the 4 areas I've listed above. I think Bret is only at GOAT levels in 1 of them (execution) and arguably in the 1 area I've said Flair isn't that strong in (structure).

 

Even taking great matches out of the equation and breaking down on what makes Flair a good wrestler, I still think he's better than Bret.

This is more along the lines of what I'm looking for. However, all those things you list seem to be just the nuts & bolts of a match. They certainly are important as lacking in these areas could very well derail a good match but I'm looking for something more. Just because you have the right parts doesn't mean you can build a good engine. I would think there's enough guys who were good at those things as well.

 

I liked your post above where you compared the five or so Flair matches against different opponents. I will try to watch the two matches against the Garvins and the Houston match later this week. I'm not too interested in watching Flair in Japan (v. Jumbo) or working tweener/babyface (v. Nikita) as those will obviously be different than the bulk of his work just based on circumstances.

 

For the record, my complaint with Flair's repetitiveness is about his JCP work. I don't mind him working the same NWA touring champ style in different territories. It's not my favorite but I will make concessions because there's nothing wrong in calling the same match for different audiences. That actually makes sense to me, especially when you consider the revolving door of opponents. My main problem is that so much of his JCP work (v. Magnum, v. Dusty, v. Barry, v. Sting, v. Luger, etc.) feels the same and often times incoherent. But I will watch those matches you mentioned with an open mind.

[jpchicago23]

I guess that's where i differ from a lot of people. i tend to never really analyze a match instead i just sit back afterwards and say damn that was awesome or fuck that shit sucked. I was at Mania this year and i found myself just being caught up in the Taker Trips match and thats how i like to watch. I like it when a match is so good that you get lost and you let your guard down a little.

[jdw]

You have some duplicate links.

 

John

[Frankensteiner]

This is bullshit. I get trolled into an argument at least once a fucking week over Ric Flair, and I haven't made the case for him. I've walked through his matches plenty of times in folders on this board. More than you've ever made the case for any wrestler, I promise.

Well, instead of all the consternation, maybe you can point me in the right direction with some links. I don't read all the posts. And I usually try to avoid the Flair conversation in general.

[Loss]

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...l=flair+formula

[Frankensteiner]

Thanks for that. I will need some time to digest.

[JerryvonKramer]

Frankensteiner, there's another version of me and Loss vs. Matt D and others on Flair here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5523106

 

I feel like we'd had this convo 20 times already which is why I vow silence on it.

 

What I want to know now is how you can come up with a break down of Bret similar to the one I did earlier that has him coming up on top of Flair.

 

This is more along the lines of what I'm looking for. However, all those things you list seem to be just the nuts & bolts of a match. They certainly are important as lacking in these areas could very well derail a good match but I'm looking for something more. Just because you have the right parts doesn't mean you can build a good engine. I would think there's enough guys who were good at those things as well.

Flair wasn't just "good" at those things, he was one of if not THE best, GOAT level in all of those things. "Just nuts & bolts" is half ways towards what your match is.

 

I like guys who were good at nuts & bolts, solid fundamentals can carry a guy a long way. It's why I much prefer a guy like DiBiase who is so good at the basics to a guy like RVD who does some flashy shit that looks cool once in a while but doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to the basics.

 

I don't think you can dismiss all those things as "just nuts & bolts". The number of guys who are as good as Flair at all of those things can be counted on two hands. Bret isn't one of them.

[Loss]

You have some duplicate links.

 

John

They should be fixed. Daily Motion stuff wasn't copying for some reason.

[ohtani's jacket]

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.

That's more of a story than a narrative, but let's not get hung up on that. Since you've identified a narrative I don't see how you can claim it was accidental. How can Flair be formulaic and repetitive and work the same match for 15+ years and people think there was no rhyme or reason to it? Just because spot A didn't lead to spot B in a logical and reasoned fashion doesn't mean there isn't an overall picture. If Flair did things randomly then we'd be talking about a skittish worker who occasionally struck upon a good performance, but Flair knew how to put a performance together.

[soup23]

Just chiming in to say I really liked the Kubuki vs. Flair match a lot and had never seen it before.

 

I also don't understand why Martel and Bret cant have a good match together.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, but I would say that Flair's matches presented themes rather than stories. If you watch a Flair match, it effectively gets across the idea that he's a chickenshit pussy who was lucky to escape with the title. But if you dig beneath the surface, there isn't really a logical progression from point A to point B to point C to the finish. That's why I think the term "Flair Formula" is a bit of misnomer. When, say, Lawler drops the strap, that's a clear signal that the match has reached a certain point. By contrast, there's no real rhyme or reason to whether Flair gets thrown off the top in the fifth minute of a match or the twentieth minute.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have much bad to say about early 80s Flair. It isn't until about 1985 that the things that annoy me about him really came to the fore.

