Bret Hart vs. Ric Flair

[Matt D]

I mean..

 

Aren't we ALL Thinking that?

[Frankensteiner]

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.

I think this is pretty interesting. One of my problems with Flair, although not the most important, is how weak he looks for a champion. If nothing else, Jerry is at least getting me excited about the prospect of watching these matches to see if I can re-evaluate Flair's entire act.

[Loss]

I'm glad Jerry is having that effect. Flies with honey, lessons I could learn, and there you go.

[ohtani's jacket]

I watched Flair vs. Wahoo McDaniel from Battle of the Belts '85. Not really a Flair formula match as it was best two-out-of-three falls, but it was a 45 minute match where everything Flair did made sense. Wasn't a great match, but there was nothing that struck me as illogical.

 

Afterwards, I watched the Bret/Yokozuna cage match from MSG. I knew that I wouldn't like it going in, but what a boring match. It's nothing but your turn/my turn escape attempts. I didn't see any evidence of a compelling narrative, the work wasn't especially cohesive and what should be the big spot in any Bret/Yoko match (Bret knocking him out of his feet) was tossed out in the first exchange. Not only that, but he knocked him down with punches. Didn't see any master storytelling here.

 

For comparison's sake, I watched a Flair/Garvin cage match from '85. It was a pretty standard Flair/Garvin match, but again everything made sense. This "chicken with its head cut off" Flair must have started later than '85.

 

None of these matches told a proper story and the narratives weren't especially strong either, but that Bret match is dullsville.

[Jingus]

I voted Flair pretty easily. Bigger list of great matches: check. Better average quality of his day-to-day spot show matches with random opponents: check. Better carrier of total worthless jabronis: check. More versatile in terms of different stuff he was willing to do: check. Better at going to different places and (slightly) varying his style: check. More willing to stooge and look weak for his opponent: check. Better longterm draw: check. Better talker: CHECKASAURUS REX, and this is very important and hasn't been mentioned enough and the Bret supporters have absolutely no defense against it.

 

I don't think any of that is really debated, so what's left for Bret here? Well, his offense looked like it hurt more. If you showed a random non-fan some matches from both and then asked which one you'd rather face in a barfight, I'd say more guys would think they could beat up Flair than Bret. But even that's debatable as a talking point, considering the whole NWA-touring-champ mindset and everything.

 

Bret can sometimes be just as bad at Getting His Shit In as Flair ever is. Remember, the phrase Five Movez Of Doom~! was originally invented to disparage Bret Hart. He had his signature bumps, too; the inevitable sprint-chestfirst-into-the-turnbuckle-pad spot, and so on. It's funny that both of these guys complain about the other one being too repetitive, when it's a sin they both commit.

 

And really, except for those rare "what worked in one match doesn't work in a later match" moments which he only seemed to do on big shows, what exact Storytelling did Bret really bring to the table? He basically had one story: "I keep using these same moves, because they usually make me win". He would only occasionally deviate from that, which is why those matches with Austin are so highly regarded: not only were they flawlessly executed, but Bret finally broke out of his damned formula and tried something different. The only variation in his typical matches seemed to be the size of his opponent; he'd work differently against Waltman than he would with Yoko, but that's more like standard competence as opposed to a real GOAT quality.

 

And Flair simply had a better work ethic than Bret did. I never, ever, not one time thought that Flair just didn't give a shit and was phoning it in. He'd take the same bumps in a house show match from 2000-era WCW as he would in his PPV bouts. Bret sure as hell can't claim that, he's infamous for dogging it on the smaller shows. And more importantly, Bret just often looked like he didn't want to be there. He looked like he didn't care, no expression on his stone face, just going through the motions in a joyless and listless fashion. When Bret wasn't happy, he telegraphed that fact to the entire arena. Flair just sucked it up and went out and performed at the same high-energy level, regardless of whether he was facing Savage at Wrestlemania or Vampiro on Thunder.

[shoe]

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.

 

 

I voted for Flair. Now Jerry I think this is such a great and interesting take on Flair. I've heard of the 3 faces of Foley. Now we have the 4 faces of Flair.

[jackwebb]

This thread was a great read. Really makes me wish that one day we get a WWE rivalry DVD. Bret vs Flair with both them together with Jim Ross making a case for why they are better than the other.

 

As far as this debate I lean more towards Flair. When I watch wrestling though it is completely visceral to me. So I am not someone that could make a good case for one guy over the other. That is why I enjoy lurking here. I see a match discussed here and I can go watch it looking for certain things. Helps with replay value.

[NintendoLogic]

I voted Flair pretty easily. Bigger list of great matches: check. Better average quality of his day-to-day spot show matches with random opponents: check.

I'd basically agree with this. But the gist of the pro-Bret argument is that Flair may win out on quantity, but Bret wins out on quality. Flair may have worked better with Joe Broomstick, but Bret worked better with great workers.

 

Better carrier of total worthless jabronis: check....More willing to stooge and look weak for his opponent: check.

Agreed, but I regard the latter as a negative and not a positive. Also, I would argue that the latter is largely responsible for the former. It's easier to carry stiffs as a heel because everyone wants to see you get your ass kicked. Making your opponent look like a threat while not appearing weak yourself is a much tighter balancing act.

 

Better longterm draw: check. Better talker: CHECKASAURUS REX, and this is very important and hasn't been mentioned enough and the Bret supporters have absolutely no defense against it.

Sure, but as long as we're talking about shit that has nothing to do with in-ring ability, Bret has fewer failed marriages.

 

Bret can sometimes be just as bad at Getting His Shit In as Flair ever is. Remember, the phrase Five Movez Of Doom~! was originally invented to disparage Bret Hart. He had his signature bumps, too; the inevitable sprint-chestfirst-into-the-turnbuckle-pad spot, and so on. It's funny that both of these guys complain about the other one being too repetitive, when it's a sin they both commit.

Wait, what? Bret was repetitive because he had signature moves? Also, the Five Moves of Doom talking points drive me crazy because almost all of them are wrong. It wasn't five moves, he didn't always do them in succession, and he didn't do them in every match.

 

And really, except for those rare "what worked in one match doesn't work in a later match" moments which he only seemed to do on big shows, what exact Storytelling did Bret really bring to the table? He basically had one story: "I keep using these same moves, because they usually make me win". He would only occasionally deviate from that, which is why those matches with Austin are so highly regarded: not only were they flawlessly executed, but Bret finally broke out of his damned formula and tried something different. The only variation in his typical matches seemed to be the size of his opponent; he'd work differently against Waltman than he would with Yoko, but that's more like standard competence as opposed to a real GOAT quality.

"I keep using these same moves, because they usually make me win" is so broad that it can be applied to literally every wrestler in history and is thus completely meaningless. Beyond that, I'm rather stunned that Bret's versatility is being questioned. Look at his matches with Davey Boy: the Summerslam match is almost completely different from the IYH match. Then there's the whole deal with Austin. They had an all-time classic match and then had a completely different all-time classic match four months later. How many wrestlers in history can make that claim?

 

Anyway, I'd like to go back to the objectivity thing for a second. In what ways is Flair objectively better than Bret that isn't also true of Hulk Hogan? Yes, he worked harder. What else?

[Frankensteiner]

I had a chance to watch a couple of the Flair matches Jerry noted earlier. The Sam Houston match was interesting. It was a studio match with the focus on Flair/Magnum. I believe Houston was only a jobber at this point and since the match was primariliy there to further an angle, you can't really compare it to your typical Flair match where he's left to his own devices. Still this was a lot of fun.

 

The match against Ron Garvin was indeed your typical Flair match. I tried to watch it with Jerry's description in mind but didn't really see the same character traits Jerry pointed out. It was the same Flair match where he's overmatched/on the run and getting his ass kicked for the majority of the time. Terrible finish to boot but at least Flair telling David Crockett to shut up was funny. Pretty dull match in general.

 

Also, the chop exchanges that people like so much with these Flair/Garvin matches are only there because a) Garvin (like Steamboat and Wahoo) can work good looking chop exchanges with Flair and b ) so Flair can ultimately get his ass kicked in the exchange. In other words, they're there to put the opponent over not make you think Flair is some tough guy.