[soup23]

I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, but I would say that Flair's matches presented themes rather than stories. If you watch a Flair match, it effectively gets across the idea that he's a chickenshit pussy who was lucky to escape with the title. But if you dig beneath the surface, there isn't really a logical progression from point A to point B to point C to the finish. That's why I think the term "Flair Formula" is a bit of misnomer. When, say, Lawler drops the strap, that's a clear signal that the match has reached a certain point. By contrast, there's no real rhyme or reason to whether Flair gets thrown off the top in the fifth minute of a match or the twentieth minute.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have much bad to say about early 80s Flair. It isn't until about 1985 that the things that annoy me about him really came to the fore.

 

Disagree with this. Starrcade 1988 match vs. Luger starts with Flair being real nonchalant. He isn't really jacking with the fans and not all riled and craze like you expect. It may be the most stoic I have ever seen Flair look from his peak. Then Luger whips his ass for around 20 minutes with Flair hardly getting in any offense. Flair is reeling and realizing that Luger will not back down and he has underestimated his opponent and Flair is unable to wear down Luger enough to where his power moves will not be effective. Then Luger makes a cardinal mistake and Flair is FUCKING VICIOUS going after it. His demeanor is completely different from the beginning because his strategy has changed mid match and he knows this is his one opening. Luger of course makes his comeback but Flair was able to do just enough damage for Luger's leg to collapse and Flair to gain the victory with his feet on the ropes. This match told a great complete story to me and foreshadowed some things from Flair's face run of 1989.

[JerryvonKramer]

As a good contrast with that that the Luger match from GAB 88 where Flair basically just gets his ass kicked period. There is a very brief control segment midway through the match, but it's all Luger, which viewed in context, all makes sense because he's pissed off about the Horsemen jumping him coming out of the limo and Flair has been ducking out of a match with him for months. There Luger is screwed out of the title by bureaucracy and bullshit. He had Flair beat.

 

In the Starrcade match Flair out-strategizes Luger BECAUSE he has to -- there's a stipulation in that match that if Flair gets DQed, he'll lose the belt too aka "there'll be no bullshit this time" -- so he has to pin Luger somehow. Hence you get this really viscous attack on the leg that ends up winning him the match.

 

Neither of those two Luger matches are particularly great in my book, they wouldn't make a Flair Top 50 for me. But it's ridiculous to say that the story of both matches is the same. It isn't. And Flair doesn't work the two matches the same either. Yes, he's bumping around like a madman for Luger for 15 minutes+ in both matches, but you've got to consider that JCP had NO top faces other than Dusty (who was over the hill) at this time and Flair had to MAKE this 25-year old muscle head into a star somehow.

 

Neither of these matches are the same as the Sting match from Clash 1 either. In fact, if I was ever going to point to a "Formula Flair" match it would be that.

[NintendoLogic]

I will grant that Flair/Luger from Starrcade is more storyline-driven than the typical Flair match.

 

Also, since so many of you seem to be tracking the status of my desert island list, I'm currently in the process of of expanding it to 100. Keep your eyes peeled.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, but I would say that Flair's matches presented themes rather than stories. If you watch a Flair match, it effectively gets across the idea that he's a chickenshit pussy who was lucky to escape with the title. But if you dig beneath the surface, there isn't really a logical progression from point A to point B to point C to the finish. That's why I think the term "Flair Formula" is a bit of misnomer. When, say, Lawler drops the strap, that's a clear signal that the match has reached a certain point. By contrast, there's no real rhyme or reason to whether Flair gets thrown off the top in the fifth minute of a match or the twentieth minute.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have much bad to say about early 80s Flair. It isn't until about 1985 that the things that annoy me about him really came to the fore.

It would only really be a theme of Flair playing the chickenshit pussy if he played that character the whole way through. Chickenshit pussy is supposed to represent his true character under pressure, but it's a bit more nuanced than that. Nevertheless, I'll sample some Flair matches today bearing these comments in mind. I think we've pretty much reached a divide, however, where it's clear that some people are fans of chickenshit pussies while others would rather see a guy who puts on matches for the coal miners and the lumberjacks.

[jdw]

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...l=flair+formula

I'll be damned... I go off in another Beatles riff there.