[ohtani's jacket]

Bret didn't have signature spots he liked to do in every match? He didn't have five moves of doom because sometimes he'd swap the inverted atomic drop with a verical suplex or a running bulldog? C'mon, Bret learnt to wrestle by getting the crap beaten out of him literally and figuratively, which presumably is why he sold so much in matches, and he learnt to work sequences of moves even when doing simple shit like working over a body part. Claiming that Bret didn't have a formula because he may or may not have wrestled differently in a couple of big matches is like arguing that Flair didn't have a formula because the Wahoo match was slightly different than the Flair match we're used to. Bret Hart wasn't some kind of superworker who brought new and original transitions to every match and unparalleled psychology. He was Bret. He wrestled Bret matches.

 

There are plenty of workers who have had great matches months, weeks, even days apart that differed from one another. Whether they were all-time great matches is another story (it's debatable whether the Austin/Hart matches are all-time great matches, anyway), but it's not that difficult considering there's more than one way to work a match. You could wrestle a broadway on one night, a brawl the next night, a sprint the night after that. A luchador could wrestle a hair match, a title match, a workrate trios match, a brawling trios, any number of variations.

[rvd356]

I voted for Ric Flair. We could go on and on about who's the better wrestler, but that comes downv to taste. If you factor in promos and character Flair wins by a mile. In my eyes, and I know he's not popular around here but the only guy that comes close to Flair as a total package in north America is Shawn Michaels.

[Dylan Waco]

This is probably best served for another thread, but do people really see Michaels as a great promo?

[JerryvonKramer]

Can we do a top 10 or even top 20 promo-men thread? Don't think Michaels would be in my top 50. Ole Anderson would be top 10.

[Dylan Waco]

Can we do a top 10 or even top 20 promo-men thread?

Feel free to start it. I thought there was an old thread on the topic here, though I couldn't find it when I checked yesterday.

[ohtani's jacket]

Watched the Flair/Morton houseshow match. Looked like a typical Ric Flair match, but the final third was so badly clipped that it's impossible to say anything about it for certain. There definitely looked like a wider arc from the beginning to the end then you commonly get in a Bret Hart match, however.

 

Next up was the Bret/Valentine match from '89. A few notes:

 

* I could see how people would like Bret's punches and elbow strikes better than Flair's strikes.

* Despite Bret's matches feeling slower overall, he's faster and arguably more intense on offence than Flair.

* Lord Alfred Hayes made me chuckle when they went to a close-up of Bret working on top and Hayes said he looked unperturbed. He looked more worried about his hair than selling.

* The match layout was really simple with Bret controlling the early going, making a simple mistake and allowing Valentine to take over. The psychology was unremarkable.

* Bret (at least in '89) was much better at working from underneath than working on top. The best part of the match was the selling he did when he first tried to make a comeback. He literally sold that he wasn't able to get in spring in his legs for a kip-up of sorts. Really clever.

* The finish was stupid as Perfect came down to distract Hart and instead of costing him the match it ended in a time limit draw. What was the point of Hennig coming to ringside? Possibly the lamest interference I've ever seen. Not Bret's fault, however.

* Match was decent but the finish spoiled it. There was no real story or narrative, but I do like the way they slowly sold people on Bret moving from a tag team competitor to a singles competitor. I thought that was really well done and I imagine a lot of people feel they "grew up" with Hart as he moved up the WWF ladder.

 

Lastly, I watched Flair vs. Luger from the Great American Bash '88, which is the weakest of the big card Flair/Luger matches but a decent night's entertainment nonetheless. Again some notes:

 

* First, I fucking love the Package. Just wanted to get that out of my system.

* There's been talk about Flair looking weak as champion in this thread, but I wonder what a heel champ is supposed to do in this sort of match. Would it have made sense for Flair to dominate Luger for long stretches? The story of the match was that Luger was supposed to be Flair's most difficult challenge yet and that the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s was going to mark the end of Flair's reign and the beginning of a new era in Luger. Flair was meant to put that storyline over, and did as far as I could tell.

* Another point about Flair looking weak is that his NWA title matches always followed the adage that the challenger had to beat the champion not the other way round. Flair always made note of this in interviews as did the commentators. Therefore it was part of the psych.

* Regardless of all this, there were always moments in a match or on commentary where you were reminded that Flair could in fact wrestle and that there was a good reason why he was the NWA heavyweight champion.

* Luger was pretty green here compared to his '89 and '90 work, but Flair made him look good. I wonder if Bret ever made an opponent look as good as Luger looked here. It's possible. Maybe Diesel or someone like that.

* This was a truncated version of the Flair match for the TV time limit, but it all made sense. I still don't get the criticism that Flair did things for the hell of it.