 

That said... I do like that Pepper analogy a lot. And of course I should have remembered that Jumbo is The Beatles of wrestling, not Flair.

 

 

John, who couldn't even remember one of the rare good posts I've made in the last three years...

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, but I would say that Flair's matches presented themes rather than stories. If you watch a Flair match, it effectively gets across the idea that he's a chickenshit pussy who was lucky to escape with the title. But if you dig beneath the surface, there isn't really a logical progression from point A to point B to point C to the finish. That's why I think the term "Flair Formula" is a bit of misnomer. When, say, Lawler drops the strap, that's a clear signal that the match has reached a certain point. By contrast, there's no real rhyme or reason to whether Flair gets thrown off the top in the fifth minute of a match or the twentieth minute.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have much bad to say about early 80s Flair. It isn't until about 1985 that the things that annoy me about him really came to the fore.

It would only really be a theme of Flair playing the chickenshit pussy if he played that character the whole way through. Chickenshit pussy is supposed to represent his true character under pressure, but it's a bit more nuanced than that.

Flair's character isn't a chickenshit though -- not like Honkytonk Man or Lawler in 93 -- he often plays a chicken shit to lull the opponent into a false sense of security (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't), he's buying time and looking for an opportunity. Flair's "true character" is not a chicken shit but a desperate borderline psycho who will do anything. ANY. THING. To keep hold of that title. There is also a third layer (cocky / arrogant strutting heel, which is obviously a front) and a fourth layer (the true blue athlete who will never say die -- yes, that's even there when he's a heel -- even shades of it in Rumble 92).

 

Flair switches between these 4 personalities a lot. But they are always swirling about. Two of them -- the cocky arrogant Slick Rick character and the chicken shit are an act. The other two -- the borderline psycho and the true blue athlete only surface under extreme pressure.

[goodhelmet]

I actually agree with everything you said there, Jerry. May be a first!!!!!

[ohtani's jacket]

Flair's character isn't a chickenshit though -- not like Honkytonk Man or Lawler in 93 -- he often plays a chicken shit to lull the opponent into a false sense of security (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't), he's buying time and looking for an opportunity. Flair's "true character" is not a chicken shit but a desperate borderline psycho who will do anything. ANY. THING. To keep hold of that title. There is also a third layer (cocky / arrogant strutting heel, which is obviously a front) and a fourth layer (the true blue athlete who will never say die -- yes, that's even there when he's a heel -- even shades of it in Rumble 92).

 

Flair switches between these 4 personalities a lot. But they are always swirling about. Two of them -- the cocky arrogant Slick Rick character and the chicken shit are an act. The other two -- the borderline psycho and the true blue athlete only surface under extreme pressure.

You can't have more than one true character, but pro-wrestlers are allowed two: one for when they're a heel and one for when they're a face. The rest is simply characterisation.

[El-P]

Flair's character isn't a chickenshit though -- not like Honkytonk Man or Lawler in 93 -- he often plays a chicken shit to lull the opponent into a false sense of security (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't), he's buying time and looking for an opportunity. Flair's "true character" is not a chicken shit but a desperate borderline psycho who will do anything. ANY. THING. To keep hold of that title. There is also a third layer (cocky / arrogant strutting heel, which is obviously a front) and a fourth layer (the true blue athlete who will never say die -- yes, that's even there when he's a heel -- even shades of it in Rumble 92).

 

Flair switches between these 4 personalities a lot. But they are always swirling about. Two of them -- the cocky arrogant Slick Rick character and the chicken shit are an act. The other two -- the borderline psycho and the true blue athlete only surface under extreme pressure.

Totally agree. You have studied your Ric Flair well.

[Frankensteiner]

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...l=flair+formula

That was a very impressive delineation of the Flair formula. I don’t disagree that having a formula is bad. My point of contention is that a great wrestler can vary the formula enough to get across different stories. Flair has a big bag of tricks and an impressive moveset. He definitely had different sequences he liked to work with different opponents thus making the matches different mechanically. He doesn't use the same moves in the same order all the time but he relies on his signature spots and selling to the point where it’s ultimately always the same story. It doesn't matter if he’s working a chop battle with Garvin or if it’s Luger shrugging off chops and flexing his pecs. All of that is window dressing to the main thrust of the match: Flair is overconfident and eventually desperate and on the run.

 

That is my impression at this time anyway. I still have to watch the Flair matches which Jerry pointed out.

[Graham Crackers]

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

Sounds like you're reading my mind.