* Once again the match had a much larger arc than the Bret match. It's not far to compare them I suppose since one was a major bout and the other was a meaningless TV match, but I don't think it's much of a surprise that a Flair match feels bigger and more important than a Bret match.

* Personally, I thought Flair's turnbuckle flip to the outside was awesome in this match. The Flair flop didn't work for me, but the turnbuckle spot was great as was the Package's flexing.

* The finish sucked royally. If they'd worked the cut into something worse than that, I could have understood but that cut was pathetic and the timing of the cut, the Maryland offical stepping in, the torture rack and Young calling for the bell didn't milk the drama the way it could have.

[WingedEagle]

This is probably best served for another thread, but do people really see Michaels as a great promo?

Some of his heel work and mannerisms were pretty great. The man knew how to piss people off, perhaps so well that his face promos were never that special.

[rvd356]

This is probably best served for another thread, but do people really see Michaels as a great promo?

Some of his heel work and mannerisms were pretty great. The man knew how to piss people off, perhaps so well that his face promos were never that special.

 

Yup I'd put HBK in my top 10 for sure. Yes he was a great bastard heel. But again I'm sure its not popular here but I loved his build promos in his last 3 Mania programs. The Old Yeller stuff with Flair was spot on and the need to end the Streak was great.

 

You can't tell me that WWE isn't missing his presence on every show, always a shot at having a MOTYC out there.

[Loss]

Shawn has been involved in lots of memorable angles. I am trying to think of a single really great interview I've ever seen from him and I'm struggling. Losing his smile may actually be the best one.

[JerryvonKramer]

Watched the Flair/Morton houseshow match. Looked like a typical Ric Flair match, but the final third was so badly clipped that it's impossible to say anything about it for certain. There definitely looked like a wider arc from the beginning to the end then you commonly get in a Bret Hart match, however.

 

Next up was the Bret/Valentine match from '89. A few notes:

 

* I could see how people would like Bret's punches and elbow strikes better than Flair's strikes.

* Despite Bret's matches feeling slower overall, he's faster and arguably more intense on offence than Flair.

* Lord Alfred Hayes made me chuckle when they went to a close-up of Bret working on top and Hayes said he looked unperturbed. He looked more worried about his hair than selling.

* The match layout was really simple with Bret controlling the early going, making a simple mistake and allowing Valentine to take over. The psychology was unremarkable.

* Bret (at least in '89) was much better at working from underneath than working on top. The best part of the match was the selling he did when he first tried to make a comeback. He literally sold that he wasn't able to get in spring in his legs for a kip-up of sorts. Really clever.

* The finish was stupid as Perfect came down to distract Hart and instead of costing him the match it ended in a time limit draw. What was the point of Hennig coming to ringside? Possibly the lamest interference I've ever seen. Not Bret's fault, however.

* Match was decent but the finish spoiled it. There was no real story or narrative, but I do like the way they slowly sold people on Bret moving from a tag team competitor to a singles competitor. I thought that was really well done and I imagine a lot of people feel they "grew up" with Hart as he moved up the WWF ladder.

 

Lastly, I watched Flair vs. Luger from the Great American Bash '88, which is the weakest of the big card Flair/Luger matches but a decent night's entertainment nonetheless. Again some notes:

 

* First, I fucking love the Package. Just wanted to get that out of my system.

* There's been talk about Flair looking weak as champion in this thread, but I wonder what a heel champ is supposed to do in this sort of match. Would it have made sense for Flair to dominate Luger for long stretches? The story of the match was that Luger was supposed to be Flair's most difficult challenge yet and that the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s was going to mark the end of Flair's reign and the beginning of a new era in Luger. Flair was meant to put that storyline over, and did as far as I could tell.

* Another point about Flair looking weak is that his NWA title matches always followed the adage that the challenger had to beat the champion not the other way round. Flair always made note of this in interviews as did the commentators. Therefore it was part of the psych.

* Regardless of all this, there were always moments in a match or on commentary where you were reminded that Flair could in fact wrestle and that there was a good reason why he was the NWA heavyweight champion.

* Luger was pretty green here compared to his '89 and '90 work, but Flair made him look good. I wonder if Bret ever made an opponent look as good as Luger looked here. It's possible. Maybe Diesel or someone like that.

* This was a truncated version of the Flair match for the TV time limit, but it all made sense. I still don't get the criticism that Flair did things for the hell of it.

* Once again the match had a much larger arc than the Bret match. It's not far to compare them I suppose since one was a major bout and the other was a meaningless TV match, but I don't think it's much of a surprise that a Flair match feels bigger and more important than a Bret match.

* Personally, I thought Flair's turnbuckle flip to the outside was awesome in this match. The Flair flop didn't work for me, but the turnbuckle spot was great as was the Package's flexing.

* The finish sucked royally. If they'd worked the cut into something worse than that, I could have understood but that cut was pathetic and the timing of the cut, the Maryland offical stepping in, the torture rack and Young calling for the bell didn't milk the drama the way it could have.

Really good post this.

 

Since the 88 NWA stuff is still very fresh with me, I'd like to know how you think that Luger match compares with the Starrcade one. I said it back there (or in another thread, this place has been hot of late), but to me Flair works those two matches slightly differently. In one he's just plain beat and screws Luger out of the win, in the other he outwrestles him or out thinks him because he HAD TO (lose the belt on a DQ stip).

 

Would like to know what conclusions you draw.

[Loss]

Remind me -- did they work the bearhug into a pin spot at Starrcade? I've always loved that spot, and it's something I've really only seen done in Flair/Luger matches. I'm sure they didn't create it, but I don't recall seeing it in other matches.

[soup23]

I don't recall them using the bear hug spot in the Starrcade match. If it did happen, it didn't strike me as significant enough to make a note on it.

[ohtani's jacket]

I haven't seen the Starrcade match since the Smarkschoice WCW poll, but I'll try giving it a watch at some point.

[Frankensteiner]

That Starrcade match was one of the most boring Flair matches I've seen. It was actually this match that caused me to re-evaluate Flair. The first 20 minutes are a complete waste. Nothing happens. I mean they do a lot of stuff but it leads to nothing. They start with Flair chopping and Luger pec flexing, then they fill a bunch of time, and then after going 20 they do a complete reset with Flair going back to throwing chops and Luger flexing his pecs.

 

This was a 15 minute match stretched to 30 minutes, which I think is something you can say about a lot of Flair's matches.

[rvd356]

That Starrcade match was one of the most boring Flair matches I've seen. It was actually this match that caused me to re-evaluate Flair. The first 20 minutes are a complete waste. Nothing happens. I mean they do a lot of stuff but it leads to nothing. They start with Flair chopping and Luger pec flexing, then they fill a bunch of time, and then after going 20 they do a complete reset with Flair going back to throwing chops and Luger flexing his pecs.

 

This was a 15 minute match stretched to 30 minutes, which I think is something you can say about a lot of Flair's matches.

Man people sure have some strange opinions here. I thought that was one if Lugers top 5 bouts(along with Luger/Sting vs. Steiners Superbrawl '91, Pillman Havoc '89, Steamboat GAB '89 and Sting Superbrawl '92 as a personal favorite). Although have never seen the highly touted Wrestlewar '90 and Capital Combat '90 Flair/Luger matches.

[ohtani's jacket]

I watched the Starrcade '88 match and I have to agree with Frankensteiner that the first twenty minutes are a complete waste. The second half of the bout didn't bore me but it wasn't organised very well. I don't agree with Jerry's take on how Flair worked the match. Both guys had runs on top, with Luger probably ahead on points, and then Flair used the chair to injure him. He didn't outwrestle Luger to win, Luger's leg buckled and Flair was savvy enough to use the ropes for leverage. I thought rubbing Luger's face in the DQ stip was a stupid finish for a match like this. You can do that kind of small time finish on TV, but on a major show like Starrcade it's weak. The trouble with Crockett was that they threw everything into the chase, had nowhere to go but put the belt on Luger and then chickened out time and time again. Fortunately, with the Steamboat series they hot shotted the belt onto Ricky, had Flair do the chasing and worked a slow burn on his face turn, but I personally thought Flair didn't put as much as he could have into the narrative here because he wasn't losing the title and didn't go the extra mile to put the match over. I liked it far more the last time I watched it, as I was just starting my viewing for the Smarkschoice poll and marked out over some vintage Flair. I also went into it this time looking for flaws which isn't a fun way to watch wrestling, but it was a disappointment this time round.